>> good evening, commissioners. i'm in public relations. i had the privilege of walking up and down the west portal with james, meeting, greeting people in the neighborhood. and he's very engaging, great energy, seems to know everybody and everybody seems to know him. but what we're talking about here is competition. and when -- there are vacancies all over west portal. they're going through somewhat of a transition. they need people that are going to provide the energy and the enthusiasm to want to do that. and i don't think we should punish people if they want to work harder or provide hours that are certainly reasonable, 8:00, 9:00, 10:00, up to the point, i mean, where it is right now, he almost has to become a police officer at pickup -- and pick up wine glasses and you have to explain that to guests and guests get

angry and say, what are you doing? you know, they don't understand that aspect of it. but those were things he agreed to at that time. the good thing was, some time has passed now and he's shown that he's a good owner, good operator and has a good relationship with the community. so, now's the time he says, hey, in essence i was running the business as a hobby. i need to run it as a business model. so we need to give people the opportunity to change their models, to make it better and stuff. so i see no adverse effect to it. i met the new captain at the station. he had no issues with it at all. i hope the both of these merchants can come together and maybe do some cross promoting to create a vibe and promote the whole area, not just look at their own business as an island and stuff. it's a good energy up there and i think hopefully in the years to come, you know, they'll be able to make their issues that they have now be by gones.

thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good evening, commissioners. i'm here as a resident and a fan of them. my girlfriend and i have been constant customers of theirs ever since they've been in the neighborhood, basically. and they -- as they've said before, other people have said tonight, there are vital -- they're a vital part of the neighborhood. they've really revitalized that portion of west portal. we were here last year when mr. and mrs. mccartle brought their case against them the first time and at that point he was saying that, oh, they were on their knees and the business was doomed to fail any minute now because of the horrible competition from wine styles. well, we're here a year later and they're saying the exact

same thing and the thing that we keep saying to ourselves in the neighborhood is that this isn't a matter of, you know, fighting for a piece of the pie. this is a matter of making the pie figure for everyone and that if these two businesses came together they'd be able to make west portal into a wine neighborhood, something good for everybody. as it stands now, james and gale are the only ones who seem to be working with the neighborhood and they have the support of the neighborhood and the neighborhood association and the neighborhood businesses. >> good evening. i bought that building in 1966. show you my age. the neatest thing about what's happened is there's a community developing here. wine bars, men and women come in and we're getting people in

the community and for one time there's activity there. and this is the time they -- thing we need in san francisco is places for people to meet. this is a wine bar but i do think a wine drinker is a different person. they usually come husband and wife or lovely ladies coming to enjoy. so the last thing i'll say about jim is, when you walk by the front of the building, there's a little can there of water for the dogs walking by. so how can he be a bad guy? thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i'm an employee and i'm 24 years old and like many americans before i had this job i worked at a series of

different places. i've worked for starbucks, i've worked for forever 21. i've worked for enterprise rentacar and they've all been major national changes and until i got this job i really never appreciated or understood the value of having a locally-owned and operated company. when people come into the store they ask for -- they greet me by my name, they ask for james and gale by their names and you don't really see that working at a starbucks. more starbucks but forever 21, nobody knows who you are. people come up and i see a lot of the same people from the neighborhood, they meet before they go out for dinner or they meet new people that they've never met before, were able to -- we're able to introduce them, hey, this is glen, glen, meet marc. and we strike up a really great community and it's something different than i've ever experienced before and it's a really great thing and personally james and gale are the best bosses i've ever had. they care about their customers, they care about their employees. they care about the

neighborhood. so, i mean, i feel like i can't say enough nice things about them. they're just really great folks. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this subject? public comment is closed. commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i remember when this item came up the last time because there was a lot of people from the neighborhood talking about how this couple from virginia who said they moved to west portal because of their experience with the business and i remember all of that and i also remember advocating for later hours and at that time the biggest concern was related to the fact that you were affiliated with wine styles which was a national affiliation. and that was the primary, you know, issue and reason that we really -- that this commission cut the hours back. i know i was supportive of longer hours in the first place because i hate having to see things come back if we can solve them once.

i appreciate mr. mccartle's concern but i also get frustrated because people treat the planning commission as if it's their place to protect their business from competition and, you know, competition is the basic tenant of society and presumably competition allows the customer choices, to choose to go to the places they like and would like to frequent. i have -- granted i live the in -- in the marina, i have several wine bars and i only go to one frequently. i happen to like that one more than the others and there's like four. the point is that i do think that west portal is kind of sleepy and could use more nighttime activity. i've been over there for sushi in the evening and there aren't a lot of places -- i'm a wine drinker. there aren't a lot of places to go after dinner. and i noticed that -- i also noticed the way that there is a sense of community that seems to exist around this establishment.

i'm very familiar with the model of wine store/wine bar because in my neighborhood the california wine merchant operates very much from that same sort of format and td be interesting to see, i bet they'd be a much better bar business than they do wine sales business but maybe i could could be wrong. i know that these models work and i know that these places are gathering places in the neighborhood for people to come together. and since the only opposition that there seems to be is the person that owns the other wine bar, it seems to speak to the fact that the community in general is supportive of this establishment. so, with that i would move to approve with conditions. commissioner antonini: i'm very familiar with the area and i really like the comment, whoever said they want to grow the pie rather than split the pie. and i think that's very important and what's happening at west portal is there are a lot of families that are doing

the same thing that we did in 1976 when we moved to the west side of san francisco and started shortly thereafter to have a family. once you're out there, especially when you have youngsters, you don't want to go all the way back downtown again but you want a nice place to go to and of course i know, i've been to the other one, it's great, too, but i think changes are happening and they're happening for the better on west portal. very vibrant during the day, needs a little help at night. not that there aren't four bars there already, but they're a little different and there are lots of restaurants but there's no bar and grill type of restaurant. so that's something else they need out there for sure. but, this is a groot good thing because -- good thing because it's visible and it's open and i think that attracts people, they see the lights and they think may be there is activity on this street and then they walk around for a couple of blocks and they go to the other establishments. the book store stays open later now and, you know, that really

helps. i do remember this a couple years ago, in fact, the same issues came up and i believe i made the motion to make the hours somewhat shorter but i think, you know, i think there is room for everybody there and i think that it's appropriate. the only changes they're asking for are the two that they'd asked for before and that was later hours and more seats. so i think it is appropriate at this time. i'm confident that, you know, we'll get some more activities in the evening and i hope we can become more or less like a sacramento street or part of filmore where, you know, it isn't a rowdy street but there's activity for those of us who might get home at, who knows, 10:00 tonight, maybe? maybe 10:30, probably 11. and there will be a place to eat and a place to have a glass of wine. i'm in favor. >> missioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye.

>> thank you, commissioners. that's an unanimous vote for approval. commissioners, you're now on a item number 17. president miguel: before you begin, i can get -- i have a potential conflict. i need to ask a question against who the project sponsor -- i guess to the project sponsor. we have a letter here from brett gladstone and i'd like to know, are you guys still continuing to be involved? >> hi. i'm suzanne kelly. >> you're still involved in the project at this point? >> we are involved in the project. >> thank you. i've talked to the city attorney's office about a potential conflict because we are -- it's kind of an unusual -- not unusual situation or maybe it is. mr. gladstone's office is

representing another client on a different property. we are under contract to that client. not directly to mr. gladstone. but they are the attorneys for that client. in this case the same situation -- the attorneys for this project sponsor, so there is a kind of financial involvement with the attorney. not either client. not this client. if you get my drift. the city attorney says there isn't a direct legal issue but there is an appearance question. president miguel: i don't think it's up to me to render opinion but i will render my personal opinion. the city attorney is right that there is the possible indication of the appearance of a conflict. it's also my opinion that

airing it in this manner does away with that because it makes it known publicly and makes circumstances known publicly. there is certainly no financial conflict which would cause you to be refused. i myself do not believe you have to. any of the other commissioners can voice their opinion. commissioner antonini: i agree with you. i don't see -- there may be many, many, you know, clients from mr. gladstone's firm and there are many clients for your firm. so, i don't think there's a direct connection here. >> let alone, if i may mention this, you may be involved, your firm may be involved with certain clients and not even know mr. gladstone's involved. or other attorneys, land use attorneys that appear before us.

suing sugg that's true. i'm only sensitive about it because of my reappointment. >> i was there. i understand your sensitivity. >> good evening, president miguel, and members of the commission. department staff. the project before you is a discussionary review filed on the new construction of one single family dwelling at 203 los palmos drive. this is parts of a larger project proposing construction of three new single family dweltings on an approximately 9,300 square foot property that will be subdivided into four new lots. each lot will be 25 feet in width. the fourth lot located on the corner of los palmos and forester street will contain the single existing family dwelling and will remain unaltered. on each of the vacant lots, one new single family dwelling will be constructed. the property is located at this house -- at the southwest corner of forester street in the rh-1 zoning district.

the requester is the owner ever 785 forester street which is perpindicular to the subject property. her concerns include the legality of the size of the subdivided lot, the destabilization of the hill side that would result -- that would be caused by the project, the loss of property value and privacy resulting from the new construction and the destruction of the existing tree cover on the properties that would be caused by the project. since the case report was prepared, the department has received correspondent from 36 people in the form of one petition and two letters in response to the project. the petition states that the undersigned would not oppose the construction of one new single family dwelling but that the subdivision and construction of three new ones have concerns about density, parking, loss of green space, lot size and property values. the department has also received a petition with 15 signatures in support of the project. although there is substantial opposition to the project, the department finds the full project and more specifically the subdivision and new construction at 203 los pal los

-- pal mose, to be an appropriate development for the following reasons. first, the zoning administrator has analyzed the proposed subdivision in detail and has determined that it is fully code compliant. the planning code allows properties that have their frontages within 125 feet of intersections to be 1,750 square feet rather than 2,500 square feet. this is not an abnormal development pattern throughout the portions of the park that are zoned rh-1. this section of the code is not however applicable to those portions of the park that are zoned rh-1-d. san francisco is facing a housing shortage. in the older established rh-1 districts, particularly those on the west side of town, there are very knew opportunities to add new housing without demolish depifting -- existing housing. one way is by subdividing large underdeveloped plots. by allowing new plots to be created, it allows the creation of new single family dwellings.

third, the proposed dwelling is appropriately scaled and designed to be compatible with the surrounding development. the height of the building and its stepping patterns respect the laterally sloping at that pog are aify. the depth of the building is consistent with the established development in that it is shallower than both adjacent buildings. the top floor of the dwelling has been pulled back from the rear walls in order to reduce the height of the building and the building's proposed design and overall commissioner veronese: knack lar is not mimicking the past. with regard to privacy, the residential design good j -- guidelines note that some privacy impact should be assumed with development but that unusual privacy impact should be mitigated. seeing as there is more than 40 feet separating the house from the 203 los palmos property, the department does not find there to be any unusual privacy impact and last, the majority

of the qur's remaining concerns are not planning department-related issues. the department's residential design team has reviewed the project and finds it to be on balance, consistent with the general planning code and residential design guidelines. the r.d.t. does not find the project to contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. however, it has determined that this warrants a full analysis. under the commissioner's pending legislation, this would be referred to you since it contains new construction on a vacant lot. nonetheless, the department recommends that you do not take d.r. and approve the new construction at 203 los palmos as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor. excuse me. this is the d.r. d.r. requester.

>> is there a clicker to the slide? i have short arms. >> i can make the other microphone work fow -- for you. >> thank you. my name's anita taylor and the three proposed new homes all adjoin my lot. and i wanted to discuss this project and oppose the project on the basis that the structures are inconsistent with the prevailing lot size and the home size within the neighborhood.

the zoning exceptions for distance within a corner for substandard lots also states that the prevailing pattern of lots, etc., within the neighborhood be considered when granting exceptions for zoning. and in particular in this area, these represent the smallest lots, the largest homes, the smallest setbacks with virtually no yards, exploiting the existing green space, providing none, but exploiting the existing green space that's owned, maintained by other taxpayers in the vicinity. there's an apartment-like building appearance to the back of the project which looms over 40 feet high, owing to its being three stories and the grade of the hill which is very, very steep and punchouts on the back of the building reduce the minimal setbacks that already exist. this is a graphic, a power point graphic showing the

predominant lot sizes within a 300-foot perimeter of the proposed development and as you can see, there's one lot that's under 1,800 square feet. there are only five lots in the entire area that are under 1,900 square feet and in fact, there are three times as many lots over 2,500 square feet as under 2,500 square feet. the lot sizes in the park are extremely large and the houses are very modest. what's proposed here are large houses on minimal sized lots. a lot smaller houses, you'll be shown, evidenced by the developer, that there is small lots with minimal setbacks within the neighborhood and they are, they are, but they're few and far between. to point out that across the street from the project there are very small homes but they're on very large lots. they range from 1,065 square feet to 1,287 and right next to

the project, the ajissent home to where these new homes will be built is 1,427 but that lot is over 2,500 square feet. we also have over here three very small lots on the first block, the east side of los palmos. these very small lots which are actually 2,200 to almost -- over 2,200 square feet, all contain very small setbacks but very, very small homes. the homes are 1,000 feet to 1,200 or 1,300 square feet. again, modest homes on modest lots. over here we have lots that appear small on stamford heights which also adjoin part of the project. these lots appear small by indeed they're over 2,200 square feet. they have very small homes, the homes on these are about 1,600 square feet with the exception of the corner which is 2,226. these lots appear small but they only appear small because

the predominant lot sizes within the neighborhood are over 2,500 square feet. down at the lower end of forester, closer to the boulevard where it becomes the sunny side neighborhood, we have a long row of very, very small lots but they are over 1,800 square feet but the houses on them are only 1,045 feet. they're very, very small, modest homes. in the immediate subdivision there is no instance where the living space footage, square footage, exceeds the lot size square footage. such a relationship between the lot and the living space is more in keeping with an apartment complex and i would contend that these, quote, three single family homes are indeed an apartment building in the guise of single family dwellings. as far as the request that i made earlier in the year to the developer of mitigations that were supposedly granted to merks i asked for a two-foot setback on the upper level and

they offered 18 inches. i know that a lot of people quibble and get in trouble over six inches but it angers me that i asked for such a minimal change in the project and that they quibbled about that two-foot setback. that set me off and that led me in the direction to ask for and also to represent my neighborhoods who also feel that this project is out of scale. we asked that the punchouts on the back of the building be removed because they reduce the minimal setback even more, 17-foot setback became an only 14-foot setback with the punchouts and we felt that the offers from the developer were token offers, that they were not meaningful mitigation. in the interim, once this became a force, they offered many more modifications. but it was too late in my mind. here's a picture of the -- president miguel: thank you. >> to illustrate the size of the project. thank you.

president miguel: speakers in favor of the d.r. >> ladies and gentlemen of the commission, my name's ed kelly. i'm marleyried to this lady -- married to the lady that just spoke with you. i want to share concerns in attempting to preserve the character and the nature of the area in which we live. we love and share this neighborhood with an amazzing bunch of people. it's a very close group. and we find ourselves at odds with a group of four investors who for honorable reasons are trying to maximize a profit from a rather speculative real estate investment. while these issues of

subdividing current two very large lots into four tiny lots takes advantage of an exception to the minimum lot size requirement, the letter of the law is probably very well satisfied, using some creative lot division techniques that they've done. it clearly violates the spirit of the law that seeks to -- and we'd like to seek to improve the integrity of our neighborhood's geography as it is. one of the proposed lots appears to be about 30 square feet bigger than the absolute minimum which is probably about the size of this table here. within the confines of the park , you find several small homes on very small lots. you also find some nice midsized, moderate sized homes on very large lots. now, our intrepid group of investors is seeking to put three homes between 23 and 25

-- 2,300 and 2,500 square feet. this is clearly, i believe, in the words of yourself, a very dramatic change in the neighborhood dynamics. where i come from, this ratio of living area to lot size, might call it an apartment building, by similar twisting, zoning and planning works, you could probably build a wal-mart in west portal and call it uncle sammy's variety store. we respectfully ask that in your role as asher tos of balance and fairness in representing the interests of developers, neighbors and the commission of the city, that you consider the facts

carefully and decide that the overbuilding proposed by the investors would be a serious precedent-setting event in dividing real estate in the park. i had another paragraph but thank you for your attention. i appreciate it. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> good evening, president miguel, and members of the commission. my name is kasandra, fourth board of directors of the improvement club and our 2,200 home constituency. los palmos is one of three proposed buil