in fact, directly across from the proposed site is a farina which has been empty for a couple months, and luna park has has been empty for well photographer a year. it actually gives us who live and work there no protection to deal with the noise, crowds, and unfair business competition. i don't dispute ryan intentions, however, i will dispute sharon's is a hot bed of crime. i look down on that parking lot, and it is very quiet. living across the street with two young children, noise is our concern. they need to limit the operating hours to # 00 during the week and 10:00 on the

weekends. no more than two food trucks at a time, and as she noted, insulation of attendance structure or sound barrier to cover the seating, much like mucholicious does, and the taco chapel does. so i think even if its best case scenario, this sort of business will lead to the drunken tech know all night, urination all over our building, among other things, so thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thanks for allowing me to speak today. i do have concerns specifically regarding noise, hours and alcohol use and want to be proactive about such concerns. i have lived in san francisco proper since i was one. i love my city, and yet, i also

recognize it had as changed, and i repair that. i'm a public elementary school in the bayview, and my husband is a musician and writer. i love living in the mission, which is great, because we can't afford to move. i realize there's a certain level of noise and congestion that comes with the territory. something my family knows and obviously lives with. i will i think it's okay to have a say of what happens in your neighborhood. i recent characterizations that it's crime ridden, by the way. i live directly across the street from sharon's parking lot, so while the proposal may seem like a cool idea for someone, few have an idea how it will impact me and my family in the long run. i appreciate that ryan was willing to meet with us, and i wish the planning department would do more to facilitate these meetings.

however, many of us have been given only verbal representations to our concerns. we would like to have mitigations in writing, including no amplification, electrical hookups, a sound barrier, such as there is a tacolicious, barriers in place before alcohol is permitted to be served, and reasonable operating hours. most other eat be establishments in the area that are indoors close by 10:00. i think these types of issues addressed in writing would help neighbors understand the project better and help ryan shape his project more clearly, especially as i've told he's been operating businesses without permits. my chief concern related to noise is for the well-being of kids and family. sleep is incredibly important for us all. you don't have to look far to find research to support this idea. ask any mother how they'd feel if there was a beer truck food garden right next to her kids'

room, and i know they would have concerns. lastly, i have to say that planning department process has been really not totally empowering. it's been confusing, especially for immigrants and non-english speakers, so consider our proposed mitigations to get those in writing. i think that they're really reasonable, and it could still be a win for all of us. thanks for your consideration, and i hope everybody sleeps well, because sleep is really important. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment, and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: just have one. you know, i certainly hear the

community's concerns around noise, around the characterization of that lot, around the potential loss of business of existing restaurants and the barriers, and at the same time, we do want to see higher uses for land like this and parking lots and spaces. one of the things that i'm just really curious about and thinking about the area where the beer garden is in hayes valley, and i know there is a beer garden there, they serve very limited food, and then, they also have other uses like coffee and ice cream and things that are just more family accessible. i'm just wondering if you've thought about -- yeah, to the project sponsor, have you thought about other uses? and it also feels clear that, you know, engaging in the community in what those potential other uses might be. >> yeah. so i think this got labelled as

a beer garden. it's not a beer garden. the plan is to serve beer, but it's not a beer garden. we're not, like, opening up a, like, beer truck to serve beer, and, like, people have beer. it's food trucks, and then one of them will serve alcohol. >> commissioner johnson: yeah. i think one of the questions is just addressing the concerns of existing businesses about losing business, about losing businesses. i'm wondering if there are things that you could serve or provide that maybe the community isn't already serving and -- >> that's the goal. >> commissioner johnson: yeah. >> we -- the owner of the building or the family that owns the building asked us if we would be selling if we have any plans of selling traditional mexican food, and we vowed not to. i spoke with chris block, and i said we will not open traditional mexican food. our intention is not to compete with mexican restaurants in the

mission, our intention is to offer, like, affordable -- an affordable solution and a unique offering. it's not to take away from what's there. does -- i saw, like, a -- did i not answer the question? i want to be as thorough about answering the question correctly, and that's the intention. >> commissioner johnson: it's kind of the burrito-y. >> yeah. >> commissioner johnson: i'm -- i guess i'm wondering if there's things like -- could you serve things other than, like, full dinners or full meals, to encourage people to go to local businesses and get a discount on what you serve? >> yeah. i support the mission district. i'm going there tonight. like, i'm all about thinking of creative ways to support the neighborhood.

that was the whole intention -- or that is the whole intention of this. i think la cocina is a good example of how we're trying to do that. if anybody has any ideas, this is the early idea and i'm willing to listen. >> president hillis: can i just -- people brought up generators, is your plan to have generators. >> no. we have electrical there. we can plug into electrical. >> president hillis: okay. we can put that as a condition of approval. >> yeah, absolutely. >> president hillis: in why you are hours, can we just clarify your proposed hours? >> yeah. so officially, our proposed hours was 2:00 a.m., and realistically we weren't going to stay open until 2:00 a.m., but if we have the option, then oh, yeah, we're going to stay open nuuntil 2:00 a.m.

but then, we had neighbors that spoke up here and said they needed to get sleep. we're willing to do 9:00 on week nights and 11:00 on friday and saturday or 10:00 across the board. >> president hillis: and that's the condition across the board? >> and that was in response to concerns about week nights and youth getting sleep and whatnot. >> president hillis: and how many food trucks? >> how many food trucks do we want to have in there? >> president hillis: yeah. >> i don't know. like, three or fours. i don't know how anyone's going to react to it. >> president hillis: yeah. is there a limitation in the motion on the number of food trucks? >> there is not a limitation. it's staff understanding -- >> president hillis: go ahead. >> it's staff's understanding that two would be permanently there, and if there are four proposed, that would be two more. >> president hillis: yeah. okay. thank you. and i'm concerned about -- we

have this issue, too, and you can have a seat. that's fine -- about noise. i mean, i'm less concerned about -- i think we have a hard time kind of figuring out the competitive landscape and how we inject ourselves into that because we don't control necessarily the other storefronts in the area. and so -- and you can have a seat. >> okay. >> president hillis: i don't have anymore questions. we're just having comments. >> can i say something real quick or ask something? >> president hillis: yeah. let's get through the questions first. i mean, we encounter this a lot with outdoor seating. it is, obviously, you know, can be noisy, so we might like to make mitigation measures. so, i mean, one, the hookups are good, because i think the fo food trucks, generate ares make

a lot of noise. i work at fort mason, so i know the sound they make when they're there. also, the hours, 11:00 is too late. if i look at the grid, the website, most of them talk at 10:00. i wouldn't be comfortable with anything past 9:00, and i think we should limit the food trucks to a number like three or something like that just to take into account some of the concerns of the neighbors, but we'll see what other commissioners have to say. commissioner richards? richa >> vice president richards: so i guess city attorney or staff, are we allowed to have a conditional use for parking but on a principally allowed event such as food trucks? >> so i think commissioner, just to address your question, i think since the -- the restaurant is associated with the parking lot, and both were

part of the same project, we did include conditions that basically reflect hours of operation for the restaurant as well as hours of operation for the parking lot, particularly since the two kind of share land uses. so at certain points, the site will have dual land use, basically, it'll be functioning as a commercial parking lot which requires the conditional use, which is under the jurisdiction of the commission, but it also has the restaurant use, and so by -- by that logic, the commission would have ability to kind of limit one or the other. >> vice president richards: okay. the other thing is we received a letter citing section 184(a) of the planning code that says nonconforming parking lot in the valencia nct are only allowed five years and 90 days from the date they became nonconforming. >> yes. so staff clarified with the zoning administrator's office. section 184 applies to capital p principal uses.

so because the subject facility is accessory parking to the retail use at 711 valencia street, not a principal parking facility in of and itself, assist not subje it is not subject to 184. >> vice president richards: i guess i agree with one of the speakers who said the place by costco food, it's kind of a street eats, it's all by itself. the one on duboce, it used to be kind of more busy. it's not very busy anymore. that's not much there. the beer place on the corner, and then, there's diced, but that in and of itself is a big draw. i kind of feel less comfortable here given the number of restaurants in the valencia nct and the fact that it is across the street from a -- a -- an economical restaurant and right

adjacent to the other mexican restaurant, so i'm having a little bit more hard time understanding why you'd want to approve it at this site. if you had proposed small retailers that were crafts men who make little goods, i'd be right here supporting it, but i'm not sure. >> president hillis: commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: well, i'm supporting this the same way as commissioner richards. as i'm thinking about it, my thoughts on this is actually protecting small businesses that are already there. so you know, to support one new small business, i'm actually did he having protecting 30, 50 -- defending protecting 30, 50, whatever it was. i think that the valencia and 18th, we're talking ground

zero. this is somewhat new york times material. this is a bona fide established retail and dining destination, not just a food destination at all different price points, so i'm at the moment not in favor of this. there also will 14 -- the parking lot appears to be just from the photo fitting about 13 parked cars or so, so you can imagine more two or three food trucks fit in that space. and i'm not supportive of it, and if ready, ready to make a motion to not approve. >> president hillis: is that a motion? >> commissioner fong: that is a motion. >> second. >> commissioners, just to clarify, because you did not have a motion in front of you, you have to address a motion to disapprove. >> so move with the intent to disapprove, and date -- >> week? two weeks. >> president hillis: yeah,

just to get the motion. commissioner melgar? >> commissioner melgar: well, it sounds like that's what we're going to do. i just have a question because i was watching you in the back, and i was confused by what you said. so did i hear you say we were kind of extending the restaurant use to this parking lot. >> well, we authorized mobile food facilities by basically claiming them as restaurants -- or they are restaurants, i should say. their land use definition is as a restaurant, so it's a question about whether the mobile food facility is on a private lot which is under, then, the jurisdiction of the planning -- under planning or if it's on the street, for example, it would be under the yourse jurisdiction of dpw or mta. >> so i guess the question is if we are approving it as a public parking lot, then, they can -- if they wanted to have, like, a popup tent, you know,

during the holidays and sell stuff, they could have that retail use as a popup retail use, too? >> correct. they can seek a temporary use authorization to basically get a popup, you know, re-taylor something along those lines. >> commissioner melgar: i see. so really, then, our only option is to not then have it be a public parking lot? >> correct. and keep in mind what is before you is legalization of the current parking lot, so it's currently functioning as a parking lot, so i think part and parcel of legalizing the existing parking lot use, right, getting clarity on the hours, as well as, then, any -- you know, entertaining the concept of the mobile food facility was the -- kind of the totality of the project that you're looking at. >> commissioner melgar: i understand that. it just seems like the tools that we have are not adequate for the situation 'cause i know that folks, you know, whether it was used as a public parking

lot, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. i'm confused every time i go there, sometimes people park in the lot. i know folks who go to the restaurants on valencia street park there. i know it's a useful thing, right, but i also -- i'm not down with harming la taqu e er. they've been in business 20 years, and it's one of the few affordable food options on valencia street. it's confusing. we want to give options to folks to get in on the ground floor. i don't think this particular parking lot is the appropriate place, because like i said there's lots of options there, but it's kind of between a rock and a hard place because if we allow it as a public parking, then we're allowing this use, there's no way for us to not have it is what you're saying. >> correct.

so if you -- >> commissioner melgar: can we allow it with a condition they don't have the food trucks there. >> correct. you could also approve it in that realm, as well, so you could approve the parking lot. >> president hillis: if we approve it as a parking lot, it would remain a parking lot associated with the retail use. >> keep in mind it's parking for the adjacent retail use, and then, we will conditionally authorize it as a public parking lot, so meaning they could have people come there, park there, pay there. and you could add as a condition of approval a note to say that you can't have a restaurant use there. so that would be -- rather -- 'cause right now the motion with intent inform disapprove would be to disapprove the parking lot as well well. >> president hillis: so if we did that, it would referred to

be an ancillary parking lot to sharon's. >> right. the legal use is accessory parking lot to sharon's. >> commissioner melgar: and that would be kind of a bummer because people use that parking lot. >> thank you for that. as commissioner said, if you want to turn it into a flower stand or some other retail use at the moment, we would be in favor of that, obviously, something that's not compete with the area. so let me amend that motion with intent two deny. >> president hillis: i think you're approving it with the restriction that there's no food use. >> vice president richards: ye -- >> yeah. if i might recommend, if you wanted, you could approve the commercial parking lot use, and then, you could prohibit the commercial parking lot use on the site.

>> i'm okay with that, just to make sure wait till the city attorney's done talking. >> food service probably not. >> yeah. how do we encompass it so that it's all food, coffee shop, coffee stand, food truck. >> you could -- you could clarify your conditions to prohibit limited restaurant as well as restaurants. >> yeah. i think that's the way i'm going to go with that. >> thank you. >> president hillis: so there's a motion -- and again, i'm -- i'm okay with the food truck use in a limited -- i mean, i think i would -- it doesn't sound like we're going to -- changes -- i mean, it's the concerns of the neighbors, 'cause i just think one food truck can lead to brick and mortar businesses, but i'll vote yes on this, too, to allow for the public parking. >> correct. i think given the concerns that you've cited regarding the

effects of the use of the surrou surrounding and land uses, it's appropriate. >> clerk: there is a motion and a second to approve with conditions as amended to prohibit restaurant and limited restaurant use. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. and places you on the discretionary review calendar. item number 16, record number 2015-009015 drp-03, at 7577-79 to 81 leland avenue, request for discretionary review. >> the item before you is a request for discretionary review for the proposed project

at 7577 and 79 through 81 leland avenue proposed along through contiguous lots. lot 030 is located along leland avenue. lot 007 b proposed for a subdivision is behind lot 030 and within the rh-1 zoning district. the project is to construct two new single-family homes at 75 and 77 leland avenue, as well as to construct a mixed use three story building at 79 through 81 leland avenue. the prime concerns include midblock open space, shadow, privacy, loss of visual openness, reduction in natural

light and air as well as concerns about the easement dictating the building design at 79 through 81 leland avenue and the afore mentioned conflicting with the established character of the commercial corridor respectively. the project sponsor has responded to the requests are that encourage the project sponsor to continue pulling the massing of the single-family homes at 75 and 77 leland avenue as forward as possible. also requested that the project sponsor provided a rollup storefront system at the easement entrance to continue the commercial storefront facade along leland avenue. with the incorporation of the changes, we are in support. since march 8, 2018 when the commission packet was submitted and published, one of the d.r. requesters submitted additional materials, and everything was forwarded to the commission secretary electronically. in evaluating this project, the department found that the

proposed two dwelling as well as the new three story mixed use building provide housing opportunities that on balance comply with the objectives and policies of the general plan, and the planning code. with the proposed plan revisions, the department finds the project could be code complying, consistent with the character and scale of the neighborhood and the residential design guidelines. the department does not find there to be any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances created by this project and recommends the commission to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you, esmeralda smelli. >> commissioner melgar: we will now hear from the d.r. requesters. >> clerk: there are three d.r. requesters. do you want to indicate the time? they usually have five minutes each. >> commissioner melgar: okay. five minutes each. >> okay. before we start, should i be concerned that not all the

commission ares are here? >> commissioner melgar: they're in the back. they can see you, and hear you. >> there's a tv on back there. >> okay. my name is russell marine. i'm one of the d.r. petitioners, and i'm filing for the building on leland avenue, the commercial storefront ncd-2. i've been in the community for 20 years, native san franciscan, and i'm very familiar with the area. so let me begin. every project should be evaluated on its own merits, but this one is not. it's being evaluated but what's happening behind it, completely by what's behind it. it's -- it wasn't -- if it wasn't for what's happening behind it, i wouldn't have a need to come here for this d.r. if it wasn't -- what's happening behind it, this would be a normal mixed use building ground floor retail, residential units above and no parking. this building fails because it's entirely subservient to what's behind it and it suffers greatly for that. so here's the problem.

the building has an easement that runs right through it. as a result we have a building with a gaping hole at the street level. it's ill conceived. it's gigantic orif iice that y can literally drive a truck through. this opening is 12 feet wide and 15 feet tall. that's 18% of the -- 18% of the facade. can they zoom out on that? it takes up about 50% of the ground floor retail space. thank you. the opening is out of proportion with the facade and significantly reduces the storefront, and it reduces the number of dwelling units. so what's the problem? leland avenue is a commercial corridor. it's nc-2, and you know, we have certain expectations of

commercial corridors, that buildings are attractive, they're active, and this building doesn't contribute either. it's not attractive, and it does point help anchor the space. you might think well, it's certainly better than a vacant lot. well, it's not because once you build this, it's there forever. if we don't build this, maybe we can come up with something better, and if we do, that's going to be a benefit to everyone. so is there a solution? i think the planning department and the sponsor proposed putting a pickup roll up door. they can do better. i think we can do better just by kind of thinking about what's happening behind it. so let me be clear. i'm in full support of building a building on this site. it's not against -- that's not built, let's build a better building that can contribute actually something to this neighborhood.

and let me leave you with this. you know, i just looked at this again this morning. this is a 40 foot building, and normally, a 40 foot building would have four stories, but this has three stories. why? because of the ground floor. if it was a better designed building, you would have four floors with additional residential units, so because of this, they're losing at least two to three additional residential units. if you took away that easement, you can get six units in there, easily, with a larger storefront. yes, that would possibly destroy the opportunity for the buildings in the back, but this building should be evaluated on its own and not by what's happening behind it. so is there a solution? maybe we can talk about it, maybe we can come up with something, and -- i hope so because i do think we can have a better building that utilizes

a vacant lot and so gebharagai not here to deny this, i'm not asking for a denial, i'm just asking we have a better building design that actually contributes to the neighborhood. thank you. >> commissioner melgar: i appreciate it. thank you very much. d.r. requester number two? >> hi. everybody. >> commissioner melgar: speak into the mic, please. >> oh, okay. sorry. hi, everybody. yes. regarding the project proposal development -- >> commissioner melgar: what's your name? >> oh, sorry. nelson gutierrez. regarding the project sponsor proposal on lot 7-b, he's proposing building two single-family homes, which is out of context, out of scale,

incompatible, not appropriate, uncharacteristic. the entire -- the residents in the entire block 6250 will be boxed in and cutoff from the midblock space, losing privacy, cutoff of natural light, open space, visual openness, and casting shadows. here, i will show you some -- give you some ishl haves here so you can see. here, i will use my house as an example. this is my back door. as you can see, the concrete floor is 2 feet below the first level of the back yard. here, you can see as i go to the next tier on this on the next level up, it's three steps, which is about 3 feet. and here on my wall, the fence that separates 7-b from my lot,

seven, there's a 4 feet high retaining concrete wall. this is on desmond side, my neighbor. his concrete retaining wall is 5 feet high. and this is the same neighbor, you can see on the top left corner, you can barely see the top of my home, and you see the -- again, this yard is tiered. and you can see how low the whole lot is. this is from my -- from the back yard looking -- actually looking -- sitting in my living room window. you can see -- just to give you an idea of how high this building would be, you see that security light there? that's about 15 feet tall.

so if you add another is 1 to 12 feet, that's how much taller, and that security light's right against my fence, so remember, that lot -- that building would be 25 feet high -- i mean, forward. i will show you another photo of how steep the slope is. again, this is another photo of what i'll be looking at from my window. again, you can just see how -- how high that security light is. it's only 15 feet high. again, this few is i'm sitting down in my back yard, this is what i'll be seeing. and this photo here, you would see the -- see the -- you would see the slope of that lot. it says continuous sloping down, so the lot is pretty high. so if you add the -- my back yard, the 2 feet, the 3 feet,

the 4 feet and the slope just to the fence the slope is at least 11 feet difference, and then, you're adding 25 feet back more, you're looking close to 12 to 13 feet. so actually, the building is 26 feet high, and the high -- the elevation of the lot, you're talking about 36 feet high building. and this will be impacting every single resident in that block, every single resident, and they will lose light, they will lose privacy, they will lose air circulation. there's nothing about this project that's positive for us. one other thing, i have a document from the planning commission stating that this lot is not a residential rh-1 lot. it was converted to a commercial lot for parking. so this lot is no longer rh-1. i submit that in yesterday, but it's not an rm-1. i talked to julian morales at

the san francisco planning department. he confirmed this for me. i spoke to him, and he said this lot has been rezoned to commercial. it's no longer rh-1. and i think -- and keep in mind that the lot was a back yard for 7-a for the slattery, and afterwards it was sold in '66 to leonetti for a parking lot. it's been a parking lot because of its location. it's unbuildable because of the community in that block. >> commissioner melgar: thank you, mr. gutierrez. is there a d.r. requester number three? [ inaudible ] >> commissioner melgar: okay. so we will know -- i'm sorry? >> yeah, there's two

separate -- >> commissioner melgar: well yeah, but you could technically have up to ten minutes. do you have anymore to say, mr. gutierrez? >> well, i was gearing up because i thought i had five minutes. i didn't know i had more minutes. so i'm not sure -- did you guys get any e-mails that i submitted yesterday with documents stating what these -- what the zone change -- rezone -- >> commissioner melgar: we got some of your e-mails. if any of the commissioners have any questions, we will have an opportunity to ask you. >> yeah. just regarding the back story on this 30, lot 30, the project sponsor stated that lot 30 has always been a vacant lot, which is not true. it was a grocery store, deli business there, and it was torn down to make way for the parking lot. and again, the 7-b, because of its high elevation and where

it's located, it's just really prohibitive to have a home of that scale. it's out of scale. there's no other development in that community to have a building situated in the middle of the -- midblock. so i -- you know, the thing is everything that's a new construction, we have to look at it, is it going to increase the bar, set it higher, increase the standard for the community? and it doesn't do that. if anything, it lowers the bar, so we want developments that raise the bar in quality, like the chezlock, and hope the hope sf development in sunnydale. those are raising the bar, raising the standards, and that's what we need in the community. this is a negative impact for the community. it doesn't provide anything for the community at all. >> commissioner melgar: thank you very much, mr. gutierrez. we will now hear from any public comments in support of the d.r. requesters.

>> hi name is adam andrews. i live at 27 talbert street. i collected about 15 signatures from every resident who is on that side of my street whose back yard abuts the proposed development. as soon as i walked in the door, they said we don't want the construction of the single-family residences on the rear of the lot for the reasons nelson pointed out, the two story situation there, because it will be between everyone's back yard. it'll be like constructing a tower that looks down on everyone's back yard. i brought my house two years primarily because i love the traditional layout, abutting back yards, because everybody can hangout in their little

space after a long day in the concrete jungle that we love. we've heard from two other d.r. reviewers why the development in the rear lot is such a problem. it's a problem for everybody's use of their back yard, and for the desperate commercial space in leland. we want this to be developed in the right way, but this is not the right way to do it. we respectfully request that the project proponent just simply reconsider construction in the rear of the lot, we can preserve our privacy, the use of our back yards, and retain our property values that we hope -- or maintain. >> commissioner melgar: thank you. any other comment in support of the d.r. requester? [ inaudible ] >> commissioner melgar: no, no. you've already spoken.

[ inaudible ] >> commissioner melgar: yeah, yeah. we raeltealize that. we will hear from the project sponsor. you will also have five minutes. just to clarify, he's actually afforded 15 minutes 'cause three d.r.'s. >> commissioner melgar: oh, okay. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. david silver man. this is the property owner, johnny lee, my client. also here tonight is the project architect, jason chan, and ahmad larisidi, also on our project team. this is an interesting project. a portion of the property is located within the nc-2 district, and that doesn't seem to be very controversial. the rear portion is actually in

an rh-1 district, and i brought along the zoning map. this is the lot that's going to be developed with the two single-family homes, so it's right -- this is the rh-1 line. with respect to the mixed use building, the d.r. requester focused on the facade and the opening for access to the single-family homes. in response to the -- those concerns and as requested by the planning department, the sponsor has replaced a -- the proposed gate with a rollup door which is transparent and which continues the look of the storefront system. with respect to the two single-family homes, most of the comments concerned midblock

open space. so this is where the mixed use building will be on leland. this is the rear lot, and i think it's important to point out that all of the homes surrounding this have cocompliant rear yards, so they are buffered from the new homes. also, as mentioned by staff, the sponsor has pulled the houses forward to the north as far as they could go. now, this lot, as you can see -- or this block is about double the size of a normal block, like this one and this one. it's national it's partially divided by a street here, which is called talbot court. the reason i point this out at

the end of talbot court, there is a large residential building that's also midblock. it's only separated by two rear yards from this space. there are additional midblock buildings all along here, so this is not a new thing for this block. there are many midblock buildings. finally, while this is a 40 foot height district, the proposed single-family homes have been kept to two stories in order to stay within the height of the homes in the neighborhood. the project is appropriately sized and is in compliance with the other buildings on the block. these vacant parcels are overdue for development with productive use. the development will benefit the neighborhood and will contribute significantly to

neighborhood security. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm the permit consultant. i would like to show you some pictures, show the property -- vacant property and d.r. requester -- [ inaudible ] -- d.r. requester is here who's complaining about this project. we were there and measured his back yard of the 31 feet and our back yard, 36. so we have a total of 67 feet, we have a separation between two buildings. so therefore, the rear standard -- standard rear set back at 25% for single-family.

but we have over 67'2" building away from each other, so it's not going to be affecting any open block or rear yard, that's what they're talking about. if you can see all these back yards on the left side, and we have other properties on the right side. this is a next door building to the d.r. requester, exactly the same identical building next to each other that -- show you this because i want you to -- [ inaudible ] >> -- this building is on the north side of the lot. all of this standard less than even 25 feet standard for rear open space.

this is -- the new building is going to be on that location. over there is going to be new building. there's a corridor coming through the gate that would be an area of separation between a front building and -- and a new building. it's supposed to be 25 standard, 25 feet away from. it cannot be less than 25 feet between two buildings by planning code. this is the building. you can see the cars parked over there. you can see right through the street. that's the driveway. especially the d.r. requester questioning about the height of the front entry. fire department -- we had a meeting with the fire department. fire department truck has to go through that space, so therefore, you cannot be 8 feet ceiling height or 10 feet high, and they would rather have it

higher because of their ladder and fire department car has to go through. so let's go through the other stuff. midblock open space they were talking about. i want to show you how many we have over here. this is the one -- we're talking about this with the other midblock. the rest -- this is around the neighborhood. all this midblock building. it's another one, huge building over there. more on here, two in that facility. we have another one there it's right in the middle. another one, there's another

one there. another one which shows another more -- more, and the last thing, another building. look at the other building sitting over there at 1255 sunnydale. i heard the other d.r. requester asking about the back yard privacy -- we live in san francisco. san francisco's up and down the hill, so pacific heights should be complaining about their -- some of the basements of the building is sitting on top of somebody's roof in pacific heights and stuff like -- so you have to expect these changes. we live in san francisco. and we're providing so many -- almost one, two -- two single-family, plus you have three units in the front, plus, you have a commercial area. we really appreciate your supporting the project. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. is there any public comment in support of the project and opposed to the d.r.?

hearing none, d.r. requester, you each have a two-minute rebuttal. so russell, you want to -- oh, okay. go ahead. you had six minutes. >> i just wanted to address a couple items. good evening. my name is jason chan, architect of the project. i just wanted to supplement some of the information we just talk about. >> president hillis: you want to turn that 90°? yeah, perfect. >> so this is the realized -- the storefront of the front building facing leland. so after we talked to the planner east, we make some change modifications filling up the hole. so we have a storefront door, and then we have --

[ inaudible ] -- so overall, looks like a storefront system in the front now. okay? and talking about a -- the rear two buildings, those are small building. only two story building. the total height is only 23'6". we don't even have a parapet wall on the roof. we have tried to minimize the roof of the between. and between the new wall and their neighbor's building, we have 66 feet, you know, distance between the two rear walls building, okay? and so we -- we spent lots of time working with the planning department come up with solution, the building design, to try to blend into the neighborhood, and so i think

it's a good project to improve the community and and improve the neighborhood, and creating more housing for the city and more revenue to the city, and i hope the commission will approve the project, keep it going. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. mr. marine. two minute rebuttal. >> two minutes? already. thank you again for your time and being patient. again, this -- this is really pretty simple. it's urban design. it's what looks good. what looks good from the public realm. i don't have a problem with the size of the building. it's 40 feet, which is the tallest building on that corridor. i don't have a problem with the number of units. actually, they can put more units, i would prefer them to put more units. if you look at their layout, their third floor plan, it's

one unit on the third floor. on the second floor, it's two units. it's clearly -- you can easily put another unit on the third floor. this could easily be a four unit building. why didn't they do that? i think that goes to their intent. it's sort of a hocuk-pocus. they put a big door on there. does that make that look better? the project before -- or the item before this talks about valencia. it's a cultural icon. people on valencia should have an opportunity to at least get to that point. if that hurts the building in the back, well, then, that's another situation. they said that the fire department said they needed this. let me see that letter. let me hear from the fire department that says that's absolutely the only way to do

this. what about an alley. they didn't show us any pictures of a building like that, with a big, gaping 75 foot hole straight through the building. that's unique, that's different. let's building something there, build something better. this is really like the little things. if we can't get the little things right, then railroad are we going to go? with your help, they can do better. if you don't deny it tonight, continue it for us to put some pressure on them to make them do better. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> yes. just to give notice to the attorney mr. silver man, who was talking about midblock, it seems he'd understand the definition of midblock. there is the a picture from the guidelines. this is a picture of a midblock. he's saying the midblock won't be disturbed, which is obvious it would be completely

eliminated with this construction. and again, just to reshow the pictures again, the height of this building will be on this -- what i'll be facing and everybody else on this block. and again, i spoke to the planning department to confirm this content on this planning commission document. the 7-b is no longer rh-1. it's zoned for commercial and it's for a parking lot, and it's a reason why this lot has been what it is for so many years. it's just -- after the my home and my neighbor home was about the built, that lot was just left there and left a parking lot. and commenting on 30, the way that's setup, it's ineffective, it's compartmentalized, and fragmented. no business will be viable in that business store or business space or commercial space. it's just -- the layout is

poor, and it would just be a dead zone. it would just be a dead spot in the middle of the special block. we need to have set standards high for visitation valley. it shouldn't be thought of as a second note. it should be thought just as high as havevalencia street, west portal. those areas are thriving. and keep in mind, it's only three blocks long. there's only so many storefronts, and it needs as many storefronts as it can get, and especially design and architecturally significant. and lot 30 is more value than the lots in the back. those units would be more valuable for the developer than they would be in the back. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. >> vice president richards: can you hand in what you had on the overhead, the determination -- >> okay. yeah. sorry. >> president hillis: all right. just leave it right there -- >> oh, leave it here?

>> president hillis: can we have a copy of that? >> this is a copy. you can see this. >> president hillis: we can give it back if you need it. do you need it? >> i have copies. >> president hillis: project sponsor, you've got a two-minute rebuttal -- or sorry, you've got four. >> well, it looks like a battle ground right now. he wants to stop the project, put the pressure on us to make a change. first of all, this is not the battle ground. this is a decent case of neighbor against a neighbor or whatever. we have a code, we have a book, we follow up. whatever is not right, we take it out and put back some of the stuff. but the gate, fire department, we had the preapp meeting with the fire department three years ago, and we came up with the agreement that fire department truck has to go through the building to serve the back of the building. this is what we have. we don't have a document, but we have a preapp meeting, we

can show it to them. changes on elevation, they have a two story -- they have two story in the back. elevation is going to have elevation. san francisco it's a beautiful place to live. up and down, you use a bike, you use a car, and now, biking is common all over around the san francisco, so we can't complain that somebody else -- a building is higher than, maybe going to peek through my property. it's 67 feet apart from each other. we live -- a couple of weeks ago, we were in a meeting at 531 30th street. the neighbor complaining about our house about 15 feet, 16 feet apart. in san francisco, inches, people live next to each other. the property line is zero. now we're creating 67 feet away from each other. come on, give me a break. that is not the -- somebody wants to look at your window. if you're in a house, you're obviously going to be asleep,

you close the window. i don't leave my window open when i want to sleep, but yes, the window is open. you want to see, you're more than welcome to see. there's nothing to hide, except at night, when you turn it off, your light is on, people can see. i don't think that's a good reason for them. midopen block, as i showed you, how many properties in that neighborhood that would -- they have a building in the middle of the lot? so what can we do? we just let it be like that so the neighbors have a better air circulation? we're creating housing in san francisco. i have one of my employees, he was living in san francisco. he had kicked out because he couldn't afford it. he lives in richmond. it takes him an hour and a half, two hours to get here, and he can hardly come to work on time, so i'm losing money, and he's losing time and

effort. rent in san francisco is so expensive. there's no way anybody can buy a house in san francisco. according to the document, it says that in order for one person to buy a property, 1.5 million, has to have a $325,000 income. who's making that income? so we have to create more housing so that people can afford to share the place together, share the building together, at least live together happily ever after. and i just came back from vacation, and people live in small little cages over there. the rooms are ten by ten, and the hotels are the same size. so you know, people have a huge house, we're complaining about our air and this and that. you know, affected, but people living in other countries have very small land, so we have to appreciate what we have and live in harmony and be happy to have good friends or we have people that can live in san francisco, we share -- this is

mixed use. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. all right. we'll close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to have a clarification on the use designation on the rear lot, mr. dean or mr. -- >> the zoning map does clarify that it's rh-1 is, lot 007-b. that is staff's understanding. all of the tools and resources that staff uses to indicate its uses indicate it's rh-1. >> commissioner moore: where does the historic information that has been handed out to the gentleman, second d.r. requester. >> commissioners, david lindsey, department staff. i'm just looking at this the first time. this is a 1959 document. the zoning that