study bayview and look at the plan that we have. together it has a lot of housing more than anywhere in san francisco. richard >> commissioner richards: can you comment on this plan? >> i think the will be helpful to look at the plan for the shipyard in candlestick point. there are buildings there similar to this project, there are low rise and high-rise buildings. the candlestick point has buildings over 30 stories. all these projects have had a combination of high-rise and low-rises and mid-rises. as it was said earlier, the high-rises do two things. they free up more land and they provide certain amount of density that help pay for the amenities. the combination of those two

things, led us to believe that that combination works. it pays for the amenities and frees up land. all these projects are pulled well back from the edge of the water. that's why the high-rises make sense. >> commissioner richards: the thing that startles me, all these other projects have been a love fest. here we have this one project in this one specific spot. i'm trying to understand what's the difference? can you comment on that? >> i really don't fully understand the difference. >> commissioner richards: the direct said, we have height in the southern waterfront up to 300 feet in candlestick point. i think one of the questions -- what's the difference between this project and the shipyard. there's no radioactivity on it.

we heard mr. vasquez tell us that. i think one of the issues is, some of this trust around the contamination and people saying there's no dig sign next to where they live. i think community kind of like wow, we just did this a few years ago. who knows what's going on here. mr. vasquez and his company so great. they are a local company. there maybe more falsified results. i think that's where we're getting the anxiety this. we're living through the social justice. i get what the community is saying. the question i have is, how do we prevent that from happening again what happened at the shipyard? is there an independent verifier that the test results go through

that verifies mr. vasquez says there's no radioactivity. >> we didn't hire at th tetra tr one. for two, there is an independent body that verifies the materials that come off the site. during grading, we done multiple borings on the site already. that's how we know what's there. the question now becomes during construction, how do we identify and mitigate it in we need to. we are beholden to the state of california in terms of testing and mitigation. >> we do have plenty of mitigation measures in this draft. aside from the cleanup that's happening on the rec park, we

have measures for any construction during the construction and before obtaining a site permit for development activities involving subsurface disturbance. the project sponsors have to comply with the requirements of the department of public health, health code article 22a by causing a qualified person to prepare and submit a site mitigation plan to d.p.h. for review and approval. we have menu of items, mitigation measure, mhv2a. we have put bullet point list of things that can go into that site mitigation plans. it includes on site experts doing testing while the soil is moving around. they have to test the soil before it goes off site to

determine where the soil can go. if there are soil -- if there's something other than what they had found in the phase one and phase two site analysis, they would have to stop all work and figure out where that is happening. >> documents is available for everybody in the public. it's on page 58. it's extensive. not just a one liner i want pages and -- i want -- it's pages and pages long. all care will be taken with any talks that equates to contaminates that may show up. thank you very much. i have couple more points. can you tell us about the sea level rise issue and how you might have covered this. just quick sea level rise issue and how we're going to try to mitigate that.

>> sure, i can also s.o.m. can answer the question. what the site itself is doing to mitigate sea level rise. how the landscape will deputy overtime. in addition, you were asking me about is the community facility which will be on the site itself. it net present value of $43 million. the city will be able to takeout years and put toward all my allegation an -- mitigation and surrounding areas. it will be applied to outside >> commissioner richards: thanks s.o.m., anything you want to comment on on the sea level rise? please. >> we do have a graphic in the presentation on the sea level riess. one of the things to start with,

this ground, because it is landfill is different than others. the existing grade is approximately on average about 10 feet higher than existing high tide. by its nature it is already well above most areas which are going to be safe sea level rise. if you can put the diagram up, what we've done -- we don't have an issue with any of the current sea level rise projections. what we have done is in order to help with the open space and the wetlands, is try to give create a series of wetlands so those wet land have a place to retreat and continue to thrive. so the landscape itself is resilient. >> commissioner richards: thank

you very much. we have a large parcel of land just like driving down a street and have 100-foot parcel. this one is large. it's acres and acres big. somebody bought it. it's sitting there now contaminated. we have a definite housing shortage. i will trade height and density for more open space. it's a win-win for the community and city and also for the residents there. i think the building has one of the highest levels of integrity of any developer that i know. i won't mention any other names. this is a heavy lift site. you got lot of issues going on. the height and tensity will pay for -- density will pay for the benefits. i like the project. one last question, gentleman can

you come up. you had offers from the developer to mitigate the issues of the effected of the development on your business. >> i want to say, chemical testing was done in 1999. i spent lot of time on that. before they came in the picture. i was accused of not -- this is what i don't like. i was incorporating this build from the beginning. they ignored us. they tried to present different projects which were blocking us. it's not about the view. it's about privacy.

it's about noise and it's about parking. i was open to build off this building which is impossible by our own funds which we don't have. it's basically nonprofit business. people come there and they pay exactly the same. can you imagine that somebody coming in and said, you signed to me the papers and i will get zoning for you to build up yourself. it's reasonable. he want me to move. he don't know anything about structure, nothing.

it's a disaster. people are speaking hig hypocri. we have to be open eyes. thank you. >> commissioner johnson, did you have any additional comment. >> commissioner johnson: yes. as i shared this community is a jewel for so many reasons. i i have to say that, i want to impart on the community that we hear your concerns. we understand them. we understand that this is complicated multilayered project. behalf of my colleagues we have taken our time to pour through each the things in front of us and really hold ourselves that we want to be able to walk by

this property or be at the waterfront with you and enjoying and so proud this has happened in our community. i have to say that i also want to thank city staff and communities for working with the project sponsors. i know ' not talking about the community agreement yet. i think it's headed in the right direction. the focus on workforce equity and inclusion, the affordable housing and low income housing this project incorporates child care and other benefits really are right size for this community. i'm excited about them. i also just think that this project is visionary and exciting for the city. with that, i also do want to say that i think that the trade-off of density for really opening up this waterfront and making it a

place in which all san franciscans can enjoy is worth it. i would like to move to adopt ceqa and approve section e and f and adopt g. >> second. >> i also very much support this project. we have couple weeks before the community benefit agreement comes back. i would really encourage the sponsor to work with our communities to see if we can get something that is a little more robust on the table to mitigate the impact on this local business. because i do think it adds a lot to the community. i think the project overall, i very much support the increase

in density as a trade-off to have open space. i don't remember the last time we got this much in this high quality open space for the city. it's pretty ground-breaking. i'm really excited about that. i'm really excited about what it does for the rest of the neighborhood. it's right across the street from the rad project in little bit south of public housing. i remember when the walker development was built years ago. there was nothing there. folks bought those v.m.r. communities and now we have community preference and it's a different world. i think this community that has been underserved and underinvested in is going to benefit greatly for having a thoughtful development that has walking paths and public space that's open for all.

i'm excited about that and i'm ready to support this project. although i'm on the record that i'm very much encouraging the developer to go back and look at the community benefits agreement before it comes back to mitigate the impact on the existing business. thank you. >> commissioners i would recommend that we take a matter of certification of the v.a.r. separately. the motion was for the project itself. >> did you want to clarify something in the motion? >> just to clarify that your actions would incorporate those changes that we move forward in the memo before you today. >> thanks. >> commissioners on the certification of the environmental impact report, commissioner fong. [roll call] motion passes unanimously 5-0.

if the making of the motion the amendable to including what staff inserted in the record today. very good. second? thank you commissioners on that motion. to adopt ceqa findings and findings and shadow findings approve general plan amendments and approve planning code and text amendments as well as adopt design standards and guidelines document amended by staff. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> with that, we're going to take a break. sorry about that for the folks who are staying for the rest of the agenda. we're down a couple people. we need to take some biological

relief. >> clerk: good evening and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular meeting for thursday, july 26, 2018. i will remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. commissioners, we left off on item 16. [agenda item read] >> clerk: this is a conditional use authorization. please note, that on july 12, 2018, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to july 26, 2018 by a vote of 6-0. commissioner fong, you were absent, and so in order to participate, could you acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> yes.

>> clerk: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners and staff. as jonas indicated, the commission heard this matter two weeks ago, and the commission continued this to allow more time for the sponsor to work with some neighborhoods. it is my understanding that an agreement has been reached and signed by both parties. again we are here to just recommend approval of the project. i am available for any questions, and the sponsor and the neighborhood groups are here, as well. and just to add, in reviewing the terms of the agreement, there is one item that is related to the purview of the planning commission relating to hours of operation, a limit between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. to ensure the location is family friendly and appropriate fore t fore -- for the neighborhood.

if the commission wishes, that can be adds -- added as a condition in the final motion. >> good evening, commissioners. peter papadopolous with commission economic agency. we just want to thank you for your patience in working through this and encouraging the constructive out come. we think it's going to be a successful out come and hope it's going to be a successful business for the food and community. we also want to thank supervisor ronen's office and amy bynart. a and pata wanted to describe the out come for you. >> so i hope you remember me. first of all, like i said, i'm really new to this place, and thank you for sending amy to make me feel much more

comfortable on this community discussion. so we had a few meetings 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.