how do you get the -- here it is. i've got it. okay. so, i'll just go through real quickly here. so, here's the site and there is the building, the buildings which you can see have a nice fine grained look. there is the city as a whole. and you can see that there is -- one of the things i'll note, there is quite a bit of irrigation there and hayes valley is not a beige neighborhood, neither is san francisco. so, this is the building, the diagram showing the two elements. you divide the building into two elements. there is the flat piece and there is a curved piece. the reason for the positive curve is that we were lucky

enough to do the building across the street which has been a really good thing for us because, you know, it's gotten kind of immense amount of publicity and people call me up and they go, gee, we're driving by that. what was that dark material? we go, that's zinc and it has a [speaker not understood] finish. you can see a dark gray and a light gray and then there is some dark wood. what we've decided to do is to mirror and enhance and frame that compression, that negative space with a positive pushing out to the north. and then to not use metal, but to use brick tile which is -- you see a mock-up picture there. and it would be verrigated on much smaller scale and reflects the sky and city.

with this curve it makes a really exciting look. now, the computer does not do justice to this, but you can sort of get the idea that as you drive around, you get highlights and you have this very nice annodized sunscreen. this is a view of city hall. it's a great viewpoint. it provides two sides to that gateway. city hall is -- there's franklin and there is van ness. city hall, it's not like we're right in front of city hall, which i think would require maybe a limestone building with gold leaf. but we're far enough away. and then i put that in there. that's the lime green part which was -- of richardson which was a response actually to community input. so, anyway, so, there it is all in place. and i'll just say i really appreciate the idea of [speaker not understood] being a

building, being a city of light buildings. i was all set to rollover and go, okay, let's all be friends, let's do whatever. i really think this is better and i like it better. my client likes it better. the hayes valley neighborhood association likes it better. their land use committee, robin, had to leave. he came down here -- he's' here to second that. and it's just -- it's a very odd thing, but everybody is there. i want to give up here. they're bigger than me. i have to work with them in the future. i don't want to piss them off. and they were like, no, no, we like it better. so, that's why i'm here. and we like to do that. we think at the end of the day it would be better. and it's mainly a light building with one shiny verrigated element which we think would be super nifty. >> thanks for explaining that. >> that's it. i should have talked faster. sorry.

>> i think it's in that subtly where that becomes interesting. ~ the goth street in that part for many years before you arrive at hayes valley, now it is a merging of more substantial interesting new buildings is kind of a boring street. and while i love to look towards the very beautiful detailed city hall and the renovated opera house and all of that stuff, to really punctuate that corner there is already one building on the fulton street side. for me it is an interesting idea. what struck me is that the set which was given to us has a tendency of looking like a darth vaeder set. it looks like a uniform black, and oh, my god, i look deeper, and many pages which go back and forth, you get closer up and understand the tile and the detailing a little better.

and we are trying to differentiate a larger building which has the major frontage on goth and [speaker not understood] around fulton. then i think we want to make sure that the different parts are expressing themselves differently. and i believe that the change in color and detailing does it quite well. i am intrigued looking at the diagram and seeing the dialogue between the two sides. >> commissioner antonini. >> mr. baker, i like the darker one better than -- i agree with you, but how about gray? [laughter] >> cool gray city of peace and love, you know. it's something to think about -- >> [speaker not understood]. there's no lime green, i just want to say. >> anyway, we do have a lot of buildings that have a gray hinge to them. >> it's a diverse city. >> that's fine. i think i've got a couple questions on the project. first of all, i think this is a great idea for the boys and girls club.

a lot of kids play a lot of games at i think l -- ingold and you can never park there. you have a chance of parking this part of the city. upper haight is a tough place to park. so, that might be better because they'll have a inchand they'll ~ gym and they'll play a lot of games there. i assume the sponsor didn't want to have parking. these are market rate units. so, i just don't -- are they for sale or rent or you haven't made a decision yet? the units are for rent. >> they're for rent. >> they'll be condo mapped. they can be selected in the future. i'm just wondering why -- it's cheaper to build it without the parking. commissioner, ben golvin. i am a partner in equity community builders.

my partner is also here as is margaret done miller from the john street company, our other partner. ~ we listened really carefully. we looked at the market octavia plan, we listened really carefully to the advocacy from the hayes valley neighborhood association and other folks who have said in the transit-rich area that the city is moving towards a place where people are willing to live without cars and we're willing to take that risk that this is a place where that can happen. >> well -- [multiple voices] >> i think the people will have cars. they just won't be able to park it there and there will be more impact on the city. so, we'll just see what happens, but i mean, i'm always in favor of good projects and this does -- this will add more housing even though i would have preferred to see more parking, just being a realist. so, anyway, i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis.

>> thanks for this. i'm supportive of the project. i think it's great. i know originally when kind of the market octavia or the former freeway parcels were being sold or determined what to do with them, it was all about housing, affordable market rate. it's good to see the boys and girls club on one of these sites. and if community oriented use. i like the fact that there's no cars here and a big component in the plan, try to reduce the number of parking spots. and the on-site affordable is great. i appreciate the different architects in both parcel. i saw an earlier version of the boys and girls club design and i think it's vastly improved and good kind of on the street and activating the street level which i know is hard to do with a basketball court and pool. so, that looks great. my only kind of issue is off-street. i wish there was more done with off-street. it's kind of a little dead end,

nothing much happening there, some [speaker not understood] going around. we hope that's not just like a parking lot. i think it was mentioned in one place it would be park -- people would want to park there for the boys and girls club. so, maybe something as this progresses through the process and there's impact fees from the market octavia -- from these buildings, something could be done with off-street. on the housing building kind of darth vaeder versus light billion, i also, you know, like the darker building building better. ~ billion it's amazing what color does to changing that building. kind of changes it from a more modern design to i think a more '70s-ish institutional looking building. so, i prefer the kind of contrast between the light -- the shades and the darker material of the building. i understand the issue about kind of not affecting the view

corridor to city hall, but i think this is probably one of the few places we could get away with a building like this. i don't know maybe not get away is the right way, but the neighbors would actually embrace it and hayes valley really kind of taking the lead in good modern architecture. we've seen a couple buildings already in hayes valley. so, i like the darth building and would support the darker. >> darth bader versus luke sky walker. i like this project. if i had just seen the lighter color one, i would have liked it as well. but having seen the darker win, i have a feeling it's nice to come across the black, but the darker one, charcoal, or whatever, when given a choice i lean towards the darker one for a lot of the reasons that commissioner hillis spoke about this area, pushing the envelope a little bit as far as architecture and particularly confined area of san francisco i think is good.

and i think it matches the building across the street as the architect has explained and it really sort of unfolds a larger picture and sort of repositioned city hall and the two buildings across the street from each other. i'll support the project and if given the choice support the darker one. commissioner sugaya. >> i'll make a motion in the agony here. [laughter] >> approve the project with conditions, including the modifications that were mentioned by the city attorney. and also to the commission's preference would be for the darker color. and it's not always that the commission is presented with a black and white situation. [laughter] >> you know, usually both sides sort of in the middle sort of like commissioner antonini was saying, in the gray area. but here we have a clear choice to make, and my motion includes the darker color. >> second. >> could you call the question, please?

commissioner sugayav commissioner moore has another -- >> mr. baker, could you answer one question? if your combination of tiles are set products or were you creating the shades? >> [speaker not understood]. >> which would choose a custom color? >> that kind of middle gray. and we'll work on that with -- it's a brick tile. it's glazed, low fire. so, yeah, we'll work on that and mock it up. >> thanks. >> commissioners, on the motion to approve with conditions, with the motion corrected by deputy city attorney and the choice of the darker color. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> wried. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye.

>> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. and places you on items 16 a and b for case numbers 2012.1093ddv for 1521 - 1531 jones street. request for discretionary review and variances. >> good evening, commissioners. mark luellen planning department staff. i'm here presenting an abbreviated discretionary review forly watty. for a building that includes construction of a parcel one story vertical addition which is a fourth floor insertion as well as an insertion of an 8 by 6 foot garage door and a minor alteration to the front entry. the vertical addition is constructed entirely over the existing building and setback by 15 feet two inches from the front of the building, three feet on both north and south

sides of the building, and a minimum of four feet on the existing -- from the existing rear building wall. subject property is located at 1521 jones street between jackson and pacific avenue within the rm-3 zoning district and 60 foot height district. there are two drs that have been filed on the property, one by mr. lowell who owns the adjacent property to the south at 15 17 jones street and the other by mr. john casey, who owns the property at 1222 to 12 26 jackson street, which is perpendicular to and abuts the subject property along the rear property line. the dr requesters are concerned that properties are concerned with the following issues. property values and views of adjacent properties would be adversely affected. this property would set a precedent of four-story editions which would adversely and further change the neighborhood character. the fourth floor addition does

not conform to the neighborhood's top ogg is. it would adversely dwarfish the neighborhood's property. it would not lib to or enhance the mixed visual character of the neighborhood. the project would block air and light of the neighbors. ~ the project would impact the neighbor's privacy. the roof deck would create noise. the new garage is incompatible with the city's transit first policies and excavation would adversely impact existing retaining walls. the department's residential design team has reviewed the project twice, once before it went to the 30-day notification and once after the drs were filed. both reviews dr rdt found the project was appropriately designed and consistent with the residential design guidelines. most notably the proposed

addition is with the prevailing height of the street. as recommended in the residential design guidelines, it is setback 15 feet from the front of the building. in order to make the addition subordinate to the existing structure, and in order to retain stepping pattern, the building facades down the street. furthermore the vertical addition does not extend beyond the depth of the fourth story addition and remains below the roof of the fourth story addition and makes it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. the department does not find the scope of the project to be exceptional or extraordinary and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving the project as proposed. >> thank you. first dr requestor. good evening, president fong, members of the commission. i'm steve williams here. fortitude is amazing as usual.

i represent [speaker not understood] brother and sister whose family has owned the a jaytionthv sept building 15 17 jones street for more than 50 year. and that's the kind of neighborhood this is. people come and they stay, they put down roots and build communities, they maintain ties. you're going to hear from people who have lived there 30 years, 40 years, 60 years. i met a woman this look who lived on the block 60 years, she's here tonight. lived on one side of the street as a child, got married, moved to the other side of the street. this project is universally opposed by the neighbors. we submitted a petition that is exhibit 9 of more than 400 people signed it who live right in the neighborhood. we also submitted a map that is exhibit 8 to show you where those opposing neighbors live, including a 35 year tenant of the subject building. now, why this outpouring of opposition? first of all, the project sponsor has not been forthcoming. we requested a full-size set of plans, refused to provide it.

we also requested the simple act of erecting story pollson the roof of this building. that was also refused. you'll note that the plans are all carefully noted as not to scale. this project is not compatible with the block or the surrounding neighborhood. the project represents what the planning code calls a disruption of district character. the cemetery of the neighborhood is exceptional and extraordinary. not one single building on the block is over 40 feet tall, not one of the 48 different buildings on all the block faces. and the surrounding blocks also look that same way as you head north. look at the photos i've submitted as exhibit 5. that shows you what the block looks like. it has a strongly defined visual character of 3 and 4 story buildings. this is a five story building. the department's analysis acknowledges if you look under analysis at the top of page 2 it says that. the project architect on the other hand provided you with an

incorrect or at least misleading information. the only pictures that he provides as neighborhood character are not in the neighborhood at all. they're a block and a half to the north. if you look at the two photos in his brief at appendix 3 page 13, those photos were taken a block and a half north. at washington and jones. they're not near the site. that's not how you define neighborhood character. the residential design guidelines tell us you look first at the adjacent buildings, then the block face, then across the street if necessary. in this particular case, it's not necessary. we're asking the commission to listen to the neighbors and look at the neighborhood. the second extraordinary exceptional circumstance in this case is the way in which this housing has performed for more than a hundred years and more than 35 years as affordable rent control housing. the project looks out of place. it's far too large. it gives the impression of the creation of some luxury

condominium or tics. when you have the two top floors, individual elevator, two-car garage, it gives the strong impression at some point in the future all the units will be transformed into tics, condos, it's really the only way to recruit this investment in the building. even if you accept it at face value the proposal is far too large. the variance cannot be justified under any theory. it's really an insult to injury to try to tack on this variance at the end. the architect's letter claims the project is sensible -- sensitive and respectful. he also makes the outlandish assertion the project is code compliant. that is not his first page, paragraph 3. it is not code complaint politectionv. that's right. it requires variance from the code. look at exhibit 6. there are two different illustrations there, both from the architect's plan. it shows you what this is. the variance and this project

are both in your face. they go out of the way to buildup, block windows, and overhanging brow right in front of the window. the addition is 1300 square feet. that's not a penthouse, that's a full build out. they constantly refer to the lowest penthouse, the lowest penthouse is 200 square feet. it's not even close to being comparable. we need setbacks on the rear that match the front for 15 feet. we need additional setbacks on the side to the five feet to make it minimal lie visible and we need a compression of the heighttion making ceilings of 11 feet tall on the fifth floor and over 10 feet tall on the fourth floor. that's not sensitive, that's not respectful. the garage is also out of character with the neighborhood. there are three garageses out of the eight buildings on this block face. we'd you to reject the variance and reduce the size of this project.

>> thank you. the second dr requestor. good evening, commission, president fong. thank you for your time today, this evening as well as for those that i've met and also i've communicated with prior to today. my name is john casey with cnc property management. as the dr applicant in rejection of the jones street project, i represent myself as the owner of the abutting property to the west. i represent the properties managed by c and c, and lastly the residents of the properties share the same position of rejection [speaker not understood]. with that said, we do understand property improvement may arise, but at the negative expense to many neighboring and/or nearby properties and the community as a whole. negative impacts as proposed are noncompliance of the sf building code with need of a rear yard variance that would

exceed approximately half of the rear yard distance, currently the rear yard deck. [speaker not understood] with pro poed vertical addition, no respect to building character type for proposed masses, modern box type structure on top of a century old [speaker not understood] building. much smaller a [speaker not understood]. set to the far rear of the property line and has an enormous and open vacant front yard. knowing this the entire proposed vertical addition is visible from the street. even though the minimal three foot setback is there. of course there is going to be natural loss of light, loss of privacy and loss of open air space. yes, these last three items can and mayo can you remember with the additions. the rear of the subject property and neighboring corner properties, mine being one of them are very tight currently and does not warrant need of vertical construction especially with the rear yard variance which i provided in photo 5. there is increased noise, front

and rear of the subject property. none like the proposed front rear deck as it exists today, as far as the eye can see rooftop. the vertical zoning of 39 parcel square block [speaker not understood] is drastically a queue. it has a cookie cutter implementation. some are 44, other parcels are higher vertical. this zoning approach presents ers such as this, otherwise we would more than likely not be here today if it wasn't. bottom line square block should [speaker not understood] guidelines in order for topography to be adhered to. the one and only core example the project provides is the corner property to the south of the subject property at the top of knob hill with adjacent high-rise he 10 to 15 stories in height. which obviously does not mirror the subject property's proposed mid-block and quotation next to buildings of similar proportional height. the project sponsor does note the project is unusual and we all concur to that.

the project sponsor states this is a partial addition. if it is partial addition it is an entirely different mean tog all involved. call it what it is, massive 1300 square foot structure with increased height of 10 feet with the highest point topping at 50 feet in total building height. it encompasses 0 plus percent of the existing roof line with exterior and front decking. ~ 90. there is no like construction of proposed mass on the entire 39 parcel square block. as far as the eye can see to the north and to the south of the subject property, the building topography slopes accordingly with the terrain and not against it which is proposed. in doing so if this project is approved, it will forever negatively change the existing pattern and slope topography which has presently existed for over a century. the alternatives that were submitted were to merge the two current two upper floor vacant units which exist today. there has been no other

alternatives that were submitted to me subsequently to date. so, [speaker not understood] rejection two drs submitted, neighborhood petitions over 400 plus individuals, to my understanding that is not the norm for a typical discretionary review. that alone speaks volumes and warrants the commission to delve further into the project. the sf planning notes 11 adjacent neighbors, three other neighbors on the block or adjacent to, and one neighborhood groupo pose he this project with absolute zero and support. we ask the planning commission in conjunction with the planning department to give this project the hard and long look. as we can see the massive structure, 1300 plus square foot proposal, fourth floor addition with front and rear decking, [speaker not understood] it is not a viable option. in closing as we all know this is not a one on one neighbor concern. this is a of the community as a whole and we respectfully ask this commission to reject this knowing all the facts. thank you.

>> thank you. going to call speakers in favor of the dr. mr. lowe, sabrina lye, robin tucker. if you just want to make your way up this way if i called your name, you can speak. eva chan, donald logan, bernadette, ed kwan. any particular order unless you have a predetermined order. >> the project sponsor will have an opportunity once the dr person is in favor of the dr speak. i'm opposed. >> right, you're in favor of the dr. you're in opposition to the project. correct, that's correct. [speaker not understood]. i'm opposed to the project. >> yes, go ahead.

mr. president, fong, members of the commission, mr. sanchez, mr. luellen, i'm [speaker not understood]. i'm a member of the pacific avenue neighborhood association. i'm the panel chair for the 1531 jones street project. i'm a native of san francisco. i was born and raised in chinatown. so, this permit calls for a vertical extension of 13 feet. it allows a four-story penthouse addition of 1200 square feet to a three-story six-unit apartment building 38 feet 9 inches raising the building height to 50 feet. there is no fourth floor penthouse of 1200 square feet addition to any original three story six-unit building that exists in the hill area period.

the 50 feet height shadow study confirm diminishing access to the sunlight benefits on the streets and back yards of 160 buildings. allowing a garage will result in a loss of two street parking spaces, leaving only two to serve as the fronting of 12 rental units and the neighbors. we propose the 555 alternative to the sponsor to allow a more acceptable modification of his original plan. he turned down this attempt to accommodate. in conclusion, i find the project does not fit in the following manner. the scope of the project is too large to qualify as a neighborhood improvement from jetctiontionthv. number two, t