the one gap i have a harder time understanding is, it's a state law, in order to compare it in its effectiveness for central soma, i would like to get a quick overview, perhaps, not today, but how it really applies, under 160 feet, our discussions about housing in it other communities hardly go to barely 30 or 40. i'm curious how this tracks across in the statewide discussion. i see the benefits in the housing market and i see this as an advantageous tool for speeding up construction and approval of projects, things that time lines are really good. does that create an extra bump in benefits? perhaps it should, perhaps not in the first years. it raises questions, but there's hardly any time to talk about it, nor to raise those

questions. if the assembly bill sets minimum standards, does the city need, ma mum standards? is 10% affordable guaranteed on site all we can get, or can we push for more? we have many projects where developers volunteer to do much more, given the shortage of resources on land and sites, a slightly higher on site affordable would be something i would definitely ask the question, why not? so there's a bunch of questions that are very hard to be coherent at the this moment because it's a new subject matter. i do regret that we have three commissioners not here today and can participate in even having this presentation, and i think we may ask for them, on their behalf, that before they come back next thursday, there is extra time allocated for staff

to briefly talk to them about this important matter. >> in -- i think -- i like this piece of legislation. i think it's a pretty simple state forward implementing tool. we spent years, obviously, doing this central soma plan. it's just saying what we've approved while it's not not final and i think you bring up some kind of legitimate points on the policy of the plan and some of the -- some of what's in the plan, like acquiring more rent controlled sites or utilizing city land for affordable housing, that doesn't change the plan or this necessarily. it could change the plan, but this really helps us implement the plan and implement in a way that does it expeditiously and gets more housing online quicker, affordable housing and inclusionary housing as well as market rate housing. this is a great tool. a couple questions, though, that

the public hearing, so could that public hearing be here if you chose to do it here? i mean, is there flexibility in where that public hearing is? >> yes. >> so it's not -- if you wanted to bring it to a commission after you had a hearing, you could do that. >> yeah. it's totally flexible. it just needs to be compliant with the brown act. >> in the use or lose provision, again, you can make the decision on that because if we -- i like that, but, again, we can hit a recession and financing dries up and there's no ability to build housing. so he with don't have to take that entitlement away. we can continue it. >> that's right. correct me if i'm wrong, but it gives shall -- the director would have to have a hearing, and then -- but there is flexibility in deciding if the permit is revoked or not. >> right. okay. in the zoning incentive payment, what is that? >> so that's -- it's kind of one

of the tbd things. it's a payment that the state will at some point decide how much money there is, and then give out two cities that have qualifying -- that have implemented qualifying hsds. as of now, they haven't gotten to the point of actually deciding how much money. >> is it restricting on what the city can use it for? >> i don't believe so zoning inspentive payments. it's just cash money that would be received. >> cash prizes. it could be used for affordable housing or infrastructure? >> i don't think we're talking a lot of money here. tens of thousands of dollars when i think you saw it. >> you know, things like, you know, not getting rid of a historic building, those are our own rules, by i think are great. >> as well as the height limit. cities can choose to put any

height they want. we've chosen 160 as the max. >> i get the historic resource and the existing rent control. why do the 160? i think it's the same theory. if we've gone down this path with heights greater than 160 feet, why not include those in this? i mean, why are you all recommending -- >> we haven't made a recommendation. this is a legislation that was introduced by the mayor and supervisor kim. >> you have design review in house. >> yes. >> i mean, i don't think -- i don't see necessarily a rationale if we're going to do if, why wouldn't we include all residential. the building is over 160 feet, give us more. i don't see the policy difference and would want to include buildings over 160 feet.

>> commissioner moore. >> 160 was crafted because it goes into types of construction. that's my understanding of it it. i may be wrong. >> that was 160 feet. >> right. yes. >> commissioners, if i can clarify, the 160 was something that the city put forward, not in the state law. >> it's the city. >> it's the city, the response e pro advised that. i believe it's -- proposed that. it's under some recognition that buildings taller have significant stature on the skyline and so forth. the commissioner might want to have discretion over that. >> you still have some discussion at the staff level and professional design level to look at the design of these projects. >> to the he can tent it's spoken to by the adopted design standards that we have adopted. >> right. okay. did you have more commissioner,

moore? >> yes. is there any possibility for the public to do a question next week? i can understand when something that looks like a piece of overall comes up and nobody can understands it. can somebody call somebody? are you available to potentially make an informal presentation? is. >> sure. >> that would be helpful for the public to know because i can understand their anxiety about this. i was a little bit taken by surprise as well to admit that. >> yeah. i can't speak for the sponsors, supervisor and the mayor, but between paulowe and myself, we can be available over the -- >> the contact information is on the last slide if we can get up that, paulo's information. >> i appreciate that. just so we know, i mean, i think

it'it's immaterial plementing. >> they would also undergo whatever environmental -- cpe process and however long that takes to churn through that. there's no time limits, you know, set for those. they would definitely take longer than 120 days. >> that's what we're talking about is those large project authorizations are the equivalence in this plan that would bypass this process, not this smaller project

necessarily. >> correct. >> if i could, there's even, for example, ms. miller has one large residential project that's proposing to do off-site bmr. they would not be eligible. they would have to come to the normal process because they are building an off site bmr project. so there is a -- the subset of projects that would be eligible are somewhat less than the normal list of projects. >> right. commissioner koppel's points, this is a real preference to do on site inclusionary because you would be able to take advantage of that process. if you didn't, you're kind of engaged in more process. all right. well, that's all the questions we have. we look forward to hearing more about this in additional community input in the next week or so. wait. sorry. can we take a

>> you'll see the existing

building including a laundry mat that's just close $. the surrounding context itself is mostly residential including ground floor retail for those buildings that front van ness. next to this site is a 7 story, 27 unit building that was approved by this commission in 2010. so we are -- what we are proposing a residential project which is a better and more appropriate use for this site. we are maximizing the permitted density, 28 units is what is allowed and the same number is proposed. the height and the massing is consistent with the code and the adjacent building. on the overhead, again, you can see an aerial view of the site today, the building has kind of a funky surface parking in the middle of the site, approximately right there. you can see that the existing building currently backs up to the rear of the lot. so with a new building, we have a 25% rear yard set back requirement, which really creates an opportunity to expand the existing mid block open

space, which really should benefit several of the neighbors in the rear. as mentioned, majority of the residential units are two bedroom units with an average unit size of 1500 square-toed. we exceed the open space requirements. parking is .5 ratio. the variance request is a minor request. it's due to the fact that the southwest corner of the lot sort of cuts off. we're talking about a 20 square feet area that is impacted. so in sum, we have presented the probably executive to two neighborhood groups, the van ness neighborhood council as well as the neighborhood association. i'm going to turn it over to the project architect and he'll go over the design. >> good afternoon. if i could have the monitor. i'll just walk you through the project starting kind of from the basement up.

we have our parking at the ground -- basement level below grade level of the project. you can see that the top part is the ramp coming down from the street. the ground floor level, the front of the building, we have at the lower right corner, we have the residential lobby for the tenants and then next to that, we have a nice kind of retail space. next to that, a minimum driveway access to get down below grade. next to that, the second means of the egress. the great thing, we've been working with pg&e and whereas before we had a vault. we were able to get that moved and out. that's really nice. we have mostly a glass front. even the garage door and i'll talk about that more. typically, the building has both flats and town homes. so on the backside of the building, across the back, you can see the four town homes that are lined up with large rear

yards for each of those. then moving up the building, basically the building is laid out that each four corners that's a flat and in between it are the town homes that are stacked. we'll talk about that more when we see the elevations. just moving up the building, kind of continues to have flats and town homes. then the uppermost floor of the building has four large flats. it's slightly did he iniated and stepped back from the rest of the project. the roof of the building has requirements for water filtering and all of that. it has a lot of green up there. most of it is a living roof. then there's also areas public areas for tenants to come up and take advantage of seeing the views and also the two town homes to the front of the project have private stairs and a private deck. real quickly, this is an elevation of the project that are more cad, but i have better ones. this it one is -- that was

quick. well, these are the materials basically i have here for the project. i think we use a very kind of subdued and elegant palate for that area. basically, it consists of mostly painted metal and glass and some laser cut railings for a little bit of detail. some panels for the body of the building and exposed concrete. questions? >> we may. thank you very much. any public comment on this item? no in seeing none we'll close public comment. any commissioner comments? >> no? >> the site is obviously a housing site. what we're doing here is creating a twin to its neighbor to the north. i have a couple of questions

because townhouses on upper floors mostly don't pencil out. it's a general question, a generic observation. in san francisco, we hear that all the time. housing projects don't pencil out. my question is, when you build townhouses in the upper part of the building, there's a large amount of usable space dedicated to stairs, internal stairs, and my question is, could this site be developed at a higher unit count? just a question. when it comes to the roof, we had discussions in this part of town a number of times, and the discussion is that we do not want to privatize roofs with penthouses. i do not quite understand why the mechanical equipment is not more held to the center of the building and combined as we typically do. also, i believe that the railing leads from the street elevation should be pulled back from the building from all sides.

we ask these kinds of questions systematically to virtually everybody. we should be asking those same questions here. housing on the site is fine. the devil is in the details. i'm raising the issue of how the roof is used as to whether or not townhouses on upper floors is exactly what we want, particularly they don't pencil out. we hear this all the time. it has become a new standard in looking at building approval and in this particular case, i think we are -- we could potentially create a higher number of units much that's a personalized observation. just for other commissioners to consider. to repeat, private penthouses, cluttering the roof, particularly when you have to the east the downslope of russian hill facing west looking town at a [indiscernible] to many extrusions. forgive my comments. >> generally supportive of the

project. i mean, your comment about -- i think next door, we eliminated maybe the private stair penthouses in exchange for hatches. is that do-able here? >> you're referring to the building next door? >> yeah. i can't remember which project -- it was one of them where -- >> i was the architect of that building as well. we do have the penthouses. we minimized as much as we could, not true like a hatch if you will. >> is there a way to do a hatch given they're kind of on the front side. >> theriaca way from the -- is that what you mean? >> no. i mean, a true hatch. i mean, which i think we did -- it may not be on the project adjacent to it. it may be across. i can't recall. but similar concerns came up and we ended up using a non penthouse, but a hatch for the private, recognizing, you know, you need stairs to the upper roof and, perhaps, the penthouse

for the remainder of the building. those two penthouses on the front converted to a hatch. >> to a hatch? yeah. i haven't -- i can imagine that would be successful because it feels like it would be -- i'll not quite sure about the exiting if we needed to do use that, if you could have a hatch like that. >> we've done it. >> you have done it? >> absolutely. >> i mean, you can talk to the staff because i know it's been implemented in other ones. >> okay. >> so i would certainly entertain it in f. we wanted to make that change. i would just ask, i mean, your point it's kind of -- it looks a little too much to me like the building next to it. i would say work with staff to kind of just make sure the design works. it's just a little -- >> there's a little more differentiation. i don't want to deck tate the design -- dictate the design. work to staff to make sure it's not a big feel giving the

massing is the same also. other than that, i'm supportive. i think it's a good project. commissioner moore. >> i would still ask as to whether or not we could pull the penthouses and combine them more in the center of the roof rather than reading as the roof's edge. i think it's disadvantageous clustering them in an orientation with that view from russian hill are not basically looking -- it looks like an extra story. we have done that in many cases, and been very successful when you look at major view sheds. it's not about protecting views but enhancing views. grouping them in an manner that they have a narrow side towards the man view and clustering them more in the center. i would agree with commissioner hillis. let's not mix these twin buildings. you have enough experience to make them different. i think that would be very much appreciated. >> okay. definitely. >> and then i still think that

the railing should not be at the facade edge. that should be pulled back. >> pull the railing back from the side. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore, do you want to take a motion to eliminate the private penthouse stairs and move the railing back. >> i think a motion with the caveat that the staff works with the architect on eliminating a private penthouse stairs and replace them with hatches, pull mechanical equipment into a combined location oriented in a minimum way that they don't read as an extra height and mass looking from the down slopes of russian hill, and hold the railing away from the front facade moving it in a western direction at a minimum of 10 feet as the design indicates. >> did you want to add a condition to work with staff to differentiate the buildings? >> that's correct.

>> can i get clarification on the private stair penthouses? >> i think it's those two private stair penthouses, that they become hatches. >> they become hatches. okay. >> we have done that in newly approved buildings up and can down the street because we want to prevent rooftop clutter. >> okay. >> that's the objective here. >> i have a motion. do i hear a second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as has been amended to include that the private penthouse stairs be replaced with hatches, that the mechanical equipment be pulled closer together to minimize the obstruction, provide a minimum 10-foot additional set back on the railing, and work with staff to further differentiate the

buildings. on that motion. [ roll call ] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4-0. >> public hearing withstand arrested conditions. >> very good. >> unfortunately, i don't believe anyone from staff is here and moving quickly that i don't believe any of them anticipated to be up yet. we may need another five-minute break. >> okay. we'll >> calendar item 15. consider the condition all use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider the hearings. >> good afternoon, president

hillis and members of the commission. please accept my apologies for my tardiness. the project before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for a residential density to demolish non historic additions to a former gas station and construct a four story 45 foot tall and 7,790 square foot building that would contain up to 494 square feet of commercial use at the ground floor and approximately 7300 square feet of residential use for 4 dwelling units. the project includes 1524 square feet of usable open space, 4 class one bicycle parking spaces and 428 square foot 4 car garage. the gas station building will be rehabilitated in place and used as a cafe or restaurant in conjunction with the newly constructed ground floor commercial space. the project proposes a 23 foot

rear yard that requires the approval of a variance by the zoning administrator who'll consider this request following the hearing for this item. the project is located in the southeast area of the mission district and within the 24 latino cultural district. the immediate neighborhood is residential in character containing 2, 3, and multi family dwellings. san francisco general hospital is adjacent across potrero avenue. since the packet was published, they have received 3 letters of support for the project. after analyzing all aspects of the project, department staff finds that it is on balance, consistent with the actives and policies of the general plan and mix air plan. 11100 potrero avenue will add four family size dwelling units

to the housing stock and permit the continuation of a limited commercial, non conforming use. the project's massing and scale are appropriate for the site's corner location. the design is complementary to the pattern of residential development in the neighborhood and the construction won't cause an impact to the gas station on the property. in addition, the project will help activate the immediate area with new street trees, landscaping, and a neighborhood serving commercial use. the department finds that the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. based on these findings and those described in the motion, department staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. >> all right. thank you, mr. vu. project sponsor.

>> yes. my name is mark. i am the architect and the project representative today. i would like to thank the commission for hearing or project. we're here as doug recapped for the density to increase the units to 4, which is approvallable by a conditional use as well as we're requesting a rear yard variance due to the particular nature of the site. we have an existing 1920s gas station, which i've been told in the reports that this is one of the first, if not the first gas station in san francisco. it is a 12 by 12 room consisting of steel sash that is approximately another 15 feet in length, the front of the building. if we can have the overhead, we can see the existing site, which is a fairly big void at the

corner of 23rd and potrero now that it's been done. many years ago at this point, we have strived to work with the existing historic structure, looked at different options, and ultimately have left the building in place as it currently exists. what we're proposing is to create a new four story building that sits to the west of the existing building and create approximately 500 square feet of new commercial space on the ground floor. the existing gas station building is unheated. it really does not have the ability to exist on its own. there's not enough room for toilet facilities, et cetera. so we see it as an adjunct space that would serve as some sort of restaurant or cafe use.

being to the corner of the hospital could be a benefit. we have a nice outdoor area that could be developed as seated areas adjacent to the new contained commercial space. on ground floor, we have parking, two car wide parking space that because of the large ceiling heights required for the commercial, we can implement a car stacker and actually provide four off street parking spaces. then further to the west, we actually do have a ground floor unit that is adjacent to the residential that currently exists along 23rd street. this is a view looking up 23rd towards san francisco general. the building, four stories, the hospital across the street is approximately five stories and a little bit on grade. i think it fits the neighborhood fairly well. we're looking at materials on

the building, a brick veneer base, and the upper floors in a shingle that we are proposing different patterns and shades and colors. the rooftop on the building is, in fact -- does contain some outdoor space that's privatized. we have set back the areas from the property lines approximately five feet. so we're -- this is the southern property line. so the deck is five feet off that as well as at the rear open space, we've also pulled the roof deck back. there would be three private roof deck areas. two of which are accessed by the units directly below on the

4th floor through a roof hatch. so there's no stair penthouse. much we do have one common stair penthouse that is needed for fire access and general accessibility, but that would be minimized with the sloping roof and department to a minimum height. it does sit toward the center of the building. so the ability for it to be seen is pretty remote. the units themselves, we have three, three-bedroom units. they're averag averaging 1500 se feet in space. thank you. >> all right. thank you. was there any public comment on this item? no. seeing none, we'll close comment. commissioners. commissioner moore. >> i assume that the building is

sized correctly and the area where it sits. the gas station is hard to understand. i assume it falls under historic preservation. >> it does. >> i hope it will work because it is so small. it's kind of almost like a bus stop. you could sit out there in the sun and drink your coffee if that's the way it works. that is a little hard to understand. it has a little bit of a suburban feel on the other end. it is what it is. i think it's a difficult thing to confuse that. i think that the building in terms of unit size and everything else, it does, hatches, use of roof deck is fine. move to approve. >> second. >> nothing further commissioners? there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. [ roll call ] >> so moved, motion passes unanimously 4-0.

>> close the variance hearing. >> 16a and b for. 749 27th street. you'll consider the condition all use authorization and request for variance. note that on january 11th, 2018, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to february 22nd. subsequently, continuing to march 2 2nd and again to may 3rd. you were all present. so we don't need to acknowledge anything. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. i am before you as conditional

use authorization for demolition of a inning single family home at -- 749. they address the concerns with the size of the proposed 4th floor and the compatibility of the facade materials with the neighborhood context. the 4th floor has been reduced from 833 square feet to 529 square feet. the total building size now is proposed to be 4,277 square feet. the facade materials changed from the previous stucco to a more compatible vertical clear cedar siding with secondary horizontal dark stained siding. the project was continued february 22nd and again to march 2200 22nd and then today.

dbi confirmed that the majority of the rear structure is legal and its use as a dwelling unit all of which is the non conforming portion. the portions within the billable area will now be thought to be legalized under this permit. some of these portions will be removed due to the proposed front horizontal addition to that structure. i submit to you two letters in opposition i received this week from the adjacent neighbor to the side and as well as across the street as well as e-mail i received from the project sponsor earlier this afternoon. the case report i provided you contains large prints of the revised floor plans and elevations for the proposed front building as well as floor plans of the rear building signifying the areas that are legal and need to be legalized

under that separate permit. [ stand by ]

. >> they've owned the property for an exceedingly long time, and the -- this is to house three of the generations currently. their current house is in very poor shape. it's pretty much nonfunctional in terms of the floor plan. the grandmother's living in a little closet down stairs, so

she's really anxious to get into a new home. so at the planning commission hearing we had on january 11, i was told by the commissioners to modify the design; that there were really no other issues. so i have done that, and you know, i took these comments as a challenge. i tried to keep it so that by reshaping the top floor, it's not going to look like a hat sitting on top of it, but i really wanted to try to coordinate -- >> president hillis: you just have to stay, yeah, talking into that mic. >> sorry about that. >> president hillis: that's all right. >> i really wanted to incorporate the top floor and keep it integral in terms of the overall integrity of the design, so i think i'm very successful in doing that and have been able to do it. i also tried to get a little bit more of a context of what's going on in the neighborhood, okay? there's two very large, very modernistic buildings. i've given you some drawings,

some photographs of those, and then, there's another one on this side. so i think we're very much keeping in context of the building, and i do think this does help recede and pull back. and i'm very happy in the fact that i think the design is actually better than it was before. so the overall, yeah, square foot reduction was by over 300 square feet. the exterior rear wall was shaved down, there was a roof deck, that was 150 square feet, took it down to 20 or 30 feet feet. most of the elevation on the third floor, i pulled it back which is adjacent to the neighbor to the west. so we also changed the exterior surface from stucco and

corrugated aluminum to 1 dlsh x8 cedar. wherever it's -- 2x8 cedar. i think the modifications of the home will be consistent with the neighboring home that are all right close by, and also of a fairly modern design. if you have any other questions, happy to... >> president hillis: all right. thank you. we may. let's first open this item up for public comment if there's any -- any public comment on this item.

>> president hillis: speak into the microphone. >> i've lived in my house my whole life. my father built this house during the depression, and he held it together with spit and paste. it needs a restoration. we're living there with my family, and i ask you to please allow us to live there in did he cency with-- decency with ad roof over our head. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional comment on this item? >> hello. i'm the -- >> president hillis: you can pull that mic up, too. >> public speaking. hi. i'm the grandson of lenora long, and the son of my mom. i've been living there my whole life, and compared to, like, my frie friends' houses, and like, my

neighbors, our house is pretty much, like, the worst on the block. my room is pretty small. i'm 19 years old and i'm in college right now, and i need a place to study sometimes. but i live in the same room as my siblings and brother, and it just gets noisy, and there's no privacy. it would be really nice if we could get this going so we could build our house and i could study. thanks. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comments? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner comments. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah. i like the changes between what we're seeing now and last time. i know the site was a little challenging because of the topography and the hills going in two different directions. so i think the top floor is set back far enough where it's not making too much of a visual impact and it does fit in

context wel conte contextually with the other neighboring houses. >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there is a motion this has been seconded to approve with current recommendations. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, item 17, case number 2018-001389 cua, at 2280 market street, condition use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is arequest for a conditional use authorization to allow for use of a formula retail gym at 2208

market street at noe street. the property is located at ct district. conditional use authorization is also allowed to allow the use that is greater than 3,000 square feet in size and also to operate before 6:00 a.m. the proposal involves barry's boot camp. there is more than 30 locations worldwide and thus this is considered formula retail. the proposal does not include any building inspections or facade alterations. between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the weekdays and 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. on the weekdays, barry's is a high

intensity fitness based training facility. all employees are anticipated to live within the immediate surrounding area, and either walk or take transit to work. the subject site is well served by public transit so that potential customers should not adversely affect the traffic flow. the project sponsor conducted a formula retail survey in early 2018. based on the survey, the concentration of all formula retail establishments in a 300 foot radius within the vicinity is -- [inaudible] >> to date, the department has received a total of 36 communications in support of the project, including the duboce triangle neighborhood association and the castro merchants. the project was proactive in all of their community outreach efforts and conducted community meetings as well as introduced

themselves to the neighbors and neighborhood organizations. since the commission packet was published, the department also received nine additional letters of support from local neighbors, and i have a copy available upon request. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with objectives and the policies of the general plan. the project will activate a vacant commercial storefront and bring in other pedestrian traffic into the area. the proposal does not affect the architecturial attitude of the neighborhood, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. proje project sponsor? >> we're the owner of barry's boot camps in san francisco. we have over 30 locations globally. we have three locations in san francisco right now, and this will be our fourth location in

the city. and barry's is an upscale boutique fitness company. we do fitness classes. we have locations in soma, on king street, across the street from the ballpark, on bush street and montgomery street, and in the marina on lombard street, so we're very excited to be in the castro, and a lot of our current clients are already coming from the castro to our other facilities, so we're very excited that this will be a success. it's very important what we go into these communities and neighborhoods to work with the neighborhood organizations because we're very dependant on the community to be successful because they're our clients. so we do fitness classes, each class is 50 minutes to an hour. involves strength training, interval training, and we run eight to ten classes a day, and about seven or eight classes on saturday and sunday. so we're really excited about the opportunity. thank you. >> president hillis: great. thank you. we may have questions for you. we're going to first open this

up to public comment. i've got one speaker card, daniel bergerac. >> good afternoon, commissioners. daniel bergerac, speaking on behalf of the 325 members of castro merchants. we unanimously voted in favor of this project. we are very excited to welcome barry's to the upper market castro neighborhood. i just want to speak briefly about what a sensational job they have done as far as community outreach. from the very first meeting, they have been completely transparent with us. they have answered all of our questions, they have addressed any concerns that we have, and i think this is a textbook example of how to do a conditional use in san francisco. they have just done exceedingly well. thanks. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, mr. bergerac. any additional public comment? seeing no further public comment, we'll close public

comment. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: i've been a part of the cross fit community for a number of years and have been noticed more types of gyms and fitness institutes are moving towards the castro with flagship cross fit, and then the core power yoga last week, so i move to approve. >> second. >> second. >> clerk: commissioners, if there's nothing further. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0. commissioners, we are on your discretionary review calendar for item 18, case number 2017-006654 drm at 2071 47th avenue. this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners. veronica floers, planning

department staff. the item before you is a request for a discretionary review for the proposal located at 2071 47th after avenu-- ave and this is at the intersection of kqintara street. the proposal includes a vertical and horizontal addition to an existing two story single-family hez residence. it also includes adding another dwelling residence including interior renovations and new front and rear decks. the department has not received any correspondence regarding the proposal. today, the department requests that the planning commission take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications. specifically, the project should be revised with the following design modifications which have not been addressed: to limit the horizontal rear

addition to two floors, extending only 15 feet from the rear structural wall with side set backs of 2 feet each, to extend the rear addition to the existing structural rear wall and also increase the vertical additions floor to ceiling height from 10 feet to 9 feet. as proposed, the project creates exceptional and stroor circumstances because it proposes a design that is not sensitive to the surrounding buildings. however, the modifications as recommended by staff will meet all applicable rules of the planning codes and any applicable guidelines. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. okay. so we are up against a staff initiated discretionary review, and we have provided some materials for your review and our planner's review. i did some massing forms for the rear yard, and the owners and i feel like this is in character with the maple lock range. a lot of property -- this is an rh-1, 25% rear yard requirement. a lot of properties are shorter in the yard, but there are a few right in the midblock that do take up the similar massing that we felt that these owners were entitled to. in response to some of the comments, we did -- we did extend the first floor all the way to the 25% rear yard line

but then stepped back the second and third floors and brought the second and third floors stepping back as a bit of a pancake -- or wedding cake, excuse me, form to reduce the mass. so we felt that this was kind of similar to the...3 buildings just to the north of our building. the subject property between the two larger buildings or the adjacent property between the two larger buildings, he was at the pre-op meeting, and he voiced someme comments, but overall, he liked the project. he did not write a letter of approval. i did speak to the neighbor to the south. she was also concerned about light, and i did mention to her that it was to the north, and that she did like the project,

as well. neither one provided any comments for the owner. so -- and then, the last note i do want to make, we -- for the extension all the way to the 25% at -- at the first floor was in part because they wanted to keep the garage and provide an additional dwelling unit for the neighborhood. so we were able to create a sizeable unit back there and still allow for a two-car tandem parking. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is carmen roman marie, and i'm here to speak on behalf of my project. we have comply with the request, i believe, in the

design that the architect did for us is basically to update a -- a building that was built last century, in 1950. they -- the rooms are small, there is -- there are no closet space, and very -- very little room to move in the house. the garage, the first floor, there was a lower apartment, which was very dark. no air ventilation, so we decided to create a new unit there. now, in this descriptive new unit, in the description that the planning department had, it says here that we have an additional and vertical and

horizontal addition, and -- and period. and after that, it's stated that additionally, we're creating a new unit, but it's not the case, including, for a layperson like me, reading this, it's like i'm having -- we're having a vertical addition and a horizontal addition. and in addition to that, we are having another structure built. so where are we putting this -- so it looks like a massive thing, but it's not. the addition, the new unit is within the vertical -- the horizontal addition. it's not separated. now, so since we are creating this unit -- because there is no housing in -- in san francisco, we have a house, we have a place with a spacing that we can create a very hand

some and comfortable place for a renter. because it's low, it doesn't have to be -- not to have the amenities of this century. so the upper floor where we live right now -- >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. your time is up. >> can i say one more thing? >> president hillis: yeah. if you could finish up in 30 seconds. >> yeah. i need more space for my clothes and my shoes and my piano, and that's not right for them to say i don't need the space that i have. >> president hillis: okay. do we have rebuttal here? >> clerk: no. this is a staff initiated mandatory -- >> president hillis: we may have questions. >> am i allowed to speak?

>> president hillis: you were, but your time was included in that five minutes. so we take public testimony regarding this item, if there's any. i don't see any, so we'll close public testimony and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. can i just -- sir, if you -- if you want to -- we'll give you one more here. >> good afternoon, commissioners. so i'm the husband. i grew up in the house in the 50's and the 60's, and it was cramped then. and it seems that modern times, people have more uses for their house than they had before. we just had a kitchen, one bathroom, three bedrooms, and a dining room, and that was it -- and a garage. but we would really like to take advantage of the space that we have. we would like to have a library or