street as they overhang the filbert street property line ~ six. since publication of the staff report for this hearing, the department has received one letter in support for the project from the san francisco bay area association of renters and four e-mails including one letter from aquatic park neighbors expressing concerns due to the large size of the project and the need for the variances. one of the concerns was a compliance of the amount of penthouses proposed above the height limit. i'd like to briefly speak to that with a graphic. this was recently provided by the project article type 2, the concerns with regard to the [speaker not understood] homes. the penthouses showed are in light blue and they are showing that 14% of the roof areases occupied by the structure that are allowed above the height limit above the 65 height limit.

the planning code does allow for 20% of the total booth area to be occupied by structures above the height limit. if you'd like further discuss the technicalities of the code and residential design guidelines, i'd be happy to do that during your deliberation of the projects. i would like to remind the commissioners that you may perhaps remember this project from an approval in 2003. they are the same project sponsors pursuing this project currently before you. at that time its was also a six-story mixed use ground spaces at the ground floor, 33 parking spaceses and also 27 dwelling units. with that said, the current design before you today that has been reviewed against the planning code, the current planning code, and also the current policies and practices of the department today regarding the design of the project. at this time the department recommends the commission to approve the project with conditions as the project is desirable and necessary and

appropriately infills a vacant lot. it attempts to address the scale of van ness avenue but also responds to the finer grain adjacent neighborhoods. the project would provide future business opportunities and the commercial space is provided. and also the project would add 27 new units to the city's housing stock. with that, that concludes my presentation. and i will be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> commissioners, my name is warner maul, design architects. we are agent for the project sponsor. ~ smalls just a little bit of personal history, we've done several projects on van ness avenue and i always like to work on that street because it is one of our grand boulevards. for an architect it is an opportunity to do infill housing and recreate some of

the residential cache thats was part of that historic thoroughfare. we did design 2655 van ness on the opposite side of this same block, a very successful project. and i think set a little bit of standard for that area for a very contextual, very well organized, well scaled building and i hope to propose to you tonight this opposite side of the block that we're designing is also of that character. as glenn said, there is just a little bit of history on this development. another architect designed it in 2003. we were asked to -- in the fall of this last year to redesign that project and bring it into compliance with the current environmental, and that is the single reason that it was taken out of the mayor's stimulus program and put into the conditional use. the building itself, the program itself as we propose tonight is very, very similar

to the program, as glenn said, that is proposed in 2003, 27 units similar amount of parking, similar amount of ground floor commercial. there are some major differences with our new design. and our client would like to do a more contemporary building, a building with more balconies, more glass, using more contemporary materials. but we've taken that order, we've taken that direction and trying to create an architecture. you have this in your packet. create an architecture which however uses similar colors and similar materials to other buildings in the street, to knit this building together so that it work with the entire street. and as you can see, at the far right-hand corner, that's 2655 van ness. again, a little bit of the same color that we're using in this building. there are some design

differences, as i say, it's a contemporary building. we've done a lot of community outreach and the project sponsor will talk to you about that. but i would like to kind of hone in a little bit on some of these variance questions because i know that came up with staff and we talked to it directly. the rear yard is 22.5% where a it's required by code to be 25%. and there is a very good reason why we've asked for a variance and why that variance was granted in 2003, and we ask for it to be granted again today. our property rear yard which is in the green area, the green area and this five yard lightwell setback on this side represents 22.5%. but the reason why we couldn't

do 25% was it would be a severe hardship. and the reason is very simple. these two neighboring buildings have grossly under complying rear yards. the pink area of the building on van ness is only 16.5% rear yard and the joining neighbor on filbert is only 15% rear yard. when those buildings were designed, and they're older buildings, what they had to do to create enough units in it, they had to create really big lightwells and a lot of properly zoned windows in order to get units in there. so, they've enjoyed for many, many years that privilege of property line windows. we're respecting this lightwell by setting it back five feet. it was approved for only three feet in 2003. we were encouraged to address that and make it larger. we've also notched our building

and setback the lightwell within the building on van ness to do the same thing. so, in a way we're asking a little bit of the same privilege to not be penalized because these buildings have a much greater floor area ratio than our building. along with the rear yard variance comes exposure variance and bulk variance. if we had a code complying rear yard, which would be the 25% shown by that line, we would not have a bulk variance. and because we are encouraged to design the building in l-shape and address all the streets, it has about a 10-foot bulk exception. but we made up for that, we think, by sculpting the top of the building -- and i think in your packet you'll see that the building steps down to both buildings on either side on van ness and filbert so that the height limit steps down gracefully to the center building on both street. so, we think these variances are a good common ground for

all property owners on that street. we think historically it has merit and today it has merit. we've asked for a bay window variance and this is a really small technical variance, but we just want to do square contemporary bay windows and that kind of historic victorian on a bay window. so, the sum total of all our bay windows on any floor is less than what would be prescribed if we did the prescriptive pick or yum on it, if you will ~. so, we're asking for approval tonight of a family oriented project. there's 18 very large two-bedroom units. there's eight three bedroom units and one small one bedroom. so, it is family sized. it's appropriate for pacific heights. it's appropriate van ness avenue. and we think that this building will add considerable cache to the pedestrian experience on van ness. there is significant ground floor commercial to enliven that part of van ness avenue on both filbert and van ness. and we think it's just -- it

was well conceived in 2003. we think we've done a little better job of design, but the program is still, we think, appropriate. so, we ask respectfully for your approval tonight of this building and these variances. if you have any questions here, i'd be more than pleased. the project sponsor who is doing community outreach [speaker not understood] can talk to you a little bit about that. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is wenny. i am the project manager for the project at 2601 van ness and i just want to speak a little about the community outreach that we had from the get go. it was really important that we reached out to the community and contact our neighbors and be very proactive about talking to everybody about our project. i reached out to both neighbors on our adjacent properties, both on the filbert side and on the van ness side. we met with them very he early on to get some preliminary feedback early on in the design

process. we were unable, unfortunately, to meet with the filbert street neighbors, but i spent multiple certified letters to them and even some, you know, bouquets and flowers and whatnot and not be able to get ahold of them. we were able to meet with the van ness neighbors and very early on they expressed some gratitude for meeting with them. we addressed their concerns and that's where you see the notch in the lightwell. and then early on in february we also had neighborhood meeting to which three people showed up and they were all very happy with the building and how its was proceeding and, so, that's it from the community outreach. thank you. >> thank you. okay, opening it up for public comment. alvin martinez. dianne joseph. dennis bloom. margaret diaz. can i get the overhead?

can i get the overhead? just go ahead and place that down. >> sfgov should turn it on. good evening, commissioner. my name is alan martinez. i'm here representing myself. when you [speaker not understood] and other penthouse he was written, what could be expected was a small one stair penthouse going up to a laundry line. that's how old this exception s. it's been around as long as i've been working. i don't think it was anticipated at the time that we would be transferring the open space from the bulk of the building to the roof as a routine way of meeting the open space requirements. and that is happening more and more, where the open space requirement is being met on the roof either originally as public -- as shared open space that now more and more is private open space.

what this has meant is a proliferation of private stair penthouses. together with the public stair penthouses and the elevator, you know, what's the point of having a height limit when you have a wall of structures across the building? i don't think that this is what was intended by that code section that was written back in the '50s or '60s as an exception. and this does not comply with the residential design guidelines. the design guidelines clearly call for the consolidation of penthouses and having them be a minimal size. this is not consolidation. and frankly, the private stair penthouses are not required by any code. they could be -- they could be exposed to the weather. they could be lightwells coming up -- staircase coming up from inside the unit in a lightwell.

if it isn't any more difficult to waterproof that lightwell, then the staircase in that situation and the lightwell, i've done it. you can do a staircase up to the roof without a penthouse. you could also do it with a hatch door. the only penthouse for a stair that you have to worry about that you have to have a penthouse is the one the fire department would want. so, i think -- i think you need to rework on the residential design guideline for this section and reclarify what you mean by minimizing the roof structures because as it is now people are putting in fireplaces. this project shows trees which hasn't been addressed. i think you need to require there to be a landscaping plan showing the trees and showing the complete amount of stuff that's going on the roof these days. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

if you leave that on the [speaker not understood] right there. thank you. yes, at the podium, please. good evening, commissioners. my name is dianne joseph. as a long-term russian hill president and property owner living a block and a half from 260 1 van ness, i respectfully request that this project ~ be returned to planning to allow for community input from the russian hill residents and other impacted individuals. we would like a substantive meeting with the developer and the representative. they seem anxious to have these meetings. we have not had any notice of this project until now, not

even the russian hill neighborhood association was advised of this project. unfortunately we are very much impacted by the project. i live on union street. union street pulled all those streets, filbert, are very impacted much more than the 300 feet that are giving notice because a lot of that is on the marina side and they're not as impacted. this project has been rushed from application of an environmental to this hearing in two months. the rush has been at the expense of notice and community outreach at least by the russian hill as well as planning accuracy. for example, the environmental report shadow studies were erroneously based on maximum penthouse heights of 68 feet. in truth, as indicated by the -- mr. -- the developer, the maximum penthouse height as told in february of this year

is proposed to be at least 80 feet for the elevator. this is not minor. the impact of replacement of a 40, 15 foot elevator penthouse is easily gleaned from [speaker not understood] construction at a similar project 1501 filbert, which is across the street from this project. it is less obtrusive than the proposed project across filbert because it's lower. however, if one look at the photos, one can easily glean what happens when one puts a 15-foot elevator -- okay, the first picture, i believe, was before any construction was done at 1501. the second picture was at about probably 68 feet and there still is no impact.

and the third picture, however, is when a 15-foot elevator shaft plus a number of other really obstructive penthouses are placed, one can see that the -- i woke up and the palace was gone. this also impacts pedestrians walking on -- >> thank you, your time has expired. but we do have your written comments. thank you, commissioners. my name is dennis blum and i'm also one of the speakers against the project. i'm the one who actually took the photograph that is on the overhead right now. if i could have it turned on. it's not a great picture because it's done from a roof through glass. there's reflections in it. but if you look carefully, you can see this is the elevator shaft that we're talking about --

>> can you please speak into the microphone, sir? sure. this is the elevator staff that we're talking about. it raises the height of the building effectively from the way this is on filbert street and from the neighbors to about 81 feet because the elevator shaft is 16 feet on top of the 65-foot tall building. so, this is from the public way. and it also impacts many, many apartments in the area. in fact, some people from 1440 union street have the exact same view because it's the exact same height in the same area. so, they're being impacted. now, what i'm saying the new building that's being proposed would take that height, it's actually a little bit higher because the street is elevated, and it will go all the way across. and without the penthouses of 15 feet or 16 feet and the walls and the trees that are going to be growing, the view is not impacted much at all.

i mean it's livable, it's doable because it's 65 feet. when you get up to 81 feet you're impacted everything in the area that's at about halfway to two third of the way up union street, up filbert street, on van ness, and this project should be sent back to planning and there should be some community input to try and figure out what we can do to make the roof decks smaller, to make the outcroppings on the top of the building lower so that it will be effectively be closer to a 65-foot height limit which is allowed only with conditional use because it's typically a 50 foot. the buildings next to this building are three stories high. the building on the other side is three stories high. and this building -- actually, the stated height by the architect is 7 stories, not 6 stories. but it still is going to be

probably within that 65-foot limit until you start building on the roof, which is [speaker not understood]. i think not. thank you. >> thank you. let me call a few more speaker cards. danielle [speaker not understood]. marianne [speaker not understood]. carla anderson. dianne weiss miller. ~ if i called your name, you can approach the podium. good evening, commissioners. i'm marianne casden. i'm a long-time resident of 1440 union, right next door to dennis and dianne. i've been there for over 30 years. and i also am against this proposed building as it stands now. one of the reasons is that when they planned it or they considered it or they consulted the neighborhood, they did not

consider that the people -- residents on union and filbert between polk and van ness, they have a hill. so, halfway up union, if you go to the roof deck, we have been able to see the palace of fine arts, the golden gate bridge, and we go up there to watch the blue angels and fire works on 4th of july. that would be obscured if this building were completed in the fashion to which they want it to be completed. so, it doesn't show me much concern for neighborhood good will if they're not reaching out to people across the street on van ness. and i certainly didn't know anything about these plans. i think that the neighborhood outreach was scanty and half baked at best. there wasn't a lot of proper notice. it was done very fast.

and based on plans that are 14 years old, i mean, nearly, and i think that property values on these residences that have enjoyed this use, the property values will go down because the views will be obscured by this building. and i don't understand why you need 7 stories and the luxury of penthouses for the uber rich who can enjoy views, but they have taken away our views. and it's hundreds of people being impacted. and i also take issue with mr. schmall's argument about the rear yard percentage. supposed to be 25 percentage. he said it's 22.5. he pointed to some neighbors that had less percentage. two wrongs don't make a right. if the law is 25%, then you need to provide 25% no matter

what the neighbors are doing. that's not your problem. your problem is to comply with the regulations now. so, in closing, i just think that this has to be taken back to the commission to be reconsidered that everything is being taken into account, the surrounding neighbors and the height limitations and more outreach, way more outreach so we're not caught by surprise. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening, my name is carla anderson. thank you for the opportunity to address this issue with you. i'm also a local resident. i live right up the hill on polk street, one block east of this project. and i -- i'm concerned. i'm not against development. i understand we're in a city and things change and change is good. we have a certain amount of

turn and that's fine. the lots have been empty many years and so with the housing situation in the city we're well aware that he we need these units. and i don't want to speak against the erection of an apartment building on that lot at all. i am concerned with the size of it. i am very concerned that it's a little out of proportion with the neighborhood. it's a corner lot. it's on the northeast corner. the houses directly to the east are residential, three story buildings. the house he to the north on van ness are on a slope of a hill. so, the height limit is a little out of proportion with the rest of the residences on the eastern side of the property and, you know, we have height limits in the city for a reason. these buildings are well out of an empty lot up to 7 story

building with all the stuff on the top, it changes the nature of the intersection and the nature of the neighborhood. they're being so large they block a lot of the view. they block a lot of the light for pedestrian experience, directly on the western or the eastern side, i'm sorry, the buildings to the west are the ones that are three stories. the residential buildings to the west. on the eastern side, southeastern corner, there is a hotel that has spent the last 14 months in major renovations and they are now attracting i'm sure a higher level of tourist and a greater occupancy rate of tourists. i live one block to the east on polk street and this unit is near the lombard street -- the top where the lombard street is, the wiggle street. so, we have a lot of walking pedestrians that come through

the neighborhood, tourists. and see them not only taking pictures north towards the lombard street, but also south with their view of the marina neighborhood and the presidio and the bay and the palace in the back ground. so, i think this will -- this unit would negatively impact the tourist experience in our neighborhood and in our area as well as being way out of proportion with the height and the nature of the surrounding neighborhoods as well. so, i'd ask you to please ask the developers to reconsider the arrangements that are being made on their roof for the height [speaker not understood] down a little lower. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. hi, good afternoon or good evening. my name is [speaker not understood]. i live right across the street from the building in question.

[speaker not understood] talk about all this community outreach. the only letter i got was from the planning commission stating that they were planning on building this. what we have is a six-story building that is being built right now. they just showed you the elevator shaft and the first story is like a 12 or maybe 16-foot first floor and then it's five more floors of regular size, i guess 8 to 10 feet. and then it's a big elevator shaft and then the way i just recently seen the plans for this building, it's going to be at least 7 stories. and take the whole, the whole lot. not only does that cause shadows, views, blockage for everybody that's on my block or in my neighborhood. there is a nice little valley

there and it's just two big giant squares there that's going to take away from everyone in the neighborhood. what else? used to be a gas station there. they were saying the epa was saying they used to test that for some kind of tank that was leaking there. i don't know if that's been remedied already. but also i'd like to say if you would maybe send this back to the commission to possibly scale it down a little bit. everything on that block except for that new building is all three stories, most everything between filbert and union on van ness is two stories high. at greenwich there's six story buildings, but then it's just going to be solid buildings, no light, no view. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you.

is there further public comment? please indulge me. this is my first time at a planning commission. i'm dianne weiss miller, i'm a former resident of russian hill. i raised my son there, i met my husband. he had been born on hyde street. so, i was blind sided by this project. i come from a family of builders. my father built grain elevators throughout the united states and central and eastern europe. my stepfather on my husband's side built a lot of [speaker not understood] 17 mile drive and hotel in acpull co-. my son is a builder himself. ~ this was a bad idea in 2003 and it isn't getting any better. i think of the impact on those poor people who live in this

area. the plants, we talked about the plants, the birds, the butterflies, there's not going to be room for any activity at all. i don't know how things will even grow there. i'm so reminded of the line in thx1 138 when they're all having to live underground ~ and urban blight was terrible and the air was foul. and they say, it happened so slowly, we didn't even know it what occurring. well, this has not. this has come about so quickly yet we have not had time to prepare. no one has been consulted. i think this has to be up for review. there is enough activity on van ness anyway with that new hospital. i'm a volunteer there, have been for 22 years, at cpmc, but we really didn't need it. so, we have to think of these