Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

Okay. Good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, September 17, 2026. When an item is called that you would like to submit testimony for, we ask that you line up on the right side of the room. That is your right opposite of the screen in this chamber. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, 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. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission President Campbell? Here. Commissioner Koppel? Here. Commissioner McDonald? Here. Commissioner McGarry? Present. And Commissioner So? Present. Thank you, Commissioners. We expect Commissioner Chen to be absent today. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item 1, case number 2025-003983DRP-02 for 871 De Jaro Street, Discretionary Review. It is proposed for continuance to December 17th, 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. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Koppel.

Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue item 1 to December 17th, Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. to zero placing us under your consent calendar for item 2 case number 2026-006728 CUA 800 Irving Street conditional use authorization. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission and request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar. Seeing none, last call. Public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Koppel. Move to approve. Second.

Thank you, Commissioners, on that motion to approve. Item 2 on consent. Commissioner Koppel. Aye. Commissioner McDonald.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye.

Aye.

And Commission President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5-0. Commission matters. Item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for September 3, 2026. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you.

Commissioner McGarry.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Koppel. Aye. Commissioner McDonald. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell. Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. Item 4, Commission Comments and Questions. Okay. Seeing no requests to speak, we can move right along to Department matters, item 5, director's announcements.

Good afternoon, Commissioner. Sarah Dennis-Phillips, planning director. Just a couple updates today. First, on Monday, we did the next launch of permits on our new Permit SF portal. We launched kitchen bath, and electrical permits. As with all shifts, we're working through figuring out how to manage the shift in process, both educating our internal themes of planning and DBI and educating the public But it's going really well. As with other launches, we are already seeing about 20% of the permits that are applied in that batch that we launched this week coming in off hours. So it's showing that this kind of electronic portal is really serving people where they are, who don't have to come in between business hours to the permit center. So we're pleased on that. Everything requires adjustment. And so I'm really proud of our team, DBI's team, the permit center team that are both helping educate the public through a bank of computers where people can come in and apply online there so they learn how to do it. It's been variously full with all eight computers full and having customers being supported there and empty because people are figuring out when I've popped by this week. So it's working. We're adjusting. And I'm really grateful to the staff on all our departments who are working through the change management that happens when you shift from one process to another. The other thing I just wanted to note is that tonight is the Northern California APA Awards Gala, and I might have mentioned this to some of you before, but it's worth repeating again. There are three of our efforts that are being awarded there tonight. The family zoning plan won the award of merit for planning excellence, and pretty much our entire staff touched that family zoning plan in one way or another. Our design standards, which allows us to bring projects that you don't see forward, it allows the ministerial pathway while ensuring good design, also won an award of merit for urban design. Really grateful, particularly to David Winslow and Trent Greenan, who warmed up that effort. And then there is a special recognition award for a mid-career planner being awarded to our very own Lisa Chen for her work on family zoning as well. So congratulations. Really proud of our team. There's a whole bunch of other team members that didn't touch this exact award cycle that are really amazing, but want to uplift those who did here. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Item six, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. There is no report from the Board of Appeals, but at the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee, On Monday, they voted unanimously to recommend approval of supervisor Dorsey's legislation to modify sign controls in mixed use districts. They also recommended approval of his commercial to residential adaptive reuse program amendments, which was amended by substitute to incorporate all of the commission's recommendations. And the Rules Committee on Monday moved your future colleague, Malia Chavez, forward with a unanimous vote to the full board. And on Tuesday, the full board confirmed Malia Chavez as a new planning commissioner. I understand she will be sworn in on Friday and join us next week. Also, on Tuesday, the full board voted 10 to 1 to approve the OpenGov contract with amendments to approve a 22 million contract extension through 2029. Supervisor Walton introduced interim controls to impose a 45-day moratorium on new construction of internet service exchange uses, also known as data centers. As a reminder, interim controls are not heard before this commission. The Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday in these chambers as well. And they considered a number of legacy business registry applications. Ace Wasabi on Steiner Street. Bull's Head Restaurant on Ulloa Street. Celia's by the Beach on Judah Street. Copy Edge on Ocean Avenue. Fresca Restaurant on 24th Street. Joe's Pharmacy on Gary Boulevard. Katsura Garden on Webster Street and Weyo Sushi on Van Ness Avenue were all moved to the Office of Small Businesses with positive recommendations. If there are no questions, 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 public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. Except agenda items with respect to agenda items your opportunity to adjust 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

Good morning. Oh, good afternoon, Commissioners George Ashutosh. I made an error on September 3rd when I talked about an address. I said 3880, 3882 was where tenants had been, I guess, evicted. It was wrong. It was 3860 and 3862. And if I could have the overhead, please. I'm sorry about that. Get my numbers mixed up. So this is the doorway to that 3862 flat. And you can see, if you look closely, it says, please do not disturb tenants. Well, those tenants were disturbed. It was very well occupied. It looked like a family. And they were remodeled, and the kitchen was gone. So that's why I wrote a letter to the mayor. And I have a copy for you. about the Ellis Act, to please do something about the Ellis Act, specifically to eliminate it from San Francisco. And here's a few anecdotes that kind of illustrate some of the problems and the pressures that I think are going on, as everyone's aware.

Kind of the overhead again, please.

OK, so this is on Day Street, just sold. They were asking under $1 million. They were asking under $900,000. It's sold for that number there. I mentioned last week that building that was for renting, $38,000 a month. That's another thing. Here's another thing. Here's that article in The New York Times that kind of set me off. It was in on September 6. These people are threatened with leaving. Here's another one that's a very interesting anecdote. from the Wall Street Journal on September 10th, and it says, In the spring, April to June, according to Redfin, around 30% of homes purchased in the San Francisco metro area were all cash. 30%. That's pretty high. Then the other day, Mr. Benioff made a statement that I think should scare everybody. He said the following. He said San Francisco should prepare for a roller coaster as Anthropic prepares to go public. And the AI gold rush continues. It's going to be a huge boon to San Francisco, and not only in employment, bringing in new people and housing, but I expect the same kind of narratives around gentrification and increased wealth will happen over the next 36 months. And this is that kind of boom and bust cycle. So everyone should buckle up, because this is going to be the heart of the AI transformation.

Now, I can see why some people think that's positive.

But it's also very scary for people, like in this article, who live in these apartments in North Beach for 40 years. And they're in trouble. And just one more anecdote. A house that sold for $4-something million in 2024 just sold for $7.6 million two years later. So that's just my anecdotes. And there are my letters.

Did you take them or did they fall down?

Oh, I took them back. I'm sorry. There you go. Those are my letters that I sent to the mayor. Copies for you all. And thank you very much. Not all of you, but some of you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 7, case number 2023-0108130OTH for enforcement penalty guidelines. This is a request for your adoption.

Good afternoon, President Campbell, commissioners, Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the department. I'm also joined today by Kelly Wong, who is our code enforcement team manager, and Melina Leon-Ferrera, who is on our staff and has worked uh on a number of our tenant protection related ordinances and activities the item for you today is a fairly narrow request for action but in order to kind of understand that request we need to kind of go back and provide some background information and context i guess especially the case because a lot of the background is was covered more in 2023 and we have a number of new new commissioners and want to make sure everyone's kind of understanding all of that background and foundational information. So just in general, in terms of the planning code enforcement program, that is all housed in planning code section 176. So we have this one section that kind of covers our entire enforcement program, which is nice and tidy. Generally speaking, it's not designed to be punitive. It's really just designed to make sure that violations are identified and then abated. kind of as quickly and reasonably as possible. We achieve that. Again, Kelly's team handles the day-to-day work on our enforcement cases. That section empowers the zoning administrator to issue notices of violation, if necessary, to abate a violation. And that's typically what we do when needed to make sure a violation is abated. authorizes the zoning administrator to assess penalties of up to $1,000 a day if determined necessary to bring about that abatement. Again, we generally don't assess those penalties unless a property owner is not taking the appropriate action to abate a violation. Again, those aren't intended to be punitive. They're there just to use when needed to bring about abatement. That's just a very general overview of how our enforcement program typically works. Importantly, in 2023, there was an ordinance that was introduced. We'd had a number of enforcement cases years prior that were particularly egregious and caused a lot of consternation, I think, at the Planning Commission level and the Board of Supervisors level. And so the planning code was amended in 2023 to kind of update our enforcement program. And it made a few very specific changes. Prior to that ordinance, the daily penalty capped out at a maximum of up to $250 a day. And as I just mentioned, In 2023, that went up to $1,000 a day. And again, that's up to. That's a maximum. It doesn't mean that's what's always assessed. It also required that when we do issue a notice of violation, we also issue an order of abatement and record that on the property so that any future buyer of the property is aware there's an unabated violation on the property. So they have that information coming into the purchase of the property. And then most importantly for today, for the first time it did introduce these one-time punitive penalties for very specific types of planning code violations. So the first was if a property has a violation for removing a unit without authorization or adding four or more units without authorization, then the zoning administrator has a discretion to assess a one-time penalty of up to $250,000 per unit. The other bucket was when there's a violation for a significant damage or demolition of a historic resource building of a certain type, it's not every single category A building, but a certain level of historic building, then the zoning administrator has the discretion to assess a penalty of up to $500,000. Again, these penalties were designed very specifically to be kind of punitive on one hand and be a disincentive in the future to these activities in the future, which is kind of a departure from the way the program had worked in the past. Also, because those are big penalties, the code amendment at that time required the Planning Commission to adopt additional criteria for the zoning administrator to consider when assessing those penalties. And then similarly, it required the Historic Preservation Commission to do the same for the preservation penalty as well. And the Planning Commission and HPC both took those actions. We came before both commissions. We recommended a specific set of criteria. Again, they don't compel the ZA to issue a certain penalty if certain actions happen. But they do require that the ZA consider these issues. And theoretically, generally speaking, They call out things that are not very good. And the more of those things that are the case for a violation, the more likely the penalty would be higher if that were not the case. So following in that tradition, last year there was an ordinance that was passed, came before this commission, And it was very specifically about, it was a version of tenant protection, but it's not the tenant protection ordinance very specifically. That came a little later. But this ordinance was specific to identifying unauthorized dwelling units, especially when there's an application to demolish or remove a unit, and requiring the planning department, when we get those applications, to actually do a site inspection before it comes to hearing. We'd had a number of cases where these had come before the commission. And then through the public hearing process, it was learned that there were actually existing tenants or an unauthorized dwelling unit. And the department had not been aware of that in the past. So this ordinance kind of really drilled into that issue specifically and required those things to occur. And then more specific to today, it created this new third bucket for this one-time enforcement penalty. And that's for any violation of the planning code due to the misrepresentation of material tenant information on a development application. So as some of you may recall, over the years, more and more of our planning code programs and provisions have criteria or exceptions or thresholds that take into account prior tenancy within the building. And so that's become more and more of an issue. We have more situations where it is relevant that we know what the tenant history has been for some portion of the past leading up to that application. And obviously, it's just an issue in terms of just understanding if there are existing tenants in the building that's being proposed for whatever the project may be, including demolition. So similar to the other two buckets, when that ordinance was adopted, it created this new bucket. And that one is up to $150,000 for that type of violation. But it also requires within a year of that ordinance becoming effective that the Planning Commission consider and adopt any additional criteria for the zoning administrator to consider when assessing that penalty. And that's why we're here today, specifically for the criteria for that new bucket of one-time penalty. One thing that's a little bit different with this one-time penalty from the other ones is that the new ordinance kind of learned from the criteria that was adopted before and took some of those and created some of their own, but actually codified some of those criteria. So a lot of those already live in the code. But what we're bringing before you today are just a few more that we think would be worth having as criteria for consideration that go beyond what's in the planning code. So with that, we can move into the specifics. The case report kind of gives more context around why we think these are necessary. I think for the purposes of this presentation, I'm just going to focus on the specific criteria that we are proposing. And they are numbered under the recommendation 1 through 7. I'll note 1 and 7 aren't really new, distinct criteria. They're kind of... larger level criteria, it's really five new criteria that are specific to these types of violations. But just quickly, the seven new criteria that we're recommending that you adopt for a ZA consideration when assessing these penalties is, first, just a reference back to the planning code for the criteria that are already listed there. For number two, a larger number of tenants whose presence or tenant history was not disclosed or is misrepresented in the application warrants a larger penalty. Number three, the presence of protected tenants, as defined in the administrative code sections 37.9 I and J at the subject property may warrant a larger penalty. Four, a greater number of protected tenants warrant a larger penalty. Number five, tenant harassment findings that are documented in rent board, court, or other records warrant a larger penalty. And then six, it's considering the suitability of allowing payments over time for these types of penalties, which is consistent with what we've done with the other buckets as well. So you can see there's kind of a theme there. Certain types of tenants, that's relevant. If they are a protected tenant class, a larger number of tenants being misrepresented is a worse offense than fewer. And obviously, if there's been documented, confirmed history of tenant harassment, that's going to be a criteria that we would consider for potentially a larger penalty. With that, that's kind of the general background and context. And we put these criteria for you today for your consideration. And we definitely recommend approval, but are available for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Zoning Administrator. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

You want to go first? No, could you go first while I plug in? Oh, OK.

While you set up your machine.

Yeah. That makes sufficient use of time.

Hello, again, Georgia Shudish. I sent you all an email. I don't know if it would be effective, but I think if the plans were stamped with these code sections, when someone gets their plans or when they get their permit, if it's an over-the-counter permit, if it's on there, maybe it's just like a yellow flashing light or a red flashing light, just to say, hey, you know, be sure you did this, because otherwise you might get caught. I remember I was here when they had 1131 1133 Anza a couple years ago. And the tenant showed up at the hearing. It was a family with a high school student. And the other flat had four roommates in it. And nobody knew about it. And the guy lied on his application. But for the fact that the tenants had the moxie to show up, and a lot of tenants don't have the moxie or don't know what to do, that would have just gone. So I think the stamp. of these code sections, 176C1C, the I, two I's, three I's, for whatever is appropriate for the project would be very good. And it'd be on the permit too. And maybe it's a warning. I think it could also be helpful for the DBI inspectors in the field when they go out there and they see the project. If they see that's on the plans and they somehow have a sense that maybe there were tenants there or something, then they would know. Finally, I guess I'll just say everyone's worried and thinking about the merger. And I just think that when the merger takes place, when it's finalized, it would be really, really good if all those DBI inspectors were all under planning enforcement. And they had guidance from planning enforcement Because I think I've just seen examples where sometimes, sometimes, sometimes, DBI inspectors don't really catch what planning enforcement people have. And so I think that would be a very good thing. It's ancillary to this, but I do think the stamp would be good. And I'll leave the criteria up to you. I mean, it all sounds fine to me. And there's my 150 words for the minutes. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. .

Jonas, I have handouts, and then I have My name is Jerry Drantler. Corey went through the changes in the planning code, but I'd like to call out is on the left side, in March of 2023, the Board of Supervisors amended the planning code. And it was a specific amendment that violations that affect more than one unit of housing are considered now multiple violations. And on the right side, I just went through the items that Corey discussed. This is like the poster child for the legislation. It's a $32 million estate that was for sale that used to be seven units. It bulked up from 14,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet. 3199 Jackson doesn't really exist. It's really 104 to 114 Presidio Avenue. And you can see the seven units. are in the city records. What's interesting, this is a summary of the building permits. $2.5 million was spent expanding the apartment building and merging the units. Four of the building permits were finaled on admin permits. And you can't final a construction permit on an admin permit. I think the easiest way to understand that is it's really a DBI pardon. The next slide is an NOV that DBI issued. What's pretty remarkable is they valued the unpermitted work at $85,000. There's a little bit of a disconnect between that and $2.5 million. On February 3, I asked DBI and the planning department to open a complaint, and they did. This is the building permit that's been filed, $200,000 to restore seven units. It was filed May 6. Can you restore seven units for $200,000? And what progress has been made since May? If you look at the building permit, the answer is none. The remaining slides talk about the building and show the floor plan. I mean, this building is pretty remarkable in the sense it has an indoor basketball court and six indoor parking spaces. So if that's something you need, you might want to think about, do you have $32 million? This is an example of lax building and planning code enforcement in San Francisco. The Planning Department and the Planning Commission needs to quickly restore the housing units and send a strong message by assessing seven penalties for illegal unit conversions and one-time penalties for the removal of residential units and unpermitted alteration of a historic building. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional public comment on this matter? Seeing none, last call. Public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner South.

Thank you. Is this gentleman completed? Oh, OK. Thank you. I have a question to Corey or his team. Hi, Corey. Thanks for being here. I'm pretty happy to see that we're in action to actually continue to clarify and get deeper into defining what kind of category of violations. I remember I sit here We've been baffled with some of the projects that came through us and what are they trying to do and also get to take care of some of these chronic terrible bad players. I have two questions. So would this be retroactively looking at in the past of these, I'm focusing on specifically on these really chronic violators. the rotten eggs in our basket. Does this have any verbiage about going back and retroactively penalize these violations?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

I mean, the short answer is no, that they don't. They're not retroactive. And there's a lot of reasons for that. But essentially, for any of these violations that may fall into one of these now three separate buckets for increased one time penalties, the violation needed to actually occur after the effective date of the ordinance that put that penalty into the code. So that does mean that a lot of the ones that have happened in the past or violations that we become aware of now, but actually we have documentation that they actually occurred years ago, would not be eligible for these one-time penalties. But any violations of these types that occur once the associated ordinance takes effect, then those are eligible for these one-time penalties.

OK, so for example, some other previous cases where we saw a new property owner purchase these property and not aware if they were illegally merged, and those would not be subject to these penalties.

So it would depend less on when the property owner purchased it and if they were aware of the violation or not, and more just if the violation occurred after the effective date of the ordinance. So for example, one of the buckets we have is if you are removing a unit without authorization. So that may include if you have a two-unit building and you merge them without authorization. If that merger physically actually happened before the effective date of when that one-time penalty took effect, then it would not be eligible for that penalty. But if it was after, then it absolutely would be eligible.

That's really helpful for everyone to know about the time. Sure. The line in the sand where you draw, right? My second question relating to now we, as a planning commission, we are now talking about enforcement penalty guidelines on planning co-violations. So how are we in sync with building co-violations? Because usually when you see these situation. They're not only violating planning code. Some of them we see the really terrible situation is like I forgot the address but that property on San Bruno Avenue they literally didn't even build a second egress. So how are we, are we, so what I'm trying to say that now we're kind of one big family, happy family with building department. Last hearing we were looking at some other item about mezzanine, a percentage of mezzanine, whether we would consider that as actually will allow it to bring it up to 50%. I see some really great in synchronizing with planning and building to kind of lined up how to interpret that for any project sponsor. So in the spirit of similar collaboration with DBI, how are we working with DBI on cases like that to also enforce the penalty guidelines on building code violation in addition to planning code violation?

Sure. Well, to do that, obviously the building code enforcement is regulated through the building code instead of the planning code. And it has its own controls when it comes to building code enforcement and penalties. And I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the building code enforcement process and their penalties. But the short answer is that for now, these updates have only been in the planning code. partly because they're very kind of planning related issues that we're dealing with. So if the building code was going to apply similar types of penalties, the building code would have to be amended. I would say for the item that's before you today, it's very specific to misrepresenting tenant information on a planning development application. So this is one bucket where it's kind of very specific to the planning department and maybe less less relevant to the Department of Building Inspection because their applications tend to not have any information related to past tenancy or existing tenancy. But for other types of violations, you may be correct. If someone builds an addition without authorization or someone merges or adds units without authorizations, those can be technically violations of both codes.

Right. So I would highly recommend to have your team to work really closely with the DBI team to clarify and also identify this whole penalty guidelines. So then people are really truly aware of there are consequences of violating both planning code and building code. So I'm supportive of today's report. Recommendation. I agree with everything you said. I just wanted to move to the next step to actually looking at both. Because usually when they're violating things like this, it's planning and DBI. And it's more importantly so about tenancy, tenancy right, but also the life and safety of human being. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Koppel.

Yeah, this topic in general, planning DVI mergers, just a monster of a project to begin with. Very confident that we are on the right path, heading in the right direction. And this is a good time to just be talking about all these issues so they're looked at and addressed. Throughout this process until you know final completion and roll out of the program. I do want to acknowledge. Mr. Dradler Very participatory in these hearings over the years and I appreciate just the showing up always with you know factual examples addresses and you know concrete blueprints to really specify what his issues are so I I'm definitely supportive of where we're at today. I don't see anyone else except for Madam President who can't make a motion. Just with some additional direction to keep looking at the specific examples Mr. Drattler brought up, I wanted to move to adopt.

Thank you, Commissioner Koppel. Thank you to the zoning administrator for another thorough kind of walkthrough of this and the history. It's always very helpful to have the clarifications. I also am in support. I just had one, two questions about some of the language in here, specifically number five, which I'll just read it and maybe Where did he go? Oh, there he is. Sorry, we can't see down very well here. Tenant harassment findings documented in rent board, court, or other records warrants a larger penalty. And I think for me, what stood out is the generality of other records. And I wondered if we might be able to opine on that a little bit. And might it warrant some guardrails or safeguards so that there's a little bit more specificity there?

Sure. I think the purpose of it was not to lock us in too narrowly on certain documents when there could be other formal documentation from other sources that could be considered. I think what's important to know is that, again, this is not like an automatic sentencing guidelines. If then, if they trigger this automatically, the penalty must be that. It's just one of many criteria for consideration. So if there were records of tenant harassment that came from a reputable source that was not the rent board or court, I don't know what that would be, but that's why we wanted to leave it open. That would be something that could be considered, but there wouldn't be any kind of mandatory action or minimum penalty level for that. We just didn't want to unnecessarily restrict that. And the other thing that's important is that when we issue these penalties as part of a notice of violation, that is appealable. So if to the Board of Appeals. So for example, if part of the rationale for a higher penalty was there was a record from some other source, not the rent board and not a court, that documented tenant harassment and we used that as part of the rationale for the penalty amount, that could be the basis for appeal for a property owner as well.

I wonder if it would be something to consider as adding some sort of qualifying language to the other records portion of that, something to maybe just think about. And then my next question is maybe just me getting educated on legalese. But some of the items say that they may warrant a larger penalty, and others say they warrant a larger penalty. Is there a difference between that?

Yeah, I think that was intentional. And some things, context may matter. And I think some things, by the way this was drafted, the context doesn't matter as much. Again, these aren't weighted. Like, what is a grade or a penalty? Is it 1% more than it would have been otherwise? Is it 50% more? I think that's part of the determination the zoning administrator has to make when evaluating all these criteria. But there was some additional weight placed on that language for certain criteria.

Would it give you optimal flexibility, though, to have everything read as may warrant versus warrant?

I think that would be maximum flexibility. Again, because there's no specific parameters for, like, where's the starting point for these penalties, how much does one criteria kind of tick up how much it would be, I think it still leaves a lot of flexibility there. But you're correct. I mean, the maximum amount of flexibility would say may warrant and not automatically warrant.

It seems like you have a lot to consider when you're evaluating these. And I would be open to that if it provides more, as each condition is very unique and each situation is very unique. So those are my only two comments. And otherwise, I'm also in full support and would second the motion that's been made.

Seeing no further request to speak, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt direction to the zoning administrator on that motion. Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. A motion passes unanimously, 5-0, placing us on item 8. for case number 2026-004881OFA for the property of 345 Speer Street and 2 Harrison Street. This is an office development authorization.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Monica Giacomucci with department staff.

The application before you is a request for an office development authorization for the property at 345 Speer and 2 Harrison Street, which is individually designated as landmark number 157, the Hills Brothers Coffee Company, under Article 10 of the planning code and located within the Rincon Hill downtown residential zoning district. The project site consists of an entire city block, which is currently improved with a 17-story mixed-use residential tower, Hills Plaza or 345 Speer, constructed in 1990 as a planned unit development under Planning Commission Motion 10501. And the Hills Brothers building or 2 Harrison Street, a six-story mixed-use historic building constructed between 1924 and 1926 and designed by San Francisco architect of merit George Kellum. A mid-block passage separates the two buildings into a north and a south building, and both front the Embarcadero and Harrison, Folsom, and Spear streets. The proposed project before you today is very narrowly a request for an office allocation from the Office Development Annual Limit Program Small Cap, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 321, 322, 325 to establish 33,385 gross square feet of office use at the subject property. While that is the only action item before you, there are some other aspects to this project that I thought it would make some sense to talk through. So this will be a little bit long, even though the item before you is pretty straightforward. The project will also be utilizing Planning Code Section 202.11 , which is relatively new to the Planning Code, and principally permits certain land uses in historic buildings to convert existing vacant ground floor use to office use in an expansion of the existing office tenant at this building. So like I said, this is a new section of the planning code. And I think this might be the first time that you are seeing a project that's using it. So I just wanted to take a moment to talk through. It was adopted in April of this year. And I just wanted to explain the mechanics. So the goal of the legislation, which came before this commission on October 23, 2025, is to support and enhance opportunities for historic preservation and adaptive reuse throughout the city by principally and conditionally permitting a range of otherwise fully unpermitted land uses within historic buildings upon determination by planning department historic preservation staff that the project meets the planning code and the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. And then upon further determination by the planning director, that the proposed new use would enhance the feasibility of preserving the historic building. If you've been seated on the commission for some time, you might be familiar with Section 803.9, which used to kind of do this work, but only in limited zoning districts. So this expands those kind of land use incentives for historic buildings across the entire city. In this case, the project is requesting to utilize the relaxed controls of 202.11 because although general office is permitted within the zoning district, active uses are required at the ground floor in all of the DTR zoning districts, and office uses are generally prohibited in that location. So planning staff found that the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior standards since no physical exterior work is proposed. And the planning director has found that the proposed use would enhance the feasibility of preserving the building since it will lease up previously vacant spaces. And those revenues can go towards scopes of work that have been identified in a historic building maintenance plan that was prepared by a qualified historic preservation consultant. So I've included the planning approval for adaptive reuse of historic buildings kind of memo that we've already signed off on. Planning director Phillips has signed off on it. But no commission action is required of you. I just included it as a reference. And I think it's our intent to continue including those as a reference in your staff reports going forward, even though you don't specifically have an action to take. Your action today is limited, of course, to the small cap office development authorization, again, to allocate 33,385 gross square feet of office at the subject property at the ground floor. As you know by now, sections 320 through 325 govern requirements for office development projects in excess of 24,999 gross square feet. So again, even though the action before you is quite simple, I also wanted to provide some additional background here. Earlier this year, we approved a change of use of 21,213 gross square feet, so under that 24,999. of office use in a change of use of vacant ground floor retail at this location. But later, the project sponsor was able to secure additional leases at the ground floor for 12,172 gross square feet of additional vacant retail space. So they requested another conversion of that to office. And luckily, Section 320 addresses this situation. When separate applications for office use are proposed at the same property within a five-year period, they are considered cumulatively for the purposes of application of the Office Development Authorization Program. So because more than 24,999 cumulative gross square feet of office use has been requested at this site in the last five years, we are looking at that cumulatively. And that's why we're here today with the office allocation. As of June 25, 2026, 613,577,000 gross square feet of office use. I said that wrong. 613,577 gross square feet of office space is available for allocation within the small cap during this approval period. Should you approve this requested allocation today, 582,192 gross square feet would remain in the small cap and would be available for allocation to other office projects. I want to make the distinction that this is not the large cap that you've had a lot of discussion about, specifically at the July 30th hearing. This is the small cap. So therefore, this project would represent an allocation of approximately 5% of the existing small cap office space. Since your staff report was published last week, we received two inquiries from members of the public about the project. One letter of opposition came from a neighbor of the project who does not support privatization of the ground floor and would prefer for public accessible retail spaces to return. The second letter was from a member of the public who objected to the loss of a child care space at the ground floor of the two Harrison building. And this is kind of the last item that I want to spend some time talking about. So on September 19, 2024, The commission actually approved motion number 21615, which rescinded a condition of approval requiring an on-site child care facility. And that had previously been adopted as part of a conditional use authorization in 1985. I'm happy to get into more detail about the terms of that, if that would be helpful to you. But since the commission approved that request two years ago, the child care space actually has become vacant. So this information was shared with that member of the public. And finally, on that topic, I accidentally referred to this child care facility as being addressed as 342 Howard Street, which is not an address at this property in your staff report. So I will, of course, make that correction in the final motion. But I do just want to state on the record that that is the incorrect address. And the child care facility is located at the project site at 2 Harrison. Okay, so overall, the department finds the proposed office allocation consistent with the objectives and policies of the Rincon Hill area plan and the general plan and recommends approval since the project would facilitate the ongoing preservation of a city landmark while also supporting what is a relatively modest expansion of an existing major office tenant in the city. That concludes my quite long presentation for a pretty straightforward request, but the project sponsor is also here and will make a short presentation presentation, and we're happy to give you any information you need.

Thank you.

Thank you, Monica, for your excellent presentation. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Amy Lee with 3S, and I'm here on behalf of the project sponsor for Hills Plaza at 345 Spears Street and 2 Harrison Street. Thank you for your consideration of our request today. I want to start with an important context for this application. The city's policy regarding ground floor uses downtown has changed. As part of the permit SF, San Francisco amended the planning code to allow office and other non-retail uses as principally permitted ground floor uses in the C3 districts through 2030. The city made that change in recognition of persistent downtown vacancies and the need for greater flexibility to activate ground floor spaces. That is exactly the situation we have here. This is not a new office development, and it's not a speculative office space. Google is a longstanding tenant at the Hills Plaza, occupying both upper floors and first floor space. What we are asking you to approve simply allows an existing San Francisco tenant to modestly expand with an existing building, including it to first floor space that has been vacant since 2019 and 2020. So while we understand the concern about losing potential ground floor retail, office use is already principally permitted. The question before you today is the office allocation necessary to allow an existing tenant to make productive use of long-standing vacant space. The practical choice is not between an active retail tenant and an office. It is between a space that has remained vacant for years and a committed existing tenant prepared to occupy and invest in it. Despite efforts to attract a replacement retail tenants, these spaces have remained vacant. Keeping a retail designation on paper does not activate a storefront. People activate a storefront. And this proposal puts people back into the space. Employees, colleagues, and visitors arriving and leaving the building, walking along the Embarcadero, using transit, and supporting businesses and services throughout the surrounding neighborhood. I also want to clarify an important point about public access. The first level plaza at Hills Plaza will remain publicly accessible, and this office allocation includes Google's community space. Google's Community Space provides eligible Bay Area nonprofit organizations access to event space at no cost, including a main room and a workshop space that can be reserved for meetings and events during the weekday hours. More information is available at communityspace.withgoogle.com. So this office allocation does not close the ground level to the public. The plaza remains publicly accessible, and the Google's Community Space provides a tangible community benefit within the office allocation itself. There has also been a suggestion that because Google provides meals to its employees, they provide little economic benefit to the surrounding communities. But the contribution of a major San Francisco employer extends well beyond lunchtime spending. Occupied buildings support security, maintenance, janitorial services, transportation, deliveries, tenant improvements, professional services, jobs, and continued economic activity in San Francisco. Google has maintained a presence in San Francisco since 2007, and this project represents its continued commitment to maintaining a substantial workforce here in the city. We also appreciate the support of District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey for this office allocation. Finally, this project supports the preservation of the historical Hills Brother Coffee Building, San Francisco landmark number 157. The planning department has determined that this adaptive reuse supports the long-term preservation of the landmark and protects its character defining features. Historical buildings need to remain occupied, maintained, and economically viable. This project accomplishes that without constructing a new building, adding height or bulk, removing housing, or displacing tenants. So I think the question before you today is actually pretty simple. Should the first floor space that has remained vacant for five to six years remain vacant in the hope that a retail tenant may eventually materialize? Or should we allow an existing San Francisco tenant to occupy and invest in it, consistent with the city's permit asset policy, while maintaining a publicly accessible plaza and providing Google's community space for Bay Area nonprofit organizations? We believe the latter better serves Hills Plaza and the surrounding neighborhood. This is an existing tenant investing in San Francisco, activating long vacant space, supporting a historical landmark, and providing a community benefit, all without development or displacement. For those reasons, we respectfully ask that you approve the requested office allocation. I have Carolyn Wright of Page and Turnbull here as well, and we would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Seeing none, last call. Public comment is closed. And this item is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner McDonald.

Yes, I just have a question for clarification of Monica. So if this office allocation is approved, what does that mean for the long term? Will these ground floor spaces remain office in perpetuity?

It's just like any other change of use. Should there be a use that comes up in the future, an opportunity, and Google wants to offload that space, they certainly can do that. Office allocations are not necessarily permanent. It would just be granting them the ability to do that change of use now.

So is it right to then assume that that means that probably they will remain office in perpetuity?

I mean, can any of us predict the market? I think it's probably correct to assume that they would remain office for some time. But I think we just don't know sort of the long-term economic shifts that could occur. But I do want to say from a sort of legal mechanism standpoint, it doesn't render these spaces private forever. It just offers an allocation, and they could always come back to active use.

Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

I've worked in this building on and off since 1997. It used to be a very vibrant building, but San Francisco was just generally vibrant all the time anyway. To see Hills Plaza go from what it was to it's still a beautiful, beautiful building, but it doesn't have the activation it once had. And Google's a great tenant. The expansion, it'll only help to improve the area and maintenance of the area and the possibility of its upkeep. I get it. Love the retail there, but the retail is not there since 2019, 20. And that's just way too long for vacancy, way too long in any shape or form. So I would be in support of this. And I make a motion as such.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Koppel.

Yeah, five to six years is a very long time. I myself worked in the building for about a year. And considering how close it is to such a traveled part of town with the Embarcadero, you know, people leaving the Giants games, it still isn't accessible enough to draw in the customer base that we would think it would. It's one of my biggest pet peeves maybe for the whole department, just seeing empty storefronts anywhere. And so we need to give people tools to fill out their spaces. Again, five or six years of a vacant storefront, that there's been opportunity to fill those. So I'm not going to stand in the way of this motion.

Thank you.

Commissioner So? I'd like to have some clarification so my understanding is clear. I mean, I like this building and it's a historic landmark, number 157. So looking at this floor plan here, what was previously approved for the office, And then it's in blue, and then what is proposed for the expansion of Google occupying the ground floor. What are the gray area that has been highlighted in the plan? Are they all also Google offices? I'm looking at the floor plan PRJ-005.

I just don't want to misspeak, so I'm confirming with the sponsor for just a second.

I have a cut-off copy.

Oh, yeah. Those are not in this allocation at all. But some of it is vacant, and some of it is occupied by Google as well. So it's just a . you know, various spaces that include vacancies that the landlord has not yet still got a tenant for and some of our space as well. But what particular space are you looking at?

I'm looking at in general, wanted to clarify in public on public record whether ground floor occupants are all Google or there are other

There is some vacancy right now, and then a big portion of it. So 33,000 will be Google on the first level, between 2,000 Harrison and 345 Spirit.

OK, thank you. So I'm just going to re-illiterate what I'm hearing from is that

And those are existing spaces already occupied by Google?

JOY HUNTINGTON- Existing office space on the ground floor already occupied Google and allocated to Google. And then now Google is applying to get more space on the ground floor. And then the other potential vacant spaces now, there's no tenants in there. So everyone is Google on ground floor.

So far, yes, but I think the landlord's still actively negotiating with different tenants to potentially, but he's having a hard time.

Let's answer my question. Thank you, Amy. So my other question is, maybe Monica, can you explain to, I'm asking this question, I think Paul Peck also needs to know, what is the historic significance of this building?

Of the Hills Brothers building? Sure. Hills Brothers Coffee was one of the early coffee, tea shipping merchants in the city, one of the biggest, in fact. And this was their building, their main headquarters that was constructed in 1924. But they had had a presence in the city for quite some time. And this building was meant to be sort of the huge complex where they had their offices, but also did a lot of their shipping work and distribution and packaging and all of that.

I see. And then the plaza right now is just really open, right? It's not really part of this tenant ranch or lease. This is just open space?

Yeah, as A.B. noted, the plaza would remain open space.

Okay. All right. I guess, well, colleagues, I'm not objecting this, but I want to make sure that this is the first project that actually utilizing this new section in planning code as is really detail-y explained by staff and also project sponsor, but I also wanted to make sure that we have our, we do our due diligence to make sure that we do this fairly, right? part of it is this is an anchor to the corner of the waterfront and I also want to make sure that this actually really have the equitable public access and use of the space as part of something people experience a historic landmark and also part of the history of the city and I like to hear a little bit more detail in What is the project sponsor means by public use? It's just the plaza, or there's actually something that is engaging to other local nonprofit, and I want to know how people actually can access to that? Sure, that's a great question. People only get to... do business with Google? Can you use those space?

LORETTA LYNCH, No. Great. So overall, the entire plaza is walkable and accessible to the public. And with this office allocation, there's called the community space and the website. I think I said community space with google.com. And I can make sure that the commission has that. So any nonprofit can go onto this website and request to use the room. And so we would provide the room, the space, the general chair of services. And it's just a way for the nonprofits and the general public to access this community space and provide a venue for them.

So Amy, thank you for saying that. So this is a program that has been happening?

No, no. It's entirely new for this space here that we're trying to incorporate as part of the office allocation.

May I know what is your commitment on how often the public can use and how many people can use it? Because it would sound really a bit self-serving if there's only happened to be one for one year.

No, that's not our intention. I think Google's been a really good partner to San Francisco. And it's, as I said, a new space, so we're still determining. But we have a website, and we fully intend to let it open to everybody who's a nonprofit, 5013C nonprofit. You don't have to do Google with business. You can have a Yahoo email account. It's nothing to do with Google at all, but just open to the San Francisco nonprofits and local community.

OK, well, I would like to support this motion if colleague will allow me to add a recommendation for Google to commit on a certain amount of number of times of access to the public. And it's making that easily available, accessible to people.

Of course. I don't think that's our intention in the first place. So I don't know if it needs to be noted here, but absolutely.

Well, I just want to make sure it doesn't just become a lip service.

No, no, not at all.

Would whoever motioned this, would you, I would like to add that recommendation.

I'd be amenable to that and add that recommendation.

Good. Excuse me before we move along. Commissioner, so could you be a little bit more specific? Do you want that added as a finding or a condition of approval?

As a finding? Yeah, to really engage and allow public use and clear access to nonprofit or organization that doesn't necessarily have to do direct business with Google have a way to access some of these space.

Commissioner Tso, if I may, thanks for the suggestion. I wonder if we could maybe put some more specific Or could you maybe restate in a slightly more specific way? Is the intent just for Google to make a diligent effort to engage with community partners?

Oh, a commitment to open some access space on the ground floor for a nonprofit to be able to, like what the project sponsor said, book it and have their meetings there. And I'd like to see it more than just one or five times. I don't want to impose a particular number, but I think it needs to be something that is equitable. And I kind of leave it to staff to determine what that means, because one nonprofit for an hour in a year sounds very like a lip service. So.

If it might help, Commissioner, maybe the project sponsor might help come up with a little bit of idea of what they can work with in terms of their proposal.

Actually, if you can go to our website now.

Amy, I need you to speak.

If you can go, we already created a website already, and it already details out the program and services. So it's communityspace.withgoogle.com.

OK.

But my issue is not about a website is there or not. My issue is really about making sure that commitment to have public access beyond just the plaza, like what you mentioned before, that people actually, nonprofit, can have access to book some of these offices for meetings. And then I think I heard an answer, it's like, you don't know it yet. So that's why I want to put it in the finding to make sure that it's not a fluff.

I'm sure the Google staff has worked it out since they have a website. And it's fully anticipated that it would be open from 9 to 5, if not for evening program. And there's a list, if you go on the website, that's already been created. We're fully 100% committed to making sure that this is not lip service. And we really would enjoy having the space available to the nonprofits, whether they work with Google or not. Yeah, you saw the website already. So it's already been built so that we could get, even though the construction won't be done for a few months, if not next year, we're already committed to getting people interested and knowing about that as well.

Would a finding something along the lines of the sponsor is committed to the public to access ground floor community space be sufficient?

Run for space, yeah.

If SFGov TV could give us the laptop, my manager Nick Foster here helpfully pulled up the website, if you'd like to take a look. And I would just state, too, this was presented to us from the beginning when this project was submitted. I think the reason it's not discussed heavily in your staff report is just that it's part of the larger principal office use. It's not its own separate and distinct kind of community facility use because ultimately Google will be the operator. So just to clarify that that's been proposed from the beginning.

But commissioners, I'll say I think the language proposed by Secretary Ionin was strong. So if you want to add a finding that kind of hits on this topic, I think it's a good one to include.

Yeah.

I'll agree on that, yeah. It was your motion. I seconded. And you seconded. That was your motion. You're comfortable with that language?

OK. We actually had a Google space like this at 188 Embarcadero. And it's going to be moved over here. And so there's an existing history of Google's commitment in prior buildings. So I don't at all anticipate anything changing from that. We would have bookings at 188 and Embarcadero, but now that we're moving our staff and consolidating our space, it's going to be moved here.

Do you need to repeat it, or you got it, Jonas?

I got it.

You got it? Thank you. All right. I'm done. OK.

Thank you. Monica, thank you for the very thorough package and presentation. It is actually incredibly helpful to get the history and context, even though that's not what is before us today. And then I just am very aligned with some of the sentiment here from my fellow commissioners, so in full support and fine with the additions. As as proposed and I do just want to say I really appreciate the city's openness to considering non-retail uses at the ground floor of Buildings as we try to think creatively about activating Downtown especially those are all my comments Commissioner McDonald

Hi. Yeah, so I second what President Campbell said about thank you for the thorough report. It's really helpful in terms of understanding the context very much so. And I just had a couple of additional questions really I guess for the sponsor. So is there actually a commitment to the size and location of that community space?

No, I could look at the plans and what it should be delineated, but there's not, I mean, whatever it's showing now on the plans for the space.

I was just curious whether that community space will occur on the plaza or whether it's one of the streets.

Yes, it's on the first level, yes.

On facing the plaza?

Yes, I believe so. Let me look at the plan. Yeah, we're looking at the plans right now. Excuse me. Yes, I believe it is going to be facing the street, as I recall, but Monica can confirm.

I'm just curious as to whether it is something that will help to activate the plaza and signify that as a public space for people.

LORETTA LYNCH, We hope so. We hope that just having employees and guests and visitors come as well, in addition to the community space, will activate the plaza. Because it's pretty empty right now.

I'm sorry. The printer cut off my version of plans, of course, today. Exactly in the area that you want to look at.

But I think, can you?

OK. So I can use the overhead to show you. Thank you.

It's this.

Let me see if I can hold it and use the mic at the same time. It's this blue shaded internal event space that you're seeing. That's about 4,200 square feet. And this area that I'm pointing at is the plaza right here.

Great. Thank you for that clarification. Oh, and for the reasons that my fellow commissioners have said and the current context, I am also supportive of this motion that's been put forward with the amendment.

Okay, commissioners, if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to include a friendly amendment to approve with conditions as amended to include a finding that the sponsor is committed to public access to ground floor community space. On that motion, Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. And Commission President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5-0, placing us on item 9 for case number 2024-005242-CUA for the property at 2089 Ingalls Street, Conditionally Use Authorization.

Good afternoon, Commission President Campbell and commissioners. I'm Maggie Lausch, planning department staff, presenting a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 210.3 and 303 to expand an industrial agriculture use for the purpose of cannabis cultivation in an existing industrial building at 2089 Ingalls Street in the Hunters Point neighborhood and a PDR2 zoning district. In 2022, this commission granted a CUA a conditional use authorization for industrial agriculture in suite four of the subject building, about 1,875 square feet. This project before you would incorporate suite three, which is about 2,260 square feet. So the total use size for industrial agriculture would be 4,135 square feet. That includes both cultivation areas and then accessory warehouse and office rooms. The project involves interior tenant improvements and no exterior work. The use would be located entirely indoors, as required by the planning code and other cannabis regulations. The department has not received any public comment regarding this project. When it was presented to the Bayview Hunters Point Citizen Advisory Committee in autumn 2025, it did not receive an affirmative vote of support. The committee members in favor of the project highlighted the activation of an otherwise vacant warehouse space, opportunities for local hiring, and the responsiveness of the sponsor to their questions and concerns. The sponsor came back for a second meeting with the CAC to provide more information about security, hiring, et cetera. The committee member in opposition to the project voiced concerns about potential air quality impacts. The air quality with cannabis cultivation uses really comes down to building code regulations. The department finds that on balance, the project is consistent with the policies of the general plan. It meets all the requirements of the planning code. The proposed light industrial use is consistent with the PDR2 zoning district and with the pattern of land uses in the project's immediate vicinity. The project would improve the streetscape and safety conditions by providing lighting and surveillance and will contribute to the economic vitality of the neighborhood by activating a vacant space. Therefore, the department recommends approval. That concludes my presentation. I'm here for questions, and I believe the project sponsor is here as well.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Yeah, good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Marco Fung, and I'm the architect of the project. Thank you for allowing us to present our project, and also thank you for approving our previous projects back in September 2023. Just all of a sudden, after the approval of the Unit 4 and my project owner just have the opportunity to buy the Unit 3 that already has the warehouse, the office, the break room. Therefore, we decide to have the Unit 3 and Unit 4 add together as one project.

Thank you. If that concludes Project Sponsor's presentation, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, last call. Public comment is closed. This matter is not before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Koppel.

Seeing no opposition, I move to approve.

Second.

Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So?

Aye.

Commission president Campbell I some move commissioners that motion passes unanimously five to zero Places you on item 10 for case number 2025 hyphen zero zero four nine six four CUA for the property addresses 1027 1031 through 1033 1043 through 1045 and 1047 through 1049 Clayton Street. This is a conditional use authorization. I

Good afternoon, commissioners. Matt Ditto, planning department staff. The project before you is a request for conditional use authorization to demolish a two-unit residential building at 1043-1045 Clayton Street that spans lots 131, 132, and 133 of block 1279. The project proposes new construction of five buildings across five contiguous lots for a total of nine units. Four buildings will have two dwelling units, and the fifth building will be a single-family dwelling. The project is before you today because the demolition of the existing two-unit building is subject to rent control and is not eligible for an exemption from the conditional use process. These dwelling units subject to rent control will be replaced and provided in one of the two-unit buildings. This project was previously authorized in three separate actions. In May 2020, the Planning Commission approved the demolition of the existing building and construction of three two-unit buildings across lots 131, 132, and 133. Separately, in March 2023, two additional approvals were granted for lots 21 and 130, each for an additional two-unit building. This request before you today is required because the validity period for the prior conditional use ended in March 2024. Additionally, the decision before you is for the entirety of the project across all five lots, not just the three lots that previously received conditional use authorization. The department has received nine comments from adjacent nearby property owners and residents with concerns about the project. Seven of the comments are from residents of Belvedere Street, which is to the west of the subject properties and significantly downslope. These comments unanimously state they are not opposed to the project, but are concerned about the construction plan and safety, given the excavation involved. The two additional comments are from adjacent property owners and residents on Clayton Street with concerns about the project's massing and proximity to their buildings. The planning department recommends approval of the project with conditions. The department finds that the product is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and is code compliant. Although the project proposes the demolition of two residential units that are subject to rent control, these units will be replaced with comparable units. The construction of seven additional units will add to the city's housing stock and take advantage of previously vacant land. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Can I get the laptop, please? Good afternoon, commissioners. My name's Jeremy Schaub with Schaub Lee Architects. Happy to have this project here for the third time. As Matt helpfully explained, the project was approved due to delays within the building department, COVID, et cetera. The conditional use has expired, so we're here with essentially the same project, now all together as one presentation. So as Matt said, the existing building is two units built in 74. Owner occupied always has been. The issue is that this house is built across three separate parcels. So in this instance, we need to basically take the sides and suck it in so that it's going to be one building per parcel. This is what that would look like. The brown is the existing profile and the gray is the proposed. The red indication is something with one of the delays we ran across in the building process is the fire department requests a minimum of 25 foot rear yard. The existing building went into that somewhat, so we had to then cut the existing building even more. But now we have our proposed 25-foot rear yard, and that also aligns more or less with the new design standards for a 30% rear yard. I'll get into that more in a second. Here's rendering showing all five buildings. This is looking up the hill. I have another one later on. Here's the front elevations. These are completely unchanged from what's been approved before. And this is probably, to me, the most interesting aspect, showing a couple different things. The brown, again, that has the kind of shed roof at the back, that's the existing profile of the building. Then you'll see the orange line. That's the profile of what was approved a couple of years back. And then, of course, the proposed walls and floors that we're showing are in black. And again, that red line from the fire department And then there's our rendering again. A couple things of note. This is a nine-unit project because even though they're all zoned, RH2 has determined that the reconstruction of the units would qualify them as new, so they couldn't be So it would then be a 10-unit project, which under the old rules would mean we'd have a BMR. And we didn't want to go through that process. So it's now nine units. One of them is a single family. That's the northernmost unit. And I think that's it. Is there anything? All right. I'll save the rest of my time. Thanks.

Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

Thank you, commissioners. My name is Leila Branston. I live downslope in the back of these homes and buildings of which you did not see any view of. So what I have is exhibit A, which is on your left, and exhibit B, which here is on your right. Also, your commission, I want to say that 20 years ago, I was granted by all of you or your commission a teardown permit to demolish a home and construct a new home, of which we've been living in for 20 years. I'm here to address a very, this is a very complicated process, very complex construction process that will have a lot of very serious risks. The first is which of this tree here you see is over 100 years old and stands 60 meters high, which is 2 thirds of the height of a football field. You did not see any of this previously. That tree stands there and is very dangerous. As they do the construction, that must come down first. Why? Because in 2017, a cypress tree half that height crashed into our garden. You can see the massive destruction. And into the garden next to it. Had my daughter, who's here today, been standing in our backyard, which is there, she would have been crushed. There's an eight-year-old boy who plays in the yard next to it. He would also have been crushed. We ask that in the conditions it is required that this tree is taken down completely. And we ask that prior to that, a tarpaulin sheath is created, which is common for demolition. So there is no debris, none of the tree, or anything of that very old home that comes into any of our yards. There are five adjacent Cheek to Jowl properties that stand along 510. I am directly below, seven stories right below. This is the plane that will come down. Incredibly complicated, risky construction project of which you need to be very, very vigilant of all of the code violations or just making sure they're constructing the code. I have a copy of photographs for you. We ask that you please appoint a neutral ombudsman for something this complicated so we can work with the architect and owner. And we, as a group of community members, five lots directly below this, of which this is very dangerous and risky. It will be the most complicated, sloped construction you will approve, probably in a residential area in San Francisco. So I have for you printouts of two other photographs, as well as the email I submitted, along with my husband, to Matt D'Lo. Thank you very much. I'd like to also give one to Matt and to the secretary. This is for the secretary, as well as all of you as commissioners. And I want to make sure you all can see these. Mr. Koppel, were you able to see both exhibits from there? Great. Thank you very much.

Yes. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Barabee, and I am the resident at 1025 Clayton Street, which is the building directly adjacent on the northern side of the building. It's on a downslope directly from this building. We became aware of this project about five years ago when we worked closely with the proponents of the project and the prior project manager going through the initial phases and additional discussions and addressed our concerns about the project. We eventually, after a long period of time and much negotiation and a discretionary review process, able to come to an agreement as to the project From our perspective, our biggest concern was lot line setbacks as our building is directly adjacent to it. There's currently an open lot there now. And we came to an agreement at the discretionary review hearing so that we delayed or we actually withdrew the discretionary review based upon that agreement, which allowed a three-foot setback along the side of our building for part of it and then a five-foot setback beyond that for what was called a pop-out. After that approval and review, we were satisfied and we went forward. Now, X number of years later, the next notice we have about this project is 20 days ago, we've got the new hearing where all our agreements were disregarded. And they have now chosen to build a 6,200 square foot building directly on the lot line that will cause a... 40-foot wall that extends 12 yards beyond our building. And then on the lower level, which is their basement level, it will extend 24 feet beyond. All of this on the lot line so that it will be directly adjacent to our building, blocking out light and personally making my bottom floor a cave down there with no consideration, no discussion at all about withdrawing the prior agreement. I brought some pictures that would show this. First, these are what showed the prior project, showing the setback that was there. And those were agreed before.

And now this is the- Sir, I'm sorry. Can you pull that mic down so you can speak to it?

Sure. Thank you. And this shows the new extension now in this that shows the lot line extending 24 feet back on the basement level and 12 foot back on the upstairs. This shows the area right there with the lower level and the vertical view showing where it is. and 6,200 square feet. What we're proposing is that simply with this 6,200 square foot building, there's got to be a way that they could provide a slight setback, as agreed before, to not close this in and make it a complete cave. We were told before that now things have changed, and we have the code. It meets the code, and there's nothing we could do. The code does not take into account a downslope lot like this so that we now have the 2,400 foot extension onto the lot line covering up our building we ask for consideration only for that we do not oppose the project itself we just want to go back to our prior agreement on the on the lot line thank you sir thank you next speaker

Hello, thanks for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sarah Frankel, and I live at 516 Belvedere Street, directly behind the southernmost of the properties on Clayton Street that will be under construction. I understand the project is moving ahead, and I have no problem with that. However, I'm profoundly concerned about the safety of the process that will be put in place for demolition and construction. As everyone here who knows this project is probably aware, this is a large set of projects at the top of an extremely steep hill directly above a row of properties on Belvedere Street. The grounds have not been managed for decades. The hill contains huge amounts of loose soil, dense vegetation that has not been attended to for years, some exceptionally large trees that those of us who live below have witnessed near misses with in the past, and a significant a population of rodents that regularly invade some of the surrounding yards. I know this last fact to be true because I lived in my house for five years in the 90s and early 2000s when the house on Clayton Street was still occupied and had no rodent problems. I then moved to the East Coast for 10 years. And since I moved back, both my house and yard have experienced rat and raccoon infestations, the latter of which is ongoing despite repeated interventions. Like many of my neighbors, I have deep concerns about making sure that the demolition and construction process for these projects is done in a responsible, environmentally sound, and supervised way that will protect the surrounding properties from huge infusions of dirt, toxic air and chemicals, stray tree and building parts, fleeing rodents, et cetera, et cetera. More fundamentally, I am anxious to ensure that every safety precaution that can protect our densely populated area against these risks not to mention more threatening dangers such as fire, landslides, falling debris, and future seismic vulnerability be brought to bear on this project from the beginning. I understand that there are many interventions and ways of managing this kind of large project that effectively reduce the likelihood of significant impacts and problems. I am here in the hope that the Planning Commission will require consistent, supervised environmental and project management safeguards, including soil engineering controls, adequate environmental review, best demolition and tree removal practices, rigid temporary fencing that will be overseen by an engineer, along with strong terracing and drainage practices to protect all of the nearby properties from unsafe demolition and tree removal, unnecessary construction impact, and profound dangers, including landslides, fire, seismic, and building flooding problems. We are all relying on your help for the quality of our lives and properties for the next several years and into the future. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Catherine Fraser, and I live at 504 Belvedere. And you may all wonder about this strange piece of property that is considered here for construction. In 1973, two months after moving into my home, I got a call from a friend who lived on woodland across the valley. She said to me, I think your house is on fire. I raced home only to find that there were fire engines in every single direction. And I walked up my driveway, which in fact was flooding at that point with many, many fire hoses running down it. Because what had happened is that in trying to reach the fire, one of the fire trucks, I think one of the big hook and ladders, had knocked down a utility pole. And there was a live wire at 17th and Clayton. So they were unable to fight the fire from the front, from Clayton. And they were forced to fight the fire from the top of my carriage house. And you'll see here on the far photo a picture of my carriage house, which is at the back of my property and on the property line directly below the property under consideration for development. My carriage house is called on the documents a storage shed. It, however, is not. It's a fully functional, mint condition residential unit with a lovely couple living there now. Because of the location and because of the history of fire, I am very concerned about history up on what is called a slope. I want to tell you also that referring to this hill as a slope is really inaccurate, if you could come and see it. It is actually a cliff. And it's a very unique cliff in San Francisco. We have cliffs. We have hills. But this is a unique, unique hill. There's been references already to the wildlife that lives on it. There's been references to our worry about the demolition, the impact of the demolition. Over the years, we've had difficulty with drainage off the hill. It's run into our garage and carriage house on several occasions. Recently, just seven months ago, And in trying to deal with the owner of the property at that time, it was a very difficult conversation because he wanted to deny that there was any responsibility when our plumber and the city water department determined that the water was coming off the hill and into our garage. Thank you very much. I don't have a lot more to say, but I hope that there's careful supervision and communication with us on Belvedere about this project. Thank you.

My name is Steve Larson, and I am the husband of Catherine.

And so our property, as you know, is at 504 Belvedere Street. And I guess I would just make one example of what we have to cope with there. The building that you see there, our carriage house, behind it on the backside, there is a brick wall. That brick wall, when this building was built, which we think was about 1910, when that building was built, there was nothing against the brick wall on the other side. And it conformed to the requirements at that time. Today, there's about four feet of dirt against the brick wall on the backside. So you can see that this cliff, this dirt, moves. And so you can see why we're so concerned about what happens at the top. When they start demolishing the buildings, they have to haul away dirt. When they start building the new buildings, they have to put stuff in the ground. There's going to be all sorts of issues that may come up with that. So we were quite concerned. And just to go back to the original thoughts that we had, we really were very much in favor of housing. So if we come up with some way in which we can be assured that this is being protected, that our interests are being protected, that's what we want. The idea of an independent ombudsman is a good one. If somebody from the city comes, looks at it, it's not the inspector, somebody really keeps track of it as to what's going on every day, just doesn't come out to inspect it. But somebody who can assure us that everything's going OK, that it's being run right, we'll be happy. But that's it. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon all. My name is Fabiano Dimestico. I'm a general contractor doing maintenance and repair works for my client that lives in 504 Belvedere Street. And I had the chance to review, let's say, the presentation about the project in Clayton Street. And I have to point some concerns I have. Since there is a very steep slope between the Clayton property and the other properties that are facing Belvedere Street, The concern is during the construction, how the developer is going to work water runoff or debris runoff that by gravity are going to fall into my client's backyard. Number one. Number two, in terms of the demolition, how are they planning to contain Let's say it's an occupied dwelling and suspect that they might have a rodent problem. And then during the demolition, that's going to be... That's going to be an issue for the whole area, for the whole block, I think. So how the developer is going to address that for demolition. And also, I would like to see, if possible, the foundation plans, how they are going to build, because the description of the paper is extremely vague. There are no foundation plans. Also the timing for the construction stages. how they are planning to, it's gonna be a lot of, many, many cubic yards of soil to be removed, so we assume that the removal is gonna happen through Clayton Street, and how they are gonna shore, or how they are gonna, let's say, prepare, if they're gonna use cranes, or what kind of soil movement or soil removal are gonna use. And there is a very large tree on the back of one of the properties at Clayton. Also, the concern is how they are going to secure, since it's going to be soil movement, that that tree will remain in place or what they will do. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Michael Gable. I live in the adjoining building at 1053, 1055 Clayton Street. Although I recognize that this construction will mean a significant period of noise and disruption because of its immediate proximity to my home, I do not oppose the project. I am asking that one localized condition be addressed. The proposed wall appears to extend over my existing stove exhaust outlet, and the only operable window in the proposed bedroom would be nearby. I previously discussed this with the owner, who indicated it could be addressed. I have submitted an illustrated report and ask that the final plans resolve the wall and exhaust conflict and study moving the bedroom window further back within the recessed area of that room. And I emailed this, and I have a copy of this. Thank you.

Okay, is there any additional public comment for this matter? Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

So this project seems to be, it's a residential project, but it's really an engineering project, you know. And it requires engineering controls. And the neighbors' concerns are all about engineering controls more than the engineering itself. I see the architect is here for the sponsors, the general contractor here. My day job is a union rep for the Carpenters Union. I need to get a feel of the contractor that's doing this because if I knew the contract, if it's one of my contractors, I just know that the engineering controls are built in and discussions would have been had with the neighbors previously and we wouldn't have this amount of concern. But we are here and we do have this amount of concern and that's based, I can, I'm just punching through here. There's a lack of communication. There's certainly a lack of transparency and trust of the neighbors. So I would ask, what engineering controls are put in place, even though you're the architect of a record and not the engineer of it, what engineering controls are in place to take into consideration the concerns of your neighbors, the fact that this is not a hill. It's actually a cliff. And there is going to be a runoff on it. Surely to God. PUC or drainage has been taken into account. I get you can put up barriers along the way, but I don't, I want to hear what you're doing, not come up with solutions for you, because they need to hear it. And I'm asking you to basically utilize your time, come back up here, give you the time for it, to try and alleviate the concerns of the neighbors here. But precisely what I'm interested in is engineering controls. That's one. And number two, the original, if there was a handshake agreement, and it was a little bit more than a handshake agreement originally of a three-foot setback, what has been taken into account to take that into account and not just ignore it and give me an explanation as to why it is being used?

Sure, thanks for your comments and questions. The main thrust is we are only in the site permit stage with building. We have not done any engineering. Part of our struggle from the beginning is that it is five parcels, but that's also an advantage in that we can stage a lot of the work on site. Clayton's a fairly busy road. It's steep. There's existing street trees that need to remain. But we do have, on the southern edge, there's actually an existing terrace patio that's a great flat location to stage all the work. and to answer one of the commenters questions absolutely all the work will be done from the clayton side none on belvedere i will note that there is oddly an existing drainage easement that goes down to belvedere so we can have our whatever storm water runoff controls will be undergrounded and in that easement um And then in terms of engineering controls, I'm sure you know there was a detailed peer review at the building department. That's no longer the case. However, we're going to hire very competent engineers that will take care of all that. And I'm afraid I don't have much detail on that question right now. And then in terms of the agreement with the neighbor, again, not to get too overly technical, His second floor is our ground floor. And per the design standards, we're permitted to go to 70% of the lot depth. And that's what we've done. And that includes all the stories below the ground floor, which for us is, on this building, there's two basements. When we took the previous project to the building department, they said, any notch that you have, we're going to count as a light well. Per the building code, a five-story light wall needs to be six feet wide. And that proved to be unsustainable for the rest of the project. And to one further point about the ground floor design adjacent to the neighbor, we are showing a, it does actually have a setback. I believe it's 3 foot 7 inches, where we are providing access for the fire department to bring their ladders into the backyard in an emergency escape. So there is a setback at the ground floor. which, from his standpoint, is his second floor. So I understand. But it's not a blank wall.

So motor runoff, you're relying, I'm sure, Surely you've done a preliminary, yes, you're at this stage, but you have done... Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sorry, the stormwater runoff? Yes. You're at this stage, but surely you've done a survey, so you do have a detailed idea of what you're doing. Are you relying on all stormwater runoff to... We run off the property? Or what are you doing on the property to accept?

Yeah, so this is just under the threshold for an official stormwater assessment at PUC. They are at 5,000 square feet, and we're just shy of that. But all the parcels will individually have the roofs drain out to the street and the back patio. So it's really just the last 25 feet of the yard. Some of that's going to be patio space, which will pump up to Clayton out the front. And then I believe whatever else falls in the yard will have to go through the easement down to Belvedere. But it will all be engineered and constructed, not just the natural and kind of, frankly, overrun state of the yard right now.

So you have taken into account and you've dropped, you've engineered it so it's just under what's required?

That's just the parcel size. That's nothing we chose. But yeah, if it was over 5,000 square feet, PUC would request infiltration areas on the site, which I think the neighbors don't want. So yeah, that should no longer be a concern.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Commissioner Coppel.

So last item we heard, I mentioned there wasn't any opposition. And this is quite the contrary. I do applaud the residents for coming out and voicing their opinions. And you can tell just by the emotions. These are people's homes. There is going to be dust, sound, nuisances during construction. But I don't think people should have to fear for their lives. And again, this is a great use of the land. This is a great addition to the housing stock, which in general we're always promoting. But I am not seeing enough here to make the neighbors feel comfortable with this proceeding. Is the actual owner or project sponsor here? To what degree are you prepared to work with the neighbors? I want to see this project go forward, but I also want to see the neighbors come here and support it. To whatever degree that has to happen, these are really extenuating circumstances. This is not very common. This is not very modest. This is an extreme case, but I just want them to be heard and taken seriously.

Sure. So all but I think one or two of the neighbors were not concerned about actually the project itself, but rather trees and slope and demolition and whatever else. And that's legit. I have spoken, and I know all of these neighbors over here. There was an incident where a tree fell maybe seven years ago shortly after we purchased the property. We have the next day brought in two crews of tree removers who removed the tree. There is a very large eucalyptus tree. The previous owner of this property He loved trees, planted a lot of trees. These trees grew. He became old. He did not properly take care of them. It's very difficult to get access to their property because of its slope to remove these trees. Now, we've been doing it a little bit at a time every year. We had removed another larger tree two months ago. And we will continue to do that. Obviously, the large eucalyptus tree needs to go. We need larger equipment to be able to physically remove the debris out of there. So this project, again, is very, very similar to what was proposed before. The comments other than the setback that Mr. Barbee talked about were discussed extensively and this project was approved. We were not able to get building permits with the design that we had. And this is why we're in front of you guys again, because within the time that we had, we just could not get it done. So the permit expired. The reason that we are here in front of you, thanks to the Constraint Reduction Act, is actually for the demolition of a two-unit building. There is no two ways around it because it sits on three lots. And we had tried between the fire department. So back in the back, we're left with no building that we can maintain to not fall under 317. So this is really the purpose of, I mean, the main reason that we're in front of you guys over here. As far as all the neighbors, I've known them, I've talked to them, worked with them extensively. The people with a care child, which is now a unit, I don't know how that works without permits. The retaining wall that has no waterproofing, they were invited over to my property if they wanted to dig it up and add waterproofing onto their walls. I cannot waterproof their retaining wall. But we're happy to work with any of the neighbors, have been working with any of the neighbors over the years to see what we can do and accommodate their requests in ways that we can.

That's enough for now. Thank you. And again, I think there's a big difference between, oh, we helped, you know, remove a tree after it fell, but that's not good enough. I want these people to, to whatever degree we can, have them feel safe to where they don't fear the tree falling in and crushing their house in the first place. Again, I'm not expecting anything magical to happen or anything unrealistic to happen, but I can't support something with this much opposition. And it's strong, strong opposition. Again, great project. I want the added housing. And I know this is a very extreme case, but I'm not trying to shoot this down. I'd be thinking about continuing it to a point where everyone had enough time, depending on what deadlines or what kind of timeline was involved. But I'm not going to be able to be OK with this, with this amount of passionate opposition to the degree these people don't even feel safe. What would you like to see us do? I'd like for you to have these people in opposition show up to another hearing and be in favor of the project. Okay, I mean I can't I can't make that happen None of us up here can make that happen and I'm sorry to say but that's that's for you to make happen again I want to see the the housing. I want to see the project built This isn't a very extreme case I'm not I'm not saying no I'm just I'm thinking and I would support continuing this to a point where however much time needed for all parties involved we could get to a agreed upon solution that was more people in support of.

Thank you.

Commissioner McDonald.

OK. And I'm in agreement with what my fellow commissioners have said. And this is the type of a lot and site that on the steep slope really needs a lot of attention to it. I happen to live on a steep slope myself. I understand some of these issues. So I want to speak to an additional thing that hasn't been spoken to in depth, which has to do with the tree. I have had the experience, frankly, of having

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Commissioner McDonald. Could you pull the microphone up a little bit? Sure.

Sorry about that. So I would like to speak specifically to the tree, that very, very large eucalyptus tree specifically, just from my own experience of having had a 120-foot tree fall on my house in 2023. I understand the concerns. And one of the concerns I have is that if this project goes forward, is how that tree is removed and when it is removed. Because, for instance, if the demolition of the house happens first and then the demolition of the tree happens, well, there could be destabilization of the roots of that tree. And there could also be different winds that would happen against that tree that could result in destruction. a tree fall. So I know this from experience. And I also know from experience that it's possible to take out a very large tree like that with a big crane up on the uphill street that can systematically cut off high branches and systematically fly them over the roof of the existing structure and take them up to the uphill street and then cut them down and, you know, trim them up there and take them away. And that this is a possible thing to do with a tree that size in less than a day. So there's mechanisms for doing that if you have the right tree removal company with a big enough crane to be able to do that. And I would seriously recommend looking into that and speaking with the neighbors about that process and assuring that that tree removal would happen in a way that could be done safely and not land in very unfortunate ways on downhill properties and neighbors. Thank you.

Commissioner Tso.

Thank you. Excuse me.

I'd like to just ask that you appoint someone for us to deal with in between. Sorry.

Right now you're out of order, please.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, this is like a long progress or process, and I really I think I agree with a lot of my fellow commissioners' sentiment about there's a lot that needs to be done to work with your neighbors on this project. But I also think that the architect's team had done the best they can to what they were hired to do. But I do have some questions to the architect. Can you come forward, please?

Yeah, sorry. It's hard to see you all in this state. I know. It's behind.

We used to be in different room. But it's OK. You don't need to see me. You just need to hear me. So I would touch on your response to one of my fellow commissioners mentioning about the three-foot setback that was previously agree between your client and some of the neighbors. And you mentioned that it's actually you have it. And do you mind show us where it is? Because I was looking at your first ground floor plan. I don't really see how it's being illustrated. It might be perhaps just the graphical nature.

Overhead please. So it's this area right here. So our building does extend beyond the neighbor. About halfway through that extension, it does notch in. And this is permissible for the building department because we don't have a required window there for light and air. In the previous arrangement, we had bedroom windows there, and that was not allowed per building.

OK, so your three foot setback is actually just kind of like a notch.

That's right.

Of the back. Okay. All right. Thank you. And do you mind, I was trying to look through my entire packet. I have not seen, I saw the total square footage of the entire project, which is the total of five lots. What is the breakdown of each unit of housing that you're proposing?

I don't have the exact numbers, but most of the two units hover around 3,000 square foot living per unit.

OK. And what about the one that is slated for a single family home in the corner?

I believe that that's in the 5,000 something range inclusive of the garage.

OK. All right. Thank you. So let me see if I have all my questions to you. Do you have any plan to take care of that 100-year-old tree?

And we absolutely want to take it down. It's a requirement for us and for the neighbors. Sorry, I don't know why I'm hunching. The tree absolutely has to come down. The site is overgrown, for sure. But part of that overgrowth and the tree roots is what's holding the site together right now. It's clayey. I just looked up the soil report. It's clayey sand. And frankly, the best thing to hold up this hillside is to get some concrete in there and drainage, which now doesn't exist. So with all due respect to our neighbors, they're complaining about the current condition, not the proposed condition. i think to their end we'll consult with an arborist to take down the tree in a way that will not cause erosion assuming we wouldn't be able to start construction until after our strong el nino that's coming by next spring everything should be hopefully underway and and we'll clean up the site we'll start grading it we'll put drainage

Okay. So it's fair to say that you do have your intent to properly take care of this potentially falling tree, but right now you're in a bit of a pickle, right? In order to properly take it out and not causing more undue erosion, you need to have actually a soil foundation plan in place to work with it. And basically all these life safety requirement that your project required to do will be a very serious like soil report and geotechnical engineering and seismic engineering, all that stuff is going to be going through when you submit for site permit. That's correct. Hopefully you go to do building permit so that will be faster and that will be all under the jurisdiction of DBI.

That's correct, yes.

Okay, I really wanted to make sure that people, our public, understand the sequences here. The Planning Commission has jurisdictions on land use and the massing and based on our family zoning code, but the actual technicality of the soil condition and safety, and even down to construction abatement and mitigations are all going to be continued to be fully looking at under the eyes of DBI for health and safety and welfare for everybody. Just want to say it like that just to make sure really clear I know a lot of people are frustrated and it's been frustrated for many many years I think it is mutual for everybody is really frustrated about this and the architect is the one that carries the brunt of it and and but I really wanted to make sure that you guys have a continue to be a good neighbor and to collaborate with the community, it is hard to understand who does what and which agency has jurisdictions over what. So I actually want to ask my staff one question. So thank you, the architect and the project sponsor. Oh, you have something to, oh, you're the project. One of the owners. Okay, yeah. Would you like to elaborate some of my question to the architect?

I just want to say that there are actually four separate owners over here. This is not all owned by myself. The reason this was grouped together was because the zoning administrator wanted to group them, you know, all together. The tree that you guys are seeing over here at the photo, the eucalyptus, is going to have to be one of the first things that comes down. And it will come down. Actually, the back 20, 25 feet of the property, 20 feet of the property from the building to the rear yard against the neighbors is actually relatively flat. It's not sloped very steeply. It's nearly flat. The slope is further up the hill, close to Clayton Street. But this eucalyptus tree is going to come down. And all the debris needs to come up to Clayton Street, which is a steep climb. We need to bring in heavier equipment in order to bring the debris out. It will be done by a professional tree remover company, as all work has been done in the past. it's not much of an issue. I want to talk a little bit more about the slope that you've asked about.

Jeremy, can we bring up the slides?

Do you have the photo on the very, very back?

Yeah.

I would like to show the cross-section because the importance of securing the hillside, as was asked, is a very important aspect of this design. So you've shown in your presentation the...

Sorry, you wanted the photo?

No, I want the cross-section. At the cross section you can see that from the street we're going down at the back of property at the back of sidewalk and then the whole way down it's stepped all the way down to the backyard to make sure that there's proper support of the soil all the way down in a step like manner and that will actually provide better support of the hillside than what currently is there. This entire hillside was built at the turn of the last century. We have much better understanding of seismic and soil engineering today, better concrete, better working materials, better equipment to be able to support the hillside in a vastly superior method that was previously done. And here you can also see on the cross section that the rear yard is nearly flat. It's not sloped where the tree is. The rear, the slope in the back is really not a concern. The concern is closer to Clayton Street, which is 100, 125 feet away from the neighbor's homes. Now, I want to I want to show one more slide, which is the photo. Do you want to add anything to this?

This is a photo.

from the property which my brother currently resides in to the north, you can see over here Mr. Barbie's house right there. That house sits on a double lot, on a 50-foot wide lot. And as a result, Mr. Barbie is very fortunate to have a very large house on two lots. And as a result, it's very shallow. You can see that the existing house to the north of his has the same condition that we are proposing, which is there is a wall going past his property, right there, going approximately the same amount that we are proposing. By asking us to reduce that or create different conditions, we're not able to obtain building permits. It makes it impossible for us to build something that is very similar to the existing conditions that were built 100 years ago. So with the Constraint Reduction Act, we are hoping that that would be easier to build what was previously built. And that's what we have proposed.

Thank you.

Thanks.

While I have you here, would I have to say, are you going to be committed to actually building these homes?

Of course. My brother, who is limited mobility like I do, has been living in this property since 2019. The previous owner passed in 2018, and then he moved in the following year. This is going to be a home for him to live in, one of them, the center house, that is going to remain under rent control. All these delays, all these. Inabilities to get permits simply means that we cannot build accommodating house for him. You'll see that all these homes have elevators with easy accessibility. So these delays are just making it just very, very difficult to get to the point where a person can build a home that can accommodate his needs and his requirements.

Thank you. Thank you for all your extra comments. I have a question to our planning staff.

Hello.

Hi. Is this area has any constraint on large homes?

Yes. It is part of the central neighborhood's large residence special use district. However, It only became part of that special use district in February as part of the tenant protections ordinance. Prior to that, it was not part of it, nor was it part of the Corona Heights special use district. which is now eliminated. I say that because there was a planning code lock, a preliminary project application filed to lock the planning code in January prior to family zoning and the tenant protections ordinance going into effect. So this project is not subject to that special use district.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I will conclude with my own thought process here is that this project really do comply with our new family zoning plan and our new design guideline, the design standards, and it does comply with the setback that is required, and I've seen it's pretty clear. Actually, 27 feet. I think, however, there's history to the evolutions of this whole block and the neighborhood that spans almost now nearly 10 years, right? So It is a challenging situation within neighborhoods and communities. But however, we want more housing to actually build in San Francisco. And I like to see that we're not being a barrier, but more of an enabler for projects that actually try and really comply with our planning code. And hopefully, you definitely will be complying to the building code, because there will be penalties, right? And I am in support of this project. But I do want to make a strong recommendation for the project sponsor, all your other co-investors. Thank you for showing up today. to really work with the neighbors and get rid of all these misunderstandings throughout the years. I do want to also have the neighbors and community to just give them another chance to actually work together, to work with everybody. I think that I will leave it to some of my fellow commissioners for more comments, and if my fellow commissioners are interested to bring you

To speak they will ask you for thank you Thank you I think a lot of my sentiment and thoughts about this is very much aligned with what Commissioner so was just getting at there is no doubt this is these are very challenging sites and it's fair to have a lot of concerns about buildability if I live downhill from these sites and I'd be very concerned too. So I completely hear you to the neighbors that have to take time to be here today. And we want to make sure that they are not living in fear. In terms of our purview, though, we're looking at this through a the planning code. And these are code compliant projects. And to Commissioner So's point, we're really needing to prioritize housing for our city. So it sounds like the concerns are more around building code and the buildability of these projects. And this project is not quite at the point where we can give those assurances because we're looking at site plans. And you haven't coordinated with your structural engineers yet. You haven't coordinated with geotech. You haven't gotten the project to a point where you can even be in a position to give those assurances about buildability to the neighbors. I would like to not continue this project and move it forward. But I would love to get some sort of assurance that these neighbors are going to stay informed every step along the way. And when it comes to things like the sheathing that was specifically mentioned, to tree removals, this is not part of our purview, from what I understand, but something that we can make sure is addressed to the building code. at its neck when it's ready to be in a position to do that. So I don't know who, if it's from the planning staff, someone that can maybe help guide us on language that maybe we could add here that gives the neighbors a little bit more comfort. Maybe Matt, you can help me out here.

Yeah, so one of the standard conditions that we used to use was a community liaison. It's kind of standard practice for construction projects to have those anyways, where it's a foreman or just a point person for neighbors to be able to reach out. for information or concerns. That's something you could add in that seems very doable on the project sponsor side. Any kind of specific construction related things I would advise against because we don't have the technical expertise for that. And that's where we would rely on the permit process again.

And the community liaison is from which department?

The project sponsor provides it. It's somebody they designate. And they post it at the project site. And we could ask for best practice to send them letters with that info and alert them to any changes of who that point person would be. And it can run from beginning to end of the project.

That would be my recommendation. Those are all my comments. Commissioner McGarry.

I agree with everybody here, but we can't be everything to everybody. But the reality, the big concern I have is the back of the property, the lack of drainage, the fact that we're saying it's flat. The sponsor is saying it's flat, but the property owner in the back has a retaining wall, and that retaining wall has gone up four feet. That's the flat. or the portion of the flat we're talking about, and the fact that basically they're downhill or down cliff. And the reason it's gone up four feet is for the slippage and slidage of the property owner's property sliding down to the bottom. And thank God that individual built a retaining wall there. And somehow it's his fault that he can't get onto that property and waterproof it. It's lacking trust with the neighbors. This is a new build. It's basically It's a profitable build. It's going to be built to code, which means that the top of the property is going to be done pretty darn good. But everything flowing down the other end is subject to basically a runoff that's faster, even though, yes, they'll take as much upfront as they can, use the existing. My issue is I really think you've got to take into account the drainage on your neighbors, you know, because that property isn't flat. What's flat is what's slid. And the only reason it's flat is because it's up against your neighbor's retaining wall, who he built or they built or it was built to stop the slippage of your property. Right? That's a shared wall. And because it's basically morally, technically, every possible way you can look at it, the responsibility of the person whose property is sliding into somebody else's property, there has to be a little bit. The limited knowledge I know on this, I think basically there should be understanding on both sides of that wall that that wall will be reinforced in a new build. It will be taken into account in a new build. And maybe 10 feet back or 12 feet back, there will be another version of a retaining wall that will actually take that, which is pretty standard on this. But I think the neighbors need to hear that. I can figure it out from a construction point of view. But I think there has to be communication with the neighbors so they feel comfortable that something like that is happening or going to happen. Because it's more than conceptual.

Yeah. Sorry, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to respond or not. Jeremy Schaub, Schaub Lee Architects. Yeah, flat is not a good description of the site. The slope from Clayton to Belvedere is about 50 feet. And about 40 feet of that is on our property. I believe that's what my client was referring to. So the properties on Belvedere do have a grade. For sure. And yes, we will be constructing a fully new retaining wall at the back of all five parcels and between all five parcels. And all those will have all the required drainage. And it will flow through our existing easement down to Belvedere.

Director Dennis Phillips.

I feel badly speaking before a couple of commissioners, but I just wanted to provide some guiding points that might be helpful. One thing to note, and I think it's wonderful that we at the Planning Commission, that you as commissioners can provide a forum for this public dialogue and conversation between the project sponsor and the community. One of the challenges that we have as staff moving forward And you may be aware, there are no CUs for construction in steep slope buildings in our planning code. That is something we have as a city decided to defer to our building process. And so that's one of the challenges we're facing here. I think we embrace this dialogue but know that there is a process moving forward. I think what I'm taking from this conversation, which is very helpful, it's clear that both planning and DBI as departments and project sponsors, not just this one but other ones, need to do a better job of educating our constituents about the process stage that we are at and the process stages to come and where those commitments can be met. It's clear that we're not doing a good job of that and it's a learning process for all of us to do that better. I think I just want to note that I am very excited about our pending departmental merger. We're already working very closely with DBI, which is excellent, and I think I'm hearing day by day about the interaction that our planners have with permit reviewers on a daily basis. In fact, Mr. Sucre was just telling me about a great conversation that he had yesterday. And that's happening before we are even one department. So the ability to both educate and ensure consistency across this process from a conditional use that you might authorize through the building permit process, which is relatively robust, right, requiring engineering reports, structural design standards, procedural notifications. That will happen. We will be a part of that process. And there are ways for the community to be involved, too. So just wanted to note that we're hearing you on we need to do a better job as planning. DBI needs to do a better job as DBI. We need to figure out how to make this clear. And then I think we'll ask our partners in the development community to help us do that as well, as we can. It is very challenging when someone doesn't even know if they can build a project to ask them to go three steps ahead in the process and do the engineering work because you don't even have the revenue to know you have an approved project to go that far. But we can do a better job of educating when those processes will come and how it will happen. Thanks.

Thank you for that. Commissioner Koppel.

I was actually going to ask you to chime in, director, and kind of wrangle us all up, let us know what we can, cannot do. Happy to hear even from Mr. Sucre or city attorney on, you know, just clearing up what our roles are, what we can, can't do. I did, I've known of the community liaison concept. I've heard you guys mention an OMS Budman would be I'm going to ask one person, one person to come up and get one last grab at the microphone, because I did want to ask you, would that community liaison satisfy your request for the quote on the slide? Well, not sure.

Just one person. Still getting hints about where I'm supposed to go here. I don't know if it satisfies it. One thing is certainly true. We've had a lot of experience with the owner, and we don't trust him. and that he says that there is flat land down at the bottom of the property next to our property. That's not true. Like I said, against our wall, there's four feet of dirt that got there somehow in the last century. That's a long time. And there's a lot of water, though, that flowed over the hill. And the bottom line is, if there was some an independent way, or somebody we can talk to that is independent. I mean, I think everything you've done is really great. You've really encouraged dialogue between all of us. And that we need. But we don't trust them. So if there's somebody here that we could talk to on a regular basis that kind of knows what's going on, or somewhere else, I don't care. But I didn't like the idea that the owner gets to choose the person who's dialoguing with us. And so thank you very much, though, for everything you've done, because I think you've really tried to answer our problems. I'm not sure you have yet, but thank you for trying.

So again, just for everyone's insight, what capabilities do they have as far as community liaison right they can always call DBI and make complaints or request some type of maybe visit to look at some hazardous conditions or And again, we can't tell the future. This tree might fall down tomorrow from wind. We can't ever. We're never going after anybody. But we can't up here go through who's being truthful, who's not. So we do need to look at this from a third person's point of view. Did you have anything more to add on? Maybe just some suggestions? I want them to know what their abilities are. And I want their concerns to be addressed without stopping the world. And again, are we the final decision in this project? Can our decision be appealed? I don't know.

We are not. What you are simply doing is authorizing the demolition of two units to enable the construction of this project, right? That is the decision before you. I think there are a couple of things. I think Mr. Ditto put an appropriate recommendation that we have used in the past and is within your purview, which will enable a clear single point of communication for all concerned neighbors at all points through the process, which is very helpful. Additionally, as this project moves to DBI, either by contacting that representative or by simply following this address on DBI's online portal, where all of this is very visible, they can see every permit request, submittal, engineering reports. All of that will be tracked and visible through our online permit. And then at the end of the process, the community, the neighbors, disagree with the decision made by one of our expert engineers at DBI, there is an appeal process that they can also pursue.

And so we can't really look at anything outside of the actual property lines of the properties we're actually reviewing.

Commissioner, that's correct.

Commissioner McDonald.

OK. So thank you for some of the clarifications, Director Dennis-Phillips. And I just have a question. Beyond the idea that's been brought to the table about having the community liaison, are there any other things, language that can be put into a conditional proof like this that speak to the robust nature of the process to come, which will be looking at all of these issues that have been raised. But is there any just language within this that helps give some of that assurance as this document goes forward. I don't know if that's completely not within the bounds of what's possible for a conditional approval like this, but I'm just asking to see perhaps there is.

I think the challenge, Commissioner McDonald, if I'm understanding your query correctly, is that much of what is to come is prescribed by our building code and our building process. So it is already written down in those codes. We typically do not have our motions point to future stages outside of our jurisdiction. We can trust that they will happen. And I realize that the trust is a word that we've heard a lot today that is challenging. But I can speak for city departments and our ability to following those codes and to the robust appeal and enforcement processes if they are not. So while I think it might be possible to put a sentence in your motion that says we want all that to happen, I can also assure you that's why we have the codes in front of us to ensure they happen.

Anything else, Commissioner McDonald? No, thank you. I don't think we have a motion yet.

I have not heard one.

So Commissioner So. OK. I'm going to give this a try, but I'm open to editing or refining. So we motion to approve moving this project forward, but insist to have that community liaison program fully enforced. Would it be appropriate?

Yes.

I really think that this one really needs a lot of community hands-on, even though technically in the tracking of the computer system, you get to go look, but we should be proactively helping the community, right? Okay, so would this be an appropriate...

Any edits that Commissioner if I can give you some recommendations What I would might advise is that we include our standard community liaison condition the community liaison shall be designated upon it up filing of the building permit for the revision for this project and notified back to planning staff. The community liaison should also have a posted notice on the site. So that way then members of the community understand who to contact on the project team when projects arise. And that's all within your purview to mandate in the condition.

All right. I like that. So it be very clear communication and access for transparency of accountability. So I'm going to repeat it one more time. I'm A motion to approve with the recommendation of enforcing the community liaison program specifically also in facilitating making sure through the building permitting process site permit and building permitting process and also the community liaison shall post notifications on site with clear contact information to the staff Second. Oh, Joe, you want to say something?

Was that a recommendation for the? No, I believe that was a condition of approval. So just for the public that as much as we can do is put into the motion, this is what we want to see. It's not a suggestion or we hope this to happen. As much as we can do is put this almost as a demand included in the motion. So it shall happen.

Yeah, because we typically don't do that. Yeah. Thank you for that clarification.

Commissioners if there's nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as amended to include the planning department standard community liaison condition of approval including that the name and number of and contact information of that community liaison designated upon filing of building permit application and provided to planning staff as well as a posted notice with the liaison's contact information on site. On that motion, Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. Commissioners, that will place us on your final item today under your discretionary review calendar for number 11, case number 2025-010904DRP for the property at 103 Banks Street. This is a discretionary review.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Trent Greenan, Planning Staff Architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of Planning Application 2025-010904PRJ. The project proposes a remodel of the first floor, including laundry, bedroom, bathroom, and new playroom. At the second floor, removal or replacement of the stairs to the second floor. removal of rear bedroom, a living room, kitchen, and bathroom remodel, and the addition of new stairs to the third floor. A new third floor addition is proposed, including two bedrooms, two full bathrooms, and a rear deck. The existing building is Category C property, so this means that it underwent a historic resource review to reclassify it from a B to a C, giving it more flexibility in the design. The DR requester, Jane Hundredmark, at 102 Bank Street, the neighbor immediately across the street, claims that the proposed peaked roof makes the building taller than the sub-hill neighbor to the north and downhill neighbor. This is out of place since Banks is a steep hill. A basic parameter of the residential design guidelines is that buildings step with the city's hills in unison. A peaked roof will steal more natural light from narrow and steep Bank Street and create an excessive profile. A lower profile flat roof would allow more natural light to hit neighbors' homes and match the adjacent buildings and not lose any square footage, rooms, or usable space. Properties most affected by loss of light include 102 banks and 104 banks, but the impact may extend further. Their proposed alternative is to lower the building profile by having a flat roof instead of a peaked roof. Number two, examine floor heights, especially in non-living spaces, for additional reductions. To date, the department has received one letter in opposition and no letters in support of the project. Staff recommendation. This project is compliant with planning code, specifically with respect to height and meets the RDGs. The project complies with the residential design guideline, respect the topography of the site, Topography of the site in the surrounding area by continuing the stepping of volumes along the street as a result of design review recommendations The proposed addition is lower than the Upper Hill neighbor and is set back further from both adjacent neighbors So this sort of reduces the scale further reduces the scale of the building on the street by being set back and the sloped roof is consistent with the pattern of the neighborhood and Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we should hear from the discretionary review requester. Last call for the discretionary review requester. Okay, project sponsor, you have five minutes if you want it.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Hopefully, I'll be out of your hair pretty quickly with this one compared to the last project. But what we've got here is a little single family home in Bernal that is bursting at the seams. My client, the owner, lives here with his family. And they need more space. And the only way is up. So what we have here, what I've outlined here in this presentation is, the building volume. And actually, the height limit is about another five feet above the top of the blue box that we represent here. So what we have is a modest addition. We have scaled it back. We have dropped the ridge down and made the eave height a little bit lower. But the whole concept here was to just take the existing single family home and pop it up. And my client, he lives here with his family. They've been here for many years. They love Bernal Heights. They love living there. And this is their really only option for living here in the city and in the neighborhood. So we understand the neighbors' concerns, but views aren't protected. And that's essentially the crux of her argument. We're compliant with the planning codes. We've been essentially administratively approved, at least, with the planning department. And since the DR requester failed to even show, I think she understands this as well, would be my inference from this. So we just respectfully ask that the planning department deny the DR request and allow my client and his family to move forward with this project. Thank you for your time.

Okay, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. Seeing none, last call. Public comment is closed. DR requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. No. Very good. With that, commissioners, the public hearing portion of this matter is closed, and it is now before you.

Commissioner So.

I motion to approve to not take the DR and approve this. Second.

Commissioner Koppel. Took the wind out of your sails.

Nothing more to say.

I think there's nothing more to say.

Very good, Commissioners. If there are no additional deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. On that motion, Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Soe?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5-0 and concludes your hearing today.

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.