but i'm in a shelter. you're sitting me in a chair from 9:00 at night to 7:00 in the morning. there's not even a shower. we have to run across town to shower. we have to run across another part of town for lockers. i'm seeing what's happening. it's bull crap. my family are the quadrants of the herreras and we're very well known in the mission district. you know what? this has to stop. you have to have a heart. i know for a fact that there's really no apartments that are to be rented. right? >> ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> all right. >> appreciate it. next speaker, please. >> my name is rafael picasso.

born and raised in the mission district, and i can't afford the mission. that's a shame. i grew up here. i work for the city. i make decent money. do you think i want to spend 3 to $6,000 on rent? that would take my whole paycheck all year long. it would put me like the lady that was just speaking, on the streets. it doesn't matter if i make $75,000 a year. i can't live here no more. it's getting too expensive. a lot of my people, just like the lady that just spoke, are becoming homeless because we've got these developers who want to build these units, but they're not building it for me. i can't live in these units. my people cannot live in these units. >> none of us. >> we want affordable housing. we need affordable housing. we don't need techie people coming into our city driving up the rents on the natives. >> we demand it. >> think about it.

be human. have a heart. think about the people who was born and raised here. >> straight up. >> i'm not looking at them. i'm looking at you because i know who you are. okay? think about us. i was born and raised here. i can't live here. i can't live in the city that i love? honestly? i ask you now. do the right thing by the people you represent. you guys represent me. you guys represent everything back here. these guys don't even live in san francisco, but they're outside developers, and they want to come in and bring outsiders into our cities and our neighborhood and then mark us like we do the day of the dead festivals. complain about our festivals. these are things that have been going on for over 40 years. we are the mission. save it for the people of the mission. we love our city. we contribute to this city.

you are our representatives. i thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is sandra vacera. this project does not represent the mission street and its community. a building like this one is not going to represent our murals. when making a decision on this matter, think about all the families you will be displacing. think about the culture that will be lost because once you lose that, it can't be brought back. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i live two blocks from the proposed project. i am a homeowner. luckily, my in-laws helped us buy a house years ago. unfortunately, my mother who lived on 24th with my son was evicted. these apartments, or these

luxury condos or whatever you want to call them, they're not there to help people like my mother who was evicted. they're not -- even the affordable units, the whole housing application process, no one i know has ever gotten in. i think you should explore that as a planning commission because that doesn't even work. these are houses no one can afford, and these are houses no one is ever going to get in. i don't care what lottery we say that we have. it does not really work. i'm also the board chair of mission language vocational school, which is located at 2929 19th street. we have not been any conversations that i'm aware of with any of the developers. how all of this will impact the community that we're trying to serve, how this is going to impact parking in the neighborhood, how this is going to impact small businesses who need parking for when people come to visit and support their small business, this is just bad

planning. all of these condos are just inviting people from outside when we have so many people already in the inside that need housing. please, i implore you to look at the plan. this is not helping the people that currently live in san francisco. it sounds good on paper. it may look good, but let's really look at who we need to help. we need to preserve the communities of san francisco. i'm feeling run out, and i live here. and every single day, i'm looking at my new neighbors, and i'm like, oh, my god. what happened to all of my old neighbors? so we really need to take a whole look. we need to establish a cultural district in the city, and we need to preserve the people that are here. we need to build housing for them. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> next speaker, please. >> hello. good afternoon. my name is norma. i was also born and raised in the mission, two blocks away from the proposed development.

2750 19th street. i work for the shelter that serves the homeless population. i've seen the impact that gentrification has had on the people. i'm here today to oppose the baby beast on bryant street. like roberto said, we're ground zero of evictions. it saddens me of the possibility that my children and my children's children will no longer afford to live here. we want to be able to live, work, and thrive in a city that we have always been in. thank you for your time. that's all i have. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is olga osborne.

i've lived in san francisco since 1969. i'm here in solidarity with the people of the mission. when i first game to san francisco in '69, i lived in the mission at 18th and guerrero for 17 years. i've been in ashbury for the last 42 years. i'm a retired rn. i retired about six years ago. so i have rent control in my building. however, my building has been sold to venture capitalists three times in the last three years. so i'm right on the hit list, you know, for being evicted. i'm 72 years old. i don't know if i said that. you know, i always thought this was my home. like i say i'm the first one that they want to evict in my building because i pay the least rent. people underneath me pay $6,000 a month, which is the same layout as mine. and they have one unit in the

front they renovated, and it's probably 5,000. so i used to think i could live in that apartment the rest of my life, but i can't, probably. and i could be homeless myself. i understand this. this is bad, what's happening in the city. the venture capitalists coming in and taking over and the people who have lived here and contributed to san francisco all their lives are now being thrown out. if i get thrown out, i will never be able to afford an apartment in the city. neither will my children who were born and raised here also. they can't come back to the city. please do something. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> so i'm another lifelong resident. my name is carlos gutierrez from the mission district. when you've been here for 60 years, like my family has been, these people here from our community, they care about the well-being of our community.

you know, we've seen a lot of changes. contrary to some people's belief, we actually embrace change in our community. sometimes. but the change we're seeing now is unnatural. we can stop some of this unnecessary change. we're talking about the evictions, of course, but we're talking about the developments that don't keep the community as a whole in mind. the people who are evicted as a result. you know, we're here because we care about the well-being of the residents and can we truly say that? not all developers are the same. we have some great developers out there, but can we truly say these developers really care about the well-being of the mission district? you have to think about that. ask yourselves, is this project necessary for the community? does this project think about the mission district as a whole? and the residents as a whole? not the leave anyone out, exclude anyone out. we embrace a lot of these changes, but let's hope they make sense for the long term and

shore term as well. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is scott weaver. well, you've heard people talking about this project in light of the whole, in light of what's happening in the mission. i think all too often in this room, you're looking at projects in isolation. i don't know if this overhead is working, but i've done a little calculation here. if i could have the overhead -- there we go. based on the pipeline report, which is very difficult to go through, and then looking through the sf information map to figure out how many units are past environmental review built or entitled in this mission district alone?

the number i came up with is 3414. i did not count buildings with 10 or fewer units, except in two instances that i was familiar with the building. that's a lot more than the preferred project of the eastern neighborhood plan, which was 1,600 -- that's the wrong number. it's 1,692. that's more than what is studied in eir, which is 2,054. so we're overbuilding right now. halfway through the eastern neighborhood's plan. we're twice as many units. right now. and way more by any calculation that was analyzed by the eir. how can mitigation set forth in the eir, the impacts identified by the eir and the eastern

neighborhoods plan, how can that possibly be relevant in today's world when you're looking at each of these projects individually? how can this plan possibly will relevant? thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is marie swanson. commissioner kopp, you said some on ellis street, yeah, some projects go through and some crash. well, here's the crash. i was in on those negotiations. after the last time i was here with you with them, we haven't heard anything, as you've heard. so i'm not going to address it. i'm just going to say, you know, this proliferation of buildings that we have coming online around the mission, i swear to god, they all look like prisons. and this one either looks like a prison or a mental institution.

it's like that stanley -- i didn't even know it was stanley. everybody loves him, but i think he's really overrated at south wednesday and s and 15th. my god. let's get a little esthetic going here. if we're going to be saddled with these horribly overpriced luxury buildings, give us something to look at at least. anyway, i hope you make them go back and negotiate more with us. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> next speaker, please. >> hi. having equity is a very close topic near and dear to my heart. my family has been evicted twice. i went to three different high schools because i moved around so much. mission street has been the only street, even though i've never lived there because we couldn't afford it, mission street has always been my only consistent

home. when i came back from grad school studying public health, it was a ghost town. it is a ghost town. every now and then, every couple of weeks, i see someone i recognize, but they're no longer here. i don't know where everyone has gone. some have gone across the county. everywhere. everyone has had to scatter. some have even become homeless. i really want you all to consider -- really consider what we have to say today because it is a public health issue. if we don't have access to housing, everything else in our lives falls apart. really, really consider this. it can really affect people's lives, so please, please find it in your heart to figure out how we can make sure that we have affordable housing for our community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i don't know if you know your history, but this state of california back in the gold rush period paid people, bounty hunters, to kill native americans to take their land. you're part of that. because through you, an established system of capitalism, you're allowing these developers to kill us. [applause] >> do you know what i'm trying to say? you want respect because you sit up there? well, give us our respect. what the hell do you think is going on today? you make that little girl cry. you make people come in and beg for you. hell no. you're wrong. stop being the bounty hunters for the rich and famous. we're like your children. we are like your cousins. we are human beings, and we want and we will stay in our

community. i don't give a -- what you do. . don't side with them anymore. i'm telling you, we're going to come knock at your front door. we're going to be at your door and in your children's school telling you what you're really about. are you for the people or for the rich people? you have to make a determination, or maybe you made it already. so i don't give a puck who you are then. if you don't come outside, then you're subjective to the power of the rich, and we'll fight you to the end. good-night. >> thank you. [applause] >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners, you received emails from me giving you updates on the status of the

negotiations that you had directed the project sponsor to participate in. we being the mission that represents a couple dozen community organizations in the mission that are providing services to those who have been evicted, to those who need shelter, and to those who need compassion. this project has many deficits besides you've told them to sit with us, and they've told us no. as we brought to you last november 30th, it was a lot of promises with no by]

by taking away the pdr space on the ground floor, they are not providing a mix. they just now popped up with a 2,500 out of the 7,500 square feet they're going to be taking away as pdr. but what does that mean? what are the details? this is not an ironed out mitigation plan. as you can hear, the mission is overbuilt. the mission eir is overdone. we need to really sit down and get into the details.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, i'm a fourth generation san francisco resident. we're in dire need of housing. please approve this project without further delay. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hey, i'm here sister, so i'm also fourth generation. anyway, we're the owners of the building on 27th. nobody is being displaced out of the nest. we're moving to a different part of the city. and we're all on board with the project. and we are supplying affordable housing as well as across the street is going affordable housing. so please approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live a couple of blocks away from this project. what you're hearing today is a lot of anger, frustration, and

suffering that our community has experienced in the neighborhood. today we marched from 20th and mission all the way to city hall. these folks in the rain, you know, in the middle of the week came to tell you how they're feeling and how angry they are. it's been a real struggle for our community. for folks, developers, to come in and tell us what works for us, that's not good. we had a lot that came to the table. it was tough, yes, but at least we had that conversation. they heard us and said, this is what we can offer to you guys in this community. we didn't get this opportunity here. the ladies up front, they don't know gentrification, how it works. it's a ripple effect of all the surrounding buildings and it causes displacement. that's what j je gentrification.

please disapprove this project. [please stand by]

and so again, we don't know what it is. could be an upscale brew pub, right? that is the kind of thing, and for something now, and without something clear, this offer is, a., not acceptable to the community and b., not in accordance with what you directed them to do. we hope you will weigh that into the decision right now. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. this being planning, it wouldn't be a hearing without facts and figures, but i'm only going to drop one. since 2000, since the year 2000, working class people, like the people from the community who have been speaking this afternoon and this evening about their suffering and their anger and their experiences have been replaced by high-end earners in the mission at almost 2:1. now, you may or may not be willing to accept that projects such as this have a ripple effect around them and induce displacement, but what we do know is there is a need for affordable units. that is the most effective way to stop this kind of dynamic. well, have the project sponsors ever negotiated about this in good faith? no. have they ever negotiated about

anything whatsoever in good faith? clearly not, even after you asked them to do so. they simply are not negotiating. that is -- that alone is reason enough for you to reject this project, and i'm asking that you do so. thank you. hill rr thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am brent bently, originally born and raised in detroit, michigan, and right now i'm at the day lever program. i represent the women's collective, and this just really makes me sick to be an american or especially a san franciscan.

it's because everything so going up for no reason, especially for the rich people and the poor. and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. come on, thats a literally bull [bleep] for everybody. and there's no love. and you think we are all americans and united we stand and departed we fall? show enough departed we fall. show some compassion. show some love. other than that, if we go the 2019 like this in advance, man, i'm done talking. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item?

seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner questions and comments. commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: i'll go first. i have a lot to say. so i will be voting against this project. that's what you probably expected, but i do, you know, want to say something about this because there are, like mr. weaver state d, thousands of units in the pipeline in the mission. a couple of weeks ago somebody put in my packet the book about screeching owls and vomiting anarchists, which i read in the bathtub one day. it was cute. it reminded me of the illustrated marx book my mom got

me when i was six years old, but, you know, what was missing in that book, which i think, you know, was a smart analysis in a libetarian kind of way was anything about race in america. and race has been the defining factor in real estate prices in america and in our cities. san francisco had a terrible history with redevelopment in the western addition. we fought redevelopment in the mission. the reason why there are parcels that were devalued in the mission is because 40, 50 years ago the federal government engaged in red lining. and also nobody wanted to live next to brown people and gay people and black people. that you guys are now seeing is

that has kind of gone away, and that's a good thing, but what i feel is that for decades the community suffered from dis-investment, from not being able to get a mortgage, from not being able to get insurance, from disinvestment in public schools, our preschools, we still have a huge gap between latino children, black children, and everyone else in this town. and that is all related to this investment and lack of services. so developers now coming in to these neighborhoods, wanting to develop, encapture that differential between what the market now will give you for that land, and what you paid for it so many years ago. as far as i'm concerned, they need to contribute to that community for the pain that the community has suffered for hundreds of years of disinvestment. so i will not be supporting this project. i don't think it's good enough. i think we were very clear. i don't see anything in the packet. you said in your presentation that your consultant agreed to

run this program, but that does nothing for me. i actually want to see a terms sheet. i want to see it in writing. and i think that that's what we told you to do last time, and you don't do it. so i think that is my standard and my expectation. it's obviously we did make it into the eastern neighborhoods, but i will be voting against this project and i think for the future project, my standard is that i want developers to engage in good faith with the community and be able to contribute to the community that they're coming into because this community has suffered. thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this commission has spent an extraordinary amount of time listening to testimony, reviewing the project. the instructions we gave the last time were very clear. i'm happy to see the reveal on the buildling, but that was just a minor part of the essence of this project that was indeed an

agreement that the commission continued the project with a specific instruction that the community and the developer meet and come back with clearly defined terms spelled out about how the ground floor would be integrated into the project. that is what i would call the instructions to be similar to what commissioner melgar is summarizing, and at this point, i cannot support the project based on the fact that we gave clear instructions, and they are not in front of me today. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel. cop >> we had a project where there was overwhelming support and no opposition. that is definitely not the case here. i did see that the project sponsor did go a little above the minimum by offering up one extra bmr unit. i don't think that's going to do

it on this one. and also the fact that they're asking for three separate exceptions from the planning code. also don't think this project is ready just yet. and at the absolute bare minimum, you've got to sit down with the community. >> president hillis: i agree we couldn't approve the project today. we have had projects we have approved in the mission and neighborhood support in the mission. and not against housing. we need to build housing. there is some comments and i don't think denying projects necessarily helps us solve the crisis of gentrification and displacement which we see all the time. i live off the area where there are too many people and not a lot of housing being built, but the same crisis of affordability in gentrification are facing that neighborhood. so we need to find the tools in which to solve some of the

issues. and in many ways, we look to the community to negotiate with developers and come with projects that we think work, that have higher level of affordability that have ground floor space. that is not a gentrifying factor and all pdr. we're just not here on this project. so it's disappointing to hear there was no discussion. i'd like to give it the opportunity to have more discussion. again, i think just killing housing projects doesn't work. i think making them better to have a good faith negotiation with the community does. so i'd like to continue this and give it enough time that the neighborhood and the folks who are proposing this project can meet in good faith and figure out a project that does what commissioner melgar says and actually provides benefits that are significant and meaningful to the neighborhood.

commissioner richards. >> vice president richards: question for the project sponsor. i know you're up against an increasing labor market for, if you might, ms. stewart, costs are going up. the community wants more affordability, less parking, pdr affordable on the ground floor. have you thought of using the local density bonus to help deliver those things? >> thank you for your question. and thank you, everyone, for your time on this. when we first looked at the project and started this project back in the middle of 2014, it was given by feedback at the meeting that the community didn't want the density bonus, and so that is why we proceeded with the project as is. and just to mention a few more things. we've actually pulled them out of this because we thought they were in the middle of a quite heated debate in the city, and you can tell in the mission. and so we were trying to come up another alternative by adding pdr space because we know that is another comment.

and so we are able to look at the ground floor being more pdr focused, and we have had the environmental review to do that. >> thank you. mr. weaver, if you may. i'm picking you as -- i did read your leter from the last packet. that is what i was reading when some of the people spoke. so the local density bonus makes the building taller, might improve the pro forma to allow much more affordable housing, maybe reduce parking, pdr space is more affordable. what do you think of that? >> i don't think the mission's eligible for the local density bonus. home sf? >> correct. >> i don't think it it is. >> it would be the individual. >> we would be against any state density bonus. >> okay. and this is probably not going to be approved today. there's four people that spoke, so we're there.

i guess the question i have is, i think the project sponsor needs to sit with the community as the community is saying and the commissioners have said. the gun to the head that we're sitting here with is, this developer put invoked the state density bonus and we've got another 2918 mission street on our hands. so i want to make sure that there may be some issues with not viewing the developer in good faith, and they may be justified. they may be not justified to a point. however, i want to make sure that the community and the developer when they do sit down understand that gun that is still pointing to our heads in the back called state density bonus. and until we change it and it's up to these people in this room, if you want to change things, you have to get with your elected officials and vote, seriously, because there's a gun to our head here at the end of the day. i'm going to tell you right now, and i think the application here in the packet or the planning

packet had the density bonus checked. so i mean, that's the boogey man for me. >> so yes. we have asked the project sponsor -- this is, as i understand it, just reading the state llc papers and doing a little research, is wall street money involved in this project. and that's always at a higher margin of profit. we have had in other projects where the developer has gone back to the money people and gotten a better deal. we've had two right off and the axis project. and i think that might also be another option here. >> okay. thank you. so looks like -- thank you. looks like the developer is going to need to meet with the community and maybe discuss the pro forma, maybe share the pro forma, i don't know, but there have been developers that have done that and might gain some trust with the community.

i move to continue this item until -- march 15. >> second. >> president hillis: are there any other instructions commissioners would like to impart on the project sponsor or the community? >> again, we want to see good faith discussion, ground floor use in retailer is important. the types of ground floor are important. we think that does have an impact on gentrification in the neighborhood. so we're looking for pdr space, i think, on the ground floor, and perhaps more affordability. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: when it comes to the discussion of pdr, i think we would like to get some outline of what that

entails. what kiep of pdr space can become as unaffordable if it's not properly set up. since we are -- m>> vice president melgar: lik to see a terms sheet. >> president hillis: and examples where there was below market rate pdr space. ceremo ceremony>> secretary: commissioner, on that motion to continue to march 15. so moved. commissioners, that motion passes 4-1 with commissioner melgar voting against. commissioner, this will place under discretionary review. item 16 has been continued p and case 172017-004890drp at 360 # o scott street. if the members of the public

leaving the chambers could do so quietly, we do have one more item to attend to. good evening, commissioners. the item before you is the public initiated request for discretionary review of building application to 0 2017-004890drp at 3600 scott street to replace the glass deck wheeling with a glass windscreen on an existing roof deck. the roof deck is atop the third floor of a two-family

residential building and is set back 9 feet from the rear, 20 feet from the front, 8 foot from the northern side, and 3 feet from the southern side. the building permit was erroneously approved over the counter on april 20, 2017, and issued by the department of building inspection on june 8, 2017. the permit was suspended to allow for the neighborhood notification process at the planning department. during that time the discretionary review was filed. the discretionary review filer's main concerns related to neighborhood compatibility and aesthetics and privacy which are specifically outlined in the discretionary review applicant's filings attached to your case packets. upon review at the department, the residential sign advisory team found that the windscreen which is set back from all sides and used -- and the use of clear, transparent glass was in keeping with the residential design guidelines and did not

present any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, having no adverse effect on adjacent properties the the department has not received any public comment on this discretionary review, and the department recommends the commission does not take discretionary review and approve the project as currently proposed. this concludes staff's presentation and happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. dr filer. welcome. you have five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time. i'm david johnson, homeowner at 275 villa street. the project architect mr. altman states in his submission to the commission the dr requester had an opportunity to file dr at the preapplication period and chose not to do so. this is completely misleading and not true. during the preapplication process, there was nothing in the proposed plans for a large roof structure of 16, 6-foot

high steel posts enclosed in a large glass structure. this plan design was kept completely secret from the neighbors during the pre-application process, making it impossible to comment or file dr at that time. however, i did contact mr. altman during the pre-application process and discussed with him my concern regarding the original design of the fourth floor roof deck with the standard 42-inch deck railing. to allay my concerns during the pre-application period, mr. altman assured me that the deck was being kept to a minimum size and assured me there would be no further attempt to expand the deck structures. no appeal of the change of design and permit. this again is misleading. we were never notified of any design change or new permitting. this, again, was kept secret from the neighbors in a questionable application

process, thus making it impossible for the neighbors to file a permit appeal. this design change from a standard 42-inch deck rail to a structure of 16 6-foot steel high steel posts and large glass enclosure on the fourth floor level is not a very limited change. the fourth floor deck already tower over the adjoining neighboring properties of two and three-story homes. the proposed change to a fourth floor structure of 16 6-foot steel posts and glass enclosure towering over the neighboring two-story and three-story homes would have a significant impact to neighbors and is an extraordinary structural exception to the neighborhood character. the statement that the change design from the standard 42-inch deck rail to a structure of 16 6-foot tall steel posts and glass enclosure is necessary for

outdoor access is, again, misleading and untrue. the neighbors have already accepted exceptions to the design of the structure. there is a large outdoor deck on the second level of the home already extending more than 3 feet beyond the adjacent neighboring property. there is access to the backyard from the first floor level of what now appears to be a structure used as a single family home, that is, one entry door from the front, one mailbox, one address number, one doorbell, one gas meter. also, if it had truly been outdoor access that the architect's design was trying to achieve, there is a large outdoor area at the third floor of the house which would have been a design into an outdoor space at much less impact to the neighbors and the neighborhood character without people having to be taken all the way up to

the fourth floor. why has it become essential that a fourth floor standard deck railing be changed to a structure of 16 6-foot tall steel posts and glass enclosure? i believe the answer is that the architect developer wanted this exceptional and unusual fourth floor structural feature, and had gone about it in a misleading and secret process. this type of bad contact should not be rewarded by the planning commission. i request that the commission deny this request design change from the standard 42-inch deck railing and that the originally installed 42-inch deck railing be reinstalled. thank you for your time this afternoon. >> president hillis: thank you. project, so we will take public comment in support of the dr.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, and mr. president. my name is winston ashby, and i live at 275 la villa street. i'm a homeowner there. i am against this proposed change in the design plans, and ask that you consider our submissions here. i have some -- these are pictures which probably aren't going to appear. it is actually appropriate that this comes on the heels of the mission case you just had because it shows that this kind of behavior is rampant where the neighborhoods are really not given consideration in what they are. this is in the northern part of

the city, and we have as a pictures show a very bucolic block with small rear gardens, and that is part of our homes. and this 6-foot high glass structure at the fourth floor level is bound to disrupt that harmony and/or use and enjoyment of our homes. our outside space is the small gardens, and to be there and have a structure which is at the fourth floor level looking down on these gardens, where everything else is two and three stories is very disruptive. i am surprised that the design review board would say that this is compatible or in the context of the neighborhood, and so pass that you are design review.

because this is something quite different from anything we have in the neighborhood. we have at least 16 6-foot metal posts sitting up with a 6-foot glass enclosure. you will see that the adjacent neighbors, two adjacent neighbors, were so angry that this was done that they have submitted statements to you. and there has been no attempt to harmonize the gardens or the new structure with the neighborhood. it's quite out of place. and it conflicts with the city general plan and also with the design residential design guidelines. i ask you to reject this application and to go back to

the originally appropriate deck. this is not a deck. this is a structure 6-feet tall. >> secretary: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> thank you, commissioners. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is patrick mulligan. i live at 3606 scott street, next door. looking at the application it says proposing to replace a glass railing with a glass windscreen of 72 inches. there has never been a glass railing there, period.

that's the view from my kitchen. that overhang there on the elevator blocks 8 # o% of the light from my kitchen. not being a fan of drs or where they end up, usually the garbage can, having filed a couple, we negotiated a setback instead of 5 feet as proposed, 8 feet. there wasn't much mention made about the deck. in fact, i don't recall a whole lot. so we got 3 extra feet setback and the backyard instead of the 3-foot setback we got for stairs and we got a 5-foot setback. that's been up there for about, oh, couple of months.

dr was posted in front of the build i building. and whatever light i had before is less than -- it's less today. probably 90% of my light in the kitchen. why does that matter? well, every time you come in the kitchen in the morning you could have your breakfast and see the daylight. now you turn on your light. you turn on electricity. that's the way it is. as a practical matter, a 4-foot deck, nobody is going to use it, railing. the wind down there blows. i have been there for over 30 years. i have lived in san francisco for 50 year. i am appalled at the bulk additions going on in san francisco, but i've lost that argument before you before, so i'm not going to rehash it. i'd like to -- i think there's 30 second left.

i would like to compliment you on democracy in action earlier. i know how difficult it is to hear people swear at you and all the rest, but i felt privileged sitting in this audience to listen to the people talking, and listen to you hearing them. leonard cohen has a line in a so song. he said everyone knows the good guys lost. and i think we all lost a little bit today in this process. >> secretary: thank you, sir. >> it leaves something to be desired. >> president hillis: thanks very much. thank you for not cursing. my kids watch this. not that they don't curse. project sponsor, you have fiver minutes. >> commissioners, i am an architect -- >> you need to speak into the

microphone, sir. >> representing the owner, mr. morrison. i want to briefly go through the history of the project because i think it is important for the commission to have this information as you decide on this issue before you, which is raising the glass screen from 42 to 72 inches on an existing deck. the roof deck was completed last fall under a separate permit which also included enlarging the existing building and adding an elevator to the project with stops at all levels. and mr. miller has issues with climbing stairs. the original scope of the project included a 13x11 foot rear deck off the main level, but that deck was reduced to a 4 foot by 10 foot after negotiations with the neighbors through the pre-application process. the result and because mr. miller is not able to easily access the rear yard, the roof

deck became the main outdoor element for his use, outdoor use. the lower unit is an apartment. it is rented. it will be rented. and it has apartment access through the rear yard. the roof deck was also underwent design changes during the pre-application process through negotiations with neighbors. it was part of the original permit. and through that process it was reduced in size an now it has a significant setback as mentioned. 25 feet from the front, 8 feet from the side. the north side. and 3 feet from the south side. and 9 feet from the rear. this actually shows the original design as was proposed, green being the rear roof deck. i'm sorry, rear deck that has

access to the rear yard. and the brown being the proposed roof deck. and this is what is what was built. >> president hillis: can you go back to the other drawing? that was the proposed roof deck? >> in the original notice to the neighbors. >> president hillis: thank you. >> so the proposed roof deck also had a 42-inch glass railing. so after the permit was issued, my client realized the wind would be an issue on the roof, on the roof deck, and asked me to file another permit to raise to 72 inches. i checked with staff planning and was told that change would not require a notice, so we filed an over-the-counter permit for approval and proceeded with

the work. the glass material was purchased and installation began when the dr filer noticed the change and questioned or called flaning and that is why the notice wasn't issued. and that raised the concern and issue went to zoning administrator and he decided that a notice was required. which then we filed, notice to the neighbors and this is how the dr came about. so in making your decision, i would urge you to consider that the glass screen is at the perimeter of the deck that was designed with minimal impact to the neighbors with input from the neighbors and set back considerably. the screen is clear glass and has no top rail. the only visible elements are 2-inch square vertical posts that are approximately 4 feet on center. these are photographs on scott street that shows the current

posts that were installed before progress was suspended. and this is the view from the neighbor who spoke before me. the blue line represents the 42-inch height. the glass screen is actually obscured from most views on scott street. on scott street and also at the rear on the south end. and where it's visible, the impact on the mid block home space is very minimal and we don't believe it raises to the level -- rises to the level of

disrupting the neighborhood as the dr requester claims. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any public comment in support of the project? are you the sponsor, sir? you'll have a chance in rebuttal, but you can't comment during public comment, but thank you. dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal and sir, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> secretary: sir, are you party to the dr? >> i am at 275 la villa and the dr requester ask that i respond to this. >> president hillis: go ahead. you have two minutes. go ahead. >> commissioners, the project sponsor has gone about this 72-inch, 6-foot high what he

calls a windscreen in a very strange sort of way. this was going to be very important feature of this structure, and at the start he asked for 42 inches because it was clear that it would be more difficult for the neighbors to have outsiders concerned about 42 inches rather than 6 feet. i look out my window in the morning and i am on la villa street. as i look out my window, the first thing i see would be these posts sticking up. and we always see those. now, if they were to go to 42 inches, that's still an obstruction, but it's not the 6-foot obstruction that i look out. all the other premises here are two- and three-story buildings.

this is on the fourth floor. and it is a very disruptive thing. it is not an insignificant addition as the sponsor would have you believe. it is very clear, very visible, and despite the fact that it is of glass, the posts are metal. and so you've got and you look up and you see at least 16 posts rather than the glass. i'd like you to consider that when you are making your decision on this. we are able to live with a deck because it was granted originally, but not this 6-foot structure and nobody else seems to need a windscreen despite the fact that the wind is the same all over. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor. you have two minutes.