business owner 1/2 block down from the proposed location and still current property owner and i think core yoga would be good for the neighborhood. i support it. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, everybody. my name is sid nasser. when i moved to san francisco in 1971, i was 23 years old. my uncles were before me in the city. they had businesses on divisadero street. in the '70s and '80s, it was a place to be. and some of them have suffered physically from it. throughout my living in the city for 47 years, i bought a

business in 1992 and we were doing good. and then we had the opportunity to buy at 619 and 621 on divisadero. i was picked out of seven other people because i told them i want to open a health food store. from that moment in time, my concern was to help change the neighborhood and i think i have played some part in changing that neighborhood to what it is right now. i was doing good until 2013 when one of the good, respected businesses opened. they have a good reputation and good service.

they affected our business big time. i have partners in the business. three families used it live off of his business. and we can't sell that business because nobody wants to compete with buy right. so we decided to rent that -- >> president hillis: 10 more seconds. >> i was planning to rent that place. we could not really rent it because they didn't want to compete with buy right. other people come in and try to build a chocolate factory. we had opposition from the homeowner association. some they were so picky, they have to change their plans very, very often. and we found out through our lawyer that some members are

acting beyond their authority. when he explained that to them, they approved, but it was kind of too late. the buyer was scared. >> president hillis: all right. your time's up. thank you. any additional public comment on this item? >> hi. i'm giselle gelvin, owner of rare device and president of the newly reformed divisa de ro merchants association the merchants association voted to not support corepower yoga for the following reasons. first, because divisadero is a unique corridor. knowing that corepower yoga is opening a lot of studios in san francisco, we want our street to

remain unique. we want it to remain diverse in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and skin color. if we keep allowing big businesses to open up on our street, divisadero will become less affordable for us mom and pops that own businesses. i will read a letter from someone who could not be here today. he has been there for 14 years. he is an owner -- property owner and business owner on divisadero street. they welcome investment in our corridor and his concern is mostly because corepower yoga has an aggressive expansion footprint in san francisco, with two locations within 1/2 mile of yoga garden. and issues of employee treatment

has made news locally and nationally. we also want to acknowledge the nassers and everything that they've contributed to the community and we have offered to help to find a different tenant if this does not get approved. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment? >> i'm phillip laurent, gross street resident. i feel very conflicted about this. i think it's a classic tragedy of the commons. ted was one of the most welcoming merchants and first people that i met in the neighborhood. even though that's the case, i do oppose this and i do it for reasons completely divorced from ted's generosity, which he didn't do because he owed it to anybody, but he did it because he's a genuinely nice person. i think that like a lot of the

other members that have spoken, corepower is not only aesthetical aesthetically, but i don't think in spirit, really going to fill a hole that's left in the neighborhood. i think what you are hearing from a lot of people is the type of spirit that would fill the hole, which is advocate for the voice of people who are not as visible, who are not maybe hitting the trendiest shops and have concerns about affordability. a lot of that goes a long way. and i'm here to represent a lot of people that didn't even know this hearing was going on today. as a preschool teacher and generally somebody who stands by the ethos of looking out for our neighborhood, little steps we can take to preserve that is really where the battle will be fought this may be one of the last dominos to fall.

the neighborhood has changed so much. but i think the small shows of, hey, people standing up and saying, this is not the direction that we want our neighborhood to go are really significant, even if it seems surface-level to people who are in support of them. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is charles tipani, board member of my neighborhood association and neighbor. no one is against yoga. we're definitely in support of yoga. no one is against new businesses coming in. what we're against is formula retail like corepower yoga, which i oppose, unfortunately.

i concur with the rest of the speakers that we support the nassers. and, of course, what they did in supporting the community. we, of course, supported them and that's why they lasted 20 years or so. however, my running for -- reason ing for opposition, is there's another yoga studio. also, the price point, i don't believe is inclusive. it will be a situation where members can go to other locations and it's not a daily business that will support the daily needs of our residents. and i also believe that even though they have given a good effort on showing what they could do in the community, i do believe that corepower yoga is not the -- it's not a necessity. as we have five or six yoga

locations already that was not previewed in some selections. we have quite a few. unfortunately, i have to be on the other side, but plan to still support the nassers, whatever the decision, but we hope that you can listen to the decision that was viewed by the neighborhood associations. and whichever the decision was to support or not support and from the associations, they were opposed. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> good after innooafternoon. i'm quentin mackey. i spent thousands on pet food alone when health haven was

there. this is not about health haven. it's about corepower yoga. and corepower yoga is not health haven. let's be super clear. corepower yoga is in the midst of a very large expansion. it's the largest national yoga studio chain in the country. this neighborhood has a history of fighting formula retail. it existed before the formula retail law was on the books -- blockbuster, domino's, burger king, batteries plus. so we really want to preserve the integrity of this neighborhood. we can do better than corepower yoga. that's the message i want to give to ted. that's what i want it give to the sponsors. if you make a choice to allow this conditional use or grant miss permit today, the question for you as a commission is, are we actually pushing the rapid change that's happening along the divisadero corridor forward

at a faster pace or pausing to make distinct changes that support local business? we would argue on the latter. that is the alamo square neighborhood association, the yoga studios, we can do better. the message that it would send if you grant this conditional use permit is for landlords when their lease comes up, corepower said they would do $1 million into renovation. name a local business that would do $1 million in renovations. they can't. lets say no to corepower yoga. >> president hillis: thanks. any additional public comment on this item. seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> commissioner fong: i'm going say yes to corepower yoga for a couple of reasons. and picking up on commissioner johnson's earlier report about

an article about retail. and hopefully it's making a comeback. at the moment, it's very difficult to lease space to a full retail store. people want experiences. people want service. i happen to be a corepower yoga member. i try to practice at least once a week. i also have a membership to yoga tree. so yoga is kind of a thing where sometimes you want a gritty experience. sometimes you want an ultra-clean experience. corepower yoga is a very clean experience. i can go on about the health benefits of yoga for all ages and all health conditions and i just have a hard time saying no to something that is a healthy choice for divisadero street. as far as formula retail, i can only think of two -- chase bank and walgreens between geary and oak. and i know that neighborhoods

have fended off a couple, which is probably right in some cases. in this one, though, it's a health-related service, not retail. and in this particular region or circumstance, i'm supportive of it. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i walk down divisadero at least once a week and it's booming. i mean, there's -- when businesses go out, businesses come in. some of the stores i like are rare device, tanner leather goods, paris trust. and there are three new small businesses in the harding theater. i think one is an ice cream store, clothing store and coffee shop. i looked up what i can on corepower yoga. they have 180 locations. revenue is $40 million.

equity infusion -- sorry, borrowed $4.5 million in 2009. in june, 2013, they were funded. and balance point capital took an equity stake. this is a big corporation. it's a limited liability company, but it's a big corporation. and this is what i really think prop g back in 2009 was all about, raising issues as to who do you want in your neighborhood doing retail? if this were san francisco soup company or a local chain that just is not in 11 locations but 20, maybe 30, and didn't have equity infusions in it, like blue bottle with $125 million infusion by nestle, i could make the distinction. i'm having a hard time on this one. i don't differentiate this between blue bottle, between the noe valley healthy paws and some

of the other ones that we have. so i am -- after hearing the public testimony, i'm not supportive of this. >> commissioner johnson: i'm torn on this case. i can see the merits on both sides of the community on this issue. on the one hand, i live in a neighborhood adjacent. it's the beginning of richmond. i've lived there 10 years and have seen the change and transition and feel the pressures that the community feels. and at the same time, i feel the pressure of business owners in that community and small business owners who are fighting to stay in the neighborhood or fighting to provide services to the neighborhood.

and i think the nassers are trying to be intentional about the tenant that they bring into the community and i believe that they think it would be a good service. just a couple of pieces of advice or just some thoughts. i think it's clear that -- there was work -- outreach was done to the community, but it's clear, it wasn't enough outreach done or there wasn't, you know -- it's unfortunate that we're in this situation, where so many people oppose you, because we did have you come before us with no opposition in a neighborhood very close by. i think it's interesting that your response to creating a welcoming storefront was murals and clear glass. thinking about the context of

the neighborhood that you are moving into in the western addition, some of the historical experiences of the communities that are there, the people of color that are there, and others, really trying to mirror the community's experience in the social impact or outreach would have been a great move and i hope that you consider that as you consider this project or other projects. and regardless of how the commission votes today, i hope for the community members that have said they would stand with the nasser family and, you know, help think about if corepower yoga doesn't come into this space what could come into this space. it's nice to say it, but i think there needs to be a really clear plan of what larger scale tenants you want to come into the neighborhood and how you're going to woo them and how you are going to get them to create a robust fabric for this

neighborhood. and i hope that you followthrough on that promise. >> commissioner koppel: i know the neighborhood very well. i lived at 516 divisadero and also 520 divisadero. i almost didn't have to leave my neighborhood ever. le -- there was everything that i needed. when in was kid, you didn't good to that part of town. there was a hubcap store and a popeye's and that was it. it's amazing to see where it is now and where it's come and where it's going. and so i did strongly vote in favor of corepower yoga on dubose and church and didn't see any opposition for that application. this time around, saw an

overwhelming amount of opposition on the emails and the phone calls and did a little more research. and came upon an article that had to do with unpaid workers and wage theft titled "yogis breathe sigh of relief over $1.6 million in unpaid wage settlement." that was deal-breaker for me. i saw that and i'm a construction worker by trade. i come from a labor background. i also work with the management in the contracting business side of that as well. if there is one thing we value, it's a paycheck. and if there is something else we value, it's minimums, whether i'm talking about modular housing and building code compliance or just asking for the bare minimum. and for someone who gets convicted for a lot of money when they can't even pay someone a minimum wage, i can't stand

behind that. >> commissioner moore: thank you, commissioner koppel, for that particular bit of information. i want to take another tact, looking at the divisadero. it is a large number of years now that various struggles of that community and corridor have been in front of this commission and it was always impressive to me how the community stood for values that created the corridor as it is today. there was a long, protracted value with the harding. and what was the right fit, together with the discussion about housing, appropriate housing, etc., etc. i also have used some of the private yoga studios on divisadero. in this particular case, i stand

with those smaller studios and their survival. they've provided the services that are needed and it doesn't necessarily have to be replaced by a formula yoga studio to continue to support that tradition. i voted for corepower at dubose and there was no opposition. in this case, i would support the corridor and the sense of their own future and not support co core yoga in this location. >> president hillis: i think we're looking at this as a use and if it tips the balance of formula retail in the neighborhood. i think the community has been great. i live about three blocks from this location. i remember seeing mr. nasser

always at the store when i walked by. i understand why he wasn't home because he was always behind the counter at that store no matter when you walked by. it's not really about him. it's about -- i don't think it rises to the level of formula retail debates we've had about starbucks or the burger king. you raised the question, has anybody put more than $1 million into their space? i would imagine many have on divisadero. i remember sitting here approving buy right and there were not a lot of people standing up for mr. nasser and saying, hey, this will impact his business, which we all kind of recognized it would have an impact on that corridor and it has. we have to evaluate these on a case-by-case business and if they tip the balance of

corridors and whether it's a good use. it's not supposed to be competitive-anti-competitive. we didn't do that with buy right. so i think it's a good use. it's a good daytime use. [please stand by]

>> commissioner richards: i never understood why we are -- we were at 11 locations. again, if it were san francisco soup company or the hamburger chain, the one that is around the corner from me that is spreading around the city, superduper. something like that where it is 20 locations and it was a bootstrap with equity infusions and $40 million in revenue, but it is 180 locations. it clearly tips the scale for me and terms of being on the line. i do worry about credit quality tenants and what they can pay for rent and what that will do to other small businesses when the lease is up. it is the tipping point on the

advanced gentrification scale for me. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: yes, we are acquitting elaboration on our own points. i would like to look at the three dimensionality of the corridor. it is not the beginning of the end of the island. it connects to other corridors and connects and connects. if we have the border of this corridor are, the same location, i think this is not a corridor question, it is a citywide question. where they are, where they are appropriate, and i think the uniform supported this commission for the triangle, is indeed a commitment to having them be there. but looking at the locations on the manner that they do not create these short distances and start to compete with small local businesses. >> president hillis: is there a motion? or additional comments? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: move

with intent to disapprove. >> commissioner moore: second. >> president hillis: do we have to do it as an intent on this? >> clerk: i don't think you have a disapproval motion on your packet. commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a motion of intent to disapprove , and i would imagine, to continue this in a couple of weeks. on that motion -- [roll call] so moved, the motion passes for 4-3 with commissioners fong, melgar and hillis voting against. >> president hillis: we can move to the next one. >> clerk: i apologize. we can't continue this at two weeks. the 28th is cancelled. can we continue it at the 27th >> president hillis: that will work. >> clerk: commissioners, that will place us on item eight.

conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president tillis and members of the commission. i'm from planning department staff. the proposal before you is a request for conditional use authorization to legalize the merger of three dwelling units into two dwelling units within an rh three zoning district. the subject site is a 25-foot wide by 106-foot deep lot, located on the northwest corner of ashbury and paige street, within the ashbury neighborhood. under current zoning standards, a maximum of three dwelling units is permitted. the surrounding neighborhood is zoned rm one, rm two.

apartment buildings in the neighborhood range in size from 3-15 units. the authorized use of the building is three family per the residential -- excuse me. per the report of residential building record. the original use is listed as unknown. this permit was filed in order to comply with a notice of violation from the department of building inspections. per the notice of violation, which is included in your packet , the legal use of the building and the three units was first stated on a certificate of final occupancy and completion, approved in 1989. the authorized configuration of the building included full floor flats on the ground, second and third floors. the two units that have been merged, and all the upper floor is, and also connects to a partially finished attic. the applicant is seeking to

legalize a conversion of the third floor level kitchen into a bedroom. removal of walls at the base of the main stairs, and the entry door that made the third unit independently accessible. no exterior changes are proposed the current owner purchased the building and made the modifications back in 1992. the building is occupied by the owner and her immediate family. the site is also used to run a family day care facility. per the consultation with the san francisco rent board, there is no known evidence of any evictions at the property. to date, the department has not received any public comment related to the project. staff recommends that the commission disapprove the project, as noted in the executive summary, the project was legalized work conducted without city permit, and the removal of one naturally affordable full flag dwelling

unit. the legalization of the project is contrary to the general plan because the proposed merger does not retain existing housing and does not protect affordability of the existing housing. this concludes my presentation. i will be available for any questions. >> president hillis: thank you project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i would like to -- [indiscernible] >> president hillis: pole that makes closer to you or talk into that so we can hear you better. >> i would like to give you the copies of the license for the childcare.

>> clerk: that can go to the planner. i can take it if you want to give it to me. >> it is for the commission. ok. ok. i would just like to follow the executive summary that is in the application. and kind of point out some of the bigger points of the executive summary. on page 1 -- >> president hillis: i am having a hard time hearing you. shift over. so you can speak right into the mic. you have to get really close to it. perfect. thank you. >> the day care facilities -- the license was issued 20 years ago and it has been used continuously during that time as well as housing my family. i would just like to say, that

in this section under issues and other considerations, it states that a tenant occupied housing will be eliminated. that's not the case. because there is no tenant occupied housing in the building it is for my family and for the licensed daycare. that is what it is being used for and it has been used like this since 1992. both units are currently occupied by myself, the applicant, my family and the daycare. it is going from two units of housing, it is going from three units of housing, which originally had one bedroom in the bottom floor, and two bedrooms and the two units that i am attempting to combine. that was then changed from the merger that would go from two bedrooms, to five bedrooms. by doing so, which would be offset by the fact that it is

resulting in a decrease in the number of residential units. i think it is offset by the fact that not only is it more bedrooms, but i have been operating for such a long time, the daycare, and will continue to do so. on page 2, it does state that it will not result in any new dwelling units. however, i would like to point out that it does more than double the amount of new bedrooms. i would add that this protects the affordability of the housing , not just for my family, but for the daycare kids that are there now and in the future. it affords them daycare, which may not otherwise be available to them. on the draft motion, which is a separate document, on page 2, under it site description and present use, it does state that

in 1992, we purchased the building and it has been used as a state licensed daycare facility since the time of purchase. this would indicate a very long-standing period of consistent use, benefiting the neighborhood, and the community. i would just also like to point out that there is a combination of different kinds of buildings in the neighborhood. it is not just multifamily buildings, but even right next door to me, there is a single-family dwelling. there is a many different types of buildings in the neighborhood on page 4, under conditional use findings, it states that this merger would result in a larger unit, and that is true. but i'm sure san francisco would like to be a family-friendly city and even families with only one child, they often need a

unit that has more than one bedroom. in my case, we had several children. over the course of 27 years, working with families with kids, i have found this to be true that many of the families i have served, often need more than one bedroom to accommodate their families. so i would like to point out that it is not necessarily -- not necessarily or desirable for my neighbor to -- neighborhood to have a building that is bigger that houses two units with one units being bigger than one bedroom. on page 7, under residential merger, section 317, it addresses whether or not this would eliminate owner occupied housing. so we have lived in the merged units for 27 years.

so if the court disapproves, then you would be eliminating, in my view, owner occupied housing. because we have lived there so long and that two merged units, the 20 what one bedroom merged units. -- the two one bedroom merged units. sorry, i just want to reiterate, the two one-bedroom units were owner occupied for 27 years, by myself, my family, as well as being a licensed family day care facility for that period of time this section also asks whether or not the merger would be intended for owner occupancy. the answer is yes. we have lived there that long and we will continue to live there. on the next page, on page 8, at addresses the effects of the unit removal. i would state that the merger

same square footage changes from a total of two bedrooms, to a total of five bedrooms. thereby accommodating more residents within my family structure. and as my family can attest, it is more suitable to a household with children. that was also addressed. as well as being much more suitable to the 27 year, ongoing licensed business that serves the children in my daycare. including children, i might add, that are on the childcare subsidy program who would otherwise not be able to afford san francisco childcare. down the page, in section f., it asks about the number of bedrooms that would be changed. in addressing this section, the

separate units house two bedrooms. but the merged units house five bedrooms. this is shown on the former usage plans are provided on the current usage plans provided. at the bottom of the page, in bold letters back it points out objective to. it is called a housing element. objectives and policies. the way i would address this is that the safety standards are promoted when a large family living together such as mine, along with the accompanying licensed daycare facility, when we are all using one kitchen, it is safer than using two kitchens on page 7, there is an objective , three and four. the way i would address those, is a merger of two one-bedroom

units that promotes affordability. not just for my family, went by extension, for other san francisco families via the services provided by the daycare to the family families, and their children, for close to three decades. when you think about the length of time that the home daycare has been in operation, that has met the needs of many, many residents of san francisco. objective four, after all, does state that the commission should , hopefully, foster housing that meets the needs of all residents across the lifecycles. so i think that this could be one of the most important objectives, because it does speak to at least one of the three peas that you brought up at the beginning of the afternoon session, about

protecting existing residents. i would hope that that would include children. i would ask that such lifecycles include the infants, the toddlers, the prekindergarten, and others that i care for in my childcare. by others, i would also include that i provide afterschool care to local children, i also provide evening care and weekend care. i am located very close to two hospitals. over the past year, i have taken care of many kids where the parents are working as nurses and doctors and medical staff in the hospitals. i have also provided care to a number of single-parent families >> clerk: your time is up to be m.u.n. thank you. we may have questions. we will first open this up to public comment on this item. any public comment?

seeing done, we will close public comment. commissioners? spee eight this is a question for staff. looking at the floor plans, we have a childcare centre on floor one. >> at the ground floor is an intact unit. >> commissioner richards: and the childcare centre is on -- >> on the second level of what appears to be a merged -- >> it is merged with the floor above which is a separate unit. >> commissioner richards: is it common to have childcare centres that have access to the residence and the people who run the childcare centres? >> family-based childcare centres are required to be run in the owner's home as opposed to a commercial childcare centre >> commissioner richards: if we put this back to three units,

the owner's home would be on the third floor and it wouldn't be connected. so it couldn't be a family childcare centre? >> i don't believe that is the case. i think the family could continue to live on the second floor and run the childcare centre on the second floor. >> commissioner richards: oh, k. how many square feet, to the best of your knowledge, is a childcare centre on the second floor? >> the lot size is 2600 square feet. the home takes up most of the lot eric it has a garage on either side. >> commissioner richards: ok. >> it would be safe to guess it is 1500 square feet per level, at least. >> commissioner richards: ok. i guess what i am struggling with, is we have put it back to three units, part of the second floor would be where the family lived. the third floor can be where the family lived. we still have three dwelling units and nothing really hurts.

>> i think there's a very minimal work that was done to remove the third units. the kitchen and some interior walls and a door. >> commissioner richards: ok. and the family can still live there? >> yeah. >> president hillis: any additional public comment -- i mean any additional commissioner comments? >> commissioner richards: only if they are asking a direct question. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: fellow commissioners, i don't see the downside in doing this. i was afraid we would be putting the long term business side -- the long term business out of business by doing this, but apparently there is enough room on the second floor to have a dwelling unit and the childcare centre in the third floor can have another dwelling unit. >> commissioner moore: what will we be doing? the department is asking us to uphold -- what this building originally is, not legalize the

use as it is currently being conducted in the merged floors, but we are not seeing the business -- not saying the business can't continue, nor can we demand how the third unit is being dealt with. we just need to return the third unit, based on the department's instructions and analysis, to its intended use and intended functioning. >> president hillis: all right i certainly would support the department's recommendation. the building can go back to the way it was but what we are concerned with is a long-term presence eight -- preservation of units. you and your family can certainly live in the building and the units, but i think we have a responsibility to maintain the number of units and not limiting or emerging existing rent-controlled units. i certainly support the department's recommendation. do i have a motion? >> commissioner moore: would you restate your motion?

>> commissioner richards: move to disapprove. >> commissioner moore: second. >> clerk: nothing further commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to disapprove this conditional use authorization. on that motion [roll call] so moved. the motion passes unanimously 6- 0. commissioners, that places under discretionary review calendar for item nine. it is discretionary review. >> good afternoon president hillis and commissioners. i am the staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of a

building permit application 216-0712 dot 2094 to construct a new 3,639 square foot for story, two story at the street, single-family house, consisting of three bedrooms at 1897 hunts to an on a vacant 28 by 108 downslope lot. the height of the new building from the street would be approximately 22 feet with an upper floor roof, for fleets -- 4 feet higher and set back 20 feet from the building front. the deck is on the top of the second floor at the rear. the d.r. requester's concerns include five primary issues. number 1, the scale and massing. that the massing of the building is larger than the surrounding homes and not in scale with the surrounding neighborhood. number 2, safety. the excavation and building on a steep hillside along with removal of vegetation would

destabilize the hillside. number 3, environment. that cutting down the trees would impact the natural habitat number 4, issue number 4 specifically is privacy. specifically with windows along aerial way and roof deck that will allow visibility into neighbouring homes across the area away steps. it is worth noting that since the d.r. was filed, the area way has been revised to reduce the privacy impact along the narrow right of way. and lastly, flight. the new building will reduce the afternoon sunlight to the west facing homes on funston. in addition to the d.r. requester his, no letters of opposition, nor letters of support. our recommendation -- the department has reviewed the project and finds it meets the projects -- the standards of the residential design guidelines with respect to st gail and

massing of the context. the reduction of light created by this building is not an extraordinary condition. and the way is 20 feet wide, it is a public right-of-way. warranting the design of the proposed building as a main façade. but with windows sized and located to respect the neighboring building across the way. furthermore, the review acknowledge the sight is innate land -- site is in a landslide zone and acknowledges a geotechnical report as part of the permitting. they recommends a commission not take the d.r. and approve the project as proposed. the project has been modified to further minimize any privacy concerns to the property across aerial way. it does not present any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would justify further modifications for a code compliant project. this concludes the department's presentation and i am happy to answer questions. >> president hillis: thank you d.r. requester?

welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is josephine chan. i'm here with my husband, darwin , and we are the property owners of 1886 funston, right across the street from the proposed building project. we have several concerns about this proposed project. one is bulk and scale. the relatively large and nonconforming size of the home, particularly the depth of the home front to back, is not compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. the proposed building would impact sunlight, privacy, potentially the ability to see outside, and includes the

removal of one massive monterey pine tree. it would negatively impact the ability and enjoyment of our homes. secondly, his environment. we are concerned about the removal of this massive 75-foot tree. as part of the development of the lot. the tree trunk is 3 feet in diameter. currently, it is very healthy. the trees within the footprints of the proposed lot, near the rear edge of the house. if the footprint of this house is slightly reduced, the tree would be spared. privacy. the building plan includes over a dozen windows on the south side of the proposed new building. because of the bulk and scale of the proposed house, anyone standing on the rear deck and

several windows on the south and west side of the house would be able to see clearly into neighboring homes. for us, it is sunlight. our home is directly across from the new proposed house and receives the light from windows. primarily from the west facing second-story windows. the proposed of how we would reduce the available light at our home in the afternoon sun. however, we acknowledge that the project sponsor has made some accommodations by flattening the roofline to what is the front of the house. fifth, is safety. we know that examination of stability issues is conducted by the building inspection department. however, we want to put on the record, our concern about potential negative consequences on stability and the removal of

vegetation and the massive monterey pine tree. removing this tree would allow the house to cover a larger footprint. but it is this tree and vegetation that supports the steep hillside. minimizing the risk of landslides. therefore, we are extremely concerned that excavating half of the hillside lot to do this proposed house would put all of the house on the west side of funston, and those below the property, in jeopardy. lastly, as a side note, we noticed that the proposed house has no access to the backyard, except the side door at the property line, which relies on the public stairway, along the side of the house to enter the backyard. we were wondering if it is legal to use public land as the sole

access to the backyard to a private property. in summary, we would like the commissioner to require that the project to be further scaled back, front to back, to a direct concerns about bulk and scale, privacy issues which also would allow for preservation of the historic pine tree. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? >> good afternoon, commissioners i am also the owner of the street on the -- on the other side of the street. i just wanted to build up on what my neighbor said to. we are not opposed. we understand the city wants to be more housed. we are not opposed to building more houses.

we just wanted to point out to the size of this project in comparison to the house -- in comparison to the house that we live in. we don't find it very harmonious with the house next door. we found that it potentially could be further revised in terms of scale. as josephine pointed out, as well, the fact that we would be removing vegetation and trees that are close to a century old, is a significant change. and lastly, you will probably be aware of this area, there are massive hills. having such a large house could build on the steep hill and rains -- raises concerns. thank you very much for taking consideration of these points. >> president hillis: thank you any additional public comment? in support of the d.r.?

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is i.v. i have lived in our family house for the past 25 years. it is adjacent to the proposed project. right across from the aerial stairway. as the neighborhood group more then divides us, we are extremely concerned about the safety and environmental issues. not just for us before the public. the aerial staircase attracts many, many visitors because it is the longest staircase in san francisco on a weekly basis. many people come. i think the construction of this massive project, in taking out trees and possibly more than one , and certainly the most majestic tree that is 75 years old, will so negatively impact the character and the spirit of

the neighborhood. one more thing to add to, is there is a very rare bird population in this area, including red tailed hawks and hummingbirds and parrots. it is really a magical site. it will be a huge loss to the neighborhood and san francisco. from a privacy standpoint, i know you have made some modifications. but you still have 13 windows facing directly because our house is just adjacent. if you look at page eight, you will see the lines of the house. the proposed project is like this and my house is like this. at the windows on that side would absolutely look into the bedrooms and the living areas of our house. and other homes along that.

so the one thing that we are asking, from a privacy standpoint, is please consider reducing the windows facing the aerial stairway. thank you for listening to our request. >> president hillis: thank you , very much. any additional public comment? if anyone else would like to speak, line up on the green side of the room. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is kevin. i also live on the avenue. tom had to step away. he was another one of the d.r. requester his. i will speak on his behalf first and i will speak on my behalf as well. he wanted us to discuss safety and security of the proposed home. the slope of the hill is precarious. it is dangerous, hence the steps

were built to circumvent further damage. the current proposal is to destroy a massive 75-year-old pine. as building continues, more trees may need to be destroyed. we strongly believe, as a group, the trees are holding the hillside back. the current proposed to build states $650,000 total. based on the severity of the slope, this is a slight hazard affecting the stability of the slope and dangers posed to neighbors directly below. based on the home to doris up, the home foundation alone needs to be stabilized. another point is that over 40 people on the neighborhood have signed a letter of concern over this as well. speaking for myself, to build upon the point of privacy, this neighborhood is a very special one. it is very rare. it is a very beautiful, serene gem.

is a rather undiscovered in many ways. if you were to look outward at the panoramic view, literally and stretch your arms left to right and looked down to the right to, it is an unfettered straight line down. with that the new house, the building goes so far back with all of it's windows. it sets a rather unsettling -- unsettling precedents. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you >> hello commissioners. my name is darwin chan. you spoke with my wife. >> president hillis: if you are part of the d.r., your time to speak was during that presentation. there is a two-minute rebuttal

if you want to speak during that >> ok. >> president hillis: thank you all right. we will move now to the project sponsor. >> good afternoon. my name is stephen lee and i am the owner of the lot across the street that we are trying to build our house on. the proposed plan should be approved for these reasons. first of all, the project meets the planning code requirements. secondly, it requires no variances. thirdly, it has been reviewed by the san francisco planning residential design team to be in conformance with the san francisco residential design guidelines as well. so far, the project has been scaled down from its original plan in direct response