the e.i.r. is set up in its typical way and in aspects of it are very good. there is one particular subject matter i'm very concerned about and that is something to do with the project is not put into the context of the hub. the hub is a major, new intervention difstrict, that we spent little time on except focussing on buildings. the context of the hub is not discussed, nor is the already approved nature of some of the major buildings that are supposed to give character, form, and architectural flavor to the hub that's a major omission, because it's a critical site in an intersection where buildings rely on each other. we cannot just continue to look

at buildings as islands, but islands need to create a larger context when we're transforming portions of the city. the e.i.r. as its written falls short of giving us a broad overview, one about the context in which it will occur, two, reflecting on the larger principles of the hub neighborhood plan, pedestrians connections, open space, light, air, etc., it has to work with each other. including the simple functioning of where crosswalks are. i would suggest that we add a little bit more in that description, so when the e.i.r. comes forward and ultimately we will be asked to approve the building, the e.i.r. has reflected and described that aspect of the project. >> thank you, commissioner.

commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: that's not something that i thought of, what commissioner moore said, honestly. but i agree with her. i don't think we should slow the project down, but i would like to see more context in relationship to the hub, because we will do an e.i.r. for the pub itself. it's probably a project from the case number, that's been in the hopper for quite some time. it will be moving forward. comments i have are on at least the -- i find myself asking these same questions from prior e.i.r.s. because it's eligible to be on the california register, if you were to apply, is it a sure thing? that's a rhetoriceceiprer rhet. we had 150 eureka here last week and it's also eligible. we got into a discussion with the project sponsor and they said it's not historic, but it's

eligible. with the is the definition of historic resource? that's one. the other one is, and i've had this on other projects, i understand the building has the seven elements of integrity. however, how many other buildings like this still exist in san francisco? so we had this same very issue with taxpayer block buildings erected after the 1906 earthquake that were still around and i kept saying, well, we're going to demolish these ones on pine street and this one on market. how many are left? i drive through soma and think a lot of the buildings like the same. if there was an historic district, even if it's not contiguous, we would get statistics that say, this is one of 468th in the tenderloin district and we were able to put it in context. i cannot put this in context,

because we're looking at this one building. the visual graphics are great. i agree with the historic preservation commission. i wish we had the same graphics here as 150 eureka. if we do it historically, we should shade the new building, so we can see the difference between the old building. this did that very well. any other things? i think that's it. thank you. >> commissioner fong: thank you. i'm supportive of this project and the path it's on right now. i'm willing to vote and support, but i do want to pick up on commissioner moore's comment. it's exciting. the hub is coming together, right? it's one of the pieces that i'm curious if there are other opportunities where maybe the

unified school district site, i'm not sure what will happen there. the plumbers union is coming together. hopefully that whole back alley will abutt this property and it has an opportunity of being charming. i think we look at it now and say, we want to change this, but i want to be sure that we're all on the same page about changing it for the better. and making it charming and have a great street activation, along with just housing, which i know that laura is committed about. i pause for a second to say, we have a cool opportunity here. let's make sure we maximize it. >> vice president melgar: is it a motion? >> commissioner fong: it is a motion. >> vice president melgar: okay. >> commissioners, next item. item 10, 2017-010891cua.

3001 steiner street. request for conditional use authorization to establish general retail use to formula retail use. >> matt dito, a change of general use to formula retail at 3001 steiner street, doing business as trek bicycle. it's in the marina neighborhood and occupied by city cycles, retail bicycle shop. trek bicycle proposes to occupy the space, 350 square feet with, no modifications or expansion. it's a retail sales use with 55 locations worldwide and proposed project representing their only location in san francisco. it will allow the subject property to remain as a bike

shop, serving a city-wide clientele. there is minimal modification, namely signage. we've seen no opposition. it will allow the neighborhood to retain its mix of neighborhood serving and citywide serving uses. there's currently one bicycle shop in the union street. the department finds that the project is current with the policies and general plan as well as necessary, desirable, and compatible. for these reasons, the department recommend the project is approved as outlined in exhibit a.

this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none -- oh, go ahead. >> hi, commissioners. i used to live right off union street in this corridor. i think when you look at union versus chestnut, you have an interesting comparison, where one commercial corridor is vibrant and thriving. and three blocks away on union street, there are 30 vacant storefronts on that 6-block corridor and side streets alone. chestnut, for example, has little restrictions on what can be done there. you can open up brand-new restaurants, bars, where union street, it does restrict opening up restaurants and bars on that straight. it has a lot more flexibility of use in allowing for different types of businesses and restaurants to move in, whereas

union street is more restrictive. as i look at our city as a whole, i see the corridors that are struggling with vacant storefronts have the most restrictions or community merchant associations that are often stepping in, trying to block competing uses and things like that. so i think we should support this business on union street. any new business, whether formula or independent mom and pop shop, gives vibrancy to the corridor, which is a domino effect. it has a lot of vacancy right now. i think by letting this through, will help the problem overall. if it was haight street, it's different, because it's thriving, even the they don't have formula retail. here i think we need a little more activity. so i encourage you to approve it and let that beautiful street thrive. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any other public comment? >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i'm david fort. i'm the applicant on this. i wasn't sure if this was the time to speak. >> vice president melgar: go ahead. sorry about that. >> no worries. just wanted to make sure. very little to add. i wanted to say, agreement with the staff report. city scycle was acquired by tre. everything else will be the same as currently there. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> vice president melgar: thank you so much. i apologize. we're both sort of not used to this. with that, public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: prop g was passed by the voters, which is why it is before us. it's not particular just to this business district or commercial district. there are a few in the city that has a ban on formula retail

because it was passed legislatively. that's why it's before us, not because of a merchants association or neighbors. it's law and can only be outdone by the voters. this is a like use-to-like use, not a 17,000-chain walgreens or 15,000-chain starbucks that makes san francisco look like everywhere else in the world, which is why we have a process for formula retail and i'm supportive of it. >> commissioner moore: city cycle used to sell trek bicycles, so it's a bicycle store. i'm in full support of it. >> commissioner johnson: i agree. i pass by the corner. and know the other bike shop in town and feel like this bike shop complements, so people can have a wide range of options. i'm in support of it.

>> commissioner johnson: pedal on. motion to approve. >> second. >> we have a motion from commissioner fong and second from commissioner koppel. [roll call] so moved. passes 6-0. on to next item, item 11, 2016-012941cua, 714 rhode island street. request for conditional use authorize proposing to demolish existing two-story, single-family home, and construct a new five-story residential structure with two dwelling units. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael christiansen, department staff. this is request for conditional use to allow the demolition of

existing single-family residence at 714 rhode island street and construction of a new, five-story, two-unit residential building. the subject property is in the potrero hill neighborhood on a 25-100 lot near rhode island and 19th street are the property is located in the rh-2 zoning district. the site is developed with one single-family home built in 1904 that was determined to not be a historic resource and built over a natural rock outcropping. the structure has 6,356 square feet, divided into two, three-bedroom units. one will be 2,641 square feet and 2,309 square feet.

we've received two comments expressing concern with the project. one was received by a resident of an apartment unit in the large apartment building to the south, expressing concern that the proposed fifth floor would reduce the light afforded to units in the building. second comment, from a neighbor across the street. expressed concern that at 2,600 and 2,300 square feet, the three-bedroom units are extremely large, kickly for only having three bedrooms and are unaffordable by design. as the project complies with the planning code, the department recommends approval. the units are larger than many others in the neighborhood, it maximizes the density allowed, but the zoning rh-2. this concludes my presentation i'm available for any questions.

>> vice president melgar: do we have a project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. apologies. we have a project team that's stuck in traffic. i wonder if we can move on to the next item and -- >> vice president melgar: we already started hearing it. could have asked before we started it. are you ready to make a presentation? >> i guess if that's the option. the basics of the project are pretty straightforward. obviously, you have the materials in your packet. it's -- it's been designed to be compatible with the existing property. it's a small house that sits on the property and it will be replaced with two units that maximize the density for that area. there are two family-sized units that are designed to be large

enough for family use, but not overly large. we propose a roof deck. they're looking a t the upper space the neighbors are supportive in terms of the existing building. privacy view lines, it's been designed to be compatible with the surrounding buildings. and maximizing the unit count. and we have staff support. other than that, i think it's pretty straightforward. we're happy to take any questions and the rest of the project team should be here any moment. goip >> vice president melgar:

is there public comment on this item? please come up. >> did you want remarks about that -- >> vice president melgar: if you have public comment on that particular project. >> on 714 rhode island? >> vice president melgar: yes. >> i'm bonny baron. i live across the street at 731 rhode island and i've lived there for over 20 years and the little house on the hill across the street has been there the whole time. in fact, it's been there since 1904, at least. it's pre-earthquake. it survived the earthquake. it's a fine single-family house. i know in the planning code, you're allowed to demolish a

building in order to provide more affordable housing. i would argue that the housing that will be provided would certainly not be affordable. and i think that the existing structure is a sturdy, livable, fine house for a family. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any other speakers on this item? >> hi. lora clark. this is the easy stuff. this is taking an unaffordable, single-family home, that would otherwise see a gut rehab that would just boujify the single-family home and have an expensive single-family home not under rent control and get two

units. if we would have allowed a.d.u.s, we could have seen three, four, or even five units. instead, we have the legally allowed rh-2, two units, better than one. they will be nice, big, family-sized units with three bedrooms. it's the kind of stuff that will be very beneficial for -- we've seen an exodus of families from the city. we need more of these kind of large, three-bedroom units. it's -- in context, there's a giant apartment building right to the left. there is just no reason to not make this an easy approval. and if we make these kind of approvals difficult, we're, in fact, disincentivizing these lowe lower-margin projects they're wood-framed construction. it's not the giant condo buildings. this is the middle housing we need to make easy. if we make the projects difficult, if we scale them

back, if we make it so that we're not making it so any idiot can build one of these, then we're not going to see them come to this commission. anyone should be able it take a little, rinky-dink, single-family home, and make a nice home. side note, the timer is not going down, so i don't know when to start. >> vice president melgar: any other public comments? with that, public comment is now closed. commissioners? >> commissioner koppel: i don't see any problems with this one. i would like to see what other commissioners think. >> commissioner richards: prime opportunity site for densifying the city.

i don't think when we see what they're priced at it will be for the missing middle, but i'm happy to support. >> commissioner moore: i see this differently. in a neighborhood where a single-family home is 1,040, to put in two units that is 6,356 square feet is not supporting of our housing shortage. when you look at the plans of the project, it's about oversized bedrooms and closets galore. i don't see any real dedication to family space and i regret that we don't use a technique like west hollywood, for example, i talked with planner christiansen about it, where we have unit size restriction, so we can add more. the units as proposed are not at all supportive of context, where

we have a more modest, more middle-range units. they're, indeed, super sized units not designed for families, if you take a closer look at how they're laid out. this is my opinion, looking at the plans more closely, including the sizing, and it raises for me a number of questions. and i will most likely vote against it. if i see support of the commission, i will have a different opinion about it. [applause] >> vice president melgar: please, no sound. thank you. >> commissioner johnson: thank you, commissioner moore, for sharing your perspective. it's always appreciated. having visited the site and looked at the context of the neighborhood, feel like it's an opportunity site with the apartment building that has the height that it will match. looking also at the history of

the home, sale history, going price of the home, believe that it is a great opportunity for us to turn this into two units as opposed to one, nonaffordable house. i move to approve with seasons. >> second. >> i will just say, i think these are large units. i agree, commissioner moore, but i don't think they're outrageous. so a little under 3,000 square feet per unit for three bedroom and family of four, that's about 750 square feet per person. you know, it's large. it's not outrageous. and i think i agree with commissioner richards, that they're not for the missing middle, but it does make a dent in our housing shortage, so i will be supporting the project as well. >> okay, commissioners. there's a motion on the floor from commissioner johnson,

second from commissioner fong. we'll take up that motion. [roll call] so moved. 5-1. and so just to give you a quick update, we'll take one of your items out of order. we'll move to item 13 next, which is 2017-015706cua. 400 winston drive, stonestown, conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners, elizabeth jonckheer. the project before you, would reconfigure the existing macy's building at stonestown galleria. the proposed project would renovate facades and roof and

replace the opaque frontage. outdoor common areas are proposed. construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading and interior upgrades. all work is anticipated to be completed overlapping, commencing in august, completing in july, 2020. the original site was a shopping mall through a series of approvals between 1948 and 1953. the most recent expansion of the mall occurred in 1986, via a planned unit development. and the conditional use process as well as an e.i.r. the site is within the 65d height and bulk district and the limits the building to 110 feet,

diagonal 140 feet, above 40 feet in height. bulk exceptions have been granted for length and diagonal d dimensions. there will be volume on the roof for the cinema. the commission must grant the conditional use authorize to amend the existing p.u.d. since publication of the packet, one item of public comment has been received in general support of the project. the public commenter does note items of concern related to traffic, but the issues were addressed as part of the transportation impact analysis study completed as part of the e.i.r. process. the urban design advisory team supports the redesign of the building. the department recommends approval with conditions and it's on balance with the general plan and the bulk is in keeping

with building scale and massing of the mall, the spaces and extent possible with the unique characteristics of the site. i have the conditions of approval that were inadvertently left out of the packet. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for questions. >> vice president melgar: thank you, do we have a project sponsor? >> hello. i'm david sincotta, general growth properties, who is the new owner of macy's, the macy's facility. general growth properties owns the rest of the mall. they have a long-term commitment to stonestown galleria and want to see it expand and revitalize.

you can see from the materials that have been presented to you that this is more enlivened, stonestown galleria. the matter before you is an exception to the bulk requirements and the bulk requirements are, as you may know, only, particularly drafted, for sites, standard sites in san francisco, 25x100, 50x100. they don't really apply to a large, suburban mall like stonestown galleria. for that reason, in the past, bulk exceptions have been granted through the c.u. process. and new we're asking for similar bulk exception. the height limit is not going to be extended. it's still -- the project is below 65 feet.

the only reason for it is for the roof and the theaters, which will not be visible, particularly from the pedestrian experience. i can give you additional malls. the reason we're here is to approve this. the idea is that we want to be able to get back in front of the commission, get it reopened as quickly as possible, as ms ms. jonckheer has said, the earliest we're expecting is end of '19 or early 2020. before i finish my comments, i want to thank the staff, particularly elizabeth jonckheer and alicia chow, who have helped us. we don't want to keep the building vacant and dark as long as it is, and they've been great to get us through as quickly as

possible for the environmental review as well as project review. so i want to thank them. we are -- we have the architect here if you have any questions about the exception, but i think it's fairly routine and we're here for any additional comments. >> vice president melgar: thank you. with that, we'll take public comment on this item. would any member of the public like to comment? public comment is closed. missioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm glad to see there is an adaptive use strategy to hold the shopping center together. across the country, we're seeing shopping center fails, particularly when an anchor store fails, it's usually the end of the story. we're glad to see an interesting adaptive strategy. i personally don't think that

bulk and height matters. this is pretty much a freestanding, form, surrounded by ample setbacks. i'm for it and congratulate the developer and staff making it difficult at the speed before there was any damage to the functioning of the center has happened. so, thank you. i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> commissioner koppel: i'm also in support of this project. a lot of people don't even know this part of town exists. i grew up about one mile or so away and went to high school behind here. this is a -- by far, definition of an opportunity site, very large shopping center, surrounded by a very large parking lot. i'm also going to be excited to hear later on the road what is expecting with the existing movie theater. there is a movie theater behind

this mall. so hopefully down the road, something will be done with that lot as well. very excited to see this today and very in favor in as much bulk as possible here. >> vice president melgar: commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: i share the same thoughts. it's a creative step forward to put a theater in macy's building it's a tremendous parking lot that maybe doesn't need to be a parking lot in the future and maybe some development or opportunity there, whether it's housing or job creation is something to study. we got an article from san francisco state. if you haven't looked at their study, it's a great opportunity to see how the projects fold together and combine and be more of a synergy place for the area. it's a great location. so support it as well.

>> vice president melgar: i'm supportive as well. this is walking distance from my house. i'm excited about it. it's not just a theater. it's a grocery store, too, and that's really needed. i had a question about the existing movie theater in the back of the mall on the other side of the street. it's a very charming -- they run older movies. it is perfectly preserved in 1971. so i'm wondering what the plans are for that space or -- i also wouldn't want to do anything to drive an existing business out of business. >> yes. i'm francisco gutierrez, developer for stonestown. the good news is that the operator of that movie theater will be the operator of the new movie theater. so it's to provide a new facility. once they relocate, we'll look at that parking lot. >> vice president melgar: it's huge.

>> we've been talking with the community for the last couple of years about future plans and i think the first step is to re-engage the community and learn more about what they need and what they're looking for. but we do see it as a future opportunity. we just haven't had a chance to put a timeline to it. >> vice president melgar: thank you so much. >> commissioner fong: one more social comment. i think what you are getting at. this has been the social center for that part of the city, whether you are a high school kid and have nothing to do but want to hang out in a safe place or want to buy a gift for your mom or whatever it is, but it's a social center. i think what commissioner melgar is sharing, and i agree, it's important to keep that as fabric in that part of town. >> vice president melgar: thank you. >> commissioners, we have a motion from commissioner moore and second from commissioner koppel. [roll call vote]

that motion passes 6-0. we'll move back to item 12. case 2016-001190cua, 4143-4145 24th street. a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code 303 and 764 to establish 2,582 square feet medical dental use in the building. >> you are going faster than we thought. the sponsor is not here. >> vice president melgar: now that you've called it, do we go ahead? >> we can go on to the next item. we're moving on to discretionary

review calendar. >> i do think by the time i finish the presentation, they will be here. thank you. good afternoon, jeff horn, planning staff. item before you, 4143 24th street. located on the southside of 24th street, between castro and diamond streets in the noe valley-24th street commercial district. the project proposes to construct and establish a dentistry office, aesthetic dentistry of noe valley, in a ground floor commercial space right now that's a garage and residential unit, two-family dwelling. it proposes a horizontal

addition and one-story vertical addition and relocate dwelling to the newly created third floor. at the time of the publication, no comments have been received from the public, but the project sponsor did an outreach to the adjacent neighbors. it came as a full demolition of single-family home and new construction of a 4-story structure with ground floor dental office. in review of the application, planning staff found there had been an existing historic dwelling unit behind the garage and staff no longer supported full demolition of the building. the project before you will relocate the existing unit to a new floor and the project does not exceed the threshold of building removal per section 317.

the project sponsor lease as dental office across the street at 4162 24th street and purchased this building with the intent to establish and own her on building that houses her dental office. therefore, staff recommends approval of the project. department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the policies and objectives of the plan that meets the planning code. the proposed conversion of a garage adding a storefront to the block. that concludes staff's presentation. i received -- i emailed the commission p.d.f.s of renderings and i want to hand these out. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. it does not look like the project sponsor is here. they're here. okay. project sponsor, come up and make your presentation.

>> hello, commissioners. i'm joy chan. the owner is parking the car. i'm the project sponsor. it's a two-story building with a garage. and the owner being on 24th street for her dental office, 18 years. and now she is ready for, you know, space for her own for her dental office. and we use entire ground floor for her rental office and move the unit to upstairs. that's why we need a story on the top. but we set back to the area of

the top floor same area as the ground floor. i talked to the neighbors and they are all happy, especially on the right-hand side, a couple of meetings with him. and he is very happy. and i'm here to answer if you have any questions. >> vice president melgar: thank you very much. with that, we'll take public comment on this item. if anyone has public comment, please come up. okay. with that, public comment is now closed. commissioners? commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i had one question. in reviewing this document, i saw that as you mentioned the project sponsor had originally come with a three-unit building,

which was really interesting. and the reason why we felt like the demolition with not be possible is because of the historic nature of the building in the back. can you just shed a little bit more light on that? >> sure. the historic nature is the -- a building of this age when having two units is typically recognized as rent-controlled structure, so we were not in support of its demolition. the project as a four-story building and project engineer can efrm plain some of thi-- explain some of this. the code requirements and type of construction and need for roof access all come into play when you reach four stories. staff did see a four-story structure with a large penthouse up top, that we had design

review concerned with. we came back to them to say, if there was a three-story building, that it would be -- with a shake roof, the project sponsor found that the cost benefit of that roof and the construction of that did not me meet. >> vice president melgar: any other commissioner comments? commissioner moore? did you want it make a motion? does anybody want to? >> commissioner johnson: motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> vice president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i'm in full support. i like using the garage. that's a great idea. that's the typical way things were done. instead of a car there, you have an office there.

and you still have two units. so we're all winners. excellent. >> commissioners, we have a comment from commissioner johnson and with a second from commissioner richards. [roll call vote] so moved. 6-0. we are now on discretionary review calendar. so item 14, 2017-000 our -- 4drp. 3 hundr00 darine way, southeastr of the intersection, to add a first floor, add dormers, open-air connection and modify the garage door to the subject

building. >> elizabeth jonckheer, planning staff. this is for 300 darien way. it proposes to add habitable space in the basement, remodel. and open-air connection between roof and garage and modify the garage door to appear as two doors. it's at the southeast corner of darien way and san leandro within rh-1-d. it was constructed in 1924. it's english cottage style by eric stoner and in balboa park neighborhood of san francisco. and within the cal registry balboa historic district for the purposes of ceqa.

d.r. applicant is emily tan, adjacent neighbor. as of the date of the hearing, the department has received a petition and approximately 20 emails and letters in opposition to the project. a petition in support of the project was included in the project sponsor's response package. i received one email after the packet distribution, sent to me on tuesday, which i will pass forward to the commission secretary, in support of the project. the project sponsor worked with preservation staff and residential design team to alter the original proposal that included a one-story addition on the roof with new windows and roof deck. preservation staff found that that was an adverse impact to the historic resource and the district. preservation staff worked with the sponsor to revise the project to maintain the

character-defining features and property status as contributing resource. on march, as part of the lead-up to the hearing, reviewed the project and found that it did not demonstrate exceptional circumstance. the dormer windows reflected a properly scaled expansion well integrated with existing roof forms. the department supports the project and provides a recommendation to not take d.r. and approve as proposed. this concludes my presentation. >> vice president melgar: we will now hear from the d.r. requestor. >> good afternoon. my name is emily tan. the project sponsors of 3 300 darien way held a preapplication meeting. they were supposed to notify 22 households, but only notified 5

neighbors. they revised their plans with the city and refused to show their plans to any neighbors and refused to hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss. i live next door and they've never contacted me about the revisions of their project. in january, the project was not approved. they're proposing dormers, trying to squeeze in a second floor, to add 1,000 square feet of living space and drastically changing the roof line. one of the dormers is 30 feet by 7 feet and sticks out about 10 feet or more. they're opening four large windows and they will be able to look directly into my bedroom. >> sfgov tv?

>> this is the first exhibit, where they're adding a 30x7-foot, huge, massive dormer to the back of the home. this is how it currently looks right now. it's going to stick out about 10 to 12 feet, so it will not much be surrounding homes at all. they used the example of 290 darien way, a home that's across the street, kitty corner, as an example of the home that has added a dormer. almost 20 years ago, the owner added one dormer that created an additional 50 to 100 square feet. it was a two story home over a basement.

the part that's circled is where the dormer was added for 290 san leandro. the dormer only added 50 to 100 square feet, which included a small bathroom and walk-in closet. in the project sponsor's response, they state their home is in need of repair, various aspects don't meet city code and energy efficiency is low. they stated they don't know the rental value of the property. "i attest that the information is true to the best of my knowledge." it was signed by both nathan and marcia ng.

since january, 2017, they have four tenants living in the home. according to their tenants, the rental income per month is $5,000. in addition, the lower level is only about 6 feet high and how an unpermitted bedroom. knowing this is not up to code, they're still renting out the bedroom to a tenant. the project sponsors have never lived in the home. these pictures were taken two years ago. this is a picture of their tenant, peter, that i chat with pretty often. here's a picture of the tenants' cars during the day. a picture of the tenants' cars at night.

and a picture of the lower level basement that is unpermitted and currently being rented out. they state their home is 30 feet high. previously, they stated 25 feet and 1 inch because at that time wanted to add another story. >> vice president melgar: your time is up. >> i thought i had 5 minutes. >> we had given you 5 minutes. >> vice president melgar: you can come up for rebuttal. thank you. any speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? please come up. >> madam chairman, and commissioners, good afternoon. my name is bob switzer. i'm the current president of the balboa terrace homes

association. four of our elected directors are also here today because the statutes that govern our association impose a fiduciary duty on directors to act in the best interest of our entire neighborhood. that's why we support action to support the review for 30 300 darien. since the enactment of the charter amendment proposition and resign standards, our board and your staff, have had a special, co-operative standards, but we must rely on your commission to uphold proposition m and city design standards. that's why we support your acceptance of the discretionary review. our body has opposed this project for some time in response to both the project's

lack of merit, inharmonious character and consistent pattern by the project sponsors of threatening, intimidating, discrediting our volunteers, even seeking to remove directors who oppose their project. you can imagine what validating that pattern of behavior will do to a community. we all acknowledge that the opposition to this project is not unanimous, but the openization is broad based, strong, and visible. not only do you have petitions, letters, etc., but in the community, we've had two directors recalled by a special election, three directors not re-elected by wide margins, and the common demnominator is, the supported the project. that's how controversial it is. the commissioners already know

that what you do here today cannot be undone. if your commission denies the discretionary review it, would destroy the character of this english cottage-style home, it would no longer be financially feasible to restore it. it would undermine the work of good people in our neighborhood who play by the rules. and denial would encourage every flipper, every developer, to flaunt our standard, threaten, intimidate and thumb their nose at our processes for resident participation. that's why we request that your commission accept the discretionary review. we appreciate your action in that regard. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is robert mann. i live at 445 darien way. we're one of the oldest associations in the city. all properties are covered under deed restrictions. we have architectural standards that have been in place since 2005. everyone is very aware of them. and i wanted just to point out the process that we went through to make sure that the commission is fully aware. first of all, there was a neighborhood meeting. none of the notified neighbors came to the meeting, for some reason. it was only the board. the community meeting was held election night, presidential election night, as polls were closing. however, we were able to get there.

and the -- before that meeting, the neighborhood architectural committee was very clear that the first proposal would probably never be approved by the city and they should meet with us to talk about another plan before they hired an architect. the architectural committee wrote a recommendation to historic planning that said that you should -- we didn't deny it. we said carefully consider the second floor addition, change to the roof, change to the windows. and the historic planning group found that everything we recommended was accurate. nonetheless, the homeowners decided to retaliate by threatening a lawsuit, asking to remove me from the committee, architectural committee, and asking to remove another board member. the other board member was removed to appease the neighbors and we descended to a period where there was no communication from the homeowners, no back and

forth. we were not involved at all in the further negotiations on the second floor. and the board voted to say that we would deny approval of the project if pulls were not installed and our architectural guidelines clearly state that -- i can put it here, if you want, can be required. the homeowners said we will not put up story pulls or have another meeting we asked several times. at this point, i hate to say this, but the homeowners have engaged in an attack on ms. tan and her mother. it's really descended into a terrible, terrible situation. and it's extremely controversial. and i think it would be in the best interest to have the discretionary review approved

and enter into a period of looking at the alternatives. that's my comment. >> vice president melgar: any other public comment in support of the d.r. requestor? >> just begin and we'll -- >> hello. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm susan grazioli. i have lived in balboa terrace over 40 years. and i actually live 150 feet from the current home, 30 300 darien way. what i have now is a picture -- this is the illustration done for the sale of the home,

307 san leandro way, the tan residence. that's what the house looked like originally. this is the house currently with the renovation that was completed over 10 years ago. my point being that this home was 10 years ago renovated and i think it fell under completely different architectural guidelines and everything that we have now because we're now a designated balboa terrace district, historic. so i wanted to show you the difference of this. now -- >> vice president melgar: are you speaking in support of the d.r. requestor? >> no. i'm speaking for the d.r. requestor, in support of her, yes. i'm giving you a history of her project for historical

relevance. this particular project, if you can show that house, that house was built 10 years ago and that was the last house built in balboa terrace before we became a designated balboa district. today if this project was to be put forth before the board, we probably would not approve it. in 10 years' time, you know, you have the historic and different planning departments. so i would just like to show that. i also have another point. this is the current dormer on the south side of the home. this is what they have now. i will struggle with this one because it's a little