tonight, and now i start to understand how community support and relation is really important. so when we had a talk a lit together is to support the mission communities where we have a lot of children, a lot of low-income communities. i understand san francisco have a lot of high income tech, high earner coming in, and i think point ata would support both coming together. a few things that we are doing is first, definitely, we're going to support on the local hires, food local produced in the areas. i'm definitely supporting on the fund raising for communities. if we would bring people who can spend, and those money would bring to people needed. the third point will be every chef sponsorship will be sponsored from the community at 80% to joint the community.

it means this will help the small business to be able to start, and in this case the people from the community who doesn't have the budget to start with, they would be able to start. the four point definitely will be supporting with the kitchen space for all cooking classes for kids and adult. event space for obviously sometimes with the team meeting but also we talk about nutrition for the school childrens, it will be really important. i have seen some children actually come to clean all the mess in the morning. and i 100% support all the children and the youth. the last thing is lastly on the la tony cultural murlz. we'll be putting a map of the mission into our menu, as well, so that the team has been walking me around 24 street, and i think that will be nice for people who come in the area, they with walk to see all

the murals and see what is this history about. the languages, now that i understand it is a lot more for people who doesn't understand this side of the contract, and then they go onto doing different things. so we'll have the menuprinted in english and spanish. and then, the sign, things that are important for the local, say we are hiring. i think we can include everything relevant for different kind of peoples, so that's kind of what we agreed together. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> vice president melgar: so jonas, how should we do this? public comment? >> clerk: we should definitely take public comment. >> vice president melgar: okay. sorry public comment. so it looks like there's none.

commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: it's fabulous that you've come to an agreement. welcome to san francisco. i move to approve with the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then, to approve this matter with conditions as amended with hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. item 17 was continued to august 30. commissioners, now, we will take up item 18 for case number 2015-011274 e.md at 150 on yeu street. this is a draft environmental impact report, and please note

you continued this to july 20, 2018 by a vote of 6-0. commissioner fong, you were absent, and to participate, you need to being acknowledge that you have reviewed the following presentation and materials. >> president fong: yes, i have. >> the item before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report or e.i.r. for the proposed 150 eureka street project. the draft was -- the dr. e.i. -- draft e.i.r. was published on january 17, 2018. the public comment period closed january 30, 2018. and then, the responses to comments document was published on june 28, 2018. the item was continued, as jonas mentioned, from july 12, so that staff could add any qu.

>> vice president melgar: thank you. do we have a project sponsor? >> commissioners, andrew junius with reuben, junius and rose on behalf of the project sponsor.

plan sets. one of which you did see already in the e-mail, and one that's the 18 unit. and rezoning would be required, and we'd certainly like to avoid that. happy to answer any questions. thanks. >> vice president melgar: thank you. we will now hear public comment. is this the second time we abo

units or even four units with a.d.u.s, but a substantial number of housing that is going to help the lgbt community would be preferable. so you've done this before. the city does this upzoning all the time, and i believe this is a perfect site this could happen. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any other public speakers on this item? okay. so with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i

was the one that asked for continue wednesday on this pending more -- continuousance on this pending more information on what we can do on the site. i did speak with the supervisor's office and i'm of the position at this point, i don't want the perfect to get in the way of the good, and i support the project with the caveat that you explore a.d.u.s, as well to increase the unit counts, so i'd move to certify the e.i.r. >> second. >> vice president melgar: thank you. i just want to be on the record for thanking commissioner richards for his really good work and his perseverance. it's preservation alternative. it'll be a great thing richard

richar -- great thing. >> commissioner richards: . [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. commissioners, that'll place us on your discretionary review calendar fore item 19 at 557 27 street. >> chris towns with planning department staff. the item before you includes two publicly initiated discretionary review applications. filed for the building application associated with the proposed project at 556 27 street located within the r.m. 1 residential mix low density zoning district as well as within the 40-x height and bulk district in the noe valley neighborhood. measuring 50 feet wide by 114 feet deep. currently, the subject property is vacant with no vehicular access.

the project proposes the construction of a four story up to 40 foot tall residential building consisting of seven dwelling units upon the existing 5700 square foot lot. the project would have a total gross square floor area of approximately 17,140 square feet, including 40 off street access spaces. the project includes a rear balanci balcony as well as a common use roof deck. there's a total of seven dwelling units. approximately 86% of the project being two bedroom or larger. with regard to the surrounding context, please note that the adjacent properties to the west and north are located within the rh-2 district and consist of two to three bedroom

single-family residences. the property is across 27 street to the south are located within the rh 3 zoning district and are three to four stories as well. the d.r. requesters concerns are outlined in their application in your packets, and they include their concerns with regard to negative impacts with the project's height, massing, and blocking of sun light to the surrounding adjacent downhill properties. the negative impacts they perceive with right side to privacy with regards to the dove deck on the adjacent property and lastly the regard to affordability that this project would with propose. to reconsider the project in relation to these concerns, upon further review, the department finds that the project as proposed does contain and create exceptional -- an extraordinary

circumstances that warrant discretionary review to ensure the project's capability with the neighborhood scale and character. in particular, given the site's significant down slope of approximately 32%, coupled with the juxtaposition in the relation to the surrounding properties which features a broad site elevation which renders its west elevation substantially visible, the department recommends further mass reduction at the upper floor in order to adequately respect the topography of the site and the surrounding properties. the staff believ the first comment is to reduce the top floor massing by setting it back at the upper floor to 2'0" foot six from the -- 20'6" from the existing rear wall, and to set back the

existing roof deck on all sides. so the department recommends the planning commission takes d.r. to date, the project sponsor has not submitted an alternative plan, however he's agreed to set back the property wall 3 feet inward, and has suggested different out comes through neighborhood outreach that are contained in your packet. with regard to public comment, to date, we have received two letters of support -- i'm sorry, two letters of opposition, 24 letters of support, which i can hand out now. and copy's there. and then lastly, i'd like to inform the commission that planning department staff member david winslow is here to address any design specific considerations, and i, as well, am here to answer any questions

you may have. thank you so much. >> vice president melgar: thank you. we have two d.r. requesters, right? can we hear from d.r. requester number one, please. >> i need the overhead. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dee moore. i live at 1825 castro street and have lived there nine years. i'm one of many properties that share the line of sight. i filed d.r. and most of the neighbors are here today, and for those who aren't, i have letters of support. my neighbor, jim curran, filed

an individual d.r. to emphasize how impacted his particular home is. he has worked together with us, all the neighbors, to coordinate our ask. we have been engaged with the sponsor to work out our differences since september 2, 2016, which was the date of the preapplication meeting. we expressed our concerns to the sponsors and planning immediately, and they have, for the most part, gone unanswered. these concerns were supported, as chris said, twice, by comments issued by the rdat. the first comment, to acknowledge this is a highly visible facade. and then, the second comment, design the height and depth of the building to be compatible with the existing building scale at midblock open space,

reduce the top floor massing by setting back upper floor at 20'6" from existing rear wall and sensitively reduce the appearance of all designs. the current design -- okay. so this graphic shows the proposed project. it does correct all the code errors from previous revisions, but as you can see, this does not include significant sculpting and terracing, which we have asked for. [inaudible] >> clerk: could you talk into the mic. >> sorry. this is the zone map -- >> vice president melgar: you can pull the mic towards you. >> clerk: when you bend, you can pull the mic.

>> so -- so you can see that the project site and sites to the west are zoned rm 1 and occupied by apartment buildings, but all buildings to the north are zoned rh 1 and are single-family homes. 27 street slopes very steep doe down towards cost row -- steeply down twoerts castro. the slope conditions and key lot configurations result in the facing elevations appearing like very tall monolithic walls in the back yards of primarily single-family homes, and this is exactly why we have asked for significant terracing and sculpting and so did rdat. you can also see from this

graphic, you can sort of see the impact of the walls, and the impact to privacy. they're both on cesar chavez, cesar chavez and castro where we have impact to our privacy, both -- and to our back windows and to our back yards. so the problems are the project removes two big boxlike, and it does not respect the surrounding lower density soaping, the surrounding one and two-unit homes, the site topography, the effects of the unit size on housing and affordability, direct. it does create sight lines directly into castro and cesar chavez rear yards and windows, and the parking and storage add

two entire floors to the building which increase massing and housing costs in a neighborhood well served by transit. so our asks are we ask on the west side to set back the entire wall 3 feet from the property line from ground floor to the top of the third floor, set back the fourth floor an additional 2 feet from the property line, maintain the 2 feet indentation which is previously in the design. this was previously agreed to by the sponsor. we ask that the fourth floor set back by 20 feet -- >> clerk: ma'am, your time is up. you will have a two-minute rebuttal. >> okay. so i have copies of the ask if you'd like to see that. >> vice president melgar: thank you. we will now hear from d.r. requester number two. [please stand by]

>> this proposed project is a monologue. it does not compliment surrounding homes. it does not respect the hillside on which is built.

it is out of character of the neighboring homes north and west. it takes advantage of the hillside by barely meeting the code requirements in front. you heard that it's 40 feet. that's not measured from the rear. as it goes down this very steep hill, it gets bigger and bigger and bigger until it completely towers over the homes to the west and homes to the north. just like it is high-rise in the middle of downtown. such a big high-rise, that would be appropriate for downtown. it's not appropriate for norah valley. at this point in time, this is what my home looks at. it looks at foolage, trees and

shrubs. we'll be looking at this large monolithic box structure, first two stories with nothing but concrete for the garage and storage area before you get to any living space. that's inappropriate for this type of residential area. what would be appropriate is the design that respects what is set forth in the deck for the developer to provide significant sculpting and terracing of the building. reduce the size of the units. i'm not talking about eliminating one, i'm just talking about reducing the thousands of square feet that some of these units are. the second is the elimination of the floor storage that's

underneath these seven units. by doing these two things, the developer can have all seven units and can still have a sculpting and terracing of the project that would then look like this. the developer gets the seven units and everyone else gets the sculpting and terracing that the arc rdeck recommending. what we are looking for we'll be losing the trees and foliage and everything we've been appreciating for decades is a green belt. this is the best i can do for the drawing. this is green belt to the west. we're asking for a 5-foot set

back from the property line so the developer can plant mature trees and give us the foliage that has been existing there for decades. in addition to the foliage this will provide the neighbors to the west, my family, little bit more of break between this very large huge development and our existing homes. these suggested improvements will provide a building that it closer to the design and character of the surrounding neighborhood and less harmful to the surrounding homes and families. even with these reductions the developer would have seven market-rate units. the high end units, six of which even with the reductions will have more square footage tan m y home. this is a very large development that has thousands of square feet tied to each of the units

that are bigger than my home. all we're asking for is the terrace as had goes down the hill. thank you very much for your time. i have copies of each of these. >> thank you sir. we will now hear any public comment in support of the d.r. requester. >> good evening commissioners. i own a pillin pilled -- i'm thr one building that gets affected by this building. i'm also city contractor for the last 30 years. my biggest concern is the way the building is drawn now on the property line, i was talking to

the city attorney, you know most of the problems in the city, you have people working from the backyard to build the property. what i'm asking for the commissioner to consider is to put that set back and follow the other buildings that have all the apartment buildings in this neighborhood that all have given the 5 to 3-foot set back. i hope you consider that and we can go forward without any headaches in the future. once this building is built on the property line, there's no recourse back other than getting the city attorney involved and getting lawyers involved and people want to come on your property. if there's any defects in this building, one or two years from now, every work a ha has to be ,

every person has to come through my backyard to work down the street. i appreciate your concern and help. thank you >> next speaker please. >> may i have the projector? my name is adam tom. i live at 1825 casher street. i'm acray sent to th a-- adjacey on the west side. i'm san franciscan. when you have neighbors looking at different sides of the project, you might think that some conflicts -- expect that didn't happen in our neighborhood. we work together and we talk about what would be good for the

project and to emphasize design, policies, not personal ones from these policies. also here is a map. what this shows is showing you addresses of residents signing a petition for the commission to take d.r. and according to recommended changes. here's the property and the red dots are everybody signed the petition. here's the petition. many of these neighbor3ó helped identify design policies and help craft the ask. unfortunately the sponsor never considered any options to the original design. they ignored neighbors concern and all their comments and

created something that will maximize profit for them and discomfort for the neighbors and is not sensitive to the terrain characteristics of the neighborhoods can hilly and has big slopes. we are not developers nor architects. we do not have the resources to adequately respond with an alternative design but we have done our best to communicate with both planning and the sponsor to make it clear this building is too big. our group of neighbors would like to welcome this project into our neighborhood and be support i have. we are not anti-growth. we think there are more housing units needed. we also know that no matter what you decide today, there will be a huge new structure very close in proximity to our homes. we are neighbors of this project who would have to live with it

everyday. we live in our backyards. we look at this structure and we'll look at this structure every time we open our windows. we'll look at this out of proportion structure to surrounding homes overshadowing our homes. what we have ask for is reasonable and is a big compromise. it will be a far better design for the lot. we ask that you approve the d.r. >> thank you next speaker please. >> good evening. i live at 1831 castro street. i've been resident for 15 years. we the neighbors are adjacent for the site.

stepping with the videotape ideas is fundamental to understanding san francisco and not became one of the key design guidelines respect the topography of the site as it is worded in the residential design guideline. we saw the notice from planning, we were hopeful that the city would fully enforce this important guideline. we saw the drawings were disappointed that the project was a massive box with several terraces looking into the windows of a dozen homes. mine included. it does nothing for residents on the west and bottom of the hill as at least 50 feet up from our viewpoint. it's a high-rise and place of frees that provide haven for countless bird ans and animals.

looking at the design, you see a floor and floor of storage which for those us at the base of this building amounts to two stories of concrete wall at eye level. for total of six stories rising up like a high-rise. you see penthouse suite with a deck. for example a bathroom for every bedroom and every unit up to three bathrooms for unit. ththe developers win with no los in unit or bedroom count. we move to this neighborhood to start a family and we were looking for house with a yard for kids to play. this is my experience. this sponsor's proposal list reason for large units with many bedrooms to accommodate the

noise. this project has no emphasis on outdoor green space. this could be a project that works not just for the developers but also for the neighborhoods. the developers can maintain unit count but also introduce substantial rear inside setbacks. three feet setbacks is hardly enough space for screen and mature trees. we look forward to housing to be built on the inside and utilizes the neighborhoods. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening. my name is elizabeth. i'm moving into the neighborhood of norah valley.

i love the area. we've been living in the the house for 45 years. my kids were very happy playing in the backyard. now that i have six grandchildren, i won't be able to provide them with the same tradition. a means we won't have sun, it will be always cold, not to mention, the privacy, not to have the same view to look at. it's so nice to have an open space living in the city. but now we would lose the priff of being happy and now being watched. it's a shame this big build

willing ruin the -- >> next speaker please. >> good evening commissioners. i'm john friedman. i live 1819 castro street just down below the parcel. i lived there for 22 years. this project is going to happen. we're all used to that idea. we are hoping a it will be a project that respects the scale and the context which it is being built. this project came in basically as a maximized box. this is a -- after we first saw

this plan, i started looking around to see if there's any similar situations in noe valley or anywhere else. we got bunch of single family residents with a huge wall behind them. i have found some, i think they are mostly 40 or 50 or 60 feet tall. i think this one is going to be more like 95. let's start with the building being 40 feet tall from the street. when you're on the street, looking down at our houses, the tallestous is below that. that tallest house is 40 feet tall from the driveway. this is a slope that goes up castro street and up 27th street. with the 40-foot tall building that's proposed being above the tallest house on our block,

maybe by 15 feet you got 40 for that house, forefor the proposed project and maybe 15 feet between and you end up with 95 feet. if you're standing in our driveway and you look and at this house, it's around 100 feet above us. if i may have the projector. the building is going to be roughly the same envelope as those trees. if you go straight across from the building to the right and eucalyptus trees are higher that's the size of that building. that's one way to look at the scale. here's another way.

there's those trees again up on the right. those are steps that go up 27th street. the hill is steep enough here 27th street is two lanes. >> thank you sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good evening. my name is nick anderson i live 4175 cesar chavez street basically down the hill where this property will be. i support housing at.9+ this si. i recognize the new well-designed housing is good thing for the city and neighborhood. my wife and i have lived in san francisco for 15 years, renting at first and now recently owning. we'd experienced demand for 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.