Your acronym is Design Review and document approval as particularly approval for this project. [laughter] commission fung. I had a similar question but directed toward the project sponsor whoever the project sponsor is. My name is terese, im the senior director for five point. Can you flush out the analysis that occurred to reduce the retail . Oh, absolutely. Significantly. You know, i think as ms. Moore said, it is true that in fact, particularly for outlet malls the amount of demand for that type of Shopping Experience has decreased significantly. And in fact oewd produced a report a year ago in which they talked about the challenges that San Francisco is now facing because of the change in retail. Many people are now spending their money differently. They are spending their money on physical fitness lifestyle, dining out those kinds of experiences. Thats one change. And the other change, of course, is the future of ecommerce. And theres been a significant amount of change in the Retail Sector because of the ecommerce. So for all of these reasons combined, it really made so much sense to create a successful project anchored in a way that we are proposing for you today. As a followthrough on that, you have 170,000 square feet. Of regional retail, thats correct. And what does that mean when you say regional retail. Thats a very good question. A lot of people ask that. I think oftentimes people think of retail is the kind of retail that you go some distance to actually make your purchases. So for example if you are looking at furnishing stores or Appliance Stores or those kinds of things that serve large large sectors. Thats what we mean when we say regional retail. When we talk about neighborhoodserving retail we talk about your local businesses. So it could be a barber, a dry cleaner, your pharmacy, a grocery all of those kinds of things. Then the regional retail would be the larger box . Not necessarily. I didnt mean to imply its going to be big box. Thats kind of an not okay here. But what i wanted to say is its the type of purchase that you make. Its not necessarily big box. So, for example, you see a lot of what they call formula kinds of retails where you see the same thing over and over and over again. What we are wanting here is something a little more unique and special. So if there is a successful restaurant up on third street in the bayview and they can locate a second restaurant in our neighborhood that we are creating thats the kind of thing that we are looking for in this project. Thank you. Sure. Can i hear a motion . Theres a motion, yeah. Just one comment. I forgot to mention at the top of my presentation, the handouts before you also included a couple letter the letters of support. One from the Southeast Community facilities commission. They just wanted to make it very clear that they were unanimously supportive of this as well. Commissioner moore. Move to approve. Second. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve. The design for development amendments. [roll call] so moved, the motion passes unanimously 40. [applause] folks in the crowd, theres only four of us up here. We dont want to extend this hearing any longer than we have to. But we are going to take a small, small bathroom break. And just for the benefit of the public who may not realize but item 15 17 and 18 were continued. Item 16 is being pushed to the end of the agenda so we will be. Good evening and welcome back to the San FranciscoPlanning Commission regular hearing for thursday october 24, 2019. Commissioners we left off under your 3 00 p. M. Calendar on item 19 for case number 2018011717cua, 1369 sanchez street good evening commissioners. I have to understand every time whether mr. Bussy comes before the commission whether or not hes paid, he is paid for this. I have a professional relationship with him and i am not swayed or influenced at all and i can be fair. Commissioner richards, kate spacey in the city attorneys office. You are not obligated to reclues yourself in a situation like this. Youve disclosed the matter. And as long as you believe you can give the matter a full and impartial hearing you do not have to reaccuse yourself. Good evening. Stefani Planning Department staff. The item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to document and legalize a demolition of existing threestory twounit building at 1369 to 1371 sanchez street. The overall project includes a remodel and expansion of the two existing units modifications to ground floor garage and roof deck. The project received approval in 2017 and this application is intended to legalize additional demolition that took place during construction. The project site is located on the east side of sanchez street between cesar chavez street. The building was reclassified to category c. In 2515 as part of the review, Environmental Review of the original application. The property is located in rh2 Zoning District and 40s heightened bulk district. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of two to three story Family Residences in a variety of architectural styles. As detailed in your packets, the project was originally filed and reviewed in in 2015 during the neighborhood notification period a discretionary review application was filed. The case was heard on april 20, 2017 and was continued to june 1, 2017 to allow time for the project sponsor to revise the project based on comments provided by the commission at that time. At the june 1, 2017 hearing the Commission Adopted findings to take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications. During construction additional demolition work occurred that caused the project to exceed the demolition thresholds outlined in the planning code. The areas where demolition thresholds exceeded were as follows. Additional areas of existing rear walls removed such as the area vertical elements demolished exceeded the threshold by 15 percent. Areas of the existing floor space of the second and third floors were removed and replaced, exceeded the threshold by 13 percent. A complaint was filed by the department of building inspect on august 6, 2018 describing that work had occurred beyond the scope of the originallyapproved permit. The planning enforcement case was opened at the same time. Planning staff had conducted multiple site visits between august 2018 and march 2019 to inspect the work completed. And in march 2019 the conditional use authorization application was filed. The project has not changed in terms of its size design or features. The purpose is to legalize the changes to the demolition calculations that occurred during construction. The Department Recommends approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable. The existing twounit building will maintain two units and larger configurations and no additional changes or modifications are proposed to the previous project. This concludes my presentation. Im available for any questions. We have a representative from dbi here with a presentation as well as the project sponsor. Great. Thank you very much. Good evening commissioners. Patrick chief building inspector dbi. Im here to present to you an update on the project at 1369 sanchez street. To begin with, the agenda in this presentation is as follows. Im going to speak to existing. One second. Sf gov, can you go to the computer . Thank you. The agenda is as follows. Existing as built conditions the permits review, inspections enforcement, findings and finally next steps. This slide represents 1369 sanchez street as it was prior to the construction. The picture is from november of 2017. Here we are looking at 1369 sanchez street in its current condition as it has been since august of 2018 when the violation was issued. The permit application that was filed in august of 2015 received planning reviews dbi review and review and approval by cpw. It included the remodel of the front elevation, a horizontal addition to this house towards the front of the Building Three new bathrooms and three new bedrooms and two bathrooms at the third floor remodeling of the kitchen add a vanity at the second floor, relocate unit one from the second to the first floor along with a new roof deck. Additionally permit application that was filed in august of 2018 following the issue answer of the notice of violation is now the permit that is here before you. It states comply with the violation 201882681. It is a revision to the permit from 2015 which has been suspended. It revises the demolition analysis including removal and replacement of the front stairs and the removal of the rear stairs. Plan review services. A single permit was filed on august 19 2015. Reviewed, approved and issued on september 29th of 2017. So approximately two years later. The evaluation of work documented is 425,000. Multiple city agencies reviewed and approved this permit including planning dbi fire department, tfc and dpw. The permit includes a horizontal addition at the southeast corner, which i believe should probably be this west corner. At any rate, additionally the descriptive language includes three new bedrooms, two new bathrooms 3 13 three third floor remodel. The permit has been suspended and work stopped based on the issue and notice of violation by dbi that occurred on august 18 of 2018. New Building Permit has been filed and is currently being reviewed by the Planning Department. Dbi plan review will follow plannings approval. Inspections. Three Building Inspections were performed by the district building inspector for foundation from may 30 to june 27 of 2018. So roughly two months before we got the complaint for the demolition, we performed these three inspections for concrete pours. They were for different areas of the foundation and they were approved based on special inspector approval prior to the concrete being poured. So what that means is the engineer Testing Agency folks would need to go out there and look at the concrete and look at the rebar pardon me, before the concrete could be placed. So we have special inspections that are in fact listed on the original and what is now suspended permit which covered the structural evidence of the construction itself. Complaints. One complaint was filed august 6, 2018. The violation was posted based on that complaint and is currently on hold till the pending review and approval of the Building Permit currently before you. The complaint was investigated based onsite review conditions and as it related to the approval permit documents. It was determined that the scope of work documented in the drawings had been exceeded. And the work was then stopped pending approval of a Building Permit to document the additional work. This shows notice of violation. It states complaint investigation has revealed work has exceeded the scope of the Building Permit, a site visit has revealed front stairs and west front wall have been removed, rear wall and is it fair to say have been removed portions of the floor framing have been removed. The notation is stop all work obtain revision that documents the front the removal of the front facade, rear walls, stairs and floor systems which exceeded the scope of the Building Permit that was in place at the time. And it also states city planning approval required. Moving on to the approved demolition, you can see well not very easily, but you can see here that anything in the hatched representation on the elevations is what was approved to be removed. So you can see the entire roof was slated to be removed on the left hand side of the slide. And at the front facade, you will note that basically around the garage, the garage door area and projecting upward was all approved to be removed. Then there was the area around that window on the upper floor at the front facade that was to be removed. So essentially all that was left in the front facade was that sliver kind of down the middle between the front door and the windows the garage and the windows above the garage. So really very little left of that front facade. And it is a bit of a balancing act to try to keep those three or four studs in place while you are doing additional work. The north facade, the wall was to remain. And for the most part, it did. That wall remained in place, which you can see from the picture that represents it in place based on how the site conditions are right now. The south elevation is a little bit different, because if you look at the south elevation youll see that the matched area right there was being. There was minimal demolition at the area of the facade. Next steps permit application under review by the Planning Department appears to document the conditions and the changes needed to ensure compliance with the notice of violation. We conducted site visits out there together, and we reviewed what was being proposed for submittal and comparedcompared those documents. Work will be scheduled for review and getting directions to the contractor or stakeholder and im going to suggest that we will conduct weekly inspections until we see that the stakeholder and the contractor are back on track and we eliminate the possibility of anything going sideways moving forward with the project. Thats my presentation. Im available for any questions. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. Normally im not one to take a case like this because im not a big fan of the demolition issue. But it highlighted one of my concerns its the means and methods of how we do these jobs. Its really nice to draw something up. But trying to build it is a lot harder. There were really two issues that caused problems here on this job. Issue number one was this wall being shifted about four feet to the south. So the floor joints between here and here which were supposed to be left in place were now three to four feet too short. The joint doesnt extend from bearing wall to bearing wall, it serves no function. And there was a fundamental misunderstanding that even though those joints serve no function, they have to remain in place. The contractor to his credit, was honest with everybody on this issue. He said, well, doesnt it make more sense to try to slide these joints over so somehow we get them supported on the new bearing wall over here. They would actually serve a function. And he slid them over so that those joints actually did something except you cant slide joist over under the rules and not count it as a demo. When planning came out they asked told the truth, slid them over because they were too short and we were trying to figure out some way to continue using this framing in addition to additional framing. So in this area on the second and third floor large holes were created because of this bearing wall issue. And he tried to account for that by sliding the joist over. And when they asked and im not the original engineer on this. I just reran the counts. They said yes we slid them over trying to reuse them, and that triggered the 50 percent of being over the floor area on a demo. The other issue and again i wasnt there were these firewalls on either side. And somewhere along the line, there was a discussion about these walls need to have sheetrock on the outside. How you get sheetrock on the outside of an existing wall, i havent figured out how to do. He was under the impression it was okay to lean the wall down, put the plywood im sorry put the chip board up on the outside and lean it back up. And those were the two areas in both situations that pushed him over the threshold. When planning came out he told them the truth he thought this was the way to do it. Its not. It is a problem. But it highlights the means and method issue of trying to build these buildings, because they are not two dimensional sheets of paper. They are a three dimensional building out there. This has been sitting on someones desk for 15 months. I believe it is a demo but its not a demo with malice. If you are going to be doing complex jobs like this, you have to have the engineer and the architect on the job almost twice a week, maybe even more. You cannot do these jobs by a simple drawing. You have to live on the job with the contractor. And i believe the Building Official suggested weekly meetings. I dont think thats enough. I think theres got to be at least a meeting once a week with building, planning myself and the engineer and architect and if any neighbors want to come out, we have to make this transparent thats the minimum. And then the second meeting a followup meeting or premeeting with the engineer, myself, maybe the architect but myself the engineer and the contractor, and we, the second meeting going over what you are doing and clearly trying to explain the threedimensional nature of how you build and how you comply with the rules. And they apologized for this. We are sorry we did it. We want to get this housing back. The neighbors have asked me repeatedly when will you build it back. Any questions or rebuttal. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item . Come on up. Two minutes please. I didnt submit a card, im sorry. Before my time starts, can i its only two minutes . Yes. I want to stipulate i did not file these complaints but someone did using my name, which is pretty disgusting, creating a fake gmail account. Be that as it may when i was here back in june of 2017 my intention was there was an inefficient use of space. And i think that it was good what you did, following 317b7 you didnt have the sham unit down below the garage. You put the bedrooms down, you made an upstairs and you had the second unit on the third level below the roof deck. I think thats not an efficient use of space. I think it should go back to as it was before all this unfortunateness happened. I think you need that Side Entrance there that mr. Reardon talked about that could be a perfect thing for an adu. I dont view this as punishment. I view this as practicality. Because this is what i said two years ago that you should do. I think the upstairs unit is only a one bedroom, its should be a two bedroom. If its going to be rented why do you need that whole big area and the family room and kitchen and hope space. I know open space. I know thats what people think you need to market for but i also think people like bedrooms. A week ago you approved the little bedrooms on 12th street. You could do it here