okay coming back in a couple of weeks if we voted to continue it. >> we are fine with the motion including a requirement we continue to work with the staff i don't think we will want to agree to come back. >> thank you to the motion maker i would offer an agreement to instruct project sponsor to work with the staff to create two distinct doorways on the level it reads as two unions rather than going on a setback to get into the unit clearly we're trying to create two units we talked about creating a second units i don't see much harm usually when we compare that i offer that is an amendment and second thing city attorney can you help me out

i'll asko have no - what was the verbiage you mentioned? >> gentlemen commissioner the conditions of approval will be recorded against the title it will be recorded two spate units but the commission can ask for special restrictions that specifically identified this. >> i'll offer that as any second amendment. >> i wanted to ask the project arithmetic to do a separate door the front. >> it is certainly challenging not that the doors can't be adjusted otherwise by putting it at the place it the entering of the upper level and creating creating the stairways down it is an awkward way to bring the

door forward. >> i'll modify to move that door and make that more welcoming without necessarily going up. >> i think we can do that in a way that makes the eastern neighbor happy and happy to make that change. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm sorry just to confirm commissioner johnson are. >> and i mention to the modifications. >> i thought we only made it for two units. >> and moving the door. >> move forward forward but not to the upper level on the lower level doesn't make sense. >> okay. >> i'm not sure but moving it forward but read as a completely separate entrance. >> yeah. as a separates enhance and trying to move it closer to

the front instead of an apartment in the back it is a separate entrance closer to others fronts that reads that way. >> but the front door you go down into a corridor so you're not bringing it forward only saying the entryway you're going down to get got basement unit you - makes it more like. >> yeah. to door the fronts the door you walk down a corridor and the door is there. >> we need to make that entry more visual from the street and distinct we'll be happy to do that. >> okay. they - and windows. >> okay commissioner johnson. >> i'm sorry commissioner hillis. >> i was going to anywhere i'll not be supportive this is a

secondary units if we want to two houses on this lot we reject the project but this is a secondary units i don't think there is necessary anything wrong but this is like in-law unit it is a typical lightwell and sunken the basement there are different people so it works i don't think we'll necessarily who knows if a family extinct of the family that lives upstairs i don't know if this is necessarily your concern could it be yes, but i don't think we need to get into that level of detail i think that is good the second units is flexible how to be used and make the entry more prominent but.

>> as a seconder i'll be okay with the separate illegal unit but not talk about the entryway. >> i'll continue to work with staff on that issue sounds good. >> commissioner johnson any other comments. >> okay. >> commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to i do have a there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that project with conditions as amended to include the project sponsor continue to work with the staff for the exposure without compromising the size of units to require one to with only park for both units and an n s r identifying a two

unit building commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner vice president richards no and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to two with commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards voting

>> staff: the project site is located at franklin street between page and hope in the hayes valley neighborhood. the subject lot is within the zoning district the van ness and market downtown residential special use district no one under 20 days this item was presented to the commission on february 11. the commissioners continue the item requested the project sponsor redesign the layout of the floor plan to provide additional light and air. the original proposal included 35 drawing units comprised of 28 it still provides the 5 dwelling units but the drawing unit has been modified to provide 14 two-bedroom units and 7 studio

units. by modifying the unit mix sponsor was able to reconfigure the floor plan to reduce the number of units which are part of variance and drawing your exposure from 20 min. to 14. in order to perceive the project requires 2 exceptions as part of the downtown project authorization. the first is an exception to section 148 the reduction of ground-level. it was determined the project meets the criteria required by section 148 as proposed project would not result in substantial change in comfort. the 2nd is an exception to lot coverage control from the van ness and market residential special use district. but courage is limited to 80% of all residential levels the proposal lot coverage is approximately 81%. the increase in the lockridge allows the project sponsor to out 7 more dwelling units that was originally proposed in their application. the project also requires a variance for join unit exposure. the code requires at least one room in each unit pays 8 rear yard street alley

20 feet with an open area at least 25 feet in each horizontal dimension which increases by 5 feet in every horizontal dimension at the 3rd residential level and above. there's no required rear yard in the district so without incorporating substantial setbacks of the rear which could impact the number of units proposed units of the rear would not be exposure requirement even if the w [inaudible] the department has received one letter of support from the neighborhood association but also requested the project sponsor required 20% of portal housing on the project site other than the required 12. they request that a percent meet made available to households making 90-120% ami. the department supports the project because on balance it meets the goals and objectives of the general plan as her places and underutilized parcel with new rental housing has been designed to be consistent with her.. the

project it's all applicable requirements and is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. this concludes my presentation and am happy to answer questions. >> commissioner fong project sponsor please >> testifier: good evening pres. fong and commissioners my name is suzi hariri and counsel for in one of the owners of 22 franklin st. at the previous hearing for this project and the commissioners raised issues with that unit. as a direct result of this concern are design team worked hard to modify a floor plan. i'll keep it short. i hope that we satisfy your concerns and are design team is available for any questions. thank you. >> commissioner fong thank you. open up to public comment. >> testifier: i was listening

to your 81% on 3 rooms [inaudible] because this is being done on and i think [inaudible] i wouldn't put your numbers,, 4-5 different

[inaudible] more money going on >> commissioner fong thank you ma'am your time is up. any additional public comment? not seen any public comment is closed. commissioner andy antonini >> commissioner antonini: i think it's a good infill project. i would ask the architect continue to work with staff, particularly on the façade to make sure that wherever possible the shade of the rust colored areas out there

is parable as they can with the masonry buildings in the area. the not too washed out. also, certainly consider some wainscoting panels at the very lower part of it which might tend to make those appeared to be somewhat more punched windows that is the case. that's easy enough to do but i think would help to take away some lazing at the bottom which doesn't do any good but i think it's a good project. >> commissioner fong commissioner moore >> commissioner; moore: i think would require 40% of the drawing units you do need a variance for exposure if i am correct and the only thing i would like to have us consider for the project sponsor's attention is that each facing wall it being at the moment a tall building the 4 market st. with taller buildings to these is still going to be for some

time a blank wall. that's something we need to consider. include some change in power or variation and the one thing i would still like to say, when this building those 2 dbi this building almost like you change a little bit at this moment and its schematic depiction it does not show us the layout of structural columns. this is going to be an 8 story building, a concrete building that does not also show us any kind of utility in backup goes of to to water and sewer etc. get so there's a couple of pieces of information missing which potentially went dbi looks at the mix integration of buildings, could cause changes to the building. typically, we have drawings of the building that show it for whatever reason

can i caution this commission and including the applicant that they are changes which may do something which were not seen today but i'm in support of the building. i would just continue to encourage the applicant to stick with more complete drawings when it comes to this commission and perhaps next time around your column spacing and your provisions. >> commissioner fong commissioner antonini >> commissioner antonini without him and moved to approve also the points brought up to the mr. moore battaglia to the blank wall that we do something or some sort of thing to make it a little bit more acceptable for those who be looking at it for quite a while before something else is built

there. >> president fong: moved and seconded. zapf is a motion to approve this matter. with conditions adding projects onto continue working with staff. specifically on the blank wall. on a motion, antonini aye hillis aye johnson aye moore aye president fong spirited that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners we can move on to discretionary review calendar. item 10 2013.0499 at 335 larkin st.

>> testifier: that foster department staff. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review, rhyming application at 1335 larkin st. which is located within the pope st., newark commercial district in the 65 height and bulk disappeared the building permit propose a vertical addition of 5 stories creating a 65 foot tall building exclusives of stairwell and elevator. these as instructors one-story plus mezzanine garage design and the revival style identified by dept. of historic resources. the system uncovers one of percent to 7008 on 36 where foot lot. the new vertical addition would have a very setback of 32 feet at the 2nd floor a 43 foot setback at the 3rd floor and a 47 foot inch setback at the 6 floor. the floors 2-6 was beset that 70 feet from the rear property like the residential portion of

the proposed project would accommodate approximately 15 one-bedroom units and 5 two-bedroom units for a total of 20 dwelling units. the butler garage would provide base for possibly 17 vehicle parking spaces and 20 class i bicycle parking spaces. which of the excess to the on larkin street. the front side of these is a structure would remain unaltered with the exception of removal in the awning replacing the garage door and the bay windows which are considered features. the neighborhood and only consist of large woodframe residential buildings reaching from 3-6 feet stories and i get the south of the subject that is a sick story mixed-use building that includes a four-story residential structure operating as a lark and i'm senior housing on top of a two-story united states post office good overall the architecture of the boat is diverse. the requester is karen child 815 california signals

property adjacent to the subject party on northwest corner of the subject project. the requester are as follows. the proposed project will obstruct access to the light noted the following abutting properties. 1517 are as follows. the proposed project will obstruct access to the light noted the following abutting properties. 1517 california st. 1529 the dr request suggests a proposed budget should be limited to 3-4 stories in height to maintain the existing character of the neighborhood with regard to bulk ms unless a video requester does the proposed project should reduce the overall number of doing it such that fewer units would. 144 dwelling units. section 134 the platypus of the parties are jamaican rear yard approximately 34 feet proposed vertical addition possibly 17 feet and required. are there

for variance is required. secondly, section 140 of the clinical requires each faces a qualified street or rear yard. which again get subject property -i said that there is hearing was held on september 3, 2015. zoning a mystery directory during public comment took a decision under advisement to the closure of the 30 day identification good as the dr was filed during the 30 day notification period. the rahab deferred the decision pending the outcome of this hearing. as the project was located in a neighborhood commercial was reviewed by the depressed urban divine advisory team. the dr file the project was reviewed by the department project were nation liking. at that meeting the government either that exceptional answer extraordinary circumstances of social projects recommend motivation to the project including progress of the

project letter to provide a safe setback one half the width of the bad recent 20'6" for the length equal to the amount required for the rear yard. i get 3040. this modification was suggested to provide increase sides of that northern edge of the property that i create additional relief from the adjacent residential properties to the north and subject property including the dr requester's property at 1520 california st. to date department has received 2 letters of opposition to the prospect those letters were received as the publication of the staff report and assist those letters were just distributed to you now. the nature letters speak in general supportive housing in the neighborhood. however there is concern over the overall balkan messing of the proposed structure at the subject site. overall the army has required the commission approve the project with modifications that concludes my presentation. >> president fong: thank you. dr requester, please. >> testifier: good evening,

commissioners. my name is karen vito. my family's property illegal and then resided for close to 50 years of western north facing wall of the proposed project. i originally met with the project sponsor and developer in april 2014 to understand the project after seeing the notice. i filed a dr after the variance hearing notice. i filed a dr after the variance hearing october 23, 2015 because the proposed plan would have major impact on our property its residents and my neighborhood property. on

november 25, 2015 and guided the project sponsor and developer along with my neighbors to our flat at 1520 california st. to show how the proposed project would affect us. if every first and the project sponsor and developer at their office. they shared with me with plenty department has proposed as an alternate plan. it was suggested that i basically had 2 options. one, agree with the plan to permit alternatives were, to promote work with them to convince planning to reduce the front setback did i prefer a 3rd object it retains the character of the neighborhood and does not impede the access to light in the urban views of the adjacent property. my concerns are that in comparison to neighbor structures the sick story project with our over most residential buildings on the block. jerk mostly to-3 stories. massive size and scope of project will block light and view in a back bedroom dining and living areas or rear yard, which is the only bit of

midblock space we have. i have some photos here. this is the proposed site 1335 larkin regular. that's the adjoining building. this is a photo of the neighboring building across the street. you see there are 2-3 stories. it's right across the street on larkin. this is a midblock larkin street facing north but note the scale height and bulk of buildings. these are our properties, 1517-1541 california st. whose property line up but their reader north facing wall. here is the wall

don't talk about. you see the reader yard. noting the difference between that abutting wall to our adjacent property did not a lot of space that. this is a photo of what we see from our back bedrooms the urban view. light. this is the other view facing east. this picture i got up of google

earth that shows the proposed project here in the proximity to 15-25 california. this is my building here. and this is the property of 1541 california. you can see this is the only open space we have. so this building comes up as high as they wanted to >> staff: ma'am, i need you to ask you to speak into the microphone. >> testifier: using the open space we have right here midblock if this building goes up to the suggested proposed height we will no longer have any light of this little bit of light we get. here is another view. aerial view. you can see that little spot right here. on-site consumption of the planning code for the zoning

project has residential levels is required to comply with section 134 and for rear yards. under 134 asic requirements the subject property is part to rain a reader yard of 25% of the total depth of the lot. this case the rear yard is 34. >> staff: ma'am you do your 5 min. are up to you do have a two-minute rebuttal at the end. >> president fong: speakers in support of the dr requester? >> testifier: my name is row on them one of the tenants in the affected units were in the building. i just want to show my support and agree with what ms. devito was a good access like abuses going to be really diminished by this project. additionally, i think it's going to be a drastic change to

the neighborhood despite the fact that ecuador building is similarly sized. i think we need to pay careful attention to that because there are other developments that are up-and-coming in the neighborhood that also propose higher elevations we need to be conscious that it's going to change the character of the neighborhood drastically. >> president fong other speakers in support of the dr requester gibner seeing none, projects on so you have 5 min. >> testifier:good evening,

commissioners. get out with the project sponsors. i would like to begin by talking a bit about the history of this project and the constraints that she did. as you know, the existing garage on the lot is the story. each means there really 2 options here for us to develop its. we can either design a project that's consistent with the secretary of the interior standards restored buildings or we can go through an extensive and a certain environmental review process to it is just my impact on the story building. the project sponsors made what i think everyone agrees is the better choice since 2013. they've been working with

neighbors in the planning dept. to preserve the store building and keeping new construction consistent with the standards. to do that, as you can see here the new construction is set back 40+ feet from the sent façade and most levels. you can see that causes the building to read as a distinct structure from the historic building. to recapture some of the lost area the rear setback is reduced. it's by no means a one-for-one replacement. nearly 20% of the total area of this lot has been given up in the renovation and addition is going to be significantly more expensive and technically difficult by virtue building a historic building. so, that is the back story. now for the issue at hand. there aren't really exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that warrant further reduction of height and building mass. this is a 20 unit project in a 65 foot tall building that fits the skill of the area. this is a dense mixed use commercial district. you can see here there's a 70 foot building immediately to the

south and a four-story building uphill at barking and california to the north. in fact, this lot is only one of 3 on the block that's in the 65 foot hit hike this and the remainder of the block is owned for 80 feet and if you look further down on larkin street all lights go to one under 30 feet. as you can see this rendering would that read change the project upon height would be similar to those of the corner buildings on either side. to make sure the project conservatively met preservation standards it has cheered setbacks from the front of the building. 32 feet at the 2nd floor, 40 feet at the 3rd floor 4th floor after floor and 47 feet of the top floor. front setbacks are not required. there included for the benefit of the store building. planning staff recognizes the setbacks

compromise the viability the project provoked an economic perspective and in terms of realizing the city's housing goals. so, to make up for some of the lost. we collectively landed upon a variance for reduced rear yard to make up for some of the lost area. we have a 17 foot rear yard with 20 foot notches closest to the dr requesters lot which you can see on the right. this lease most of the south facing area from her lot open. this configuration is actually pretty typical for the area. there is no est. pattern of block open space on this lot. commercial or institutional uses can occupy the full lot area and many do. you can see here were recovered in the rear yard area just how limited the rear yard open areas are. closer to us you can see the dr requester also provides a 15

foot rear yard and her neighbor to the left is 17'6" in the residential property to our rear house is basically no rear yard at all. so does your yards are the norm. most of the residential buildings on the spot them along with the light views that are typical of that configuration. i do think the openness of use to a large extent with this dr is about and are not really a proper subject for this commission to exercise dr on this is that you southeast from the dr requesters lot again from you can see your any building that is substantial above the existing building is going to some extent of block those southeastern reviews and yes, there will be some loss of earnings on. the building will however, continue to receive works whoops some afternoon sun

by this eu wishes to the south and southwest there will remain an unobstructed once the project is built. the dr request asked the project be limited to 3-4 stories. providing a 34 foot rear yard that would basically wipe out half the units of the project. this project authority given up 20% of its buildable area. you would not make economic sense to do that in the end you just end up with the existing building sitting there and it's deteriorated condition. i don't think this is really a just result for sponsor who's worked in good faith with the department for 2 years. surly isn't the result you would want to encourage housing and historic preservation. >> president fong: speakers in support of the project sponsor?

the speakers. dr requester, you up to minutes of rebuttal. >> testifier: i just want to point out again, a 2nd section 134 planning code the project has residential levels is hard to comply with one section 34. the subject property is a part 2 1825% of the lot which is situated in this case rear yard is 34.4 feet. under section 134 application requirements the rear yard requirement may be modified or waived by the zoning administrator if all of these criteria are met. i mention all. there are 3. my concerns are clearly to bmc section b the proposed new work spanning structure will not significantly keep axes of light and views from adjacent properties. in section c, w proposed work spanning structure will not adversely affect the interior block open space formed by the rear yard of the adjacent

property. it appears all 3 criteria have not been met. so it follows that the potential variance request should not be considered were granted. the project mate should make the yard code of 34 feet. furthermore, under section 140 requires each dwelling unit if a strictly onto qualifying street good of code complying the rear yard for an open area of adequate size. the project is not feature a code compliant rear yard. the current plan shows 10 of the 20 or 50% of the views do not face directly onto qualifying street. additionally, based on the urban design guidelines for new commercial district new development should respect open space corridor interior blocks and not significantly impede access like an air nor block views to adjacent buildings. under scale height and bulk the proposed development should relate to individual medicare

to her in height and scale of adjacent buildings to avoid overwhelming or dominate appearance of new structures. >> president fong: thank you. project sponsor, 2 min. >> testifier: again present for the project sponsor. the jesus him to adjust the province recommendation to provide basically a full rear yard on one half property. none on the other. i certainly understand the intent behind this proposal. unfortunately i don't think the redesign along those lines would really accomplish the desired result. you can see on the sketchier that we have this funny little

dogleg in the back. what that means is that we'd end up replacing 5 good-sized one-bedroom units big enough for couples and single person studios and the other units the back would be further compressed. again, these are not necessarily huge units to begin with and the sick project that's already lost 20% of its buildable area. we are also not sure it really responds to the dr requesters concerns particularly as may does appear to be about you and you can see how the dog like it would in many ways be more impactful rather than less. if the commission does believe that some modification to the project is necessary you would like to make a suggestion. provided it can be accomplished consistent with preservation standards that means having to do a middeck or any ir. the sponsor would agree to shift the mass of the building forward on the lot. you can see here, in a series of show you

this is the existing 40 foot setback. this is the building at 35. this is the building at 30. doesn't seem to be a material difference and in all cases the setbacks would be greater than the 25 foot setback that the commission recently approved above the store building at 2254 market st. you can see here, how that would improve some of the conditions for the dr requester. if the commission we think this is it. thank you. >> president fong: thank you. all start outlast us to make a little clarification about the setback. this 40 feet a number? given the width of the building to interplay that? >> staff: basically to get this under class xxxii category as a was specifically because

of the 43 foot setback. i can cite specific preservation if you'd like but little codified and capture any actual report because it was a known resource as a reason. so 43 foot was defined as the line. >> president fong so there's no standard for the number of feet and each plan or any situation makes the call is far how that is >> testifier: i'm going to call my staff. >> testifier: we zoom in the proposal that's pretty porous. this case the preservation planner that conducted the review found that 43 feet meant the intent pertaining to resource avoiding overly excessive demo and providing sufficient new construction. sufficiently differentiated

from where the resources. >> president felt fong is it within this commissions purview to change that 43 feet or is that part of the variance? >> testifier: i might divert to the city attorney but the exception is on the grant of the project that has 43 feet. so we'd likely have to conduct additional study of it. >> staff: the question is whether there's a adequate ceqa document here. and here it requires the hr er visit recalls out the setback is been described in this project. so the only way the commission could approve the project under the circumstances would be if there were sufficient evidence in the record before it to establish that a lesser setback would still avoid the historic impact. the impact on historic

resource. barring evidence in the record that would support such findings then the only solution under ceqa to send back to planning for further environmental review. >> president fong project sponsor is aware that process.? >> staff: we are >> testifier: yes, we are aware of the press fit obviously be what our preference to leave this evening with group project that i think the president of the 2248 market st. is a good one that commission could rely on it he chose to approve the project. alternatively, we be more than happy to go back and work with staff on a reduced setback that could be confirmed was within the scope of a class xxxii categorical exemption. we just ask that we put some time limits on the process for that and if staff informs us that

the setback is no additional setback is allowable that the commissions approval tonight provide for approval of the project as proposed. if it came to pass. >> president fong but your first preference is to reduce the setback took were not? >> testifier: we would be happy to have the project approved as proposed. we don't believe there are circumstances that require dr. but in the spirit of time to reach a compromise we would be willing to consider for the front setback. >> president fong thank you. mr. hillis >> commissioner hoyos: to the project sponsors point enter staff, the rendering they showed about where the rear yard would be under the recommendation is that accurate? >> testifier: yes. it's-

>> commissioner hillis adjusted to the side and said that that was the funds are back on the market street that was shown? there was also historic resource because of our that was actually an individual contributor it was a noncomputer within the storage disk is actually a different scenario with this is an individual contributor. tenant apples and oranges. >> commissioner hoyos i think this is a good project. i think it balances the storage aspect of the properties and its impact on the adjacent properties and clearly there's an impact on the dr requesters property at the to see it shifted forward to the 35 feet or even the 30 feet and some additional space and back again i don't think has a big impact on the store character of the building, but that's not

necessarily our expertise on this. it could set us back into an extended eir. so if you see what other commissioners have to say. i would be open to the concept of approving this with possible decreased the setback to 35 feet if that was appropriate. >> president fong commissioner moore >> commissioner moore: i think it creates an interesting solution to a problem. we very recently sought project but too far weight which totally missed the ball in a manner i think it

is workable. the story structure itself is a lovely building. it sticks out when you drive up larkin. however, the position in which is shown relative to the required setback is hard to fathom partially because you're the one-way fast-moving car corridor. since our hands are tied both of 2 historical preservation requirements i don't want to get ourselves in a loop. i would like to see the 35 foot is that something we can achieve without too much backlash on realizing the project. that would be easy in that would see there is indeed a precedence of that and perhaps we could tell us that it is. i'm not really-given everything else we've done today this project is an approvable project. but i do want to be sensitive to the impact on the neighbor good if we could get 35 feet would you mind explaining it to us one more time? i would go for the 35 feet but if you're telling me it's impossible to get that i'm saying-- >> testifier: i think the preservation staff would have to look at the proposal for the reduced setback.

>> commissioner moore sica mr. mustard could you give me one or 2 descriptors of how that's done.? it's a crystal ball and you look at it and you say it's not impacting so i like to hear love it more. because fire typically we use the sector of interior standards as our guiding principle. particularly when looking at an addition on historic resources were looking at a couple of things. look at the amount of demo that's occurring as part of the building. with the character of the planning features are the property how much the new construction leads relative to the historic resource so that way historic resource obviously want to read as dominant severity of the setbacks him into play in terms of how much this ability has the new construction have relative to the historic property. so all those kind of pieces and

components common to our analysis. >> commissioner moore: i like to ask you to tell us what he sees for his because it comes into a critical part of the building. could you describe what that means to you and architect having to straddle this? >> staff: we look worked long and hard with planning stuff on this. as you probably can tell. moving the building within 5 feet forwards is not a problem. we can definitely do it. i think you'll fit in very nicely and it would be somewhat of a compromise. to revive more like in the air to our neighbor. >> commissioner moore visit pose larger issues for historic preservation >> staff: i don't think so. i can't-well, i think the design

of the building is everything they want it to be the new building. and we worked with him closely to some feelings my feeling is that even though they take that into consideration in the design of the new building the preservation of the old building and other things again i can see a crystal ball as you said but i think it still be something that they would hopefully approve. i think so famous snorkel and i'm prepared to take the gamble. >> commissioner moore prepared to take the gamble. [inaudible] was not murals inside so i hope this is doable. >> staff: commissioners very much up >> testifier: were very interested in striking the right balance we do to be cognizant to the attorney's advice with respect to not be judging the outcome of sql work we do need to study that. >> commissioner moore: i'm not trying to do that. never sponsor gamble here. i would

defer to staff working with the architect trying to make it work and support that first step. >> president fong: commissioner richards >> commissioner richards: i move the project sponsor work with the appropriate staff to determine as far forward that building can be moved without requiring additional ceqa documentation. >> moved and seconded. >> president fong device is not a form based on the work of the building but the width of the street. the court or other welding. i know it's not always black and white and uneasy special circumstances may be in this situation but it would be i think regressing more this coming. these types of buildings we want to see just making that note. commissioner

andy >> commissioner antonini: i understand the motion is current approved as presented that will save this a possibility of moving it forward and as long as it still is felt to be appropriate by environmental without having to have extensive-it should still be done. we don't see anymore environmental at it the other thing i noticed in doing the math here it looks like the width of the building on california street is 23 feet. the present project has a 17 yard 70 foot weirdo. see only have a 6 foot plot. so it's not really that significant as it is this talk about a notch that's been est. there that may mitigate a little bit more than the project the dr requester has the 15 foot forgot. so it

seems like there's plenty of clearance even without moving the building and we were to move it is 43 foot at the present time. if i'm not mistaken. is that proposed setback worsened 40? >> testifier: this 32 feet staggered. >> commissioner antonini staggered. okay so we see this picture 40 foot so what is the setback 43 at the very top for? >> testifier: 42 foot and 47.5 at the top >> commissioner antonini beside that lower urges to all the more least 43. i guess average. so i'm saying is if you are able to slide it 5 foot forward you would almost minimize any interference at all with the dr requester and only 1 foot left interference and i would review of 30 feet. you may have to go

35. it might be easier to get the 38 that would be 35. just a comment. >> president the phone commissioner hillis >> commissioner hillis: we want a project. but not to avoid any we want a project that's fine with executive standards because it is complying. so, your thing i would say we want to bracket may deduct how far would move up. were looking for 30 feet or 35 feet as is a little open-ended. >> president fong i think were thinking 35 feet. without triggering any additional environmental review. >> staff: what i think i'm understanding is the proposal is that project be proved as presented. however, the

recommendation that the project proponents were put planning to see whether they can move the building as much as but no more than 2 the 35 foot mark without violating the secretary-the standards were there's also another document relied on in the story resource evaluation. in any event, for example they could not move it, and still size 5 and requirements they would some debug build the project as proposed admire standup? >> president fong that is accurate >> staff: is a motion today dr and approve the project. requiring the sponsor continue working with staff. to move the building forward as far as 5 feet it possible without triggering further environmental review. on a motion, commissioner antonini the i hoyos guide johnson aye moore aye the riches aye fong aye. some of the motion passes

unanimously 6-0. commissioners the places on our final 2 items. 11 amd. m or 2013.1383 erp-10 3516. streets. case number 2013.1383 erp 3526. street is a discretionary views 2 separate buildings that are essentially one pocket guide of 2 separate single-family dwellings. commissioners there are 19 separate dr's filed on these 2 projects. through the chair, we agreed to provide the dr requester's a combined 20 min. presentation. the project sponsor would receive a 10 min. presentation. the combined dr requester's would then receive a 10 min. rebuttal with the

project sponsor receiving 2 min. for the rebuttal. all members of the public were not a party to the dr in other words, that is basically members of the public, who did not file a dr or party to the dr not part of the dr requester's team will receive 3 min. >> staff: the item before you is a class for discussion review for the building permit application associate with the new construction of 2 single-family residences of 2 single-family residences at 35163526 folsom st. proposed projects would be located on 2 vacant lots each measuring 20'

x 70' in the rh one sony district col. bernal heights special use district and 40 height of this. currently these parcels do not have vehicle or street access or direct possession access via sidewalks or other street improvements. this portion of. street is up early not be. the 2 new single-family residences are both 2 1/2 stories tall were 2 off street parking space individual residences each measure were 2 off street parking space individual residences each measure approximately 2200 ft.2. today the promises even the republic on some price. both for and against the request for discretionary review. included with 2 of the dr applications are petitions in opposition to the project signed by approximately 136 individuals several which will include the dr requester's. since publication of the commission packet department has received an additional 22 public comments including 4 letters in support and 18 letters in opposition. in addition to the commissioner packet provided to you with a letter from the project sponsors attorney that i neglected to include an initial project. provided you

are the additional public comments received after publication of the staff report. the dr requester winner of issues with the post project including paving opossum street emergency infrastructure access impacts on the underground pg&e pipeline. future development of the vacant lots along this portion of. streets. impact on neighboring residents. on street parking construction. compliance with the bernal heights east design guidelines size and scale of the new residences. side are setback on the new residences are street parking with top and houses. public views from bernal heights park impact on open space and affordability among other issues as outlined in the staff report. issues surrounding. street in the pipeline are not under the purview of the planning commission. the apartment public works were dpw are responsible agencies for guiding reviewing the extension and/or paving. street. the projects are located in a residential district and have been reviewed by the residential design team. they found the project is not create

any extraordinary exceptional circumstances do not recommend any changes to the proposed project. carmen finds overall massing for mansfield to be appropriate given the underlying zoning in height and bulk limits. post project is consistent with resin or character of this running neighborhoods meets the requirement of the bernal heights east design guidelines provide special use district is residential design guidelines. the project will add to musical family homes probably own vacant lots at the base of bernal heights park project is not have any direct impact on the adjacent bernal heights community garden were bernal heights park. but concert is a busted large layout for the variance for parking axis. therefore the project is a fully cooked plan project is not seeking any variances for special planning commission. is there appeared to be the exceptional extraordinary circumstances department finds the proposal is concerned with planning code the bernal heights special use district and recommends the commission do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. available for questions. fong

>> president >> president dr requester's 1120 min. block of time. up to 20 min. >> testifier: my name is carrie milne. him and member of the bernal heights review board. the board looks at projects using our neighborhood guidelines approved by the commission in 1986 after much research analysis and architectural indexing. we attempted to make a translatable picture of our neighborhood character. all this was done with constant community support and considerable assistance from the dept. of city planning. the east slope design review board has successfully for going on 30 years, look at projects reviewed and found things that

were compatible with our neighborhood. we've advised and supported our neighbors homeowners, builders, architects, and we have examples of the success of the things we get by using our design guidelines. we have side yards. we have zones of extension on one side or the other. we have significant entries. we have the side articulation we have control over height and bulk. we supported these projects you guys they were compatible with our neighborhood. we do not adjust issues that are outside the design schemes. you are

going to hear about those later. we do ask that the commission do not approve these plans for fulsome street and require alterations to make the design comply, conform, with use slope building guidelines. >> testifier: if you could pause the time were sent with the to 1 min. per dr requester which is a difficult thing for us to do. if there's any way we

could have >> president fong i will credit you the minute >> testifier: my name is brian paterson. i represent the family at 55 a3 provide the proposed budget. about a number of crs on both sides over the years good this by far the most extraordinary that i've could cross. this is a very unusual situation. a special place in our city. it's extraordinary for several reasons. it's currently open space burgeoning

grassland never developed before. it's a very very detailed among the steepest and help city. it's directly underneath this project site within a space of trees is one of the city's 3 main gas transmission pipelines. this transmission pipeline is an unknown depth because project sponsor has not checked to see bird is yet. leaving the street and the driveways is a big? as to whether they will work the proposed houses are out of scale and out of character with the neighborhood. but these reasons, the project is opposed by the sierra club the firefighters union from the bernal heights south bernal safe immovable, and neighbors against the upper also street extension about 50 neighbors. sfgov tv can you switch the computer?

>> president >> testifier: our house is one story over single car garage. at of and the process on how we got here. when i got my home in 1989 i called the dpw to ask why the lots adjacent to my house developed. the employee answer said you research it and coming back what you did right away. he did not mince mince words. he told me this can't be developed ever. it's too dangerous. i asked him what he meant and he said it would be

to stay. no one emergency vehicle could get updates. it can be graded down to a safe level. i do know that time what he was really talking about. but now i do. there's an aging 26 inch gas transition deadline buried here when of 3 that come into san francisco. so why is this actual pipeline different from the rest of the transition pipelines from the city? this is likely the most dangerous spot in san francisco. this is the only area here where a major transmission pipeline is unprotected by asphalt. as it turns up in a radically steep slope and its asphalt that protects transmission device within the circuit construction activity over them is the major cause of accidents. one tobacco

flip and the consequences are catastrophic. for years developers didn't touch the property. real estate listings want buyers needed to do their own investigations about development possibilities. then the law but this developer who partnered with an experienced project sponsor who bought built a house with his three-car garage and in there for 3 years and then sold. these developers about the plans for big houses profoundly out of scale with neighboring homes. with a dangerously steep street that funds public safety issues. we've had 5 community meetings and 2 mediations. with no significations by the developers. for these reasons we are here today to thank you for taking our concerns seriously >> president fong thank you. >> testifier: good evening commissioners. pat buskirk civil engineer practicing for 37 years in san francisco. i was asked to about eureka home and the street. there's a

fundamental problem i am covered. the street access doesn't work you can get into these garages. the garage without access as a crutch without a garage door. this is a project without parking. it's the same problem they're about to do with 2 homes with the other 4 homes and there's 2 homeowners not to give the same problem. this can be 8 homes with no parking. this street is good news indeed the steepest street with the driveway in san francisco. probably in the nation. that's the key word, the driveway. the project sponsor quotes there's a street on practice. i went and looked at it it's 20 feet long. it's a true street and they're starting to curb it it so steep there's no driveways on it. then he quotes again, it's a very short section. there is no driveways on this section except there was a car garage at one time that it's right

there. it's abandoned because at 36% and 34% you can't get in. i can explain this if you ask me a question but i don't have enough time to go through it. this street is going to be 15 feet wide. it's going to have a cross slope coming up and it's going to have a problem with cars have to turn and work down so i looked at every car i could make it and i happen and the only car that could probably driving. it's a jeep. when i went up the street i stopped at the bottom and said there's no way of going up this street because i don't know what's at the top. i had up to the top of the street realize there's a turnaround. maybe. no, not doing that. this street is that a turnaround. this street is one her feet long, 36%-34%. what are you going to do with all the delivery

people? auto service vehicles? is no parking. drago park at the bottom of the hill. as only 53 parking spaces and 200 foot radius. they can overwhelm the neighborhood. fundamentally this is a house with no parking. you want to approve it it needs a variance. if you have questions unhappy j said that. >> president fong thank you. >> testifier: my name is peter becky. i'm a civil agenda. president of pc engineers here in san francisco. i'm 64 years of experience of engineering of subdivision streets and utilities. 48 of those years have been here in san francisco. i reviewed the street plans for this development and presented my comments in writing so not repeat them. i would like to address several items. 2 vehicles cannot pass on this narrow street. so the intersection of fulsome and chaplain begot by vehicle waiting to assess the street.

the 2nd would be practice street is at the same location about the same grade as the proposed false. it's much easier to negotiate because the flat intersection at the top and bottom. the flattening areas proposed for the street. i took the baddest street also about a 35% grade and tried the task of backing out of the driveway at the first intersection. even though i had my suburban in four-wheel drive it was very difficult thing to do. driving out of the driveway on the 36% grade is the same as having the driver side of the car on the ground the passenger side on the 2 foot-high retaining wall. lastly, 2 to the steepness of the pose street people tend to

mark and more accessible area and use of some small amount of parking spaces. thank you. >> testifier: good evening. my name is mark-i'm a pg&e utilities engineer with 24 years experience specializing utility construction and design field. in san francisco. i believe the street and house plans for the proposed project focusing on the gas transmission line@109 migrants approximately 10 feet from the east property line. i won't go into detail but also provided you with a high comments in writing. i won't waste your time. you can read those at your leisure. in my opinion, this proposal is not ready for approval. the developer could've hired a crew determine the pipeline depth about $5000 in dues due diligence. he chosen not to for some reason.

as a result we don't know how the street will be graded. we don't know if the utilities will make off the top of the gas transmission when the proper clearances the utility requires that basically all the ovations of the existing pipe in the new installed utilities are unknown. what we do know is the pipeline is the same without objection [inaudible] its lineman on. it's protective coating may been damaged or eroded over the years by the fertilizer that was used in the chemicals in the garden. so we have no way of knowing was protective coating tar-based rap site until it's basically delighted to determine its existing condition. we also know this proposal will more than likely not meet the separation of permits for the dry utility went over the top of the gas pipeline as there's

a certain separation required by the utilities. it's 1 foot over letter overdrive 1 foot under wet overdrive. these are significant risks here have not been evaluated. until the developer has done his duty diligence and is hope mark leno the project elevations be just run the clearances whether not we can make utilities requirements it's premature to approve this project. >> testifier: the existing gas transition line is for her feet >> testifier: good evening. my name is sam bore. my wife and i arrived control tenants. it was way over garage houses at 61 8th st. i'm one of 82 s. bernal neighbors to sign the petition

on this dr request under the ad hoc name bernal safe and livable. i just want to make one point. there were 82 signatures on our petition. another dr request is supported by 50 signatures and i think we have a map that shows a 2nd community consent. i just want to underscore the breath of this concern and make sure the commissioners are aware of how widespread neighborhood anxiety is about this. thanks. >> testifier: my name is made

up like it other 75 peachtree. my family has lived in san francisco for more than 110 years. bernal hill park is our comments. is used by people all over bernal. that's all over the city. circle around the hill is like blood for us. insupportable for community to lose our last remaining list of the hills at pearl valley about hearts below market against your own guidelines. public views articulated by the bulk of expensive new arch buildings. developers computer addition of the public view bernal valley is shown from up on bernal's hill. not from the sidewalk where it stops and takes pictures. an aerial survey has been done and in fact, 3516 will top out at 15 feet above the walkway on bernal heights boulevard. bernal heights boulevard is parkland) 10 feet around us. i think the developers photos are all misleading. for someone to

build the maximum size and low possible usage of such way is something that should put school community i think that's wrong to conduct part of the reason everybody sign the petition at these houses could be a lot shorter answer be functional homes. we request was public street safety issues are addressed houses be limited to the 2 stories most women very well. unless the main purpose is resale of course that i and we ask why there needs a for profit should trump communities larger needs. thank you. >> testifier: since we've allow tom west benefit, summarize a little bit and hear from a couple other papers presenting substantive issues. i want to point out there's a map submitted by the developer is wildly inaccurate. as is the square footage comes. for example, the property was

counted 22 50 ft.2 where in actuality it's 1121 based on recent appraisal. develop pattern in the standard typically is one story over basis of flat roof or in rare circumstances to stories over base at a garage. three-story buildings, or two-story over garage at 5 of our exceptionally rare here. if you like to save reports briefly. >> testifier: my name is linda remy unvisited updates that the behind proposed project that the behind proposed project at

3525. get 35 years ago my husband i purchased a host the vacant lot next to it on a per gauge could that was a photo of my house. i was up there. okay anyway there was a photo of my house. it's a very tiny little house. that's my house. so, now the next slide is the house that my husband designed and built on the vacant lot next door at 71. you can see it's a very tall building. understandably this house angered our neighbors because we start because atari decided it wasn't as out of character for neighborhood is a three-story structure. it was a mistake. although 71 gates is the only three-story house on our side of the block the

developers are citing it as a justification for 2 new oversized restoring houses flat roofs. developers should not be allowed to treat cindy woodgate as a precedent. they should reduce the height of their houses to 2 stories. >> testifier: but also set an anecdote about street name once is not able to get up the street to open elderly man who broken his feet after 20 months rehab as i got to help him and that's a better grade street that's been proposed here. >> testifier: good evening, commissioners. my name is herb sosa tokyo my wife and i have lived at 3574. street for 33 years. there are 3 issues before us. the driveway and garage usable new street maintenance is unsustainable street parking or severely

impacted. now, we can get to a current picture of our driveway and barrage. there it is. we need these drivers. we need this driveway. we need it for 2 of our cars. they're both used for work effort transportation. pg&e put in a workable driveway at retaining wall. developers version is a late mistress presentation. our driveway will be bulldozed to become ankles and on even. you will not be flat or seamlessly meet the garage. this is a planning issue. >> staff: sir, your time is up. >> testifier: i like to save the first time in 33 years commissioners my wife and i feel unsafe in our own home. thank you. >> president fong thank you. speakers in support of the dr requesters. not seeing any,

-zapf those people not part of the dr team. >> president fong if you're part of the dr team you can speak at this point but if your general public >> staff: you will have a 10 min. rebuttal time. >> testifier: i was chairperson that fertilizing east improvement committee elected by residence and property are similar. a complete life safety infrastructure improvements. it is too soon to prove be this

project are the streetlight of way should be approved or the building is considered. propose street has not been approved by the bureau street use of mapping the elevations of the spirit 26 and pg&e gas transmission line has not been determined. it may not be possible for utilities to cross over the pipeline while maintaining separation. depending on the pipeline's location the street grade may need to be raised in driveways will be impacted. the roadway at 15.5 feet wide is not designed to be accepted for maintenance by the city. the city requires a minimum width of 26 feet the street itself is unsafe as propose. there is no street parking and no room to pull over to about another vehicle to pass the break over angle between the street and garage is so steep that will be difficult for exiting cars.

there is no turnaround. the stock place to turn around. there's no staging area for delivery trucks to park for the 12-24 garbage bins to be set out. the street is also unsafe for the wider neighborhood. it creates a significant traffic choke point for the 20 homes along and above chapman street. there are only 3 axis points to this area. the other 2 at slopes of 35 and 37% are accessible to urgency vehicles. together all 3 will be 3rd 4th and 5th streets in the city. excuse me. these design deficiencies jeopardize emergency access. at evacuation and the life safety of persons of this area. it's too soon to approve this project. the street right away should be approved when the building is

considered. thank you. this is the area we are talking about. axis points appear, here, and this is the intersection that is critical. is a 35% sloped street. 37% could notice the stuck truck at the bottom. that's the best axis of the moment >> staff: thank you your time is up. but still it ignores the fact there's a television

screen in the 2nd chamber whether watching these proceedings. it's been a very long day so though come back and take a break and get some water. >> testifier: my limp i want to highlight tonight that this proposal is in direct opposition to the publicly stated also priorities of the san francisco planning commission. the city achieve the greatest possible paradise to protect against injury and loss of life given the extreme steepness lack of accessibility for emergency services that dangerous pipeline we feel this is clearly an issue of safety would also ask who would be held as possible in case of any adverse accidents when is the liability. 2nd of existing policy priorities is housing it

would character be concerned and protected. he's proposed 2-three-story house to a three-car garage is john mccain the neighborhood character. 3rd, policy. our open space that axis to this be protected from development clearly the block view is not an open access anymore. i would also like to point out the sierra club basin on all of these issues we have passed a resolution supported the appeal that cortical exception for eir report. you'll be receiving a copy of this. we feel this serious environmental issues. it also like to add for undeveloped lot next to these 2 lots and if there permitted they will build utilities connections to although for undeveloped lot could in essence, if you improve the slots you're approving 6 luxenberg. i also it is a were not by you. we know there's a housing prices and san francisco maneuvers political pressure to solve bob. but this

particular development is not a solution is simply presents more problems. we know you take your job seriously are we asking look at the facts represented to user. >> president fong thank you. next speaker >> testifier: dear commissioners, san francisco was at the challenging topography for public safety officers. is that your project is on the grade so steep it be possible to drive our agents or ambulances during potential prices. we would not recommend building project location represents the city consent. slower songs from can be dangerous and further the state is built over a gas line which presents any risk at the maximum. is 26% with a maximum

approach and departure grade of 50%. but it was a new street grade of 36%. as all fire department vehicles what modern back in with them and they'll would get stuck on the front and attempting to drive down the hill. additionally the san francisco fire code requires a minimum of 20 feet on 2nd rate fixes and the bow street will be 50.5 feet wide. that agitator 40 but it is possible for fire department to turn on the postage. the thinnest percent. the tip over if they try. therefore be impossible for fire department vehicles to assess the structure. i meant about firefighters would've to hike the hill. hoses letters and other equipment. theft attempt to fight the fire without ready access to fire department vehicles. the heads of medical budget to be impossible to reach the proposed houses during an divisive time dot [inaudible]. first responders be able to respond will be impeded. it would significantly submersion tears. immediately hit up the emergency response categories include event of an earthquake. but 3 new substandard streets were defined due to these concerns i'm asking you deny

the project. >> testifier: >> president fong any other speakers in support of the dr requesters who are not on the dr requesters team transit >> testifier: blames patricia hughes. i live at 3577. street had been there since january 1970. my house is at the end of fulsome on the corner chapman street. i sure driveway without so 3574.. i have 2 issues to talk about. one is, in 1981 pg&e finished putting in the transmission line under the driveway. the following winter and top-of-the-line slumped into the driveway and the neighbors had to go out and shovel it off. with such a difference in density of soils what would happen if in the digging over and around the line

stuck. 2nd ally rely on my car for transportation is currently very little on street parking. so, it's very difficult to use my garage because it shares a very steep and have to go halfway back into the garage. i need a place on the streets. but if the street goes through going to have to-[inaudible]. i won't be able to get into it because the plans extension at fulsome is so much steeper and the renderings shown by the developer are not reality. 35-74 is obese 12 feet higher than my house. the street between us would leave their garage 6 feet higher than the street and mine would be 6 feet under. i will have to sell and move and it will be my house of 30 years or my friends or my neighborhood.

>> president fong thank you. next peter. >> testifier: blames alisha chasen of the 68th st. since 1999. going to start by reading an e-mail from severe-to whom it may concern my name is samir-and then a resident with rear block of buffer should currently see the street and san francisco since september 2011. my relatively short period time living on the block i witnessed 2 separate car accidents as result of the steep grade of the street. that does not include others and residents of the street i witnessed including a few overturned vehicles. he then explains a couple the accidents he witnessed he says there are countless people who navigate up the street looking for parking and up getting stuck. i watch countless times as they destroyed our landscaping and privacy was trying to get down.

every call to her pediment with delivery comes with a sense of dread and good amount of forewarning due to the greed of the street. replicate a street that is too narrow steep and without axis for both sides is irresponsible in my opinion. strictly is remarkably shortsighted to build homes with garage parking and street axis the location but still obviously cannot facilitate it safely. the uncertainty belt believe the only solution is to give them axis by staircase like those on joystick. on top of this way safety access issue out also personally like to address the design issues of the 2 houses could i've been involved in many conversations and up into something that he sloped design review board meanings. in my opinion the sponsor has not addressed concerns have been very made concessions with minor and i don't believe-i would like to be a rates the commentary about

the he sloped design board review. i'm getting it all wrong. the acronym, that they don't approve the design of the 2 houses. >> president fong thank you. next speaker >> testifier: my name is edy williams reality to 74 in dover and i've been there since 1984. i'm reading a letter from the sierra club the sierra club of san francisco group supports the trial or appeal of the categorical exception of battle heights at tercel she supports the preparation of the above until impact report for the project. the san francisco group speaks to the city issues of behalf of the 6000 matters. one of the 4 chapters in the 4 county bay area. our members as well as the general public will be directly affected by the projects adverse event until impact on parkland open space in the bernal heights neighborhood. the fulsome

street project to keep the classic categorical exemption under sql guidelines however under the same guidelines categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity with his resort possibility get to the love a significant affect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. this proposed budget results is also unusual circumstance resulting in significant adverse environment impact. the exception was granted to this proposed project just on the fact project site is not rotatably figure located a potentially sensitive data if the post axis of the project build over a 26 inch 30 year old gas transmission pipeline

on city right away with approximately 35% rate slope including significant excavation. the project site is adjacent to bernal heights prop and the noise can regarding a densely populated area. city departments of state already being acted responsibly for the safety of the pipeline which is one of only 3 major baselines since prepared despite federal recommendations without objection [inaudible] to ensure local residents this circumstance pose a risk of catastrophic environmental impact. yet no environmental review has been completed. us dept. of transportation's office of pipeline supplied safety states most transmission accidents happen by private contractors exacted the situation bieber posted a new private actions were over a major transmission i like things for multiple future adjacent private exhibition is unusual in san francisco it's not unique. the proposed object is an acceptable roast

acceptable risk. >> president befallen any other public test fires not on the dr team >> testifier:, member of the sierra club stephen hi promotions transit first philosophy in order to reduce the number of cars in the city. yet this project includes a variance for multi-card grudges and sets a precedent for large-scale houses in the neighborhood with traditionally smaller scale housing and single car garage. traffic impacts are likely. sql guidelines section 15 through 3 can exempt consumption this guideline however prohibits the use of a categorical exemption the cumulative impact of successor projects the same type in the same place over time significant. new cases there

sits undeveloped lots in the proposed project area. the current project includes 2 2500 30 square-foot homes this project is approved it was a precedent for the other for lots for further developments in the near future. those project love a number of additional impacts including massing loss of sunlight and destruction of open space. the project site is potential store resource located within 300 feet apostle urban poor refuge than a steep slope district and requires unusually extensive excavation. moreover, as the quarter pole exemption determination notes the project site is in the area be exposed to strong earthquake shaking. in no support at geotechnical reports recommend seismic design parameters to be used during the dept. of building inspection (it can check process. it's inappropriate to suggest mitigation measures and the categorical exemption

especially with those mitigation measures constitute undefined subsequent changes to the project precluding an accurate stable and find project description. these regions we request the city withdraw the categorical exemption for this case and complete him eir the proposed project. should the city failed to complete and eir the san francisco sierra club the chapter supports the appeal of the project thought environmental determinations and opposes the issuance of project permits. thank you. >> president fong any other speakers in support of the dr not on the dr team. project sponsor come in a two-minute rebuttal. 10 min. rebuttal. i'm sorry. >> testifier: good evening i'm

fabian manoa present of the house and an owner of 3416 fulsome st. when my wife anna and i decided to purchase the lot we first met with the dpw with the fire department with the building department the planning department to verify the lots were doable and everybody told us that yes they were. we had to do some research some work and met with everybody and everybody was give us a green light to tell us these lots are developable. we've been working with dpw, with the planning department with working with a whole bunch of associations to try to make the project as safe as possible and certainly not our intent to

rob the hill as been suggested. i brought a letter from our civil engineer just to add we are basically stating he's working to the best of his ability to design the best and safest road we can. we are working with all the apartments on the street improvement permit which right now at the stage where pg&e and the water apartment is waiting for us to have some kind of approval with the houses because they don't like it was any kind of permit to build the road to build utilities without having a permit to add a catch-22. we're trying to make things work but at this point here we need some

kind of approval in order to continue moving on and finding the best solutions we can. we continuously ask the neighbors to give us feedback on the road on the project and what we've heard is a position and never end of any willing to work on the thing. whenever we had a comment that we could address we did and we want to continue working with everybody but we feel like there's been a lot of misinformation spread around to ease fear conveys a position on the project. we are on bernal and bernal is known for its character. we have worked with everybody and i think you know we were offering to houses that are reasonable in size. i think

though that less than 2000 ft.2 above grade. the 40 foot complying. they have two-car garages. they were reduced. we work with the neighbors and we start with a reasonable hopes to start with. and bernal has session 242 which is overly restrictive. we came with the project fully compliant and were offering more mass production and were fully compliant to the code. i think, i want to thank staff for the report. they did a lot of work and i think they did a great job and i want to thank them for the patients through this process. it's not been fun for anybody. i want to keep on saying to the neighbors, who want to work with them but this is our lot and this is not an open space. it's never been an

open space and we are open to any kind of suggestions you might have in your wisdom and hope we can continue providing good solutions. thank you. >> president fong: mexico >> testifier: i think i heard they brought this property 4 years ago from 2 years ago zoned residential never develop. as often happens in san francisco, they can assume falsity comes republican but open space that's part of the issue are facing here. nonetheless, her zoned rh one. always have been just like all the other lost about 2. we

worked with numerous components. obviously as a competent project with the pipeline the street with the dpw working with the fire department. apartment that departments union with the fire department. better street program. proposed various designs to the street. try to work the neighbors fabian and the project sponsor have offered to actually existing driveways to actually pay for the design and the rebuild of those driveways. opportunity with the city agencies to work on that there hasn't been a lot of cooperation. that offer has been on the table. jim's the bigger picture issues, in terms of the staff report indicated, the 2 major issues that were raised in the dr request are outside the jurisdiction and outside the planning commission

that the pg&e pipeline and extension at both street. those issues are being addressed. there'll continue to be addressed. is the project sponsors intend to make this a great project and one that works for everybody. the pipeline the pg&e representative that spoke tonight the answers they provided are different from the ones that were provided earlier. by pg&e in response to written questions that by the dr requesters and others. this pipeline is inspected annually that the protocol for how to do with construction projects in the vicinity of a problem. they have a representative on site. the working with dpw and the fire department to address all these issues. again, they will be addressed at the project sponsors at every much interest in the safety not only themselves their workers and the neighborhood as the dr requesters. as to the claim of being out of scale, as you know the bernal heights special use district makes it impossible to develop a mansion. there's a

height restriction is based on grade. he reduces the size of the project. there is a mandatory mass production. that's part. in this case it was exhibit a project sponsor made changes in the design is requesting planning me changes in the design at the request of the east slope design review board. whether not complied with the review boards comments, if you look at the table contents, what they require, crewcut, check street trees, check it entry treatment, check. side arts, treat with treatment, check your façade elements, check. colors and materials, check. the only comment made in the dr request by the design review board after 5 meetings was some additional design articulation or interest in the north structure that is one that's closest to the bernal heights street and that's where bedrooms were we placed project

sponsors didn't offer to do additional things to invite additional elements in that but there are issues of privacy for the family but otherwise as the planning dept. phone, and that the design guidelines as a residential design government complies with the planning code complies with the bernal heights special use district other issues raised by the dr requesters garbage bill service, these issues can all be dealt with good weather cars cannot drive out of the driveway up and down the street again, the project sponsors or work with dpw disciplining approval for the street including the grade than the continue working with them after they get their approval finally, the talk about sql for a minute the 2nd. when pakistan ceqa caselaw ceqa practice for 30 years. if the project in san

francisco could not use a categorical extension because was up to 2000 shaken in every single house in san francisco would require an eir. there are 6 lots on the street but there only applications for 2 projects right now. categorically exempt, weston 3 units or no application as this puts forth the printer port no applications. for lots in san francisco unless there's an application in the reasonable foreseeable project. as to the pipeline issue will be dealt with and not as significant issue that cause an exception to the category such. if there was i would've dealt with it. with that i know you've had a long day. 2 couples trying to build 2 modest houses. and trying very hard to be good neighbors in the prospect take your time. >> president fong: dr i'm

sorry. speakers in support of the project sponsor. >> testifier: commissioners jim fogarty my wife and i on 2526 [inaudible] we met with the planning department another city agency. feasibility of our development. were satisfied with our sponsors the compiler cities design guidelines. we welcome the planning department my vacations to respond to your suggestions and met 5 times >> staff: are you the owner of the property turned in your part of the project sponsors team and a time to speak during that initial 10 min. you will have it to been a rebuttal if

you like to address the commission at the time when the math questions for you later. >> president fong masking beakers for the project sponsor but not part of the team. >> testifier: i'm not part of the project. many i am a resident at 66 spring st. i am a resident at 66 spring st. i own but 29 in the space the amount strictly across the street the proposed street. this project might be built on and i sent you a letter. i hope you saw it in your pocket. i served on the san francisco redeveloped mission proposed 12 years. as president of it for 2 terms. you can imagine how many projects that came before us that would fall into the classification they probably know as [inaudible]. these are

privately owned buildable lots properly zoned and i honestly heard all the arguments i think the residents are very well organized word i was a very political folks. i can tell you when i moved into my house i had nothing to do with the development of it if you look on bank street where i live there's 5 relatively new homes that. the street was built as an extension of bank street in order to make those lots buildable. 3 homes were built by the same developer and i happen to be one of the people who bought one of those homes. little did i know there did this tremendous struggle to get those houses built tremendous organization by the opposition just as you see here today. i purchased my home in 1984. so

i've been there 22 years. i love living there. i love the neighborhood. these are good people that come here to ease these concerns with you. i think they do it in good faith. but, i don't think any of them actually believe alec. i went to 2 of the meetings of the slope design committee. as you can see as i said earlier i been so many of these meetings in the redevelopment commission when he says a projects are before. it's easy to get lost in emotion and in arguments that sound pretty good but really aren't necessarily. i think this is a situation where you have that. steve street other state streets in san francisco. the firefighter, the fire danger, well the fire department had stairways built from bernal heights boulevard above were these houses were

built just recently within the last 5 years nor to provide firefighter access. to these places. it's a beautiful open field. i bought the lot behind my house. you don't preserve open space. i did the last for ever. i knew market conditions would change someday donate them >> staff: your time is up. >> testifier: minus #both pres. 307 mullen ave. those on the same block the state in 12,000 years ago on here tonight to say what a good neighbor is the good person is good thing that people in this room right now are treated him as an outsider because he is different today but i can tell you i lived alongside him for 3 years he's a good guy and we he built his house is very

honorable. because that spits into the neighborhood very well. he built us courteously. he was respectful noise and dust. he's a good man and i hope that one day the people in this room. to take him as their neighbor and discover that for themselves they can treat them more like a friend than an outsider. >> testifier: i owned to lots on the other side of the street. i was going to build those for my children. the only thing i want to say but this project is give them a chance the proper agencies engineers to look at the project that's got together and let them do their work to see how well it's proposed. give it a chance to ride it out completely to see

how it stands. thank you. >> president and other speakers in support of the project sponsor so if you could wait make your way to the micah. microphone and. >> testifier: this project is concerned with the bernal heights of special use district and the eastern slope design guidelines. those design guidelines call for a maximum amount amount of 650 feet west. these 2 houses are in additional 200 ft.2 and if you take that to_feet apply to the house we looked at earlier of 8000 ft.2 it may not be significant. but these houses are only about 2000 ft.2. that is a significant reduction.. i'm here also to address some concerns put forward about a

whole variety of issues that really don't belong in this room. let's start with the fire department. i spoke to the assistant fire marshal this afternoon. no such position has been taken with these streets were with these sites. project sponsor met with a captain in the pre-application meeting and they were devised at the site could be supported by the departments. key components left out of the letter done by consultants state streets less than 100 feet long will be treated differently houses full of sprinklers will be treated differently. houses built with one-hour construction, houses based this on fire slope test. streets less than 100 feet 100 feet long with fire hydrants at the top and the bottom. according to the assistant fire marshal these are all key components. this project can check every one of those boxes.

as far as the slope goes, bradford street in bernal heights, 41%. broderick street, 38% in pacific heights. men love 30% in the beach of dentistry in bernal heights, 37%. the body street, 35%. we are not doing anything different here. it's steep if not unprecedented. as far as the gas line goes, project sponsor is willing and dedicated to working with all the officials with the state, local puc or pg&e. the same type already runs along. street. it doesn't seem to bother the existing neighbors. in fact, the neighbor to sites down is pretty relaxed about they built a retaining wall perpendicular but directly on top of this.

they didn't check for corrosion. bidding check good they did get a permit. they do not engineers. p permit. it's ironic it's a big concern right now. they are committed to working with people in their official capacity, not hired nsultants. the same way were here tonight in working with staff and planning to permit the work with the puc pg&e san francisco fire dpw and respect their policies in place. they're committed to working with the neighbors and we wish this could be dedicated to a streetscape plan. >> president fong any other speakers and support the project sponsor? not seen any dr request or you have a 10 min. rebuttal. there are 19 dr requesters. >>

>> testifier: good evening commissioners. from the slope design review board, like to point out from our letter that you all received that 3 issues remain which is why we are here. one, relate to site by stepping on the hillside. 2, incorporates side yards to break up the box effect on the streets between the 2 buildings, and use façade elements to break up the box effect on the north side which will be viewed from the bernal heights park and boulevard. thank you. >> testifier: commissioners were ready ee