howing and need for units. with this proposed development our interest has been finding reasonable balance between the development and privacy. the majority of our time is as a family is spent in the the back of our house which has large window and exposed to where the structures will be built. our focus from the outside has been it preserve some that privacy from our neighbors up the hill. each plan version has gotten less invasive with site lines to our yard, we believe there's more that the developer can do a reach a better balance between construction and privacy with regard to the top floor. we can that the declaration be set back to reduce the deck occupants looking in our house. speaking of the top floor, large penthouse seem to make no sense for a city focused more on affordable housing. reducing size of rooftop deck will not address some of the privacy concerns but also help

make the unit more affordable. lastly, my wife and have a specific interest. privacy on the north facing side of the property, we work closely with our neighbors to make sure our collective needs are address. we got takin together to talk at what a good project should look like. we worked closely dee and fellow firsneighbors. >> next speaker please. >> thank you good evening. i live at 1814 castro street. i'm here with two hats basically. i was the manager for planning and program development for the san francisco housing authority

since 1994. i'm very well versed on monolithal architecture. of i was involved in the demolition of several of the public housing sites in san francisco replaced with more adaptable more architecture would blend in with the communities. i would not stand out in an unusual way. i'm here to support my neighbors. i am across the street. i don't necessarily -- i'm not necessarily affected by the building. as a neighbor, i am really concerned about the issues of the monolithic architecture, the issues of quality of life, the issues of -- the need for air

space and the way in particular, that the developer is not responding to the modifications that they are being requested. i believe as an architect and planner, those are things that i have done in my career for many years. i think there's room for some modifications that could be used by everybody. there should be some quality of life in noe valley area pip really support my neighbors. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening again. i got involved with the negotiations when the project sponsor called the meeting at

the library at the noe valley library. they were trying to come up with compromises. the thing that came to me as obvious, five foot set back on the western side. the building is a huge monolithic square. aside from esthetics, architecture rail esthetics that would would like. it is a matter of air, it's a matter of imposition that this huge monolithic will have on the neighbors. i i proposed this and unfortunately the project sponsor was not at all amendable to this. here we are months later back again discussing the same them. i believe sculpting the west side is importance not only because of the privacy issues.

not only because of the super imposition of this huge building. because of the architectural integrity, architectural esthetics. i urge the commission to please take d.r. and give the neighbors this 5-foot set back on the esthetic side. even though it is huge, at least it's going to have some esthetic value for the people sitting there and looking at this wall for the rest of your time and that part of san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. as we have no other speakers in support of the d.r. requesters. we'll hear from the project sponsor.

>> good evening commissioners. i'm here as the project sponsor and the architect. i like to start off by -- this is a quick little pamphlet that gives little bit of history. it shows some of the iterations that we went through. it also at the back of it, i have the plan of the building. right before that i have three alternatives that we've been discussing. i like to start off by saying, this is always been a code

compliant building. we never asked for variances or exceptions to the building. it's an existing empty lot. we're not dismissing or displacing any homes. the trees that are on the site are fragile. they would have to come down eventually because they are weak. they are eucalyptus and they are leaning. we're adding seven units to this projects. primarily noe valley is a family operated neighborhood. it's very difficult to buy homes in noe valley family homes. we're providing units that provide those two to three bedrooms that everyone is looking for. it's been approved by ardat and planning and we made alterations. as the neighbor's pointed out, we did have a meeting in january and we started negotiations. we started working towards a setback along the westside. we'll get into that later.

to say that we weren't willing to negotiate is not true. we've always been there. we've offered restructures in bulk and mass and still maintained seven units even though we lost square footage. that doesn't matter. it matters what is right appropriate massing and bulk for the site. today i wish to point out and show you some alternatives along the way. this is a time line of what we've been through. again, the green just shows all the different iterations dates we've had in place. we've negotiated several times with the d.r. number one. dee moore. d.r. number two got lost. that's why we're here two months later than we should have been. we reached out to d.r. two, james. he never responded to our emails. it's good to hear that he's been involved through dee moore. we tried. it's true that there are single family homes next to us.

some of those homes are two stories, some of them are three stories. there's also two apartment buildings along castro. there's six units and four unit buildings. it's very mixed. the building next to us is a massive building with 16 units. it is a unique site. as you can see from this diagram, the yards are pretty grand. the shortest one is 34 feet away which is the apartment building. some of these other yards are 8. there's a lot of greenery. there's lot of openness there. also, we're building units that are 800 square feet, 1400 square feet and 1600 square feet in

2000 square feet apartment at the top. one of our d.r. has a 3000 square foot house three stories. we're trying to figure out how to put family homes in these flats and not try to create builds that are too big but just the right size for the site. [please stand by]

>> that was all asked by the -- by the planning department. and also, the -- another thing that came up is the planning department asked us to change the character of the architecture to make it more in keeping with what the neighborhood is, so we changed from a much more monolithic building to a much more carved out textured building, using

wood, using some delicate material along the facade, creating more glazing along the site facade to give it more life. these are some of the material p palates that we used. and this is supplemental information that i want to go through with you. so as we submitted the 311, this is where we started with, and we had a meeting with the neighborhood. working through that meeting, we heard their voices, we heard that they wanted the biggest thing that they asked for was the set back on the west elevation. they really wanted a planting zone. so one of the things that i went back with, and modi, who spoke, who came to me, called me, and said that's what we really want, is that three-foot set back. they say five, i can't really do five. but three, i can do, and we can plant that. and we think this is an important feature, pushing it back. not only do we push back the

wall 3 feet, we indid he teent center of it 2 feet, and we push back the deck 2 feet. our deck came back halfway between our negotiations and said we want you to push the deck back 26'6". my last propositional, on the table, and this is what i've been putting, and this is what i've shown the neighbors for the last couple months is 3 feet on the side and 13 feet on top. it's a compromise that i think all the stakeholders have a part in this. on top of that, i'm offering to set back the railing three to 5 feet appropriately so that we can control the privacy of the area. i think that this is probably a compromise that addresses our debt, it addresses the neighbors, it addresses a lot of what has been spoken about

today. this is an elevation. i plan to work with the neighbors on what to plant there. i would love to do italian cypresses. it will create that buffer that we're looking for in terms of foliage. what i'm offering is 32% more than what rdat has asked me to do in terms reducing the bulk of the building. so i could do what rdat's asked me to do, 20'6", but i think the 313 does more and more than what rdat asks for. this is a last perspective looking down onto the site. so i thank you for that and if there's any questions or if i went too fast, i'm willing to answer, but this is what i have

today. >> vice president melgar: if we have any public comment in support of the project, please come up now. okay. seeing -- >> you do have 24 letters of support. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you very much. so the d.r. requester, you get a two-minute rebuttal -- you each get a two-minute rebuttal, so...overhead projector. okay. so just to review what the sponsor is offering in terms of responding to the significant sculpting and terracing requested by both the neighbors and rdat, they're offering these 3 foot set back on the west, even though the two neighbors to their east have offered -- have 5 foot set backs, larger buildings with five-foot set backs, they're

only offering us 3 feet. they're offering an additional 3 feet off of the fourth floor on the north side. this 10 feet -- they talk about offering 13 feet. this 10 feet is not allowed to be built in because of code because if they're building into the back yard, the rear yard, so they're offering us an additional 3 feet. so you can see this is not really responding to our needs, all right? this is not significant sculpting and terracing. and even with this, the height of these walls in the back will be 57.4 feet and 47.4 feet. and this is from the corner that -- the height of the corner, the back of the building at the third and fourth floors. if this was a flat lot, these heights would be restricted to 30 and 40 feet. so the code isn't protecting the neighbors in this case because of the steepness of the lot. we're getting this overly large

building, and the developer did not supporting our -- is not supporting our needs to live with it by sculpting it and terracing it, so please accept our request for review. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. d.r. requester number two, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> the slide that i really want to show you is again how this project can be appropriately terraced by still maintaining the seven units by just reducing the overall square footage of each unit and eliminating the storage space. by do of those two things, this project can be terraces down the hillside so it's less impactful to the neighbors to the north and the neighbors to the west. there's no doubt about it, regardless of how this project is built, it's going to have a significant and negative impact on my home and my family's quality of life. we know that. we know that we're going to lose the open space that we've looked at effort. we know we're going to lose --

every day. we know we're going to lose the trees, the shrubs, the foliage, and the birds. we know we're going to have seven units, and that's size, and this monolithic box should not be allowed to be built. it should be terraced as it goes down the hill so that it respects the surrounding homes. if it does, it will lessen the impact on the neighbors to the north and west, including my family. such would be in compliance with the rdat and would be respectful of the character and the design of the surrounding homes. and so you have the opportunity to make that requirement. you have the opportunity to make the developer go back and do a better job and terrace that project as it goes down the hill. the developer can do that. you can do that, and that's what we're asking for you to do. thank you very much for your

consideration. >> vice president melgar: thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> it's hard to rebuttal because i've been working with planning department on this project and rdat, and, you know, there's a set of rules and a set of codes that we've been working towards and i'm not asking for any exemptions or variances or breaking the code. i'm just trying to do what's right. i'm a little shocked because we did talk about 3 feet for the longest time, and we did talk about -- there's so many nuances that i've approached. and now for someone asking for more than what we've talked about for the last six months is really hard to understand.

i don't think we'll ever get to a point where everyone's happy, but i think what i've offered is something that i think is fair to everyone. this is -- this is a zone -- this site is zoned for seven units. there's this height limit. san francisco has the topography it has. i was born and raised here. i lived up on beacon street. i know what san francisco's all about. we build here, we try to do it with scale, we try to do it with material. you know, we try to work with the site lines as best as we can. and like i said, i even offered, and this is noted somewhere that we would work with the neighbors to enhance the greenery in our back yard so that we can obscure as much as that base of the building as possible. i mean, this is a sloped site. there's nothing that -- i can't change the topography of the land. i think this is a really good solution. i think it's fair, and i hope that you could see that we worked very hard for the last

two-plus years on trying to get this to this point, so i appreciate your time. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. okay. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so interestingly enough, i think the slope of the hill is extraordinary and exceptional here in the city. i know when i worked on market and okaytictavio, this is what happened. i completely respect your work. i know you're doing what the project sponsors are asking you to do. the one thing that's interesting to me just as i talked with the project sponsor's team this week and we were looking at the project set back -- the set back from the property line and the set back from the rear, that i hadn't really looked at and just got clued in, we've got each -- you

have 2,056 spaces -- 1,056 square feet on b-2, and 47 on b-1. 893 square feet perunit that's parking and storage. and the height of the building in the back is causing the issue, so that's really where i want to focus is -- you know, i don't think the units are exceptionally large. they're actually coming in at the average of a flat in isk san francisisk -- in san francisco, so i'm okay with it. i really want to focus on the need for that additional 900 square feet perunit between storage and parking. if you look at b-1, and the parking spaces and all the different other space in the -- in that -- on that floor, i think they're -- there's enough room for a storage including on

b-1, which hopefully will just be b, if other commissioners agree, for commission ornaments and things like that, you have closets for things you use every day. the storage downs, i honestly -- down stairs, i honestly believe for things you use once a year, you're going to be able to create on b-1. you don't need to offer an additional 900 commissioned space perunit, which i think is excessive. the question i have for mr. winslow is open space requirement, this is code compliant buildings, so is there any open space requirement, you know, rm 1? >> i'm going to defer to chris towns, the current code inspector on this project. >> the answer is yes, there is an open space requirement perunit in this district. 100 square feet if it's

private, 133 square feet perunit if it's common. >> commissioner richards: okay. the back yard itself doesn't qualify. >> it also qualifies. >> commissioner richards: but, if there was no roof deck, would the back yard in and of itself qualify for the roof space requirement? zbh i'd have to check that. >> commissioner richards: is there a pattern of roof decks in the neighborhood? >> not that i'm aware of. >> commissioner richards: i'd probably focus on the roof deck because it is towering over everybody. i don't think the backward's that usable at a dougherdownwa but i think we have to look at the trade offs between the b-2, b-1 issue that i just raised. >> seven units, seven maximum -- minimum requirement of one perunit.

they're proposing seven units, so they're doing the one perunit. they're allowed up to 150% of that amount, so they could go up to 11, so they're doing four less than what's required. >> commissioner richards: and b-1 would not be a great living space. i think the height of the garage is causing me anxiety for the folks on the west. i think there could be a solution where they don't really have to change too much, but you could actually get rid of a floor that's really not for living at all. it's just storage. >> vice president melgar: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i'd actually love to invite the project sponsor to comment on that, the thinking behind it. >> yeah. it's more of a technical thing. so we've started the ramp at the lowest part of the site because the site kind of slopes

from east to west. >> commissioner richards: could you speak into the mic. >> oh, yeah. it flows east to west, so we started with the ramp. the problem with what you're saying, i would have to take that ramp further further down to drop everything. >> commissioner richards: on you about a -- because what we've seen on other projects, you drive your car, it's an elevator, and you go down. you don't need a ramp, you just need enough room for that elevationor to take them down to the floor. they're putting elevators in tiny homes these days, so here's a seven-unit building you might be able to do that. >> we're doing that on much, much bigger projects, and a single-family home, the owner can actually do that because they're responsible for themselves. on a larger project, which we do downtown, we use elevators, but that's with a valet.

the owner would never get in that car and do it. the problem i have here is because it's a seven unit project, they would have to valet that elevator unless it's a single-family home. >> commissioner richards: that's an osha requirement unless it's a single-family home. >> if it's a single-family home, can you do it -- you can do it, but if it's a multifamily home, you can't do it. i'm looking at the topography on the site, to see the least amount possible to go down. like i said, this is a family -- it's kbaered towards family -- geared towards storage space. imagine you have a single-family home, like a lot of these people do. they have a storage, they have car, they have storage in their

garage, and then, they have their home. this is similar, but this is just seven of them. >> commissioner richards: makes sense. i guess my question for mr. -- i'm having a brain malfunction -- and congratulations on your new role. i think we're going to be seeing you more in this position, that you're now the d.r. guy. okay. great. just tap me on the way out. >> the ides of march. >> commissioner richards: this wedding cake terracing, is this common? it looks like the inside of a portland hotel to me? what's sculpting look like to you. >> our first comments were in response to the scale of the building at the back, and they were generic, take your best stab at respecting both the topography of the site as well as the scale at that midblock condition. i -- i think, you know,

significantly sculpting the building, and that can take many and any forms, right, without being prescriptive. when it came back the second time, after the d.r. was applied for, we did get specific with respect to the terracing of the upper most floor, and the dplengs that takes height off the top, but also respects -- if you look next door to the building on the east, it has a top floor that's considerably set back to the rear wall. so that was kind of the cue that we were looking at in being more prescriptive on that second d.r. review. so we aren't looking at the tower of babylon.

>> commissioner richards: i'm a little bit not understanding what an additional 2 feet would do because the other buildings are 50 feet away in the back. >> i did a little research on that. if you look at the plan of those buildings adjacent to us on the east, they are massive. they're twice as wide as our lots, and the reason that these developers chose to pull those buildings back on the edges is so that they can actually get light and air to the middle of those buildings. we don't have that condition. we have back yards on one side, so the 3 feet is what we're offering in order to get that planning strip. it also allows us to get windows along that side. but the reason that 5 feet is not a -- it's not a zoning thing that anybody created, it's induced by the developers -- >> commissioner richards: okay. so you agree to 3 feet? >> i totally do. >> commissioner richards:

okay. that was number one on their ask. number two, you're willing to do 13 feet? >> 13. i just felt that rdat didn't recognize the west side at all. didn't ask us to most the west side at all. i think from a planning standpoint, doing in from both sides. they want something from the west, these guys want something from the top. the top is pretty far below here. even at 10 feet back, you're barely going to see this thing. 13 is fair, and i would set back the handrail, as well, so that that stays back another 3 feet so it doesn't come to the edge to reduce that rich. d >> commissioner richards: and number three, we ask -- >> yes, i did that. >> commissioner richards: great. and then four, they asked for two more feet on the guardrails

on the decks. instead of three, they want five. that doesn't do that much to your project. >> that doesn't do too much. >> commissioner richards: so it looks like you'd agree. >> yeah. >> commissioner richards: include neighbors in the process of appropriate planning, agreed. so i think you've agreed to the six of the seven. the 13 feet is the 20 feet is the big difference, and it looks like you've kind of gone halfway with the 3 feet and the 13 feet. i'm satisfied that this should work. >> it's going to look good. >> commissioner richards: i'll let commissioner koppel make a moti motion. >> commissioner koppel: i'll make a motion to take d.r. with the stated conditions that commissioner richards just stated. >> clerk: 13 feet from which

side? >> commissioner richards: from the back of the property. >> from the rear wall. >> right. instead of ten, it's 13. >> commissioner richards: 3 feet set back on the property, top floor to third floor, set back additional 2 feet, maintain an indentation in the original zieb facade. on the -- design facade. on the third floor, 5'6". >> no. >> commissioner richards: so this would be on the fourth floor. >> the third floor doesn't set back. >> commissioner richards: okay. so then, it would be the fourth floor. >> no, the fourth floor goes back 13'6". >> commissioner richards: that's what i -- decks removed from the fourth floor, parapet on the entire fourth floor belowered to a curb, and include neighbors in the appropriate selection process of planning, so --

>> yes. >> commissioner richards: do i hear a second? >> vice president melgar: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. so basically, we are taking d.r. and approving this project with modifications pursuant to the ask submitted by the d.r. requesters, accepting items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, not 6. >> commissioner richards: right. >> clerk: and number two gets amended to eliminate the third floor set back ask reducing the second floor set back to 13'6". very good. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners item 20 was

withdrawn, so we are on item 21 for case number 2013.0847 d.r.p. at 1503 francisco street. please note on may 24, 2018 after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to july 19, 2018 by a vote of 6-0 and on july 19, 2018, without hearing, you continued it to today's date. commissioner richards, you were not present on that first hearing, and if you could acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous material and hearing. >> commissioner richards: i have. >> clerk: thank you. as this is the second time we are hearing this matter, the d.r. requester will be provided with a three minute presentation, and the project sponsor will be provided with a three minute presentation. all public comment will be limited to one minute. >> good evening, commissioners. alexander kirby with department staff. the item before you is a request for discretionary review for a building permit for a vertical addition interior remodel and revised

facade design at 1503 francisco street. as the commission secretary said, the item was heard before this commission on may 24. following public comment and discussion, the item was continued with a request by the commissioners with a project sponsor work with the concerned neighbors to address revisions primarily relating to the exterior design of the project. the subject building is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of francisco and octavia streets, and the immediate area is characterized by a mix of single and multifamily housing that range in height from three to four stories. the project was reviewed by environmental staff and determined to be categorically exempt from further ceqa review. the subject building is not a you historic resource nor is it located within an eligible historic district.

the request was filed by the owners of 1409 francisco street. they've rei they've reiterated that the revised proposals at this time may i approach tanz unusual circumstances, that the communal space of the ground story may not be used as such, that the roof decks are unnecessary and not typical of the neighborhood and that the units should have independent street access. the revised scope of work includes the same internal layout as the original design appropriatesal with two parking spaces and a shared common space at the ground floor, two existing one bedroom units at the second floor, and existing residential units at the third and fourth floor with roof deck access at the roof and fourth floor levels. the existing footprint of the building would not be expanded. this project sponsor did significantly revise the exterior design based on the feedback from the commission and concerns brought up by the

neighbors at the prior public hearing regarding the prior contrary design. the newly proposed design reduces glazing from 40% of the exterior shell to 26 with proportions to better relate to the finestrations of the upper site, and it proposes to change the original cast concrete ridge face to a kol too sooned brick finish to soften the pedestrian experience of the building. the residential design advisory team reviewed the revised proposal and found the design to be compatible in design to the surrounding neighborhood. rdat noted that the windows are compatible in size, scale, and proportion with the surrounding buildings. the context exhibits restrained building articulation that is typically focused on window

detailing and a delainiation of the entry and base and that this design articulates the base with a compatible material in the entry with a material differentiation in high recess. the upper roof deck is limited in size and set back from all edges, and the rear decabutts a blind wall in the street, therefore presenting no privacy impacts. the brick at the -- [inaudible] >> -- with other ground level treatments. the project has been reviewed for compliance with section 317 and was determined not to qualify as a de facto demolition or a unit merger. the area of the existing units at the second floor would not be significantly modified. the project would retain the existing three units, and staff verified with the rent board and office of short-term rentals that there are no

evicti evictions at the property. all three units feature independent accessing kitchens, and were the property owner to seek a unit mer jerge at a later date, they would be required to file for conditional use for the loss of a unit to be heard before this body. at the time of the prior hearing, staff had received 25 letters of support and ten letters in opposition to the proposal. since the revised project was presented to neighbors, staff has received two e-mails in support including the neighbors to the immediate east with whose property would most be directly impacted by the roof deck,s awell as three letters and e-mails and a petition with

20 signatures, including those of the d.r. requesters and neighbor who's had submitted letters. the department -- [inaudible] >> -- and presents no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. i'm available for questions. thank you. medical melg we wi . >> vice president melgar: we will now hear from the d.r. requester. five minutes -- >> clerk: three minutes. [inaudible] >> clerk: well, let's fix that. >> good evening, commissioners. my name's kristina mcnair, and my sister and i are owners are property across from the project. our family legacy has been tied to the marina since the early 1920's. our d.r. request represents the out pouring of community from the marina community opposed to

the 1503 project and since our last d.r. hearing, we received an additional over 34 additional signatures, including the san francisco tenants union. our concerns include loss of our thinks toric community character, loss of vital housing stock, concern over deep pockets, forever changing a community for their own benefits. shortly after our last d.r. hearing, on several occasions, i attempted to connect with the 1503 team. on the 21st of june. we did receive updated plans, on july 26, d.r. representatives had a meeting with the 1503 team, and now three weeks later we still have not received any further follow up. we'd allowed sufficient time for them to provide changes to the plans. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm the architect. i have ongoing concerns about the project regarding roof decks, unit mergers, and overall design. we request elimination of the roof decks, three or 4% of the

buildings in this neighborhood have roof decks, and there's been strong out cry about roof decks, both in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods. there's a blind -- the next -- there is windows on the -- noted there's a blind wall in the report. it actually has windows. one solution to the unit mergers is to provide an open air lobby, which creates a connection to the street and -- and creates a more inviting, communal feeling in the community. current configuration easily allows the units to be merged on the second floor. you can see this is a closed lobby, and again, the -- in the past, the department has forced unit interior reconfigurations based on known code compliance -- future code compliance problems. there is a current pattern in the neighborhood and in the

city in real estate sales to merge units after sale into single-family home. this is exactly the thing that could happen here. it could use some massing changes on the exterior. it's still -- it w's a very bld simplified feature. the finestration is very simplistic. i think it has a need for further detailing, which has not been provided. thank you very much. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. we will now hear any public comment in support of the d.r. requester. so this is the second time we're hearing this item, so one

minute. >> hello. thanks for the time. i'm still opposed to this project. i do appreciate the other side making some changes since we were last in front of the commission. but to me, it comes across as a bit of a bare minimum effort and didn't address all of the points that were raised by the -- the insightful discussion that the commission had after our last hearing. in particular, i'm concerned about the motion of a single-family home really changing kind of the dynamic of our neighborhood, and most particularly, the roof decks. there's also -- the same owners purchased the residence next door and there's a plan to have a roof deck on that one, as well, so we're looking at putting three roof decks in a very tight area in a pretty much over night.

the city has new guidelines on roof decks, of which there's three or four points that are in violation. >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> hi. pam davis. i am a neighbor down at 1567 francisco, and i want to also thank them for redesigning some of the exterior. my concerns previously were regarding the glazing. that does appear to have been addressed significantly. my only remaining concern relates to the rear deck. if you look at this photo, you can see this is francisco street where you see the vehicles. and then, the rear deck that's being proposed is actually what would be visible as a side deck from the street, and my concern is living just a few doors down from here, the noise that is generated from a side deck that is exposed and as open as this

area would be is very concerning to me. so that is the feature that remains in this that i specifically have concerns regarding. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm margin requalley. i'm a 23 year resident in the marina, homeowner for the last 14 years across the street from the project. i'm concerned about the impact of the project on the nature of the neighborhood. in particular, there have been a lot of contradictions from the owner about what the intentions are for this building. originally, it was talked about as being a single-family home. i think you've heard we have continued concern with the design seeming that that's still a likely intention in the future. secondly, it's been stated as using it for corporate housing, again, not keeping with the

long-term residential nature of the neighborhood. at this point, there have not been any tenants in the units, so there really hasn't been any impact directly, but between 1503 francisco, this project, and 3255, which the owner also owns next door, four of the five units have been vacant. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. philip meza, and i would echo the comments made by my neighbors earlier tonight, and i would also specify that we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home. overhead, please. we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home, and this is magnified that we now have concerns about the property

becoming a single-family compound because the property at 3255 octavia received permission to in-fill the light well between the two properties. so i don't know what further evidence you need that this is going to become a single-family home and a single-family compound. thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. instead of echoing the same points that everybody has raised, which i wholeheartedly agree in one minute that i have or less, i just want to point out to the arrogance of power. in this case, mr. minaj is trying to buy the support of neighbors by purchasing the properties, the surrounding building. i have no idea if the intent is to keep purchasing and keep purchasing the support of neighbors, but i just wanted to point out to you that residential mr. murphy here,

overhead please, as you can see, he purchased mr. murphy's -- mr. patrick murphy's how's next door, and this is the same -- house next door, and this is the same house that everybody's pointing is going to be another roof deck on it. i'm just pointing out this is just not right. this arrogance of power is not right and should not be permitted. just, you know, please, you know, like -- okay. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, mark hermann, i live directly across the street from this project. this project started five years ago with a well documented attempt to use the property as a single-family home. we saw it from 2013, a failed dwelling unit merger and the project sponsor's own statement at the last hearing. in the last five years, we saw this building being used at best as a corporate rental

today we have an unchanged floor plan screaming for legal. tomorrow, we have the project sponsor's vacant two unit building next door with proposed remodel details, very suggestive of future unit accommodation. if this project isn't stopped now, i hope you've seen the future from similar projects in other neighborhoods where the planning department is mocked, neighbored are thumbed, and units in the neighborhood are being marketed and sold at single-family homes. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. if there are no more comments in support of the d.r. requester, we will now use the project sponsor. >> thank you. last we met, we came with a code compliant project, full support of planning, and 25

letters of support. a small group of opponents led my kristina mcnair met us by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us, and more has come tonight, because as i've learned through this neighborhood kristina has a deeply rooted grudge with the city and their planning process. kristina received four citations from the city which she's fought for more than three years. she should not be policing the neighborhood as she thumbed her knows not once but four times to this very process. mark hermann told me when i knocked on his door that his neighbor reported him for a deck he was building illegally in his garden. we were unprepared and remain taken aback by the lies and tactics that are being invoked by the pretense of architecture design. kristina remarks at the may 24 hearing were not her own words

with you rather read from a letter of constance. what kristina didn't tell you is that constance is not within the 311 notification area. her unit is in escrow as we speak. kristina also didn't tell you that she herself empties parts of her building in the last year, there by adding to the density of our neighborhood and adding average rents. mark hermann likes to have conversations here at the neighborhood and at the hearing, highlighting my wife's native origins, the size of her family, and i see had deep concern about using the building to how's her family memory -- house her family and not tenants. these are not acts nor

statements of people endeavoring to act with us in good faith. they have not asked us to meet. we have continually invited them to meet us. in fact, just two days ago, we accepted supervisor's kathrin stefani's offer to mediate a discussion between the principals, and kristina and mark, like other times, rejected the invite. we don't want the good feeling of the neighborhood to be washed away with a few bad apples, so concrete was replaced with stucco, wood, brick, to soften all materials widely used in the neighborhood. windows were decreased from 10 foot in height to 8.5 feet. the overall circumstance was decreased from -- >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> window patterns -- >> vice president melgar: your

time is up. sorry, you have two-minute rebutt al. >> clerk: no, not on the second time. >> vice president melgar: okay. are there any commenters in support of the project sponsor. come on up. >> thank you. how much time do i have? >> clerk: i have a minute. >> my name's patrick murphy. i live at 1526 francisco street, directly across the street from the project. born and raised in san francisco. been on the street for 26 years. i'm very much in support of the project. my view is affected more than anybo anybody else's, and that's the true view here. i think families should be allowed to expand existing units without getting rid of any existing tenants as many of these other people have. >> vice president melgar: thank you. so -- so we don't have a

rebuttal. commissioners? [inaudible] >> vice president melgar: commissioner koppel? >>. >> commissioner koppel: just one question fore the project sponsor. what do you have planned for the basement? >> there is no basement. >> commissioner koppel: there's a basement in the drawings. >> there's no basement. >> commissioner koppel: just saying, drawing a-2 had a basement plan. >> this is common space to that the building occupants can access the guard where my wife likes to guard, so it's for the benefit of everyone in the building. >> vice president melgar: is that -- is that it, commissioner? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i think the design's improved

much over what it was before. i like the idea that the two middle units are around the same square footage. more power to you for expanding the top. the roof deck is small, so i have no issue with that. the only issue i have is the common space in the future becoming a new unit number through with the merger of the two units above, so i would like to take d.r., approve the project with a notice of special restriction to the common space if it were to become a unit in the future, it would become a unit as an a.d.u. >> vice president melgar: is that a motion? >> commissioner richards: it's a motion. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the condition that if the

common space becomes livable that it become an a.d.u. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. adjourn. [ gavel ]