that's part of the youth and family and formula retail and special use. i think that's it. on that motion, commissioners? >> did you call it conditional uses for the last one? >> i'm sorry? as amended by staff on the sheet. >> commissioner >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >>councilman johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: no, >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong:. so moved, commissioners, those actions pass 5-2 with commissioners moore and wu voting against.

>> the commission is going to take a recess. meeting adjourned. >> >>

>> somehow the 24th is not available. i would like to ask for a continuance for the next available date. and i believe we are reasonably close to an agreement so we can avoid a dr and i think we might be able to do that. >> october 8th. >> all right. that would be

fine. >> i think the commission can likely accommodate that. >> commissioners. i need to and i apologize with all the excitement that i need to recuse myself to this item. >> i motion to recuse president fong. >> second. >> on that motion to recuse president fong from item 3, >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >>general manager jerry n. johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >commissioner dennis richards: >president cindy wu: and commissioner fong. he's gone already. so moved, commissioners. >> we'll take that item up soon. >> okay. thank you.

>> is there further public comment on the continuance calendar? >> i'm here to request that you continue no. 7 until the date you have chosen for no. 5 which is october 15th. can i have the overhead please. you will notice that day is the same issue. we are using the 5-foot height as >> are you asking for item 7? >> i'm asking for 7 to be continued to the same as item 5. >> should you take up that matter until it is called. we have not called that item. >> so i have to wait until midnight for that? >> depends on the commission.

>> it's equivalent now of 10:45 p.m. in terms of a meeting. i have been here since noon. so i am telling you right now, audience, that you can't do the 5-footers except together because the ones one is issues, there are five more coming and you have one on south of market. you've had a lot of that today. so i will wait until midnight. >> i would like to make the same request. the promises made -- >> we are going to stick to the continuance calendar. i know everyone is tired. >> i will call items 12345 at

this time. >> good evening, my name is john, the owner of the property at 3029-baker street. i would like to respectfully request that we just stick to the agenda which is to continue to october 1st. this project has been discussed for 20 months. in other words our meeting with neighbors was 20 months ago and i don't think it's fair to have anymore continueances. i have to disagree with mr. tricks remark that there is any further accommodation that's going to be reached a further continuance would serve any purpose. we've made huge accommodationed already to get to this point and we don't see any further changes coming and staff has made it pretty clear as to

what the thoughts are on the approve ability of this. >> i'm the cosponsor for 2928 baker street, no. 3 on your list. i would like to respectfully keep with the proposed continuance for october 1st. we had our first application submitted to the department back in february of 2014. we made a number of concessions to our neighborhood groups and to the discretionary review filer. we were originally scheduled to be on the calendar before but for reasons it was pulled out. i feel this is a prospect to come into agreement and based on the relation from the planning department it does not rise to the level

of unusual or extraordinary. i would like to keep the proposed continuance dates of october 1st. thank you. >> okay. is there additional comment on the continuance calendar? if there are additional comments please lineup on the side of the room. >> i'm here with grow sf, i want to say every time you issue another continuance you back line this even further and give more opportunities for these projects to be scaled back when we are in the middle of the housing crisis. i hope that you take into accounts that your arguments are made here that why they should be moved forward and it is your position to say yes or no and if there is no more discussion to be had, it's time a decision is made. >> thank you very much. >> can i ask the person who

requested october 15th to come back up? >> it was requested for october 8th. >> i apologize. we've been here 11 1/2 hours. could you repeat why you want to continue to an additional week? >> yes. i have an event. a school event where i'm hosting at my house that evening and we sent invitations out and we can't rescind them and originally when the dates were offered, she gave us the 24 and i agreed and a week later the planner rescinded that and gave us the first. i'm only asking for a week. >> i move to continue item 1 to september 24th, item 2, september 24th,

item 3 to october 8.th. 4 to the first and 5 to the 15. >> second. >> very good. there is a motion to continue all items as proposed except item 3 to october 8th. on that motion, >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >>councilman johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >commissioner dennis richards: >president cindy wu:. so moved. commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that will place us on your regular calendar item 6 a, b, 00 eight at 1042

jackson street. the conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will question a variance. >> good evening, kelly grove, planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization at 1042 jackson located at the district this item was scheduled on july 23rd but extended to this hearing to provide additional information. the current property is a 2 story over garage and covers the entire 41 -square foot lot and 25 feet wide. the purpose of the construct a 2 story vertical addition involving three total unit. the proposed story would cover an

entire lot and setback eight 8 feet from the property line and six 6 feet from the property line. this includes configuration of two additional residential units of the gauj and two additional parking spaces the project sponsor is seeking a setback of 15 feet. 1 phone call and 75 signatures and approximately 50 signatures in opposition to the project. individuals who submitted visit letters also signed the joint letter of opposition which you have in your supplemental packet. the department recommends approval and believe the property is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. the project would have one unit to an existing two unit building consistent with the zoning district and

with the existing neighborhood character of multifamily residential buildings. it's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood context with three-four residential buildings and the building scope and lighting to the residents. the property is served well and the unit will not impact detrimental capacity and has two parking spaces and two off street parking spaces which will alleviate parking congestion. the parking meets all applicable requirement codes and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> good evening commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the project

sponsor and who have in the project team. we are very excited to present this project. we are available to answer any questions that you have after this. as collean mentioned the project involves a seismic upgrade, renovation and configuration of the two existing units which have been vacant since 2014. the building is the shortest building along jackson. the project will construct a two story addition and a total of four story and maximum of 49 feet consistent with the 3- 4 story residential buildings throughout the neighborhood. this is also going to create a four bedroom dwelling unit to approximately 1900 square feet in size and suitable for family occupancy. it's going to be setback six feet from jackson street and additional eight feet from the property line minimizing it's

appearance and finally to off street parking spaces. this building is located in the bulk district which allows development up to 65 feet. the project is only 49. however planning code section requires conditional use for any structure above 45 in rh district and requests a variance from the third floor which already includes rear and front set backs and it's justified by the substandard lot which is only 3 feet which others nearby are 70 feet or more along those lines. the sponsors have engaged in proactive outreach and they have received a good deal support. throughout that process they have received comments from neighbors and concerns regarding building massing. in the interest of responsibilitying to those comments and concerns they have proposed

some additional top floor level set backs which we'll be describing to you today in a little bit more detail. at this time i would like to ask the architect to come up and discuss the design and massing. we are available for questions afterwards. >> thank you commissioners. we had a meeting with some concerned neighbors and they did express to me i'm coming on board with the project. some concerns primarily about height. it's understanding that it was 40 feet and it's 55 feet as previously stated. we have taken some time to look at how the project fits in the neighborhood and i have something for the overhead

if we can turn this on. the orange lots indicate properties that have non-conforming coverage. site coverage. there is a predominance of properties that are 100% or yards with less than ten feet of depth. the others indicate properties that are higher than four stories. the yellow and orange hatched areas are properties that are both exceeding the lot coverage as well as have buildings that are taller than four stories. some noted at 5 stories and you can see a pattern on jackson street. our sight -- site is right here and the properties are all four stories or more. there is a larger

building at 1060 jackson street on a wide lot has the power stories and is higher than everyone seems concerned about in the neighborhood. the other one is the project on the top fourth floor we have scaled back some of the massing along the small alleyway connected to jackson street. we have supplemental rendering not in your packet. this is a view looking up jackson street which doesn't really reflect the changes that we are talking about on auburn street but the

pattern that is consistent with the rest of jackson street of buildings becoming higher as you you you you move up the street. this is a view from the opposite of jackson street to the east and the subject property is at the corner of auburn and jackson. you are starting to see the fourth floor that has been pulled back approximately 3 feet from auburn facade for a portion of the frontage on auburn street. there is a portion that we pulled back only two 2 feet in the area. this is a view a little bit better looking at auburn street and you can see the fourth floor recede nicely and we try to make it horizontal and not make it the massing and try to soften the massing and helps considerably. this is a view up

auburn street with massing holding back three 3 feet at the front and rear portions. there is a middle portion that accommodates kitchen area that we needed a little bit more width. it only sets back 2 feet. we have also supplemented the design with some over hangs to get some shadow and interest and try again to express the project. the original project had a long bulk and we have tried to make some efforts to scale that back so it's a little bit more in keeping with the neighborhood. again, this is a shot that is in your packet that shows the rhythm of the even side of jackson street and you can see our side right here, it is one of the lower buildings on that side of the street. so by adding the two floors we are only coming to a height of 49 feet stairwell with under the

65-foot height limit by 15 feet. on the plan view that we are proposing with some other set backs we have altered and cut about 60% of square foot acknowledge of the floor area. this is auburn street setting back the first portion of the building on the fourth floor and there is a middle section approximately 16 feet. we are rather tight because on the east side we have been setting back the building from the downhill property by 3 feet so we are rather narrow at this portion. we have outdoor deck areas at the portion at the 8-foot setback and the 6-foot setback

on the front. finally the issue regarding the variance for the rear yard setback, we are talking about a very small portion of the that is visible here in this diagram. so the yellow shaded area does indicate the area that would be in the required setback, the dash line shows where the 15-foot setback would be. this is the 65-foot height limit allowable and we are well under that. the yellow indicates the area that is non-conforming and the other is there and legal non-conforming use right now.

thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. >> okay, thank you. we are going to open up to public comment. peterberg, christina sanders. gabriela navarro. campos, james language >> good evening. my name is john wilcox black. my neighborhood and i are here today to stand in opposition of the proposed project at 1042 and 44 jackson street. while we are supportive of adding much needed housing

stock to the neighborhood, we have numerous concerns with the development as it is being proposed. the bulk of our concerns have been outlined and today it's been signed by 52 neighbors who live in the immediate area. the developers propose to add a 2 story mega mansion penitentiary penthouse that is in conflict and will diminish access to the light to many neighbors in the immediate vicinity. we believe this is over reach and sought to compromise only to have been repeatedly met with resistance. we have outlined six areas of concern with the proposed project. first we object to the building exceeding 40 feet. the portion of jackson which the subject

property resides is rh 3. maintaining development within these parameters is particularly important as the height is in excess of 40 feet and will cast auburn alley and shadow greatly diminishing access to light and air. further, it will erode the neighborhoods well crated. this is entirely inconsistent with the structures on the street which are generally 2-3 stories over a garage. third and fourth the owners are requesting a variance with a setback with new additions to the rear yard setback. not only will the

additional street -- will cut the environment. the pour intrusion will conflict above ground equipment and preserve the light to existing windows in the neighboring buildings. as property residents we understand the need for development but we oppose renovation at the expense of neighboring properties. thank you.

public speaker: good evening. i want to express my appreciation for working on this issue. i attended the meeting and her new architect. like my neighbors thought you are going to hear in a moment. i'm for development and would like to see the building cared for but i strongly believe it needs to meet the planning code requirements for the street. it's unlikely that any of us would be standing before you today

though want a four star unit to make a mansion with the top of the existing building that's what we have been told. when we have had conversations and i spoke with her, i asked why she can build within 40 feet and her response was that it wouldn't be profitable and economically viable. she said cost are very high and there are significant suspensions and we need the cost to amortize. i don't know why we are responsible for her to return a profit. i'm not an architect but i have difficulty understanding why they can't at this unit that keeps them within the limit and still be profitable. it not probably your area of concern or ours either. since they bought it

it's seen about $100,000 increase. their concerns about profit are really curious in this environment. their desires to use these massive profits to benefit at the expense of the neighborhood. >> she's going to portray us as antidevelopment. that's not the case. we are very much for development. our concerns are really comprehensive. we are very much concerned with light and air. impacts that could have to the neighborhood along auburn and jackson streets and with respect to low and middle income tennants and some we believe who have been wrongfully convicted and keeping to the beauty of our neighborhood. this project benefits herself and her husband. >> thank you, mam, your time is up.

>> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners for allowing me to speak about this project. i'm opposed to this request for conditional use and vaerng. i would like to thank those in the bay area who in supporting those projects. my neighbors and i agree. the project is listed in a town that is to lower income chinese families and immigrants. up until this recent sale this project was offered by the demographics. we are curious as to how this story

luxury penthouse wrapped in floor to ceiling windows can be desirable. this is completely out of context with the surroundings. casting a permanent shadow that leaves many homes. perhaps this is why the sponsor has not showed the rendering. instead the sponsor has provided a series of maps highlighting other properties. over half of these examples are completely different than the subject property and higher limits.

the sponsors own exhibits for conditional use. commissioners, you have over 50 neighbors who have gone on record as stating that no opposition to the sponsor adding a unit otherwise increasing the height and bulk of this property this can hardly be considered antidevelopment. this compromises holy compatible with the city's desire and the project. this project as currently proposed is an increase that is

not desired. at our neighborhood meeting this is to mainly ensure the project is profitable and one that has no compelling interest. based on these facts i urge you to deny this. >> in the current responding and testimony would lead you to believe they are sophisticated people. who are simply looking to build a home. do not be deceived. these are intelligent operators who have purchased and developed multiple properties. they have misrepresented themselves and to

the city and law enforcement officials. these developers have an established pattern of purchasing properties and removing them through harassment and bullying. even in the title to the building before it was sold. intimidated and threatened my neighbors. sadly they have been affected and including a young single mother has decided to leave rather than face fear. there is no doubt san francisco needs housing. that said there is plenty of develop ers who are willing to

take the profit. i will admit this project will have very little impact on my life. but it will impact the lives of others. i urge you to approve this conditional use. this project is not necessary and as history to any indicator it may have been developed in the displacement of a protected family listed living on this property prior to the sale but who can no longer be found. this is not the kind of profit motivated growth that the san francisco planning commission should endorse. based on the attendance it's clear the developers are not in harmony with their neighborhoods and neighbors and san francisco community. thank you.

>> hello commissioners. i have lived at jackson street for 19 years and has been welcomed to and lived on the block in the neighborhood. i am speaking on behalf of five tennants and the building owner chinatown, optometrist dr. alfred t lee. we are across the narrow alley from the proposed project. none of the apartments have views over the 24 current structure in my building and no flat roof to get any views. however we can all see the sky from the current structure without straining our

necks. 4 days ago the sun shone to about 1130 where all the rooms along the house are lit up. about 1030 the sun is at the position that would crest the top of a 40-foot building. if this were at 50 feet, we would not ge anytime direct sunlight at all. to train my

next to see the sky at the structure. if that structure were at 50 feet i would have to put my hate -- head out the window to see the sky. the proposed project would likely not enjoy the light as it's too narrow. the developers have demonstrated no interest in doing a shadow study for the surrounding area but did do one for a park two bloeks away. the tallest roofed to the top end don't add up in elevation. they say they are taller than them but

pretty much the roof tops lineup within a feet or two. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is richard leon. my name and i moved there 2 years ago but my wife and i actually grew up in this area. i'm one of the 50 nabz neighbors who signed this joint petition opposing the project and i strongly support the points in that petition. let's talk about the adverse affects of the 50

feet height. we talked about the east side building. around 8:00 a.m., the building cast a shadow across the alley. the 50-foot is twice the height of the existing building. that is going to shadow onto the building across the alley. auburn is now alley. it receives a limit of direct sunshine. the 50-foot height is going to reduce that to a couple hours around noon. my bedroom they will become a lot darker.

currently he the neighborhood foot line follows the slope of the street. so the interior of the upper unit is brightly lit well into the late afternoon hours. this 50-foot height is going to disturb that. right now about 2:00 p.m.. it throws a shadow half way to my roof. now a 50-foot building is 4-5 times the height throwing a shadow to my roof. about 0:0 p.m.. it throws a shadow half way to my roof. now a 50-foot building is 4-5 times the height throwing a shadow to my roof . about the same p.m., that is going to throw a shadow across my whole roof and the

this is ub desirable and unnecessary. this is blocking the sun. the owners and architect has also alluded to adding an elevator. that's going to act about 14-20 feet. you are going to make the problem even worse. good evening, commissioners. my name is pauline. i'm at 1042 jackson street project. i have lived at this residence for 29 years and in the city for 45 years.

the project proposes to add this and a rear yard variance is being requested to reduce the yard variance requirement and this fails to meet the planning commission's idea and it's not meeting this because the proposed project oefrdz the rooftop. no. 2, the extensive shadow of the additional two floors will have an impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and does not comply with the general plan because of the additional two floors do not protect, preserve or enhance the desirable quality of the unique character of the city. this fails to meet planning code section

which are required for the zoning administrator to grant variance. when there are no exceptional or circumstances applied to those involve apply to the properties in the neighborhood and the provisions of this code would not result for the hardship of the applicant. this variance is not necessary for the substantial prooits of subject property: the granting of the variance would be detriment to the public welfare and adversely affect the san francisco's general plan because of the reduction in the rear yard requirement does not provide adequate open space for the neighborhood and the city. i along with my neighbors or immediate plans with the project currently oppose the project as proposed. we request that you eliminate one floor and the zoning administrator deny the rear yard

variance request. >> good evening, commissioners. i have lived in this city for many years. i'm a district attorney in another county t project sponsor's bare the burden of proof for your approval and any justifications put forth by these project sponsors that have documents in the media, city filing and the very documents that you have in front of you today. here are just a few examples. the ducks purchased 240 missouri street

in february of 2012. after harassing the rent control and trying to pressure them out, they evicted those residents. according to the notice filed with the city that you have before you today they are required to live at that address through september of 2016. by their own admission to their new neighbors they have never lived at that address. rather that building is currently under going a massive expansion that includes the addition of two floors and roof deck. despite the living required to live at 240 duck street, they are living at church street. why is that address significant, because of the standard capital ks a lawsuit the ducks settled this year. the ducks intentionally misrepresented the scope of the capital

improvement determining the misplacement without compensation. the building remained under construction for one 1/2 years. in fact they began construction on that project just 11 days after issuing a 60-day notice to vacate on the tenant causing a portion of the ceiling to fall and the back staircase to collapse while the tenants still lived there and they are still being sued for allegedly calling the police and fally reporting that their monolingual; spanish speaking tennants were trespassing and asking police to arrest them instead of forcing them out. we believe this pattern of eviction occur at this building today and the buildings indicate the protected live there and the chinese families that were protected tennants lived at the building at the

time of sale. the ducks told us that no one lived there at the time it was close. this should not be rewarded nor condoned. i urge you to review the packet of conditions. >> hello, distinguished commissioners. i'm here to express my opposition as the project proposed. my wife and i are top floor residents at the proposed structure. we actually looked at purchasing the project site. i can a test when i looked at it. i met them, they were 4 generations family. so that's not a fact that can be

gated debated. my primary concerned if approved my building will lose sunlight because there are no set backs from the property line and it's height extends above that to the east, west and north. because my building shares a wall. my unit will only at lighting to jackson street. if this building is beyond 40 feet the light coming through my window would be coming through my wall. this is unacceptable and unnecessary. this create an issue because the building will cover 100% of lot leaving no land. this is per many code set backs. we have tried to discuss this with

the project sponsor and they have been uncompromising to seek a project that over towers the area. everyone of these is setback and as you can see from the photos submitted by our neighbors every one is approximately shining on auburn and effectively eliminated. there were protected tennants at move in. thank you for your time. i do want to reiterate that the document that the architect showed representing all the buildings represents 4-5 buildings. mine was representative 5 or 4 stories and i'm on the top floor.

public speaker: good evening commissioner. i live at 1060 jackson street. my family has built this building back in 1930s. i have been born and raised there since 1947. i got for the record it's a three level above a sublevel garage. you've got to learn how to count. i built and remodeled this building without the set backs. i think these people should have to comply with the same. i could care less about the size of the lot. the

height is another issue. they keep telling me it's higher than everyone else. take a look at the picture many i think this building if you are familiar with the morris code, that's what this building is. the morris code. it just sticks out. on jackson street i'm a 30-degree grade. everyone knows it from the back and side and the front of them, everywhere. i don't understand this. why can't they be honest about this. where is the truth about this. san francisco is known for seven hills. are

we going to change all of these hills and lump them into one. are we going to level them off so they are no hills. what are we going to do? seven hills, vernal heights. russian hill or knob hill. seven hills. they have all been tapered. i asked the neighbors, i complied with their wishes. neighbors and neighborhood. we have to get along together. these people just care about their money. they are going to come and develop and leave the premise and they can care less about what they left. someone has to pick up after the garbage. we have to deal with it for the rest of our lives.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: hello, my name is valerie leon. i'm here to present a video on behalf of anna stunk of 46 taylor street. she's not here because of medical reasons. i have a tript transcript of the video.

>> in recent years we have lost families >> [video]

vibe sea in vibrancy in san francisco is being integrated -- [inaudible] to enjoy economically by gentrification >> we said we want to rolling hills of san francisco. please vote know

-- no on the conditional use application. >> time is up on that. next speaker, please. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. my name is joe. i live at 1044 jackson street. i have lived at this residence since 1991. thank you commissioners moore and antonini. we can see the additional two floors and the potential rooftop terrace would be in the adjoining properties in the neighborhood. i think those who

have sent letters should be taken into account because they are many advocating on behalf of the project who do not have a legitimate interest at hand and they are not living adjacent to the project or the same block or the same neighborhood and not directly affected or relevant. thank you. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. i have lived two buildings up from the development in question. i'm here to to

object to the proposed project because they are not following the planning code and the impacting conditions on the surrounding neighbors. my family has lived in chinatown for 5 generations. we witnessed that developers in knob hill have not conformed to planning codes and residents are left with higher density and less privacy. this is exactly what this proposed development stands to do. this proposed project would exacerbate live ability conditions to surrounding neighbors. the existing building is non-conforming with no rear yard. it would have greater site coverage to adjacent buildings and towers over the alley. this further expands the non-conforming nature of the property by not providing a code compliant with the yard and serving as a legitimate yard and eliminates the mandatory open

space. additionally, should the developer add stair and elevator access to the roof based on building and inspection code requirements, the penthouses could cover the roof. the proposal offers no redeeming contribution that would offset it's lack of compliance and negative impact to surrounding residents. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. any other name is joanna and i will be playing a video on behalf of my father ronald liu.

>> honorable commissioners, my name is ronald wu. i wanted to speak to you today but unfortunately i'm not able to today because i'm in hong kong addressing family matters. i'm coming to you using video technology. my wife and daughter joanna and i are owners of 1036, 38, 40 jackson street. a 6-unit apartment building. we are next to our neighbors to the project. i have been a resident and property owner of san francisco since 1961. from chinatown to knob hill to telegraph hill and north beach. the first time i arrived in san francisco in 1961 i lived near the chinatown ymca on sacramento and waverly now i'm living in the

peninsula. my daughter joanna was born in the children's hospital in san francisco in laurel heights now california pacific medical center. as good neighbors we wholeheartedly support new development next door. this project is at the corner of jackson and auburn. jackson street is a busy uphill cable car route. this project is is directly across the street from the entrance to the cable car barn. the cable car barn is the shelter maintenance shop for all cable cars. there are currently about 40 cable cars in operation in san francisco. in the morning, this cable car will leave for the streets. in the evening, they will return to the barn from the streets. auburn street is a small narrow

residential alley between jackson and -- at the corner of jackson and auburn is a very busy corner most of the time. as the next door neighbors, we strongly object to the height and the bulk of the project. the project as it is proposed is too tall and too big for this neighborhood. it is not consistent with the characters of the neighborhood. it is not in harmony with the neighborhood buildings. >> we will withdraw our objections if our neighbor -- >> i'm sorry, your time is you have. next speaker, please. public speaker: good evening, commissioners, my name is millana and live at 1421 taylor street. a

property directly affected by the jackson 42 street project. one of the questions before you tonight is not whether to allow a project that adds an additional unit to the city housing supply. nor is it weather -- whether to allow a building. the question which the standard must decide whether to use or request a feature at the size contemplated and the proposed location would provide a development necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood or the community. that's the question on the conditional use. the standard decided on the packet is one of the bases for the recommendation. yet no evidence is cited. it's sounds like it was assumed or the additional unit that was the need. with an i would like to say is the need isn't met. building

above 40 feet isn't necessary for the project or the neighborhood. the project can build an additional unit and improve the building significantly without going above 40 feet. based on the architectural rendering which shows floor to ceiling windows on the northern eastern facade. it's clear this applicant seeks the extra height is to capture and enjoy and monetize the sweeping views of the bay and tour. who -- tower. who wouldn't want to see those views? second, building above 40 feet isn't desirable for or compatible with the neighborhood. 52 neighbors and i mean neighbors on one petition alone say the project as currently contemplated isn't desirable with the neighborhood. the project in fact will

cast a negative shadow literally and figuratively on the neighborhood. we understand the city must continue to add housing to the current supply and this commission is faced with the task of approving projects that support this goal in a reasonable way and the power to do so. this project isn't reasonable. it's an over reach and represents an overall development of the project. i ask the commission to deny the request for the cua because it doesn't meet the standard for approval. the project should continue by right up to 40 feet using the discretion to say no will be the right outcome for this particular project in the goal and overall for the city. thank you for your time tonight. >> good evening, commissioners, thank you very much for the attention in light of the long day you have. my name is peterberg and i live around

the street from this proposal. you have been shown many diagrams by the sponsors and a lot of information about the developers background as well. i would like to take a brief step back and suggest there is a reasonable compromise available and mutual solution we can drive towards. instead of this luxury penthouse that will cast a shadow around the surrounding buildings, we can add all the following benefits. additional housing capacity which i and the cosignatory on the petition and improve the integrity of the building and improve the neighborhood including the rolling hill topography and not zero impact but minimal and while this whole thing can be achieved with currently

compliance and zoning guidelines. this tips all the boxes. it's kind of a no brainer. developers architect concede that a compliant code would add at least additional space and under 40 feet and set backs. that is enough for a stand-alone apartment or fa you can add an additional floor to the existing upper unit which will give the developers the penthouse they are so intent on achieving. we can suggest this item and more but meet indifference from developers. the first architect quit in protest citing the developers own behavior and refusal to engage in a meaningful discussion with neighbors. in fact according to his letter, commissioner moore graciously offer to mediate a conversation with the neighbors and they did not take her up on that. instead we the

neighbors reached out to the developers and intimated this project was essentially an all or nothing proposal. that is a false construct. this is all or nothing. in fact there is compromise staring us on the face and they told us they have no plans to make substantive changes to the neighbors and they have to put it up to the commission to decide. here we are. i respectfully urge this commission to use the discretionary powers to use a reasonable compromise. with your help we can increase housing and create housing for the developers and preserve the neighborhood characters and the rolling topography. please reject this request and ask them to revise their plans. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. is there

additional public comment. if you would like to speak, please lineup on the side of the room. the first speaker can come forward. the first speaker. in the interest of time if you want to align yourself with other people's comments that would be appreciated. >> sure. my name is juan -- i want to thank you for taking this valuable time this late in the night. i support this project and creation of housing and parking in the city. i work at a management consulting firm in the city and found my clients and my own company will not be able to hire people because the rent is too high.

researching housing finds that high end technology jobs, the kind that demand good housing have a multiplier in five jobs. therefore the city and it's residents should look to create houses that attract high tech jobs and five local jobs. returning to my own experience, for those that can afford the rent define the housing is too small and they get bid too high. we need to encourage builders to add space and at least arrest rent increase in the city. we also increase parking spaces as we all know and this project is adding two parking spaces. san francisco planning needs to plan for existing and

future demand for housing. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. public speaker: high, today is a weird day because earlier today we spent hours listening people telling you not to approve a project that really literally didn't displace anyone. and here is a project that maybe did displace someone by someone who also maybe did displace other people. i don't know, i didn't look it up. i heard rumors about it and i thought about looking it up and i decided not to because this project today isn't about what kind of landlord she was other times. this project today is about whether we should add square footage and we should definitely atd square footage. i don't know what you should do about whether to use this commission to punish people for

things they may or may not have done in other venues of their life. i hope not and i don't expect you to do that. thanks. but i really don't know. i'm telling you everything i heard tonight is the first time i heard it. thanks. public speaker: good evening, my name is daniel kemp and i live in san francisco. i want to urge you to approve this project and i am a resident of the bay area. not just san francisco, the entire bay area is in a regional severe housing shortage and that's why i'm in this project. i have two major points i want to bring up to you. first there are already a lot of areas around the city especially the northern part like russian hill and pacific heights that have really really tall apartment buildings next to relatively short homes that are

like 3- 4 stories tall. you know, there are still people that pay a lot of money to people that live there. to say the quality of life has been neglect atively affected by this and those that still pay to live there. when those buildings were built can you emergency having them built at all we would have hundreds of people out of homes during housing shortage. it would have been a mistake to put people out of housing then and a mistake to do it again today. my second major point as a renter and most people in the city are renters, there is no value in living near buildings with heights that are all the same. there is no value in living somewhere where it's you know the yard is x feet large if you have to move to the central valley to find room

for housing because the city you wanted to live in is in a housing shortage. as a renter i would urge you to approve this project for those reasons. to keep that in mind that you have the power to end this housing shortage. please help us get out of this problem. thank you. >> next speaker. public speaker: good evening. i'm a new resident of san francisco. we wanted to live in this city for a long time and we couldn't afford it for a long time. it's happened now and i love it. i have looked at the diagrams and i have heard that it out of sync with the neighborhood. i urge the commission to look into that. i cannot imagine any architect reputable people would put this out there. this creates

three very habitable units for a city that needs it. all of those are really important points to me. i also want to speak for my friend she relocated to san francisco 3 years ago and spent 4 months bounding back and forth trying to find a place to rent. for each property she walked in to there were more than 20 families competing. it was rough writing letters. they ended up in daly city and they are in a situation with a month to month lease. they have made multiple offers on 75 homes all to noah veil. there is just not enough options. she lives and loves the city of san francisco and the hurdle of finding accommodations for her in the city. she urges you to building

more housing which should take precedence of protecting views of neighbors. thank you. >> hi. my name is laura clark. the neighborhoods and developers have reached an impasse. it's up to you to vote yes or no on this project. i would urge you to say yes. the developer has said this is the project that they have determined is economically viable. i know that sound that it's just about profit but it does mean that somebody has a profit incentive to create housing in this city. that is the only way we are going to create housing that is not 100% tax subsidized. we

need housing. they have decided they want to prau approve this project. i urge you to say yes. public speaker: my name is usa austin. i urge you to support this project. the so many times we see families leave and you have an opportunity to keep one here or allow one to come to our city. yes, they could down size and take the project back but that would be saying no to allow a family into our neighborhood. i think families in my neighborhood is what i want. as we see our schools and community suffer, it's important to have places for residents to stay. to design this space with a family in

mind. she didn't design it to say i'm going to build multiple units in one space to get a bunch of rent. it was designed to accommodate a family. if you choose to not approve this property, you are saying no to another community stakeholder. please support this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. it's been a long day so i'm going to be short. my name is kashmir. for starters, this project is 15 feet below the height limit. another thing that keeps coming back and back again is this whole magical thing about shadows. as i said earlier, the sun, the

moon, the trees. shows these objects are real. on the motion that a building is going to limit air, that's not possible. i studied physics. it does not affect the air. thts an opportunity for you to move forward and say yes to having more families in the city say yes to more housing and at some point, it's an opportunity for another family to have a place to live. thank you.

commissioners thank you for being here on such a late night. i approve this project. it is a project for families. it's designed with four bedrooms with the living space on the fourth floor otherwise there would not be enough room for a living space. i heard two and three bedrooms. families need room to grow. san francisco needs more four bedroom units. is this such a shornl of them? my sister for example my sister had to move because she couldn't find a four bedroom apartment. san francisco

needs to grow substantially with all sorts of units with families large and small. >> the builders have agreed to the back side for the neighbors. i can personally vouch for their character. their not the money grubbing people that they have you believe they are. they are small business owners trying to get by. this project is good for the city, consistent with the neighborhood. it's good for families in san

francisco. thanks. >> public speaker: hello. it's great that we can come here to argue about something. it's really amazing for our democracy especially when voter turnout is low. thank you all even though we disagree. i want to talk about this project. first is that this project in particular displaces your residents and as units in an already expensive making

arguments about displacement. housing is decreasing massively. shouldn't we increase housing to families? not only this project changes the view as it describes the units to 20 stories. it would be a sacrifice towards making and we live in a city with tradeoffs and sacrifices. my neighbors about their desire for parking. these are woven into our society and in a dense urban environment. living in a society and living especially in a city is great. our closeness need to generate a lot of heat. this recognizes

when we can neglect one thing or the other. i love pretty views. i live in the sunset by the ocean. when the rent is rising 0% in the city, when thousands are being displaced and the very fabric we prioritize views. for far too young the fact that this tiny project has become a political came --

campaign. the neighborhood grievances. thank you very much. public speaker: i'm your last speaker. there are one thing that i would really love to preserve about san francisco and it's being a family city. i was born here, i was raised here. i lived all over the city and now live on the peninsula. this project right here, this addition of two additional floors to create a metro unit is perfectly sized for families like mine who have many family members and have to cram into one little housing that we can. i

don't find shadows on an alleyway or additional parking to be a worthy of legitimate excuse to block more housing when we need it the most and the area that needs it the most. this area is also dense so the project makes sense in the local context. this development right here up to 40 feet of height is logical and i might dare i say not as ambitious as we need to be. this small housing project shouldn't be turned into some kind of add homonym debate attack on 1 person. this project for the conditional use authorization for the variance is necessary for

san francisco. i urge your aye vote. city clerk: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i'm impressed by everyone's stamina. we have heard a lot for and against. i have a couple of questions. what is far more practical and far more governed by things which perhaps are harder to understand if you don't sit here every week. i would like to ask mr. tarpter if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. you talked about elements of a dwelling which i do not find in my drawings here. my question to you is were those changes made

afterwards, are these your drawings ? >> yes. these are my drawings and i worked on the exterior elevation. >> answer my question please. is the set of drawings, did you prepare these drawings, plans, sections. >> i prepared a portion of those drawings. i did not prepare all of those drawings. >> it looks to me those are the drawings you had before. >> a portion of those are, yes, correct. >> clarifying that, i would like to ask you a couple of questions. could you explain the section drawing which is drawing a 41 to us please. there has been a thought that you are intended to raise the building, is that correct? >> yes, currently the garage driveway

is quite narrow and quite steep and the intent would be to raise the actual basement level so the ease of getting out is more useful. now it presents a hazard. to have access to that garage level raises the floor to have access within the driveway. >> can you explain to me about raising the floor? >> the proposal is that the foundation is not in very good state and that given the amount of work that is being proposed to add one or 2 stories would justify having to significant foundation improvements that at the same time while the building is is floating above the existing foundation as it's removed and replaced

that the building could be raised approximately 12 inches to facilitate a better access from the street or driveway from the narrowness and existing driveway rate. >> i do not see an indication of that here. my question if you are adding two floors, that would mean that you would have to basically redesign the structure as well because the building as designed probably could not carry two additional floors. >> correct, there are two designs in place that have not been involved with the previous author working with the instructional engineer and there are some moment frames and additional structures to accommodate the addition of the two new floors that would take place at the lower levels throughout the building. >> would this particular type of the building eventually be a

demolition? >> i don't think what is considered by a demolition by the building and planning code. there is significant change but not a full demolition. >> but you are not yet assen trenched on the design of the building to answer that question in >> correct. >> the other question i have if you have indeed to take over the project which happens sometimes, i'm surprised that you are showing modified floorplans and elevations projecting them while you are asking for approvals tonight which need to be based on drawings which are this front of us on hand, are you familiar with that requirement? >> yes i am and i apologize late in the game we've had some discussions and the sponsors project sponsors have agreed to try. they want to do a good

job and make this a good project and in consideration of some of the comments that came from the neighborhood, they felt that they could they try to make the effort to include set backs on the fourth level. >> the general rule as this commission follows very closely is that a project can only be fully reviewed and approved when the documented in drawings which forms the bases for an approval. in addition to that, that could potentially open a more positive discussion with your neighbors particularly if it's documented with a way to dimensionally understand the building. i'm going to make it short because you are tired. the building is only in context. it shows that at least sitting amidst three buildings

down to the alley but you haven't done that. it's interesting to see the elevation drawings and the other things but it doesn't quite do it. i want to leave it at that. the building is too massive for me. i believe it should work within adding one additional floor or perhaps combining the second and third floor, but adding a fourth floor is something i'm very concerned about. as you know, this threshold, this is not a dr. i don't think commissioner has done this either. that means a project has to rise to be necessary and desirable. the necessary and desirable is most and foremost described for people next to it. that's what the neighbors have to tell us. i

appreciate your opinion about needing to identify the city and everybody to comment on it but it's the voice of the neighbors that has to work with us. i appreciate your sensitivity but there is still more missing for this project to come forward to me. >> >commissioner rich hillis: i would agree with commissioner moore's comments. i think you are asking for too much. to add a floor as a variance that would encroach on the rear yard on the third and fourth floor. i think you can get away with the third floor although i'm not the zoning administrator. i think what you are trying to do by putting a space on the top floor and bedroom space. it

ends up needing too much space on the floor. you cannot provide as much of a setback. i can understand if you had a modest increase on the third fleer. i'm support the third floor. but the fourth floor is is not appropriate here and doesn't work especially on the alley. >> thanks, commissioners, in regards to the rear yard variance, the lot is fairly substandard. there is a very small parcel behind it on the alley also a corner lot continue to contribute to the open space and the adjacent property to the east is a deeper lot and extends back to the rear yard. i think if there are some specifics for the variance and i have concerns for the proposed

project and i don't see any need for the variance at the fourth floor level. the rest of the project would be up to you but i can find some jugs for the variance on the level and this would require a variance not only at the level but the second construction as well that would trigonometry -- trigger the variance at the level and i can support the three levels but not the fourth level. >>councilman johnson: i was looking at the presentation from the property owner -- project sponsor and was looking at between from mr. fong's documents because i wasn't seeing what i had study for today. so that was problematic. that alone is problematic to me. being late at night i would like to rely on what i worked on for

today. the other thing is i can be okay with the height of the floor my issue in terms of krchluof c u at the dr doesn't like about the project. cu at a high bar. for me it's problematic with space floors 1 and 2 and the second floor from a two bedroom to a three bedroom. we are talking about creating a family home and you had one where you had three bedrooms and now you are added a fourth bedroom on top of it. i think it's something that should be look at. a lot of things brought on to go into a design studio here at 11:30 p.m.. that seems problematic to me. taking

it altogether, not sure i can make a decision but i hate continuances. thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: i viewed this site and was at the adjacent building at 1044 jackson. it was quite apparent that adding an additional floor would bring that building up to where it would fit with the height of the adjacent buildings and kind of conform to the sloep coming down the hill. and you know, there are some work that needs to be done seismically and a problem on the bottom to see where i'm going to raise it up to make it better. i agree with the other commissioners to putting too --

two floors even though they backed that up is going to be a little bit large and probably just a third floor is probably the best way to do it. commissioner hillis said if it wasn't a fourth floor maybe you had add a suite on the top of bathroom. i'm not sure. we are probably going to have to continue this given the hour an we are going to ask project architects to come back with another version to include project that only had the three floors on it and that might be the best way to do it. >> commissioner richards? richards >commissioner dennis richards: i know it's very very late. give us

some information on the rh. >> there are some which have a higher limit. if you are in the planning code in the rm district, the findings made for conditional use for having desirable per section 253. ask that you look at the general characteristics of the rh 3 zoning district and in terms of the actions you may seek if you desire to have a building, the denial of the conditional use would result in a 3 story building and would not necessarily need to come back to you. but if you would like to retain some jurisdiction of the design elements over the third story it's a little complicated because they would no longer need to before you because of

the conditional use. it could potentially bring the dr if you would like to see it revised. >> sure. i appreciate the change the project sponsor made with the comments given. i think that's a good step. i always reel against houses above the square feet when the per square footage. what just through me off was the issue with the evictions and the lawsuits. was there a tenant in this place the record time that you purchased it was the rent fee being paid. what did we find? what happened?

>> good evening commissioners. at the time we purchased the property the downstairs was occupied by a family waiting for years to get into the housing program and were getting support letters as well as the owner of the trust with the support letters to be moved along in the housing program. they have been wait listed for 8 years. they got into inclusionary housing program. that was an important consideration for us even purchasing the property. >> words are why are you punishing and taking these matters into consideration. i wouldn't say it's punishing but not rewarding and with building more housing and we

have policy goals around displacement. someone said we need to accommodate a family and we need to have people come to the city. i don't want to appear condescending and you are making room for a new one. it a bad wash. it's something that i think really in the message that you are telling us hurts your movement to be honest with you. i think you need to consider that in the future because it really resonates with me as those things to be considered by you. >> i support a continuance or support whatever else the commission decides. >> can i just ask for a clarification from the zoning administrator. if it's a denial of the project, it defeats defaults to a 3 story?

>> yes. they can buildup to 40 feet if it was denied. >> did you say it could require a look back? >> that's the consent, we would want to discuss at the city attorney's office. i can't recall a case like this which was denied. section 311 was performed as part of this project. >> a denial would default to a 3 story building in >> yes. >> commissioner wu in >president cindy wu: i'm starting to see there is a consensus to want the 3 story building. i would suggest we deny the cu to achieve that. i don't have to see this project again. if it doesn't need a cu we don't need to do this again. >> there is a motion before

you. we are saying for your review you would need to adopt or approve a motion for denial in that process. so it wouldn't be a motion to intent to deny. >> okay. i will move for a motion of intent to deny. >> second. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i have a question for you. the balcony on the alley seems would require more? >> they are permitted given the width from the sidewalk they can project to the wall no more than 8 feet to the road. we did review this today and does appear it's in compliance. >> thank you for clarifying

that. generally because the project still basically draws on the dna of somebody whose work we have seen frequently that's not any put down which is typical to took over. i believe that dna from what is proposed from the design is quite strong and requires modification of how you finish the building on the third floor. so i don't have to see it and i am comfortable with the motion. >> commissioner johnson. >> there has been a motion that has been seconded with an intent to deny, commissioner wu, would you like to continue this matter to october 8th? >> it's an intent to deny but we should also continue the matter. so there is no requirement to notify. >president cindy wu: the timing is because of the time to write it. >> it would be drafted and included in

your packet. we can do it. i'm sorry. commissioner moore? >> i just want to ask that it's on the first of october. >> yes. >> commissioners if you desire sounds like you are not interested in doing it that staff question for the revised project. one could be made on the first. >> thank you. city clerk: very good commissioners there is a motion seconded for a motion of intent to deny the conditional use authorization and continue the matter for october 1st. commissioner >commissioner rich hillis: >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong: that motion passes unanimously 7-30. zoning administrator. what say you. >> close the public hearing on the variance on the third floor variance granted at the fourth story.

>> i want to open this discussion. it's been a very long day. i think this item will take more than an hour. we have a half hour before the garage closes. >> we have two more items. i believe the 16th street would like to continue until at october 1st. >> the first on the agenda. >> you want to hear this next one? >> i don't think we are going to make it. we have to get to the garage. >> i don't think we'll make it. it takes about 10 minutes running over and bringing it back. >> i think there is consensus

to adjourn the meeting. >> it's a continuance. >> we have to continue to pick a date for both. october 1st for the 16th street. >> again, october 1st or the 8 are probably the soonest hearing dates that are available. i suppose, well, the mission controls are next week. i would recommend the 1st on the 8th. that's entirely up to you, commissioners. you have the housing balance report and the facilities planning code amendment. i don't see why not. >> let's go for the first. >> let's put them both on the first and unfortunately we need to move. >> move to continue item 7 and 8 to october 1st. >> commissioners, we should probably take public comment on the

continuances. >> item 7. you already have continue item 5 to the 15th of october. it's identical issue. the extra fee of the zoning is used for an extra story. if you look at your schedule it says 7 story, 65 feet tall and if you look at the description on 5 b is a 9 story building and 80 feet tall. guess what, those are the 5-footers. you have to have the discussion of the 5-footers. they are going to be a play in the south of market. a lot of them are just youth and family zone. i would suggest you continue them. you already continued one to october 15th. just leave it out on the october 15th about the 5-footers. please don't make yourselves and us crazy.

crazier. >> this is public comment on the continuance. >> i know that. >> my name is jamie whitaker. i live on south of market. i think there is a public integrity issue with the buildings that was just mentioned. there goes an understanding that the 5-foot bump in many area plans not just west and eastern soma are other plans is specifically intended for use for pdr or retail ground floor. >> we are speaking to the continuances right now. to pair the

>> we are only talking about the continuance now. public speaker: commissioners, i'm the project sponsor for item 7 and respectfully request the commission that you hear the item tonight. it's been a very very long wait. thank you. >> any other public comment? commissioner, antonini? >> i'm very supportive. i'm game to do anything. i would like to hear it tonight, however we can't get our cars out. the only thing we can do is adjourn, go move our cars to the street and come back and we did that once on home depot. i think we are kind of worn out. but i would love to do it tonight, i don't mind dying it -- doing

it. it is an issue. it has to be decided. the sooner we do it the better because we have a lot of issues and i would prefer to see it on the first than to have to delay it for the 15th. that would be my issue to continue it to the first. >> do you have a motion? >> yes. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i don't see the two projects have to be seen together. an issue to be thought so independently and based on what the particular conditions are of whether they are being executed one way or the other. i think i would rather have this commission work a little harder and bring a certain amount of knowledge to the speculation of the 5 feet and look at the two projects independently. i don't think they need to be heard together. i suggest the project

be continued to october 1st and the other one comes when it does. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue item 7 to october 1st, >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >>councilman johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >commissioner dennis richards: no, >president cindy wu: aye, >commission vice-president rodney fong: aye. so moved, commissioners that motion passes with commissioner richards voting against. >> commissioner wu? >president cindy wu: i want to say to the members of the public who waited for item 8, i know every one wishes to speak. i just want to make that clear. >> we are proposing to continue item 8 until october 1.st

>> another vote for 8. another motion. >> to continue item 8 also to the first. >> second. > we need to take public comment on that motion. >> good evening, for item 8 we are fine with the continuance for october 1.st. >> public comment is closed.

city clerk: there is a motion that has been seconded to continue the matter to october 1st. >> you want to speak, ma'am? >> i really appreciate how late you guys are here as well. the attention that you have given the project on 16th street. i think we have the majority of people who could come on the eighth. we can't get as many people here on the first. i don't know if it's possible to calendar around our schedules. 15th isn't going to work. >> we are proposing the first. >> the eighth is going to work. whatever you need to do. thank you. >> as always, keep it on the 1st and if we need to stretch it out we can do that. city clerk: commissioners there is a proposal to continue the item 8

to october 1st. >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong: >commissioner dennis richards: >>general manager jerry n. johnson:. that passes. >> comments and questions. >> i attended the arts commission meeting reporting on pdr. >> there are no commission comments, departments matters. directors announcements? item 10. public comment? since there is no public comment i would like to thank commissioners for a very long day. controversial topics and i don't think we made everybody happy but appreciate the service to the city. adjournment.

meeting is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>