of reasons i believe that filipino started in we went in the process it shouldn't be of new surprises after we passed the legislation last year, we want to work with the large developers with the large-scale sites so prominent as this location and the lgbtq district should be included in the conversations on a different note first of all, i really agree with what somcan is saying a lot of the issues around we we want to see in the neighborhoods supporting the developments i think for the expirations i want to bring up the fact a lot of the projects are - i feel there be detrimental to soma because their plans that really in different slots and differences decades i'm concerned about the loss of this gas station and

i'll tell you that is not that i like love driving in san francisco i hate driving in san francisco we're losing 9th street and going to lose first street gas stations and lost fourth street and central subway and the pressure that will be putting on to get gas in the south of market where we're located on both sides of fourth and fifth it is a lot of pressure we don't have solutions to alleviate the environmental conditions we'll be dealing with when we are looking at central soma and the eir i mentioned those those are compound conditions and so i know this might not be the place but the fact you'll, e be looking at the resources that is supporting the whole thing so before that gofrdz i want you to think about

how the traffic moves how this is going to be shared or have a loss in the center and what are the solutions we'll be dealing with maybe not today but a continuance it need but the larger issue something we work with the planning department staff to look at the whole comprehensive network thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm representing the sf party and endorse this particular project the planningd

planning commission came up with this what i call the age condition this was on all the

projects that were into the industrial years the property owner and all skeshgz shall disclose the project was built on the property when it was industrial and the property was surrender by a mixer of residential and industrial and night life entertainment in the industrial use and d the industrial use from the job is important to san francisco i witnessed that in the asian neighborhood c that the nature of the industrial use is often noisy and operates at all hours of day and night and located in the industrial areas c that activities permitted in i don't know probably mc-i generate noise from patrons d

parting the areas and e surrounding industrial facilities may generate others circumstances and conditions that may be considered by some people as that was offense to the use at 1298 and f that there existing nightclubs and restaurants in the nearby area this is an area in your files i'm offering it as an exhibit an n s r that was opposed by this planning commission on the work so it is appropriate to impose one thing i just opened to to the continue condition it is appropriate to impose those conditions on both market-rate housing and industrial property

in this south of market and in the formal industrial areas this is the only way you'll be able to keep the pdr and institutions like asian neighborhood design and those are really a valuable job training program. >> thank you ms. hester. >> next speaker, please. >> hi good afternoon. i'm working for chevron gas station i'm a manager over there and say congratulations you guys one of the people that are working what about the people from the starbuck's and from chevron and this is amazing it is good but creates a lot of traffic we have enough traffic you guys think that it? thank you >> thank you, ma'am is there any additional public comment on this item. >> seeing none, public comment

is closed. commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess question for the lady. >> is she still here. >> so we have a project calling for the cook factory building you do you remember you work with the developer what came out of that work how long did it take. >> basically, their considering the design guidelines we're asking you to put some filipinos design in there and also lowering the light so it is more pedestrians feel safer walking down the street since a lot of people have been saying since the lights are so high it is dark in the south of market

so those are some of things we had talked to the berlin ton coat factory. >> was that that the design. >> the streetscape stuff. >> yes. >> how long did it take. >> took less than two or three weeks to talk with them and other developers actually had had diligence of meeting with us set up a time-share with them what is going on in the community and give them the things we've heard from the community members, they go back and talk to their clients, those things can a tack anywhere from two to three months it depends on how the staff and developer is able to respond to our demands. >> how significant were the changes from the design the building on theburg link ton

coat. >> what is significant that is starting place for us to talk with the developers and have them understand what are the needs of neighborhoods it might seem small to us in terms of it is lowering the lights but a big deal for a lot of the seniors that live around that area. >> sure. sure thank you very much. >> so one other question i know there is a soma filipino cultural district have there design guidelines. >> we have our first meeting in february to have a design guidelines with over 50 residents and architects we invited a lot of the developers that had spoken he be that at our meeting and excited about

the possibility of having those thing we are also already in the process - been talking with the ninth and mission a gi project for almost a year on howe hit the ground having the designs on the site there is hoping by june we have some design guidelines or booklets and they'll decide what we want to put out there we're not here to tell the developers to put on their sites we would love that project sponsor with them that makes them happy and us. >> thank you. yeah, thank you. >> i remember when this site first opened thank you very much it was called another name tinys i guess i thought this is hey a kind of neat thing in the city

get a hearing we have to drive crosstown and get gas there should be a better way with the bars around this site i think - he i guess ms. levi you heard the challenge about burlington coat factory i can't recall there was exterior changes do you have thoughts. >> i want to say we submitted for a pta and sent out nos when we submit sent out nos and been schedule to go brother this commission now 3 times and each

time we posted notices so i'm a little bit surprised that people especially organizations didn't know we actually sent out the notices oak having said that, that has been 3 years and we would like to work with them i would like the commission not to hold this up but i'm a community-based person if we can accommodate it will you know there are a lot of areas in which i think we can make that happen we can certainly the muse is open space and work on the landscape i think through is a lot of concern in the neighborhood especially from ken and kidnap we clean up natoma balls a lot illicit behavior as homeless are moved around the

city and it has a good pedestrian zone to work with them in light future i'll make a commitment to do that. >> have a lot of street credibility i'll be open to i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but i think if there was more design the filipinos are put on the project will be welcome. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner koppel. >> i'd like to echo the comments of commissioner vice president richards that is an opportunity site with the gas station being there on the corner there could be more things on the corner not so user friendly - i was looking at the drawings and looked at the roof plan on that it t and wondering

if there sustainability we're trying to do all the san francisco entertainment commission directly in the muse especially a lot of setback we're not parking on the site so i think if you're familiar with title 24 is almost like recertification right now so i can comment we're doing 15 percent better than that but again creative with our stormwater management at this time i don't know legislation means we have to be solar ready but we submitted beforehand and i think the owners will hold it and being economically viable. >> one more questions are maybe thoughts of entertaining electrical cars.

>> yes. we were part of the subject to go before the entertainment commission we scrutinized the ftes and especially side windows across the street from sf asia are rated 50 for those of you who don't know a suburban rating is 21 and an all around rating is 0 thirty to 35 we've been required to have somewhere at 43 or 50 a much higher inspection c types of windows. >> i like the project and the opportunity here i'm sequestered this asian neighborhood design if were more involved looking at the for what purpose cultural map it brings from market to brannan from second story to 11 street light that puts you guys

from the zoning map section want to see more conversation. >> commissioner moore. >> the way it is this is an exceptional will project i'm confident that the conversations that permanently was overlooked can occur and constructing occur prairie knowing how much personal time the architect has put into the commutative community participation itself when the area came forward with the guidelines for strong neighborhood activism reaching 8 to 10 years ago with that said, i think the projects shows residential design guidelines we should hold high and looking at the drawings i'm waving at mr.

teague this particular set of drawings and with more details than we normally see i'm in strong support and hopefully, the retail requests what will be in there will you resolve it with the uncertainty where we are with retail and people ord from the web we hope there is enough active how the large space can be used i hope that is not one that will be how did with paper on the windows but actively transformed the street level for this large stretch of free spaces on the block i'm prepared to move to approve. >> second. >> i echo it there is a lot to like about that project i appreciate your analysis of the

design and kind of the urban form the alley is a good form not just the end of the building you broken this into two areas it is like. >> rest area you, you know or a power street it didn't belongs in the what we're doing it stitching back more pedestrian friendly and what it should be i appreciate i'm in full support. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> one other thought one more time. >> i think you were here you and ms. imperial during the 5m hearing remember that i sat up here and said i'll go ahead and let it continue and convinced 4 people there are not 4 votes for

a continuance i'm not going to do that but i'll say i guarantee that ms. levi will engage with you and the cultural district and try to find that to make it a reality and i'd like to sit on the meeting just because i want to learn about the design and learn more about the architectural skill and some of the folks he look forward to get this approved. >> i'd like to say toby we were part of western selma with her and some filipinos didn't pass with the western soma plan was part of discussion so we really hope they will take a real effort to be able to get the thing we have today if other developers with doing

that we hope this is the thing from her project as well. >> i'll decoration staff we have other projects with the filipinos we ask the project sponsor whether they engage with those folks so we don't have this happen again, thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you yes supportive of the project and thank you very much for the work so far i guess i'm in support of filipinos and potentially for other organizations being part of you know some sort of space for nonprofit and benefit in if way i think a strong argument to continue those discussions the fact that building first of all, is fantastic onsite childcare that's great that's really great but also in addition the building has other amenities and all in on the sort of new economy shared ride and a lot of

support for delivery services and a lot of nodes towards the economy that removing the ground floor retail if you look at the area this is not necessarily where you'll have high end restaurant we have around that area is spikes and costing to americans and what is a on the other side of natoma street there is a strong argument but i supporting some of the community groups nonprofit that provide services and having space it is in my opinion i support the project but having the future discussion is not only to support those communities group and keep them going this is for developing for generally for the city to look at more general retail we're going all for the new economy uses sewer planting

the used for retail services. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> mr. kevin are you involved in the project can you ask you a question. >> could i ask a to next cast the net for the community as light and possible. >> we'll continue to broaden the net. >> thanks jonas. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions i take it your amenable to the staff recommendations very good commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on 15 a and b and c for case

555 howard street you will consider a downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider request for a variance. >> good evening tilly chang planning department staff the project 555 howard street demolitions that building with tall tower three hundred plus 6 mixed use high-rise with 68 units 15 percent go or 10 units will be permanently affordable and with the residential on natoma street and lobby on howard street the sky bar with the rooftop that includes one

and two million bicycle spacious and vehicular parking spaces the project is located between 1 and 2555 howard street - south side of howard street, between 1st and 2nd streets. and three hundred and 50 height and bulk district the project sponsor will talk about the design first i'd like to talk about the regulatory things it requires several acts including did downtown project authorization and exempts for street and power separation and rear yard and wind current and freight loading and upper towers and extensions it requires the conditional use authorization to establish hotel use for the sections of the planning code compliant with the criteria for exceptions and conditional use authorization are described in

the draft in your packet but in short the department building the conditional use authorizations are warranted and meets the criteria by the code and finally that requests two height exceptions one variance from the requirement for 21 units that back up 20 feet for the under ramp park where development is not likely although the - they dew technically adhere to the rear yard per section or a definition of a public right-of-way the second variance from restrictions on the vertical assess opening the vertical access can't reduce the opening that are required for the vehicular access the project requests a further height exemption per the section so for

an clarity penthouse per the state law and this had exceptions to date staff has 5 lowers of support if sftravel and china and spur and a community organization they're included explicit from spur and dennis i have hard copies for anyone that wants to review in conclusion we reminder or recommended with conditions that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, ms. chin project sponsor. >> commissioner president hillis and commissioners good afternoon. >> you my name is haitians senior vice president for the specific eagle before i consensus he wanted to thank the planning department staff for the tireless effort in preparing today's meeting in particular

tilly chang. >> doug we've overboard property in san francisco for 23 years. >> sorry if sfgov could go to the computer please - >> specific eagle has overboard property in san francisco for 23 years we are invested in the city and entitled to build for the long term this is our decision with regards to the quality of construction and the sustainability of our buildings we offer the hotel we own under our grant the hotels specifically are property in new york and chicago and earned local and international. >> claim there's a flagship on the other hand, and excited to build the flagship i'm here with friends from the local partner

and our architectural team with the working group and mark our associates this team has 15 years of experience working together perfectly owned the academy of science in golden gate park let's proceeded to the presentation the proposed property is located in the central plan district area it enquorums two commons a hotel with 200 and 55 guests rooms and sky bar and public open space 69 residences we provide 15 percent bmr on site as the requirement of the transit plan the property meets the goals of the plan and is consistent with the zoning controls

located between 1 and 2 street and just a minute to the bus terminal that is hosting the - you currently has two and three stories used for officer and some hotel use in the survey the transit eir none of the buildings were determined to be historic landmarks or relevant to the historic district in the lead after the meeting we conducted extensive community you outreach and held two community meetings had a involved dialogue with all the immediate neighbors and arts and commerce organizations and housing groups as well as earned the support of construction

trades and the hotel union local 2 i have additional support letters i'll be leaving with you if you would like me to go through the slides again i'll be happy to. >> sfgov can we get the - >> okay so without further ado, i'd like to hand the microphone to my partner in charge of the project on behalf of the permit holder company. >> thank you first of all, i'd like to say we are happy tobacco back in san francisco we visited the site almost two years ago a small site adjacent to a back ramp and saw the frontage we decided we were existed to take the challenge

this is one of the first sketch that highlights the fam for us that is important for this project first of all, it is how the building touched the ground and second the facade and how it became important to reach the podium commitment and further to create the public space we invite people to a special place our architecture is out of proportion we when studied this in addition, we really liked the proposition that created the comparison so we would like to re create the east and west side this is why we added a difficult a gap we call notched notches to

make an that houses the building this is in comparison to the other buildings existing or approved but we think this this building will are a high-level of detail this view from our street highlighted the notches i already mentioned and the building itself i think maintain a good relationship with the surrounded buildings we'll be able to see the trees at the the top and this view we think should invite the public for a space this is the panoramic view the ground floor is designed more transparent and spark of the city the size will be activate with the hoot and residential lobby

the building didn't take over the site the cable is transparent we created a full acceptance of light two floors with suspect in the glass box and angleing from the ceiling we hope that is with the dollar side of back ramp there will be a strong subcontractor between the hotel and the restaurant and this transparency will give you a much wider sense of the site it will look like an extension of the building and that will look like an extension the park the entrance is more intimate scale we think that is more appropriate for residential lobby and the garage next to it we have been worked to give it the same type of a articulation and

the same type of detail that is a typical hotel for space and we like the fact go with the notches we'll be able to allow like in the public and same on the residential floor plates if level two million up a setback there. >> open to the public and reachable from the lobby the top floor will have a sky bar but will circulate the top of the building with an internal stair with the outdoor terrace we envision like a firefly setting the team is committed to

including a double system to address acoustic and safety architecturally the design provides circulation to provide visual complexity to this glass facade this that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and i'll invite anyone to look at the model more closely thank you very much. >> thank you for your presentation typed open up for public comment fewer i have two speaker cards (calling names) and please line up on the screen side of the room. and/or approach the podium. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for the

opportunity to speak i'm linda the executive director of the museum of africa that is located in the transit district and the year to year art district to speak that the 555 howard street there is a sensibility to art in the culture in the district as equal as their commitment to affordable housing as evidenced by the inclusionary affordable housing component but really a deeper conversation that we don't want the district so or to have our culture

districts exit as districts go through the transform and the public space located at the top of the building as well as the ground floor my concern and concerns of some of my cultural partners was this will not be a space that the public can use and in discussions with the development team they are committed to hear ideas and talk about the real public use of this space they're an opportunity for people to come into the hotel and go directly up to the public area and we want to and brought to their attention the importance a lot of the public spaces in san francisco are really public during entitlement periods and private when the building debuts

we want to be able to activate that space as well as their ground floor space and finally we had thoughtful discussions and continue with the development group regards to how the 100 percent art fees will be viewed i believe that we've expanded their knowledge about a portion of that used for some of the lead cultural institutions in the neighborhood as culture foolishness programming as well as support their concepts with regards to the project. >> thank you, ms. harrison. >> next speaker, please. >> hotel and restaurant local 2 here to ask your support i spoke about the two needs to

assure we are building housing to meet the needs of workers and create the living wage jobs that is what this project does insures the workers they'll raise the bar and standards for the hotels in the city this hotel is the right thing please support that thank you. >> afternoon corey smith on behalf of the housing coalition. i'll be speaking in support we reviewed the project recently on the 22 of february and thrilled their in front of the concussion commission a huge increase in value based on the site we are thrilled about the density to get the highest number of homes and affordable housing on this site the urban design was lovely i didn't do have i didn't

conversation amongst the architect and something that came up during want decision making that clear there is spies open to the public for everybody too often the only way people learn about it is going to the - considering the transit rich area we're not necessarily enthusiastic about 9 amount of park but you understand the parking constraint the one thing that is interesting so often the developers reputation you know about them especially the ones you work with in the past we did a tour open policies with the polk association and the project sponsor that was working which is now just opening up and they actually purchased the building in the middle of the entitlement process they were working with the community and i asked chris the local association how was

that having a developer switch he said no, it was something we were concerned with but smooth so it was the attitude they have so everything said we encourage you to pass it today. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm a representative for carpenters local 22 and we look forward to working with the development team and building this great looking project with the signatory general contractor thank you for your time. >> thank you, mr. durant there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> it is hard to see that much support coming out of the block

hearing mr. louis speak about raising the standards for hotel workers in a building like this and hearing carpenters local 22 empowering and strong comments to start what i'm interested in this building finally starts to reach a level of design we don't see that often the building sets off on a provocative approach to how to interpret the site relate to the finding of the modulation of a building scale and using the material a grass building we actually with other buildings have stayed away from want a more distinct policy but using glass and recesss in the form to make it like any other glass building i think the treatment of the ground floor is inn

generous it is hardly there and looks everything else but the building because of the light new because of the facade but within the ground floor and the ground floor and mezzanine from the facade you could put yourselves both the space and release there is a use i think that is lovely and pose from ancillary green design challenges i actually asked the developer how you want to do that the skin double solar we've not seen in the country my first question is that the first one that will be cost engineered out of the building given the technology we commonly know we thought that will do a nice way to create installation for the selling point that the commission knew there was a lot of depth with pursuing the

technology if you look at their record at the academy of science that is many of the same team members with working on the design and implementations of the design i think that speaks for itself this is a wonderful thing to put forward and approve and i hope that we can launch this as as soon as possible to make this not just a dream but one we see in the way that that is proposed and i'm pleading with everyone in the room particularly on the director that we can release this project in the form that is proposed today move to approve second. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks i'm also appreciative of the primary know the public has seen one of the higher floors i appreciate

they've taken care of with the ground floor space that is definitely the first place that people can go and the public as much as 36 hair not always perceived thank you for taking great care and appreciate this is the public art that would be great in contributing this the rest of the neighborhood i have one question i think that is fantastic and choose the onsite affordable 15 this is a condo so i'm asking maybe both project sponsor but the city do we have a sense of hoa and other expenses i'm happy to see this but i know we've had other buildings in the area that have

chosen the onsite and had you amend and those projects and get the fees their bigger than the mortgage so i'm wondering in the staff or project sponsor can respond to it that there's any work. >> thank you for the question john with the else onsite bmr is the only option under the plan this guess obviously where we are preceding you bring up a liability point we clearly need to study to execute on that as far as the hoa question typically responding engaged a budgeter around 50 percent once the floor plans with locked down and have something to work with we don't have that yet as you indicated their seasoned and gives rise to the policy

question of implementing affordable housing policy for the projects. >> thank you and now i didn't eat anything for lunch i'm gettin tessie. >> that was one ti fremont it requires legislation. >> by the way, because of the straight requirement has the limitations for the redevelopment area had an onsite requirement you can't require it in other places but at the transit center. >> thank you for that again, a that's not for the project sponsor that is a great project

and you guys have aligned done a great effort i'm excited for the building but i'm challenged i think this is more of a staff thing; right? i challenge you guys to go back to ocii and not entering one ti fremont territory we had to come back some 0 large like - so just one point thank you very much. >> commissioner koppel. >> yeah. amazing project everyone and eagle has been turning out amazing buildings in san francisco i'm really, really impressed to see this support letter from the building trade and the council as well as the hotel restaurant workers but does this project going to

employ the san franciscans and pay them a high wage residents during the job and during the construction of the job for a couple of years but also permanently infilling so that is a good thing and i'm also over and over impressed with the people are leading the gold to platinum is not done easily so don't underestimate that will be a new construction of building that is rare so i really like the entrance to the building i like the new construction on the spare makes you want to go inside of them and looking forward to trying out the rooftop bar. >> but again, very excited and can't wait for the project in

full support. >> commissioner president hillis. >> i'm anxious to go to the rooftop bar this is handle it is great for the neighborhood i think that will add much to the cultural value and having open space so move to approve items 15 a example and b and c. >> we have that there is already a motion. >> i'll second that one. >> so second. >> unanimous second. >> i like to make a tongue in check comment i'll be joining commissioner koppel and commissioner fong on the rooftop bar the reason i'm saying that when i heard about the rooftop open space my first reaction was a long pause because we have all

encountered in san francisco since 9/11 the rooftop open spaces, however, and what i'm saying in tongue in check permanently the architects piano said why and he said why not with that positive encouragement not just to building here but build is manageable open space on top of the building what the architect take on the exchange i want to see fully met. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> not to beat a dead horse i believe that project is wow. if i get reappointed this is where we'll have the christmas party on the 2020 a thank you

thank you jonas. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded items 15 ab with conditions. >> commissioner fong. >> commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero zoning administrator, what say you? >> on the variance, close the public hearing and and grant the reader variance. >> thank you, commissioners on item 16132 corbett avenue a conditional use authorization >> all right. the commission will take a 5 minute break. >> okay. thank san francisc commission i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar for case at

132 corbett avenue conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners nancy department staff the newport is a request for a conditional use authorization to construct a second unit on 132 corbett avenue pursuant to san francisco administrative code section and interim controls 132 corbett avenue is soendz rh-2 with a height and bulk district and located in the castro upper market neighborhood it primarily consists of one bedroom and bedrooms and three bedrooms the building height and depth vary within the neighborhood an lot with an two single-family residences with the single-family between on 16th street with nine hundred common

yard a evaporates to reduce the required rear yard to 24 to allow the construction of a second between on the rear yard the proposal will increases the square footage on site for approximately and will result in lot lot coverage that publication of the case report 3 letters in support and 6 in opposition for the impact for the open space the property are available for the commission to review the department recommended approvals had odd to the housing stock for the demand throughout the city the project mass and scale is compatible and consist with the guidelines for the infill development for the underutilized development lot it conforms to the residential design guidelines and has been

well-designed with design top debris and scale and form not have significant impact on the streets system and the project meats meets all the. >> applicable requirements for the planning code that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> project sponsor 5 minutes. >> of presentation. >> hello, hello my name is phil i'm here to represent the clients could i and to talk about the project that we have we're proposing and i in addition to the page that you all received just from the slides to show you some context of this project in the neighborhood to start the shows i don't know if you can see the neighborhood

we are in and it shows the our site is established between 17 we corbett and this is the view of the project site okay and we did a little bit of overlay on top of of the google map to should the density of the buildings versus the open space during the project some of the concerns that were brought up were the mid block open space in the area we wanted to address that and so there is some things that is somewhat i'm not sure unusual is the word between 17 and corbett 17 goes straight

across and corbett a way up and down so naturally lots ranks from you know 45 feet in depth to again one and 80 feet in depth our lot happens to be one of the longer lots in the block and this image illustrates sort of the open space that kind of in between these buildings mass and in comparison to the adjacent block to the north and south of our block you can see there sort of consistency of the mid open space didn't captivity exist due to the configuration of streets sandwiching that.

>> it illustrates the conditions of our neighbors neighboring buildings this zoomed in view of our site from the south side which is corbett rotating around a site from 17 street and you can see this is sandwiched between too tall 3 story walls this is the view from across 17th street we superimposed the image into the spourpt to illustrate was it kind of we're proposing and that is just another image showing you what is there now and we're proposing to do. and we worked with the planning

in the past year to make sure that all the architecture features and everything meets the san francisco guidelines and here's another image back and forth and some across this is a site plan to show the orange color shows what we are proposing and then the existing house on corbett versus what we are proposing facing 17 and there the illustrates our two adjacent buildings happen to be a lot longer buildings compared to what we are proposing to do this is a section that shows the evaluation between the south side of lot evaluation which is the north side of the lot

the existing houses this is an image that what we brought upcoming our initial variance to show if we were to expand the existing building to 55 percent that wyoming that would look like this is not what we are doing current which is the massing of what that would have been and this sign shows if we were to about forced to keep the 45 percent of open space what is remaining just 15 signages thank you, sir, your time is up. >> but in the commissioners have questions. >> thank you very much. >> open up for public comment any public comment seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioners oh, sorry. >> good evening commissioners i'm jean the projections owner and the current owner and unfortunately your time you could have spoke during the presentation but thank you. >> thank you. we may have questions. >> is there any additional public comment? >> commissioner moore. >> mr. sanchez would you talk us through the by rights of a code compliant expansions to the existing building and should there be a second building what controls come into practice and the rh-2 a hsa what's the compliant structure. >> certainly generally in the rh-2 zoning it is 45 percent of f with the required rear yard ambassador you can afternoon off of the adjacent buildings provided they meet qualifications there is a code

provision if our on a low the with the adjacent lots are through lots but with the rear of the property you can provide an alternative rear yard of 25 percent of the lot in the middle of the lot and with the structure at the rare and endangered front that property was cross to being able to do that bus the adjacent properties they have adjacent to the frontage here have sorry - the corbett frontage that has the existing building now so there are garages on the frontage now so not eligible for that but had that been developed as a dwelling unit this would have on a code compliant under the rear yard requirement that's the basic rh-2 zoning. >> this project will require a evaporates. >> whether it received a variance in 2014 and appealed to

the board of appeals the board of appeals unanimously upheld uphold it was subject to the interim controls they were expiring that was what triggered the conditional use authorization. >> would you take us to the interim controls and how this project does but no respond to the interim controls. >> the staff has outlined that in their case report and they want. >> you want to tell us that of what had does and didn't do. >> triggers two questions of the interim controls one was it increases the total retain square footage that the costs more than 100 percent and so wise existing single-family an corbett avenue is one thousand square feet and the proposed building on 17th street will be with one thousand that will be

an increase of one and thirty percent. >> i'm sorry the footprint will let me go so there are two triggers this project hits for the interim controls one is that it increases the residential square footage over 100 percent and it results in overly 55 percent with an increase in the unit count in terms of the will residential square footage the second one that on freeport will be 28 hundred square feet with the existing 21 will be one and thirty percent square footage and in terms of 0 total left to right coverage is covers 6 of percent because of 9 had plus increase. >> could you tell me a when do the interim controls expire.

>> it expires on march 20th with an extended 6 months. >> after that time this will no longer require a conditional use authorization it is our understanding the district supervisor maybe working on permit controls but next month the interim controls will not require a conditional use authorization. >> i'm concerned the interim controls are there for a purpose that commission got basically pushed back on what ultimately caused the interim controls on state and i'm not sure. >> ord street yes had a situation resulted in creating those 0 controls our biggest concern is this size of the enlarging or overbuilding a lot

is indeed an invitation to producing the united large than the expression of the average size in the area in this case, i kind of question that the unit as proposed is really a family oriented lay out again that is a few weeks ago on, on another project that project i'll have similar questions but those are my comments for the mom i want for the record clarify with the interim controls are relative to that. >> exposure. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess from the zoning administrator what explain the issue with the parking and why that wouldn't kick in here i don't understand that. >> in terms of the - under the cladding in both the adjacent lots were developed with the kwelz at the front and rear under the planning code

that will be a code compliant project in terms of of the rear yard because of the situations you can develop in a similar manner but in this case both the property their rears think corbett have garages and not between. >> 17th street. >> yeah. frontage on 17. >> the garage on corbett. >> i mean as well as commissioner moore those were put if place for the reason may or may not be extendeded. >> are you finished. >> we saw those on both sides of through lots and supervisor scott wiener at the time was sxernd in pga this we look at those types of projects but this

one is appropriate you can where it is in the scale of into the homes i mean it is 2200 square feet that is not huge a couple of bedrooms i think that works given the context i mean the depth of the that building is you know no where near the depth of the adjacent two buildings that is a modified addition what is viewed as a vacant lot on the 17th street side so i'm supportive of this i think that works. >> commissioner moore. >> i will actually have to withhold my support i don't think it is relevant that is a well positions home not design is acquit in coping what is next week to it a sideline and not my

reasons i believe that the interim controls ask for mo' magic that that project didn't really do the size as well as by context i cannot support it. >> confirmation. >> zoning administrator can you comment on the idea of mid block open space as i look at this one and in the overhead and context from running literally from the sidewalk on one side a pinch in the middle but open on the the subject property and have a you know kind of a small mid block open space to the garage on corbett what's your opinion. >> i find the project meets the residential design guidelines that's why i granted the variance they so you get in 2014 i don't, i don't know the impacts on the mid block open space are negative given the

context of the two adjacent much, much are larger buildings that front on 17th street the addition of the smaller building kind of doing was it, to provide relieve to the adjacent building was appropriate and that decision was to the board of appeals that unanimously upheld that and have a high bar when it comes to the variances as well. >> the zoning is rh-2. >> that's correct allows them to fulfill the density and there are two units in the building one building that's why the garage is in the back. >> the majority thought it the vast jornt of buildings in the neighborhood and immediate neighborhood my understanding multiple units those are two or more units certainly a lot of the buildings may accommodate but having multiple units one a large structure nicole that was

discussed about expanding the building along corbett but found that was an appropriate and sensitive restoration or addition that allows the preservation of that you existing building that was supportable. >> i guess one question for the architect, sir if i look at the coverage diagram on page 8 and the scope of the work that is on the same page a dot one i look at the red area but go to the actually proposed site plan that didn't look like it didn't sfroentd because of deck in the backyard. >> the carr minute colored area on the rear yard on the

diagram a-1 dot one with the proposed looks like it is a lot less and is that because of d k deck. >> it looks a lot. >> presuming you see that. >> the deck. >> the deck. >> i think maybe a deck and maybe the contents in between. >> a question for the zoning administrator if they sub defied it lot will it be sub defiedable it didn't meet the variance. >> a variance will be required for a rear yard most likely for will the size but that will be a variance. >> it is doable. >> i mean it is possible with the variance. >> with a variance yeah. i don't know if it is doable but a variance will be require okay. >> are you finished

commissioner moore. >> i want to ask the commission to take a peak at the third floor deck on north on san francisco transportation authority some of the details support any position i personally don't see 0 how that room evolved from the north facing kitchen with a balcony coughing the kitchen living room with a huge roof deck i don't quite get it go that's where the building is not friendly to the yours for the spatial position i appreciate the zoning administrator explanation - this building has challenges by virtue of the design has the responsive to the context as it

should be it looks like anal less than building no balconies on the north facing does the same owner basically goes up one flight of stairs in the revolver in the roof deck so why is the balcony there i think if it building will have a more modified approach to sgrashth the facade in a neighborly way this will go a hell of a lot future that's my comment. >> scombhoshgs. >> thank you, thank you i appreciate all the discussion we're having ton the project unfortunately, i can't support it we've had multiple discussions about this commission want to maximize the zoning i'm trying to walk the walk and not support projects that don't maximize the zoning

unless clear reasons that is a hardship i don't know. i see that given the case in the surrounding areas they have multiple buildings even though their the. >> this is maximizing so maximum of two dwelling units merry lot this is one a large lot but they're doing two opt out one on corbett and at the rear under the current zoning that is the maximum. >> can we - (multiple voices) on corbett. >> all right. thank you. >> any other commissioners a motion i approve that i think that is built within a canyon between two existing that homes

it is what it is called for to put a home that didn't community-based close is to the other two homes adjacent to it. >> but it is a cu we'll need to do something. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess i think the roof deck is probably it is problematic for me and an 17 the deck off the street looking at what their looking at across the street with poles and traffic speeding by didn't seem like it could be that useful i agree what commissioner moore and more neighborly building a house should be there but the design of the house i don't look at the

canyon as mid block open space i don't know who purposes it serves this is my neighborhood i try not to locate over the fence i would support. >> commissioner koppel. >> generally i'm in support of project i say see it is disruptive to the other buildings. >> disruptive this is a modern design so. >> speaking specifically about the balcony of the deck. >> sure we're open to definitely meeting our exceptions. >> i'd like to make a motion to approve with modifications to

the front facade. >> second. >> the modifications are the what exactly. >> the removal of the front deck bulge would you permit them to replace that with an er closed area or removing the deck they could do an extended from the floor below and have a kitchen area. >> okay. >> is it amenable to the seconder. >> for the record the reason he was confused in the schematics with the electronic copy no renderings or floor plans forces the second unit in the back i thought that was another building that was there so - >> it is not under right now.

>> no, no. >> right. >> there's a second building on the block. >> yeah. but they sorry to argue this is nothing for the second unit i don't think that of those part of project. >> this is the second unit i understand that but i look at it and didn't see. >> no (multiple voices) the existing and property unit existing to remain and the proposed in the schematic i thought that was not part of project. >> i completely understand awning my apologies there is a motion that has been seconded as to remove the front blatantly and allow to be replaced with habitable space par common sense. >> commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore no sxhifksz. >> and commissioner president

hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that that item passes 5 to one with commissioner moore voting against commissioners under our discretionary review calendar for 17 ab for 3772 20th street discretionary review the zoning administrator's will q consider a requiring for a variance. >> good afternoon staff todd kennedy with the san francisco planning department staff the item before you is a request for discretionary review with a replacement of a multiple level stair a garage located in the rear yard of a multiple unit building the garage that be reconstructed within the same footprint will consist of a roof deck the stairway will be

replaced and built to modern standards that case was continued from the hearing an september you 2016 it's the staff and project sponsor worked together and cooperated with the dr requester the project sponsor has turned many a revised set will be in kind with a new garage with a roof deck setback 5 feet under the zoning code must comply with the setback reminder will cover the inside rear yard therefore a variance is required to date the department has one inquiry recommends the department take the discretionary review and approve with modifications those modifications include a allow the rear stairway and deck to be reconstructed, allow the expansion demolition of the garage not allow the

reconsideration of the garage the reason is because the scope of work resulting will provide combrl 0 open space not an improvement for the - this that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. kennedy jonas this is a late hearing of a dr. >> todd we didn't hold a hearing that was just a briefly for today. >> that's correct. >> dr requester a 5 minute presentation. >> is the full dr here. >> i think the staff noted they've worked on the project actually it was conditioned. >> dr requester 5 minutes. >> good evening my name is robert my wife and i own a home thank you for hearing our

concerns and staff for their assistance through the project we filed the dr after reaching to the neighbors and unable to reach a - the roof deck and stairs will a adversely impact the homes we appreciate the modifications that did project sponsor has have made in rebuilding the existing stairways they allow the safety issues without entransfusion on the rear yard we do continue to observe or obtain to a larger garage with the roof deck for the reasons in the dr applications and the planning we specifically the existing main building has been extend the existing garage occupies the rear yard and further intrudes on the homes the property new garage b will

maintain the negative declaration awhile with the of height and negative impact and finally in project will be by far the largest encroachment of the rear block and encroachment by other neighbors if any neighbor can build a bigger garage so i can. >> we ask you adopt the planning department staff recommendation and approve the stairs and not lie the roof deck and other take public comment in support of dr and opposed to the project if there is any forgive seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes. >> thank you, john with rogers

on behalf of the property owners the project proposes to provide inspecting to an existing between with to no open space with an unsightly carport first, let's review the existing building if i can i have the overhead, please? thank you this is the existing building is four stories with four separate units and four families live there this is the rear of the building the staircase in questioning this is proposed to be replaced this is the heart of matter here's the ground floor plan of the building if you see on this side this is 2-way street and here they driven underneath the

home when you reach the odds a carport that occupies the rear the lot with 4 cars under the carport and one that parks parallel a little bit further in those are deed parking spaces to the condo unit in the building the carport has been there close to one hundred years not a new structure there's also again, because of the carport occupies the rear yard no open space on site and no roof deck so the owners have no open space the project proposes to actually let me show you this - >> can i have the overhead, please? here's the carport one hundred years old in poor condition not civil grand jury unsightmif

idea to replace that carport place a roof deck on the roof to provide open space three or four inches smaller the current roof goes up and down will create a flat roof but three or four inches shorter than existing structure the deck on top of that will be 5 feet on all 3 side so we provide privacy and it will also have planter in that area you know privacy both a concern of the neighbors as well as the project sponsor themselves so they're also interested if maintaining privacy the staircase is not expanding the size at all in response to

working with the dr requester this was work that was involved with dbi in pricilla chan to make that happen due to fire codes and that kind of thing we're replacing in kind that staircase is in poor shape they that will be a safety improvement to the property again, the proposal is the only feasible way to provide open space without the parking issues not that homeowners are interested if in we looked at several different configurations can i have the overhead, please? we looked at trying to put them parallel and not enough - add the lot is two narrow to be able to pull the cars into that parallel the car that parks is a honda civic a compact car as say we look at other ways to

accomplish the same thing and getting rid of of the carport it was not something that worked out. >> this is isn't the only structure in the rear yard 3 one adjacent to the property that is not the only condition it is the excited condition not proposing to construct a new garage we are proposing to replace the existing garage and i think that is kind of the critical issue you see here the owners are not going to demolish the carport and get rid of of the cars that is in bad shape with families unsightly legal let's replace that make that look nice and provided open space the alternative not to demolish but leave the existing structure in place potentially put more strengthening to the we're allowed by the planning code

thank you, commissioners. >> is there public comment in support of the project as opposed to to the dr seeing none, public comment is closed. dr requester a 2 minute rebuttal sir a 2 minute are you able to the no rebuttal >> i'll not make that a rebuttal thank you thank you for your time all over the place considering this my name is jeff i'm one of the 4 owners of the building and here representing the property owners i think that john already covered the original we've been to the building it is objective that is a dangerous and sightly structure we thought about repairing that but an opportunity to replace it in the same foot and lower it to joy it as well as dealing with the

safety and sort of the aesthetic issues you guys see from the pictures we came to the planning and arrived on the solution we felt good about made the public appealing and in response to the dr has mentioned we are one or more or working closely with robin and roberto lessen the impact that they obtained by the reworking of the stairs we rolled that back in the existing footprint the structure is coming down 36 inches and added did planter we are trying to be responsive to the concerns of the neighbors and addressing did safety issue for the families and i park my car there everyday from a safety perspective we'll addresses one way or another in

a way we can take advantage of the opportunity to add open space i tried to get in touch with the neighbors with letters and connected with 3 neighbors to the east and the northeast and all 3 conversations said they're in support of the project i know that todd mentions is one sent an e-mail he did do that outreach thank you for your time and appreciate it. >> all right. thank you that ends this portion of hearing and open up to commission comments and questions. commissioner moore. >> i like to ask mr. sanchez if there is a precedent to a situation this is highly unusual not in code something one will do how did this happen and how could it have existed. >> we have a lot of unique situations that would have been

code compliant at some point in time so my understanding staff doesn't see that was not legally reconstructed now at the end of the life it is replacement and identification requires the variance that is example i'm happy to share my thousand on the variance. >> yes. please do. >> i'm in supportive of open space i appreciate point sponsor has responded made changes to it i'm generally supportive of open space but have concerns of the densification of the reconstruction i know we may not get to a point we'll see a project we prefer a rear yard open and that be open space and the parking be you know reduced or to be relocated elsewhere in

building but not support of super there are other alternatives maybe a impossible but the roof deck maybe a pocket we believe that a half block from millers park there is open space that is assessable to property but as a matters of the variance it didn't meet all 5 variances to justify it. >> i appreciate your compassion or this allows the same renders with the door that take advantage of the property to property line blinds wall you have to have when you have a

stair on property line and the urban deck with the blind wall having said that my concern is i so forth the departments recommendation and analysis of this project, however, before i make a motion to take dr and approve the project with modifications i believe we're leaving ourselves at great risk to approve a project that did not comply with the recommendations made by the department including our transportation and submit the drawings as if we're here to approve the project as is it is potentially room for future dues when this project move forward for other approvals including dbi relative to rebuild the stairs i want to specific that is this a drawing set shows what

their time but not recommending to do i repeat he support the departments recommendation an taking dr and approving the project as exactly as specified including our interpretation but this needs to come forward first with a compliance correct i'm using the word compliant loosely correct set of drawings to get the approval by this commission. >> i'd like to ask for a continuance because i will not support anything until i see the drawings. >> this is a fairly uncommon situation but from time to time that happens i'll advise if this is your recommendation you take dr and approve with those conditions in the project sponsor fails to reply and then we can deny it. >> i'll put it a note of

restricts on the further approval for the indication no parking on the rear yard yes i am not if that's the commissions desire. >> that will suffice to prevent room for misinterpretation etc. i make a motion we take dr based on what the departments recommending with the provision of the notice of restriction that there is no parking allowed in the rear of this property >> can i ask a clarify i'm not sure i understand their parking in the rear you see that there is parking in the rear on a condition we'll allow for it but it is allowed i mean that is a non-conforming existing non-conforming use.

>> it is a non-complying structure but i mean, i guess it is a question of how the condition - you'll only support the project if it is not reconstructed that the project remove the structure that had open space and in that area and had the stairs reconstructed or rerepaired if necessary we can ask the project sponsor how they intend to move forward the assumption they'll request the denial of permit they're not and appeal that the board of appeals and issue a variance that denies the project they'll have to get 4 out of the 8 board of appeals board members to vote and as cattle pursue the permits that is allowed in the planning code

section they'll probably seek to repair the structure as is and allowed in the planning code and the building code. >> mr. kevin come up and address this is this is a condo the building is exonerated. >> that's correct. >> so 3 condos. >> 4. >> 4 condos and four parking spaces. >> 5. >> mr. sanchez is right we made that motion you will repair when is exist. >> that's the unique thing we're 0 proposing this is something we'll pursue but the homeowners will not pursue a permit that leads to eliminating the parking spaces the idea here wire proposing to let's take this and fix it up it will be fixed up or in its current position like mr. sanchez said

pull permits to keep it up but not you can see in a nicer condition as if we replaced this is a unique situation where their clearly not going to get rid of it here's a proposal to improve the situation. >> mraubz your analyze of the variance what is it that densifies that the fact they're building it sturdier and newer and the reconstruction of deck it is. >> i guess i see that as a good instead of the neighbors looking at on the revolver of an odd garage structure in the back the open space the open space to accommodate the four units under i get it that is unusual so we have a leverage to try to get near the parking or do we

just not like that open space. >> i think i mean there is not - at least one other structure that is kitty-corner to this at the rear but not a clear pattern of structures i have a hard time justifying the reconstruction they have alternatives that would be code compliant that maintenance the parking may be one parking space or the same number of parking spaces but other all of the alternatives. >> what are those it would be not necessarily be independently assessable but a long driveway that can accommodate cars within the lot they can have multiple vehicles. >> if you have to put 4 cars 3

people will have to back up their cars. >> they can keep it to the end of the peaceful life if so it removed it is removed but intensifying that with the open space. >> are they permitted to park there if it is removed i've seen the driveway through and people park in the backs. >> there have been cases yes they, retain that parking without it being covered. >> they could. >> i think given that alternative what is the harm of allowing open space would they're not going to get rid of of the parking i know unless there is so a probability to eliminate the storming and put parking on the main floor is that a consideration. >> yeah. that was one of the things i mentioned earlier we

don't like being here to not being on the same page what staff we spent a lot of time trying to think through this the lot is narrow and so if i can i have the overhead, please? so take into account look one space that is parallel that is for a compact car; right? that didn't leave a lot of room to let cars pass if you're parking normal-sized cars not leaving a dry by to assess that add to the fact that is the ground floor of the building; right? so these are storage areas right now it is - could you - i mean generally, the condition there is i'm sure a column going down the middle of that building holding up and often see digital

parking. >> that one is not coming to mind considering the storage space on the drive out so it didn't seem feasible.

>> i don't think we can force that upon you. you got a structure there. >> i don't know if you can tell from the drawing it's steeply slowing from the grade down below. >> question four mr. sanchez i look at this garage and it's in pretty bad shape i think pretty much any repair is going to kick into you doing 51% of it now. what we're doing now i don't see if there is anything salvageable there is water damage, dry rot so if they get a permit what can and can't they do? >> that is part of the permit. inspection they have a threshold

of that we also look at the plans to see exactly what elements would be removed and replaced. if it is a replacement, then we're back to where we are with needing a variance. the structure as i said, could be removed. that would remove the non-complying structure there would be parking in the yard. >> i guess the house is purchased with this garage that's falling down it's non-complying f i want to rebuild it you are not entitle to we hear you are not going to get the variance the structure is a dog rebuilding it and calling it a different space with an open top it's a dog with lipstick you can park your cars in the back no one is saying you can get rid of the parking if you need parking you can go right ahead but you don't need covered parking to me this is

all about covered parking i have frnds that live in the middle and top of three unit building they have a beautiful yard they never use because they are 3-4 floors up if they have to go all those steps they have to go all the way back up. calling open space on the roof of a garage in a shady area they're never going to utopia use it i think it's a rows to rebuild this structure that doesn't belong i completely support staff's recommendation. rebuild the stairs have permits you can still park your cars in the back no one is saying we want to take your cars way for your benefit and everybodilesses get rid of the shack call the carport is where i come in. >> commissioner koppel? >> i'm actually okay with the project as proposed can i ask mr. sanchez another question. if we take the yard and approve as

proposed you would not grant the variant you wouldn't allow it to happen. >> i could consider the findings you make in supporting the project i have concerns about it assuming i deny the variance that will be appealable to the board of appeals the board of appeals may be consider the fact the commission was supportive maybe i was irrational or -. >> okay i'm going to make a motion to take the yard improve as proposed. >> you would not. >> you would not need to take the yard you would not take the yard. >> i will second that. the reason i am is because i don't think - i know we don't like this structure it's not something we would allow you to build or want you to build but the alternative is not going to park dower cars n a row down the garage the alternative is

they're going to rebuild and get permits to repair and keep kind of an ugly structure there or park the cars in the backyard which is worse than all the alternatives i would rather have a nice deck that doesn't butt up against the neighbor's property to say people don't use it because it's three mroors down is not right people will use it it's a deck in your backyard we see this condition all the time. it's open space for four units. that are fairly sizable that can accommodate people so it's kind of punitive to say, yeah i get it we would rather you not have a garage and come up with a solution but the alternative is not good. what is being proposed is much better than that alternative. >> i completely disagree. and hope the zoning administrator denies the variance sorry it's awful. >> commissioner richards

additional comments? >> no. commissioner moore. >> i would like the dr requester to come up here one more time, please. aside pr the visuals, which we all see based on the existing condition of the shed what other issues do you have? is it noise? light at night because your bedroom faces the rare and you hear cars going under the garage? all of those things matter because san francisco homes do not have four cars in the backyard for this type of dwelling unit it's a 25-24, 11 foot lot the rear of the adjoining properties are gardens and quiet. can you describe what your biggest concerns are . >> it's true when we hear the cars we hear them going in the backyard downstairs i don't want to make too much of a big deal

of noise of neighbors we have a ground floor unit the same size as theirs we park three cars inside or building and maintain the space in the building that is fair. >> that is actually what i would expect for this building to do. whether that would require modification of the structure building a garage or tandem spaces done frequently to take columns out of the storage area where there is a will , there is a way there is a common interest with common area and where the parking is common area where there is a will , there is a way. i expect this building is a good neighbor i i myself would not want to live next door knowing what it's like in the small lot one the lot normally at night dark backyard including the cars coming in or going out

i support the department's recommendation and not support the motion as it stands. >> commissioner koppel? >> yeah. this is not an ideal lot size or perfect situation i'm trying to make the best of what is there or could be there. they don't have open space the shack looks like it will fall down it looks unsafe as do the stairs i would like to see those maintained and be more structurally sound. i'm not the biggest roof deck fan in the world, on this location, on this site i'm okay with it. >> commissioner richards? >> we had a project on webster in lower haight there was a

shock in the back and had a car like this. and garage in the building we said cut the parking lot in the building reconstructive and park in the drive way. i don't know why it worked on that project and doesn't work on this project. it's just inconsistent. >> i think if you go back and look at that project, the building was demos in the back . >> i thought that is what this was going to be. >> it won't be . >> ask the dr requester what you will end up with is either a bad structure - i mean, you can reroof that building we don't know - we're looking at the roof who knows what the structural elements are you can reroof that building and end up with the same condition you have or just parking in the lot, just parking in the backyard. to me, i guess, what are you trying to achieve

from this? >> i feel the privacy issues of roof deck are significant. additionally having the increase in the size of the building adding 4-and-a-half feet to the existing height increases the building in terms of looming in the backyard and casting shadows in the area sow don't like the roof deck from a privacy concern . >> privacy and height including the sensing . >> is there a way to keep the height of the structure the same? i know you have come back five feet. >> just to be clear the height of the building the carport structure is going down 3-6

inches now, the roof deck will entail 3-and-a-half foot tall railings we can make it class or chain with little impact as possible. but the roof of that building between 3 and 6 inches lower . >> okay it's the railing of the - it's the planter boxes and things those are designed to give you privacy. okay. >> commissioners, there say motion that's been sected to not take the project approved as proposed commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? to to not take it as proposed. >> checking account. >> aye. >> commissioner melgar. >> no. >> president hillis. >> no. we have two voting against. >> i will take the matter under

advisement. i appreciate the commission's comment. commissioners that will place us on item. 18 for case on item. 18 for case 2018. 18. 2015-018305drp-03 for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.04(h) of the san francisco administrative code. k. can there request from for discretionary review. >> good evening jeff horn planning department staff before you is a claim for discretionary review for proposal for the renovation addition to existing two family store building in the bulk district. with a horizontal expansion of the first and second floors on the side it will increase from approximately 28 to 34 feet and the depth.

will not increase the project size is on south side of between sanchez street and church street in the noel valley neighborhood. 14 feet wide and 14 feet deep - this morgues of know well. valley is 2 and 3 single family buildings and desertic nated as rh2 - the request for discretionary review and foupd proposed project meets the standards of the guideline and does not prenlt any exceptional extraordinary circumstances for the following reasons as proposed vertical addition set back 15 feet from the front building wall. the proposed flat building design is consistent with the mixed roof character on

the block. proposed building scale masking material and pattern blend well with the visual characters in the neighborhood. and dut does not create any visual or lighting effects on the adjacent projects - specifically, to eliminate the roof over hang on the third story to minimize visibility of the new addition the plans have been satisfactorily revised to address rft concerns since publication one letter has been received and two in support. available for the commissioners. staff would like to recommend commission to not take dr and approve the projects as proposed. >> thank you. in this case we have 3d r requesters, so, were you planning to do a joint presentation? sorry, where are

you? >> so you are all the dr requesters? okay. so we're mrabing to give you ten minutes to do your joint presentation is that fine? okay. so you have ten minutes. >> we need the overhead. commissioners and staff, thank

you for your patience it's a long day we appreciate you are still here thank you for your time and this opportunity to present our clant. we are here together as three of the - and the neighbors against the project at 113362 you should see 97 pages report on this dr. we kindly have a small packet for you with pictures and a chart to help you follow along. so 153 is 1886 for row of houses between victorian and the recently (indiscernible) drktly to the east is 147 the oldest house on the block building 1883. the block is significant