longed on the south side of the street to create a 12 thousand plus loot lot it will contain two bases that total 289 hundred i won't tell and 24 dwelling units above. the department rooms approval with conditions. the excited vacant space is 24 hundred i won't tell and was occupied by a recuperate. it's locate on both subject lots and it's uses as uncovered parking. there's an easement on number 26 from a rear awe butt lot this provides assess into lombardy street. the promise be requires a rear

modification of the site where the lot is 59 photo deep. the department finds the proposed project and the new lot sis to be appropriate and desirable and that will allow a mixed site along a major highway. the proposed new lot will be summarily. additionally the lots have historically been used is a circumstantial lot. the new believe has an sensitively looked at soourpd the building material. due to the new lot worth of one hundred and 31 feet setbacks have bun used to modulate the

building for the building scale and 3 c zoning. furthermore the project is consistent with the objective it will help the family housing and vitality lists the neighborhood. the department a not aware of any opposition to the project as to date and the staff passed out some simultaneously information. and that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. thank you >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioners gary g architect we're the architects for the project. this we started this project about a year ago we have been going toometers with the staff and neighborhood.

it's been a collective effort i want to thank the staff and neighbors input. i think you may have seen some of those. this is the as we open up here. the project site as it sits is a one story one and a half story restaurants with parking on the east side and south side. it abuts yards along here. we've been working with the staff to try to get the rear generated variants and a set back conditions.

here again what you see where the tree is actually the proximate location of the west property line. the front here along the lombard street again it's a one and a half story restaurants building with parking to the left. here again, you, see presidential approximately that's where the property line by the tree. there's a chevron station. again, the site conditions the conditions that show in this area here. is where the variance application for the rear generated is approximately 14 feet by 22. because of the odd shape of the

lot we're asking for lot permission on this area above the pompous we comply with the rear yard conditions. again as we come into the project there's a commercial space as described by the staff report we have parking behind that and bicycle parking in the endanger that complies with the bicycle codes. we have 7 unit per floor. 18, two bedroom and 3 bedroom units. we have worked with the staff to come up with details which we have here. one the major concerns was the quality of the space and we're working with the staff we get

input from the neighbors about the roof-deck. not doing much justice to the elevation is in your packet. this is why we the staff asked us to generate a rendering your rendering in the packet doesn't have the trees we put the stresses in here to have some scale. again, the two conspiracy an open the right and the endanger entries are on the left. we worked with the staff to get the details to emphasize the entry. we're using a kidney arrest trim it's going to be a solid door with ascended arrest veneer. we're happy indicts a go

situation of nature material with the facade. islam i'm available to answer any questions right now if you've got questions. thank you very much >> thank you. we may have questions for you. commissioner moore. >> public comment. >> i'm sorry. i'm off today aren't i. public comment on this item? okay seeing none, public comment is closed. now commissioner moore. >> i'm happy to see something happening open the lot because it's so dated and un plaza animated that anything it better than what's there. having said that, i would obviously in the spirit of what we're talking about would like to see on site variable with you, ask for that

>> the project sponsor is paying the in loop fee. >> okay. the only other concern i have and i'm sure you've thought that it i would prefer to see the ground floor commercial area to be through the sub differential into smaller increments. that part of lombardy has the ability to serve the neighborhood and i don't want to see a chase type i see it carefully the formal retail using the largest square footage. we like to see the mall retail from the same way shoe store. we had the discussion with the

project spokesperson. we have milling multiple distresses on that fates and it would be divided into smaller spaces we made that flexibility. >> equip especially it's not showing two doors because any retail establishment wants to have the two doors. it requires potentially back the hours corridor in order to allow multiple tenant to a use the space. i'd like to see the small adjustment even if it's just stashed so show it can happen. just like sxhopg who helped worked open face tracking small business legislation we would liquor to side smaller tenant

service those residential i think - >> we could put a smaller portion. >> i think that would make a stronger project. >> commissioner borden. >> i'm happy to see this site i live a block from this acidity. i'm hoping all the restaurants will be successful so this is a great use for the site. i know the site next door where the gas station used to be is not >> it's separate. >> i know there's a issue with that. >> but this is a good use for the site there needs to be more housing. and there's not a lot of lots in the manor are a a.

i recommend the variable >> it's an important transit corridor from marina county and a san francisco. >> i'm going to move for the remedies for the doted lion be added to the ground floor for the wall. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i also like the project but i'm happy to see the 18 unit have 3 bedrooms that answers the need for people who want to raise a family they can have a second bedroom to address their needs for a short term period of time or a smaller family. i also think that the flexibility in the retail space is important because lombardy is not a walkable it's walkable but

not the most pleasant place to walk on that's why small businesses end up on chestnut and peer and city councilmaner so i think we all may have a preference for smaller commercial unite we're to go take what he can get to make it work. hopefully someday we'll do something on the corner lot where the domination was. but optimum in support >> thank you very much. >> commissioner moore. >> is this project going to be constructed soon. >> of course, with our site permit but their clients want to go as soon as possible. >> commissioners, if there's no further deliberations 13 there's a motion and second to amend to

include dashed lines to accommodate smbdz. >> commissioner antonini arrest sxhifg. commissioner moore >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner wu. president fong. >> what say you. >> close the issue. >> we are going to tack ayou.

>> welcome pack to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for dumb. i'd like to remind members of public the commission didn't allow disruption and when speaking before the commission if you care to please don't state your name for the record. commissioners we left off in your regular calendar. 15 d request for discretionary review >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm david lindsey from department staff i'm discussing

discretionary case 15 filed been an altercation permit application to add a ground floor of a semistory house on the properties open the west side of the street between euclid to the south of laurel village the second would be behind the two car garages. the dr request was filled by peter who resides in a two-story building diagonally cross the street from the subject prop point public position was summarized in the staff report we've since that time, have

received many additional public comment and in summary i'll give you the total including the comments received from the pass week that includes both letters and signatures the total being 20 in support of project and 22 in opposition to the promise. the dr requesters and neighborhoods concerns with summarized as follows there's a feel that the existing neighborhood character a single-family in nature and a second dwelling opt would be inconsistently with the neighborhood character. others feel the size the significant building is inadequate were multiple unit and that the addition of a second opt would bring additional parking congestion. it that the loss of the single-family how did would result in one affordable single

family houses that's contributing to families leaving even though cities. the second unit would set a precedent to convert others in the neighborhood and the addition would increase the probability of delapgs since it's renter occupied and even though existing tenant with consisted to be incritter neighbors. this planning commission supports the project it purports to add a second family opt. a district which allows and encourages two dwelling opts per lot. the surrounding neighborhood cashier is, in fact, picked that many multiple houses coexisting

for decades. all moefktsz to the building would be within the existing believe envelope and the buildings 2 off street partnering spaces would be r0i7bd. north america in summary the project hair not extraordinary and rerecommended you not tack discretionary review and approve the project >> thank you. dr requester. >> thank you president fong. >> if there was ever a permit that called out for discretionary review that's this one. for decades san franciscans have tried to keep it available for san franciscans. it went all the way to the sxukt

with wenld holmes said it is not the request for the land you might say holmes established the standards for discretionary review in a case involving exactly the same land. laurel house is developed on world war ii during a housing crisis. it was developed a as carefully mix it maximum misses housing decent within the complnts of the infrastructure while making the community attractive to families. it's a releasing developer who's business has been to purchase buildings and create a steady stream of rental income. it would be in the middle of a

row of family homes with a disruption to the planning of the homes developed over 50 years ago. it would disrupt the neighborhood and it's no wonder the neighborhood hats rallied. they have a pabt hadn't of telling commissioners what they want to hear. it was sold as a condominium project. but now marketed at student housing like a minnesota don't remember. the project as all the necessary permits. when the permit folks worked a few blocks away he represented to the owners he was very experienced to get the san francisco commission to give him permit and banned the project

after it was done it feels a blizzard of law enforcement resulted. after the 53 mann descend he polled he did same script. he's turned it into rental how's and he manages it the someway he has managed anothers apartment. neither he nor his family lives there. it remind me of his 11 minnesota dorm project. he's listed himself at the building developer and claims hose notes making this area

bigger. he knows what the planning department wants to hear. and he knows which rolls are routinelyly go forward. it dporz the tradition of the must not and i urge you to listen to wendell hoechlg and the community