is unbound. >> out-of-bounds it is going to be a little bit more work i'm willing to go down this road a tenant to tenants issue allows for we don't want to freeze everything but allow for change and other portion that requires a higher level of scrutiny i've persuaded. >> commissioner moore. >> i don't think we have of time and not a moment just yesterday, i read an article i forgot to mention a few blocks on thirty 14 and 26 street one block out of 26 street outside of the boundary a hundred and 61 square feet zero bedroom unit

that is selling for $499,000 a wonderful first square feet cost of one thousand plus square feet dollars per square feet those things are harboring at the edge of this board i'll hand this out for you to see i'll leave it at that. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay let me ask mr. sanchez a question or two we talked about experimentation for us and the general public comment what happened at the end of the 5 year look back and/or that is challenging for us to adjudicate some of the fees what's the process to adjust our finding are the programs we're talking about here. >> well, we'll do propose legislation to fine-tune if

things are not working we'll justify adjusting to take away a cu or add a cu or remove that's the purpose of you know it is a intern process it is experimental. >> okay. >> just to be clear we don't have to wait 5 years if something is not working 5 percent. >> you'll see that with a proposal to fix it. >> i want to throw out there and staff probably will not be happy with adding more work but i think that the thing within the 5 year period as projects come to you and as we learn about the criteria the commission has it's own policy to further interpret those you could employ or adopt those to give for directions to the

community and department those those criteria will be interpreted. >> a final question for the director so some of the comments i said here today, if i were to support this can question communicate that to the board of supervisors i did not get into we talked about the whole calculation of restaurants in a radius to get it percentage we talked about polk street mcd and there were multiple conversations how much challenging for staff to run those calculations sometimes, i want to make sure we are not replicating and challenging this - >> sure so this will be the same process that staff will have to do whenever a restaurant eating and drink use that requires a cu right now they need to do do three hundred feet and check for the 25 hundred

threshold run the city calculations okay. >> all right. >> and then in terms of my comment with the mcd adding a summary for the board of supervisors. >> i think that will be done through the resolution i reference of referred referred to the a - >> you present the opinions and the discussion that happens. >> okay. >> that's important to do that. >> okay. >> thank you so again, thank you to the city staff and director rahaim i know you've been involved in forming the policy and thank you very much. we see a lot of familiar faces you've been here for years in the mission we know that is hard

working and talking about formulating policies we appreciate everyone's involvement. >> indeed. >> commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to deposit the recommendation for approval. >> will you be accepting supervisor ronen's suggestion that she mentioned at the end if they choose to include the exemption for a change of use for a change ever restaurants. >> accept that change. >> as amended regarding do limited restaurant amendments submitted by supervisor ronen commissioner johnson. >> commissioner koppel

commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> (clapping.) >> thank you yeah, the commission will take a 15 minute break. >> good evening and go welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regularly hear 2017, i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. commissioners, we left off on item 11 for case 1101 van ness avenue this is conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm chris at the planning department staff and the item before you is a conditional use authorization to allow the adjacent mc-3 for 0 the installation of 3

identifying wall signs on the camtc hospital building at 1101 van ness avenue the project sponsor proposes so have 3 signs with the maximum height and street frontage in planning code section for signs in the rc-4, however, the planning code section other peoples that community needs are different if hospital and medical centers in our district and allows the use of mc-3 more across the street in mc districts across the street from an 34508 and the commission in serving the signs made permit signs that steady the stated standard to meet community needs for accurately identified medical institutions

with the exemption of flash lights and moving signs are prohibited as property on the corner of geary and franklin and post street and franklin street identify the hospital and the emergency department entrance and on critical corners four is hospital and multiple pedestrian approaches to the building in emergency situations and both of the signs exceed the rc-4 on behalf of curve per section sign number 18 as property is critical for identifying the public brans entrance ab on post street exceeds the street front in combination with 22 along polk street the the metal and panel system and consistent many

color and today, the department that receives one e-mail from the public if the folks on behalf of the nob hill association the project sponsor has met with the members of that neighborhood and residents of daniel court several times the neighbors major concerns was a brittleness of sign the project sponsor will dim the signs and involve the neighborhood when we finally list the light level the project sponsor also reduced the size of a couple of signs per the neighborhood associations request to alleviate the concerns pertaining to the conditional use authorization and ms. morgan has sent a letter of support dated january 20th following revisions in the packet the department finds it

necessary and desirable and compatible and recommends you approve that with conditions for the following reasons one the project will provide additional identification for the buildings approved for conduct and not affect the overall design the building and two the project will approve the traffic around the hospital by more clearing identifying the hospital and the emergency department from a distance and much vehicular and pedestrian approaches and 3 it meets all the requirement of planning code and is consistent with relative olympics of general plan this that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions as well as the pardon. >> thank you, ms. alexander project sponsor 5 minutes if you like to present at this time. >> they.

>> the speaker card a nike part of project team your this fine great my additional so we'll open up for public comment my any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, none public comment is closed. and open up for commissioners commissioner moore. >> the applicant has gotten a number of challenges by the neighborhood since the project has different zones across the street a senior living facility the questions raised by the communicated community were probing questions i attended one the meetings at this time the puc property it was in the same page an independent piece of powerful what is in front of

u.s.s. not complies with the code deadly with a very large building i believe that the general discussion has changed the as i understand in a manner that are compatible with the setting that occupies not just the large lot but also building by which by size are typical for the area for that reason i think the signage in the very targeted location is appropriate and i'm in support the question i'd like to ask the department director rahaim is it will be interesting to said the building from a large context of the other approvals in the general areas the streetscape plan the brt of the historic land pools and new fixtures including do moment signs on the sidewalk approved

by puc i've asked the applicant to provide a page i think they'll be accept and expend are has sent i don't know but good for all of us a welcoming gesture to understand the questions and if this would be put at a short informational picture that would be helpful to all of us. >> was that a motion. >> yes. >> second. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded. >> commissioner johnson pursue commissioner moore commissioner melgar commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and commissioners that places us on item 12224 townsend street conditional use authorization. >> this i'm chris at the the

item before you to establish a parking garage along townsend the project sponsor, please. >> want the planning commission to approve the self-righteous and 60 on-street parking with tenant parish by valet staff the proposed hepatitis c u hours of operation will generally be from 65 m a to 7:00 p.m. and close after the special events after hours egress and ingress are not permitted the the subject property has 3 large garage doors that provides ingress and egress their vehicles that occurs on the street as a one-way street they

want the commission to approve that the condition that the first 25 feet along townsend street been mandated to be separated from the parking with a demissing wall with a commercial usage for the storefront on march 10 of 2011 which ultimately authorized the temporary parking use the commission debated whether that was appropriate the determination was made that the commissioners would like to see an active use test location but is downturn in the economy at that point, they allowed a part-time use in 5 years time needed to see a active use along the townsend frontage and future that is transparent windows that are sit what did you do along

the transit ordinance preferable student its been inevitable our article 10 and licensee listed on the designated work program we have a few phone calls regarding the project and most of correspondence has been positive regarding the conditioned use as a public parking garage two individual are pdr use instead of parking and no letters have that on submitted in indirect support or opposition to the project with that said the department finds that to be necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommends you approve with conditions for the following reasons the project will continue to provide on-street parking in a relatively small facilities and not substantial traffic to the area or adversely affect the

traffics open an adjacent street, and, secondly, the short term parking and the unit that concludes my remarks and 3 the public parking garage will booster the restaurant bar and entertainment establishments in the area and will not affect the offeral design of the allegedly fourth a active use for the storefront along townsend student will booster the pedestrian experience and provide simplest to the surrounding neighborhood by requiring an tussles along townsend street is 2, 3, 4 keeping with a support the characteristic of the historic building which has storefront windows and 6 it mooefsdz meets autos app believable policies of the general plan that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions and the project sponsor would like to make a

presentation. >> project sponsor 5 minutes. >> just a that concludes my report. the cu the chair has the for another to modify that time. >> you don't. >> given a long day i mean. >> i hear you start at 10 i i understand. >> can i have the overhead, please? just to come we turn it on and expand it a little bit 0 it seen more clearing and start my 5 minutes thank you. >> thank you, thank you okay. >> good evening here real estate department parking operator here's the operator right behind me the parking operation has been there over 10 years and the proposal for to continue the main issue were talking about tonight is the wall i appreciate planning department

staff support of conditional use permit itself as it did 56 years ago i was here 5 years ago presenting the same case ace a consideration of putting in a wall then for reasons i understand and are valid today your commission decided not to require that wall the wall is not cheap that has improvements around the fire rated and triggers it could cost between thirty and 40 thousand and the garage activity not a retail tenant and the public will see a solidify blank wall for several years that will be a realistic project for reasons i'm talking about this will

really not happen before the entire building is redeveloped by one the development that are proposing to buy the prompt more than 5 years ago the project sponsor hsa had talked to lease the front area for other than parking and found a restaurant tenant 9 planning department felt there were too many restaurants in the area and putting in a restaurant prohibits prohibits the entire building the restaurant will operate in the first 40 feet so i report this not to blame everyone but point out there are certain situations beyond the control of owner led in the i think ability of of the an active tenant we started another 4 would be great if i had having another minute or so staff wants

to see the proposal as i mentioned so and i want for the staff request we not put in the restaurant a restaurant there today and my client questions the faster than of now requiring an active use when he had one in the past my client is questioning the fairness of the statement from staff that if this year not a wall built there one 90 days of today, the inspire garage partition will have to shut down completely it has been there over 10 years and no complaints of my kind the giants that spoke how important it was for this to stay in operation given their lack of parking that is, of course, less and less over the last few years the active use probably will be

mr. there but for the central soma delay i don't want to blame the staff the eir consultants has to do with but circumstances - the important things to remember the vendors were making did proposals today all have tussless i'd like to talk about the interior this is townsend street here this is a lobby that has to be kept there are officer on the second floor reachable through the stairs and lobby that means the spaces in the 25 feet would be on either side of the lobby one here one here given the distance of 25 feet with the wall given this is

thirty feet the facade that faces 47 do and 50 this is a space of seven hundred and 50 square feet there will be a lot of tenants and neither the parking operator nor the garage owner it interested in paying the improvements and the retail tenants will have to make their own improvements this is a shell and improve the lobby it is basically in poor condition and not much improved and fix the facade the retail facade has to look nicer than that looks over a lot of money not a retail tenant we think a wall will be here and question the wisdom of putting the wall today, people can see through and they see people parking their cars this

is not the most active use but probably than we see with the wall i appreciate your support. >> thank you. >> we'll likely have questions. >> opening it up for public comment i've got one speaker card glen. >> all right. my other speakers on this item next year seeing none, public comment is closed. >> what's the historic use it 19 it designed as a garage. >> it was built around 1935 and built overflow room in the department what confirm as as an industrial use i think energy and later before this use that was an automobile repair shop for the last automobile and that

was their prior to the period 10 years ago when the operation enhance began - the last industrial use in the history was in the mid 50s. >> thank you. >> and it was a pdr use until 5 years ago and they submitted it for a change of use for the parking use they surpassed the required 3 years to get the permit and got it last august that is a question whether they can technically the planning commission can rescind the parking use back to pdr but if you continued use this as

parking we'll keep that in place one thing he mentioned the 90 day timeline we did not request that as planning department staff that was the project sponsor that requested that they have 90 days to get if change you have use for the tussles we're not putting a deadline on that. >> i want to thank you very much for explaining that i want to spin the idea of a parking garage mr. radulovich is not here telling you we can't have parking anywhere i believe that the use is covert not even the 25 foot tussles will make that more active give that is a walkable building i started to ask myself a different question the parking garage is used with 35 independent spaces and 60 spaces in tandem.

>> can we recreate to make is an electrical car parking. >> with the giants who are now the warriors and everything else moving down it there we'll be short of parking i thought about electric charged vehicles and thinking about densification and specific cars for one smart car like the cars occupy one space you create additional capacity in what i will building a forward-looking way of creating spaces one idea to not necessarily ask for activated frontage because we have so many

rain water spaces converted in new buildings you walk down the street and look at the neighborhood at the new building not attracting retails and it didn't have much land for a proper rain water space where are the bathrooms and stock exchange can we look at the forward-looking garage that slightly does more and still look at this other continued garages i'm asking questions i've not discussed but like to have a different discussion. >> sure. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i think i agree with commissioner moore this i'll make a motion but i agree with a forward thinking comment we've talked about the dog patch use i think that will

be a perfect test case in the future if it continues on a parking facility to look at the the forward thinking the interest would automobile buses autonomous seconds to think of the buildings to pack them in closer so have the egress and ingress and not the uber's and the lyft and whatever shared vehicles type of companies that will be using those cars circling around the streets waiting for a ride but those buildings function as a locus for that reason i'm definitely in support of this and to your point commissioner moore i think once we have more of a pathway on this future of parking sort of facilities in san francisco that will probably be a legislative and regulatory change had that retroactively imply to the parking but for the

location i think that is perfect for where it is and also the experimentation with the future looking dog patch reuse scenarios to mrauft. >> if we have a empowermenttion or policy framework for the future of parking facilities in san francisco i'm titling it take that note copy writing down that would be further regulations and retroactive i'll not come up with the future of parking right now. >> i want to jump in the back of planning not having thought about that. >> forward leading yaudz can i

clarify the motion commissioner johnson's motion includes staff's recommendation for the first 25 feet active non-parking and wait a second wait for the first 25 feet will be. >> this is the first 25 feet. >> 5 feet. >> it is parking. >> huh? >> so that will be a change if okay sorry let's go back. >> staff is making the recommendations to alternate it with the first 25 feet tussles. >> okay. >> do you want to hold it. >> let's make an additional comment i thought i read that in the motion i thought that was in the motion. >> can i ask alexander a question on the tussles would that be any use or does that

have to be retail or pdr or tussles. >> active commercial use restaurants or and there's - we don't clarify as office as a tussles. >> not pdr. >> not as commercial active use. >> commissioners chime in i'll comment whatever it consistent but have a paramount frontage for active uses a list of them within the district they are somewhat limited to a narrow subset of uses that can be out loud on the ground floor pdr will be a consistent use down there so retail, etc. >> a small office.

>> no they'll not be permitted and pdr is not active but allowed under the. >> zone yeah. >> not under the recommendations it be active; is that correct. >> correct. >> so the project sponsor how far is that 25 feet. >> rick gladstone are the upper market office going back here if you look at this line here's where the wall might be at 25 feet. >> right. >> i believe the mezzanine is shown here goes here i get it. >> and end here. >> not on the other side. >> just over here and it is a bunch of small offices if in area. >> on the empowering cumber i

mean, you're argument you don't want people looking in and seeing a blank wall what are they looking now. >> they're looking and seeing parked cars and handicapping spaces and parked cars and . >> how many spaces. >> the proposal to put 8 bicycle racks people seeing people going in and out of bilk racks unless a wall there no reason to do that. >> right the bicycles you'll charge for bicycle use. >> no they're available for the community and if that's a you condition of approval not for the patrons they don't need it but the community benefits more than the code requires for parking of bikes the proposal to put in 6 to activate behind this class and the handicapping space

and valet parking here where people enter are right here so, yes this is not an tussles or tusslactive use - t code says an example of use is this angle active use no, but more active use what the - of course. >> i think the notion if there something between but wall- i like staff's recommendation but be open to modifying it for pdr use there but i think having something beyond a parked cars is kind of in the front off townsend street is important and kind of a principle we always

have here so - i'm supportive of staffs recommendation perhaps broadening it so pdr allowable use beyond the active use and commissioner vice president richards. >> what's the long term plan for this building. >> several developers have come to the owner and me in meetings with the owners and one proposal is for a hotel and the other for office the staff has told the hotel developers that they want the first 20 feet of the facade to be preserved entirely maybe 22 feet so any new development will start actively where the facade end the old facades turns and continues to 20 to 21 feet wanting the developers to keep this and build other stories in

the rear at the back but none of those developers have come down to enter into escrow. >> a question for staff if they cut off 22 feet didn't that destroy the building. >> sorry what was that. >> in the landmark program hallway but landmarked as article 10 the resources on to itself would the destruction of the first 22 feet be allowed. >> it will have to go to the historic and environmental review process they went through the process for the hotels which was the planner on this and there was have many concerns of what they're proposing but said

they'll have to go through a historic resource for the process. >> can you help me out it looks like central soma coming here you know we have already the d d i i'm sorry. i'm so tired the d dr comments they're due monday they're talking about a temporary solution and being rezoned whatever we did he think will be temporary in another 5 years so i could go either way. >> yeah. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i was go back going to go without the staff represents to have the active frontage for all intents and purposes this seems to be temporary in central soma and stand by my comments if this

is there longer how central soma community-based organizations this is an opportunity to be a test site for some of the sort of experimental parking we should be looking at and a as a city i don't know if this will arbitrarily happen with the space cut outs is if you look at the other side of the town there is a bar right next to it to the letting left and to the right on rich i know another bar and directly across the street is the parking for safe way i'm just not certain that graduating an active frontage in this day for all intents and purposes we know will be temporary the schemes of the things really gets us anything sort of weighing for the pros and cons and seeing what staff

recommendations that's a motion. >> second. >> just for the sake of argument looking at one sites the mezzanine above look at the fad facade of this building the windows are not open and seven hundred and 50 feet of pdr could be useful to look for pdr space doesn't have to be well, pointed can be rough space. >> well, i guess. >> one side on townsend street. >> one side of the building under the mezzanine easier to build a wall.

>> yeah. >> the project sponsor says they'll accept a compromise about requiring the pdr for the quiet side of the development. >> for the clyde street and staff if you do decide to not do an active use we'll request you put a temporary approval for another 5 years instead of permanent parking. >> that's the one on the mezzanine. >> that will be acceptable to us as okay. sounds good. >> the motion to approve with the pdr space for the square footage underneath the mezzanine. >> yeah. for parking use could be pdr or retail. >> underneath the mezzanine do we know the approximate square

footage. >> if we do that lets say permanent something else that happens in the area. >> i think from the staff says we'll not do that do that another 5 years. >> is there a second to that motion i'll second that great. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'm good. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm good. >> commissioner there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with seven hundred and 50 square feet of non-parking on the mezzanine commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner

president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and commissioners as item 13 has been continued to april 13th it places us on item 14 1183 ocean avenue this is a conditional use authorization. >> welcome. >> good afternoon commissioner president hillis and members of the commission and staff todd kennedy with the planning department staff the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow a formula retail bank wells fargo to locate in the oofgs transit zoning district that converts 2000 square feet of vacant space into a bank the sftv is on the southeast corner of oceanic and bring out ton with the signage and

exterior automated teller machine are promoted under the sections of the zoning code a conditional use authorization is required for a formula retail retail bank at this location to date the department has no comments from the public the department building this is necessary and desirable for the following reasons number one the project will improve the interior by creating an open and attractive storefront activated by the proposed business and provide the services necessary to serve the residents of neighborhoods in the area underserved by banking option and 3 it meets all autopsying believable zoning code and for the project is sdifrnl and compatible 5 that will increase the formula retail to 6 percent

one a quarter of a mile that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. kennedy project sponsor 5 minutes if you need it. >> good evening commissioner president hillis and commissioners and staff i'm jim with the architecture with me 3 members of the wells fargo team if you have questions of the operation i want to thank todd kennedy for a super job it's my pleasure to work with him we accept the conditions and wells fargo is really excited to get into this neighborhood we met with the ocean avenue association and partnering with them on a mural that speaks to the commitment that wells fargo wants to make to this branch it is truly a

neighborhood branch and underserved place for banking this is outlined in the staff report so we'll really welcome the opportunity to thank you for looking at our project and considering allowing us to build. >> we have a quorum if you have my questions of me or of wells fargo we're here to answer your questions. >> is there any public comment on item 14 seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards. >> i think this is what formula retail concentration is allowed underserved by bank. >> one comment a cut and paste error referring to some other bank i noticed it. >> wells fargo didn't notice it.

>> (laughter). >> commissioner there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that with conditions as corrected commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously commissioners under your discretionary review calendar for item 153932 - 3934 26th street this is a discretionary review and just for a matter of advise to the public if anyone here for filbert street 2855 filbert street that matter has been continued. >> good evening planning commission the subject property on 471 hickory street the renovation and addition to a 3

story building that will excavate and expand the level to one of the ground floor level the proposal includes a rear edition to the two and three floors this property on the north side of 26 between sanchez and church in the rh-2 with a 3 story two plat with garage the adjacent properties in the rh-2 district adjacent neighbors and 4 neighbors across the street are concerned about the facades and light impacts on adjacent properties one neighbor has concerns the size of the unit the location is reducing a unit by 25 street and a exit and assess the filing the residential design team reviewed that and found it met the

standards for residential design guidelines and didn't present my exceptional or extraordinary where respect to light and air it is appropriate since the fourth floor is setback from the wall the project and privacy issues are within the policies to be in a denser environment the scale and massaging it appropriate it is in a mixed use character with scale and architecture the following rdt the staff made modification the walls with the downstairs unit from the garage and a 5 - enhancing the ground floor unit and making that more prominent with landscaping lighting and other architecture features

they're done and incorporated in the plans now before the planning commission and one further note the project sponsor gives further provisions to the front of the facade that was forwarded to the commissioners via e-mail undercover officer the planning department represents the commission not take discretionary review and approve as requested that concludes my presentation. >> so dr requesters and one in this case; right? jonas you have 5 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm a dr requester and live behind the project on clipper street in an apartment for the last 5 years i know the

neighborhood i remember when noah vally was a place there were hippie moms and artists i understand that change happens and i'm not against that even though i'm stereotyped to the proposed facade it out of character with the types and square footage and not meeting the rdt guidelines i don't want to stop the project but can you help me out please remove the top floor according to the architect the main windows are 50 feet away because the 12r50er8d height i'm going to lose my sunlight during the day and most of year and at night artificial light because of the windows this year is exceptional or extraordinary i live in a 1965 building that will be

approved in noah valley but lose the sun in my home the loss of sunlight for the fourth be floor addition will block the light and air also going to have all this artificial at night from the glass on the rear ironic losing light in the day and gaining it in the night. >> on page 16 of the r d g it says in the review the team didn't respond to any issue the only addressed the setback from the east side of the project number in the rear where i live and i'm the dr requester the fourth floor addition as nearly 40 feet high my windows will be below the fourth and the setback from the front of the project will not solve my the downstairs neighbor

she's got tons of sunlight and been there 2 two years again, we will lose our sunlight the only solution to get rid of the fourth floor they don't need the 5 living room of this project and call that a guest suit by my biggest concern the loss of sunlight during the day and kitchen not force to lose the vantage the sunlight this is my main source of light and my bedroom faces north and in the living room and kitchen is literally going to be compromised my wellness and make that unpleasant to live in my one bedroom apartment where i've lived for the last 12 years. >> open up for speakers in

support of the project i have several speaker cards and (calling names). >> please line up on the screen side of the room. and speak in any order thank you. >> good evening my name is a patricia i live in the property adjacent to the east 3928 a small victorian in built in 1890 and i've lived there since for

the last 34 years and raised my daughter in to home and in noah valley and a native san franciscan a lot of concerns about what is happening to the neighborhoods in the city i'm very concerned about the size of the proposed project in that that will totally dwarf my victorian i have bathroom windows and kitchen windows on the west side and also the problem with lack of light of more concern to me the facade the facade is very industrial looking very stark and angle last year and out of character with the rest of the homes phenomenon the block that makes no attempt to

take into consideration of more concern as a native san franciscan and someone that lives on the block important 34 years what that project will do to the senior of the community in noah valley and on the block what we have some developer coming in and then building a large-scale project and the developer not planning i believe to live there himself but mainly to flip it what does that do to the character of the neighborhood and do to people that want to establish roots the existing building has two units that families could live in for the proposed building has one very large unit and when one small in-law unit granted two

units but not two units that families can live if this proposal, in fact, removed one family-sized dwelling unit most people have roots they want to sense of community building this anomalous style house with a developer who didn't probably plan to live there or have an investment in living in the community really undoes the feel of the communities and making that a place where people with families, and misrepresent generational feel of the block take into consideration we need to preserve the mr. cook and communities like this so house

and maintain more families who can raise their children and have the opportunity that i had to raise my daughter in a family-friendly misrepresent generational community thanks. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> engage my name is jason a resident on 26 street and live across the street from the proposed project i'm not here to stop the project i want to a reasonable sized home my main objection the roof deck during the preapplication meeting he expressions my concerns about the roof deck and it will negatively impacting the architects placing the shrubs

for privacy i learned the shrubs what about removed by the new buyer once the developer completes the project and raised our concern i was surprised no modification to the fourth floor height in fact, he i was shocked on the response to the dr the proposed structure increased after the notice went out to 39 feet plus only one inch below the allowable height limit i obtain because a living room and family room room on the second floor why would someone need two families unless the second living room will be an entertainment space i lived i moved there a family-friendly neighborhood and wanted to raise

my 3 young children their bedrooms faces the fourth floor and roof deck that is we don't know who will be puncturing that i don't want any children woke e woken up with partying second the fourth floor roof deck invites parties and will have a significant impact on the home and the fourth floor roof deck will increase the square footage is profit for the developer i'm not an architect or planner but this project is so magnificent in scale and not appropriate in the existing development particularly in relation to the adjacent home the project is designed aggressively and insensitive and finally regardless of numbers of

stories i don't know if my other family unit that is 39 feet 11 inches if so this project will set a precedent for future development thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm here to support the dr requester and oppose the project at 3932 - 3934 26th street for one the project as the other folks testified too massive to big for this lo block and for in modest sized home and it in its current

form didn't rehabilitate the current characterization of our neighborhood, and, secondly, it stand out like a sore tumble that is against the residential design guidelines for the top debris can i have the overhead, please? as you can see by the rendition of what we're provided by the project sponsor here the building clearly stand out and much taller than the building to the left one size and the roof line progression is not followed with the height of this building. >> it seems to me the most logical thing to remove the vertical addition the top floor vertical addition not matching the roof lines and didn't follow the roof progression but pits

puts it 90 more in line with the neighborhood and direct your attention to another project that was just done a few months ago and this project is another one of those projects that are above and beyond the roof lines on 25 street as you can see in this picture it is clearly turn around the corner building as you may know the corner building is the prominent building that are supposed to stand out nightclub the project is much turn around the corner building another picture that as you can see the mass of that project is from another angle the fourth floor addition sticks out this

was brushgs but you'll make the fourth floor vertical addition and not built ♪ current form and lastly bring to your attention it is not in line with the houses on the block and not asking for a modern interpretation of the housing around the block >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> can i start. >> good evening commissioner president hillis and fellow commissioners i'm lynn i will directly across the street from the project lives there for 5

years can i have the overhead, please? i love my street it is lines with clean and traditional homes all were built before 1935 the majority before 1910 in a 45 year span in the 19 hundreds thirty out of 31 are one and two stories above the garage not a single modern home on our block first, the character and scale of the homes on the block the fourth floor is not in keeping with the blocks charm not respectfully the typography the slope and meets no guidelines an scale and either the street or with the adjacent building not only will that dominate over the victorian homes about alter the gentle slope and conflict with the street facade

the projects 3 level unit is over 4 thousand square feet the average square footage on both sides of 16 street are 11 hundred and 50 square feet to the proposed unit is almost 4 hundred percent than the afternoon home that is exceptional or extraordinary so removing the 8 hundred plus fourth will be in keeping with the rest of the block. >> i also disagree with the historic research valuation in the hr e several things questionable one not yet the opt out of the lower flat 3932 on page 13 the late occupant left in 1982 not true a man that has lived there over 60 years heels

carl an engineer that worked for the city this is his home. >> page one we had signed by the neighbors and carlcarlos self-righteous is here not acknowledged before the commission how will he be taken care of i'm very concerned thank you. >> thank you. next speaker ms. swedish. >> good evening i want to make a couple of points in my e-mailed letter to you early wednesday morning february 8th this project fails to meet several residential design guidelines regarding topographic and site design on package 11 and page 33 and issues in the

arranged relating to sunlight on page 16 of the guidelines which is a set of reasons why the 8 hundred and 70 square feet addition should be removed a singular reason for removal how regarding the consistentcy in 2014 the commission removed the penthouse for a project on 437 duncan my street in our motion your basis for recommendation was the removal of top most floor to maintain the existing one and two scale and form on the street i think this is a same thing the commission voted 7 to zero on july 2014 and four of you are still here 3 of you are here tonight the project is on a block of similar scale in the duncan street

parking i know to show you an illustration fiona ma you took off the fourth floor this is the project elevation on 26 street right there i don't like the reduction in the size of unit on 3932 to 8 hundred square feet but that is legal that's the problems are the loophole you can do that i think the other problem with 3932 is a tenant in there that's as a problem and hopefully not a tragedy you can make that small unit because that is legal i don't like it but what is worse that fourth floor that is learn the unit we're moving the fourth floor addition will make that a better project. >> thank you, ms. swishing any

other speakers in support of dr seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes. >> good evening my name is john i'm the project architect and i just wanted to say we had a lot of lively dialogue with the neighbors and continue to invite that there is some opposition to the project i want to go over the features to have a delipidated 3 story building and proposing a project that is code compliant that is a project that is desirable and a project that produce a family-sized home with a smaller 3 bedroom home and it is incorrect one thousand square

feet so actually, the quality of space we're taken back by the dr that was filed we've had a good dialogue with the neighbors we believe the project that is proposed proposes minimal impact to the neighbors and minimal overall and facilitate with the neighborhood guidelines and the rdt reduced this several times on the fourth floor is large setbacks a 15 foot and a setback to the east and the addition is barely visible from the street another person shows from across the school yard living a block away those rendersings see it is varied if two to four story

buildings and can i have the overhead, please? this is a streetscape that shows an example many 4 story buildings on the block there is 5 that exist including the dr applicants building that is the four story building what the 5 story penthouse we're just i'll show you the graphic aerial this is a 4 story building on the same block not a neighborhood but a one and two story streetscape we have a neighbor directly adjacent to the west that is supportive of our project not all the neighbors here are given the project so when we met with the dr applicant we actually had a very positive conversation and we compound a meeting with the neighborhood we mostly with the adjacent neighbors were very engaged and wanted to talk with

you, however, they refused to accept the fourth floor and unfortunately and with respect left with the inability to have litigation measures we decided to go on our own behalf and make changes to modify what we felt would be concerns and address the concerns we redesigned the facade made is softer in keeping with what the neighborhood might want it concludes with the existing cornice and the base albeit changed from traditional to more angle last year, we building this is a good move other mitigation we did both properties one 35 the clipper behind with the fourth floral no effect to the sun to their

windows and we're glad to share that with you especially also we're concerned with the east neighbor and does a sun setting realized that was directly to her house the soltice we proposed to remove a position of the deck we knew privacy would be an issue we want to mitigate the direct effects that might be of concern to the neighbors so ultimately to summarize we know when but add into a house there is significant impacts but on the way to resolve them and we're in in regards to the tenants below

ripening patterson will be speaking on our behalf. >> thank you might have to go into the rebuttal period with the 8 seconds remaining we are consciousness about the residents downstairs the owner has a good relationship and commited and you'll have an opportunity at the rebuttal are there speakers in support of project that are opposed to the dr i have one speaker card richard. >> i'm here to read a letter on behalf of the neighbor on the west side at 3936 i'm the owner the adjacent building to the west of the project i have been in conversation with the owner and the agencies throughout the planning review and have a good understanding of

the proposed design we have addressed the concerns of privacy and the architect have been responsive and i appreciate it i think the design is a refreshing change that the delipidated building i think that works well, in the neighborhood i like the facade and not just the eclectic surrounding i hope that is approved as designed. >> thank you. any additional speakers in support of the project. >> seeing none, dr requester a two minute rebuttal. >> the gentleman who spoke with all due respect a developer. >> ma'am, ma'am. >> you're not the dr requester are you. >> no, i thought i could had

had rebuttal. >> is he give your rebuttal time to her, she spoke as a public comment it is odd she becomes part of dr team as not part of your team that will be the sthag. >> the gentleman that spoke is in support of building that's great but purchased the building he's the developer naturally he will agree there is angle arrangement they'll have to leave not that clear per anyway been a long day thank you for your time to hear our cases i will mention that whatever small items the architect anticipate project sponsors are proposed at the they can be

removed they don't address the core issues and ever since our meeting with the project sponsor they - the fourth floor was not negotiable the developer wants the fourth floor also correction the proposed first floor is not one thousand square feet per the documents 8 hundred and 31 square feet and you have to admit that a 4 thousand mrs. for one family is in the 40 in proposition but maybe in the soma sew but not a resident of noah valley and selling the home for the highest price that's great for him we're the ones that have to look at this building from ever angle and no gain for us from the developer wishes to respect the neighborhood character and the typography will be restoring this in

keeping the height and allowing carl to remain in the home one last not all the neighbors between church and sanchez will be directly affected none was for the addition of the fourth floor the neighbors take pride in the traditional humble character the noah valley block thank you and we hope you'll agree to remove the fourth floor. >> so project sponsor you have two minutes. >> thank you very much ryan patterson for the project sponsor and can you distribute those. >> i'll address briefly the issue of the long term downstairs tenant like i said the tenant has committed to not been displaced mr. jensen i

understand about a dozens he's 95-year-old and not able to get up and down the stairs easily anymore the owner has offered in relocating him in the neighborhood at the same rent below-market-rate and voluntarily mr. jensen didn't want this we'll not force him to leave this letter is commit tool not e vicinity him and responsive to the neighbors concern they wouldn't negotiate they want to misrepresent generational project that is exactly what this project is designed for this is family-sized the city's deserve the smaller unit a smaller unit

with privacy and escaping is built in planters and we'll put in a permanent irrigation as extra protection no roof deck decks not along the roofs the developers has been sfleft and the fourth floor that everyone is concerned about is barely if at all visible from the street and setback 15 feet from the front as i understand that and one and 15 feet away - 71 feet from the deferring and one and 1 feet from the neighbors across the street. >> thank you very much so this portion of the hearing is closed we'll open up to commissioners questions or comments and commissioner moore. >> since the code or

residential design guidelines we don't give us my concrete tools to speak about what building what size building is proposed and where i'm coming to the conclusion we need to face the fact that a modern design that applies to this particular building i'm sitting here and i've basically have to take a position that comes more from my own intuition what constitutes the balance units for placement of units old and new units and find our own balance and saying those are appropriate units those are not this speaks to a misrepresent generational family program i personally don't see that what is in front of me speaks to the family home programming i don't see anything in the

how's that remind me of the discussion from supervisor yee on family-friendly housing and have a difficult time when a remarkably sized unit for two units with 13 hundred square feet that switched to 4 thousand plus square feet respect and 8 hundred and 70 downsizing i have a hard time seeing that to be an equal challenge and basically have a resistance to support that and while i'm repeating myself we as commissioners don't have tools we don't very specific size to define family or as a unit by which it is appropriate for living spaces the lack of development intensity in rh-2 i handed out

the article this commissioner earlier about a 200 and 61 square feet unit bedroom unit in the emerging mission district that particular unit had a square foot of $1,666 this unit was smaller and was equal in size to the - that sits on top of the fourth floor if i take the square footage we're close to an $8 million home is the indication for 499 in the mission that is probably in an upscale neighborhood i'm not questioning the architects qualification i question the problematic nature for this commission at least for mitch to

support something that is so out of whack for what we're supposed to do i don't want to intentionally with this building and take off the fourth floor i personally can't support the building as it is in front of me for the reasons we believe that my responsibility to balance the request for reasonably sized units at a reasonable price people can't afford to live in the neighborhood i'll support those who live there and i don't think this building shows the sensitivity i expect in the neighborhood. >> thank you commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards this is another shot of our planning commission ship get our arms around what is a family unit how many square feet because of this ever week the 3 things that hit me on the

tenant issue the gentrification not two unit check sham unit is that a substandard servant unit no light and air context density equality we have two fairly equal units with a shuj unit no check there we went through that with supervisor yee on a family-sized unit i arresting agree with commissioner moore that you know anything can be multi generational go see an equal to support this i won't be supporting that the fourth floor is basically the bottom unit the fourth floor and the fourth living room i think the decks are too much i appreciate the redesign the facade to more in.

>> thank you very much. next speaker. >> in keeping for lack of a better word i have a problem with tenants we had an issue on the street people were living there once we approve this we don't know what will happen to this urban design group are we sending them to a bad place you know, i i have no idea i can't support that given that as well look to have this continued and have more finding on the tenants and have it redesigned so two families can live there and an extended family. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you. i agree with the point raised by commissioner moore and also like by commissioner vice president

richards the letter provided by the project sponsor is not sufficient for me so i once worked but with the mayor's office of housing gave a permit to a property owner not to evict a tenant and all sorts of stuff and nevertheless, you know as soon as the project was finished they evicted the tenants it went to court even when you have a bunch of stuff there it is still you know doable so for me a letter just not going to cut it so i can't support the project. >> i would echo what the dmeshgsz my fellow commissioners have said i think that if we were looking at i mean, i go either way a 3 story building

with a smaller unit in the top 2 floors maybe that's okay or a - the building you have i think you can reduce the massing of that it is kind of a jewel box on the fourth floor to be a down play of the architecture and less glass but not against the fourth floor but this makes that better if there were two equal sized unit combined with the basement units and the ground floor portion and have two equal sized units i get it the president to modernize the home and while it is a decent sized two flat not the great flat some kind of with the kitchen in the back i i get it the kind of notion to modernize it but went too far with the magnificent

units with the par units or whatever you category grizzly it. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'll ask staff when we have those cus to ask what the tenant profile is if someone that living there and try to make a decision with this i think the other thing that i've seen in my neighborhood i know that ms. swedish bring to our attention those have small units that marketed as small unit homes as whenogram comes we're not getting the clarification and we see this having this may or may not happen but that raise the equity question he move to continue the item t