as discussed in report, while the project is not fully maximize the permitted density on site,, there are unique site and contextual characteristics that constrain the overall unit count that is possible on the given site. the department finds this project on balance to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and necessary and desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. that concludes my presentation but i am available for any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. i am with workshop one, the project sponsor and the architect. we are here on behalf of the property owner. i'm pleased to be here to walk you through our proposal for residential development at 611 jones. the project site located on jones street near the corner of buri street, has a central

location within walking distance to the heart of the city including the financial district , union square, market street and bart. the project site is unique for its district in that it is very narrow and long. measuring 2,186 square feet in area, the site is 25 feet wide by 87 and a half feet long. it is surrounded by low and high rise residential buildings. we are proposing a code compliance contextually designed eight story residential building containing seven residences with a shared landscape rear yard. the project is car free. this series of slides shows before and after renderings of the project with the existing building shown in red. there is before and there is after. and across the street. and along the sidewalk.

the project design is directly informed by its neighboring residential buildings. as illustrated in the diagrams in your drawing set, and as shown in the screen, the project is designed -- it took its design cues pertaining to proportion, cladding, fenestration and detailing. the project is designed with a basement with the approach of neighboring buildings. the base is detailed and a large-scale cement panel that is lighter in color. drawing cues from the building directly to the left of hours. i have a couple of material samples if we want to pass those out. the basis capped with eight thing steel band to reflect the course of its neighbors this element helps to define the entry with an integrated steel awning as viewed again from the sidewalk.

the middle of the building is defined with a smaller scale terra-cotta tile and that is the smaller piece that i handed out. and a vertically bounded recessed windows. the windows are recessed approximately 8 inches and framed by a steel jam and spandrel. the project's floor to ceiling windows allow for maximum amount of sunlight mitigating the inherent challenges of building on a narrow lot. because it district's windows have raised sales, the spandrel element was introduced to visually tie them to the neighbors. because the spandrel is detailed , they provide opacity and privacy when viewed from below, as from the street. as viewed from the interior, their opacity is diminished and they allow for maximum amount of light. the project is capped with a steel corner taking his proportions from its neighbors.

we think this approach provides a distinct and contemporary building that is contextually appropriate with its district. the project's ground level contains a shared uses including an entry, mechanical, trash base , private storage lockers, one for each resident that would include bike parking and a small gathering space adjacent to the shared landscape rear yard. each floor features a single residential unit with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. in a layout that is efficient yet feel spacious. and i want to point out that each residential unit is 1160 square feet. over the course of the project, we have done outreach with neighbors including the nearby hotels,, our neighbors have been supportive of the project. we would like to thank you again for your time and we appreciate your consideration.

thank you. >> great. thank you, very much. any public comment on this item? seeing the uncapped commissioner more? >> gentrification of this location is very important. it's an interesting project. i have a couple of questions. the introduction of large two-bedroom units, high end units in this location is a question for me. i would have preferred to see a building of this size adding a slight variety of units rather than only high-end units. this is not a district in which that type of unit size is typical. i happen to live nearby. this is a transitional district between the tenderloin and nob hill. i question the way the building is delivering units in an area where we need gentrification and more units. the other question is, we have property line windows which make

-- which i assume have restrictions and the approval, if you look at drawing number a. 1.3, you see a bathroom, a bedroom, and a living room on the property line as the building lies above the third floor of the adjoining building. you can see it also in the rendered version of the building early on. one of the questions that strikes me and has been a question i have had sit with this particular architect developer broker before is this is not a wood frame building. and while it is predictable, the

introduction of columns and where they are potentially changes the layout of the building. it is something that this commission has asked before and we would very much like to hear not as much about the architectural attributes, but how this building functions because we are concerned approving units, that after they are approved to retain the quality of what you are depicting on your drawings and the future addition of columns may impact that particular quality. i see you are not. thank you for acknowledging that we have asked that before. the other thing, when i look a little bit more closely at the drawings, your mechanical and back of house sizing of spaces are undersized. the mechanical equipment on the rooftop for building is far larger. this will have an impact on adjoining properties and how we perceive the building. i would like to see a little bit more attention of how you are

sizing above as well as below grade utilities in order to really show what remaining amenities are and how, with the rooftop, the building could appear quite different from what we are proving here today. i would like to have the department be cognizant of that because this is a really fundamental question that we should be having as part of today's approval in front of us. the rear yard is very small. that is the nature of where we are four and eight story building with seven units. that is a very small open space. just a comment. and that is all. i have a couple of questions. there is nothing with intensifying use here.

your submission falls a little short of what should be disclosed to us approving the project. >> thank you. >> any other comments? >> generally i agree with that comment. this is a fairly dense neighborhood. a cute little single family home or whatever this is. but i like the reuse. i think the units are actually -- they struck me as not necessarily luxury type units. relatively small and modest two bedroom, two bath units. so while i would like to see more here, i think what you have proposed is good and i'd be supportive. looking at the roof element and how they are designed in size is a good thing that we can ask staff to do if this gets approved today.

i am generally supportive. i think it is a good project. anyone else? i cannot make a motion. i would like to. >> i know you have had a long day but i am glad to add one point two the density, the unit count, in particular. as we have mentioned, i'm sorry. can i? >> do you want to answer on the density? >> i was just making a comment. thank you for offering. >> did you want to make a motion >> make a motion to approve the project with a caveat that the department spends more time on looking at property line windows , looks at the proper sizing of rooftop equipment as it will change what the roof

looks like and where the equipment will be, and pays attention to a depiction of the structural elements that may affect the unit layout and the quality of rooms. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to require the project sponsor to continue working with staff to improve the property line windows, the rooftop apartments and structural elements that may improve the interior spaces of the individual units. on that motion. [roll call] >> you said improve. affect the units. >> so effect, not necessarily improve the interior layouts.

on that motion. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. >> we have been here since one so we will just take a ten minute break. all right. we will be back. >> good afternoon and welcome, good evening and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, october 18th, 2018. i would like to remind members of the public to silence mobile devices that may sound off during this proceeding. if you would like to speak before the commission, state your name. we left on the regular calendar on item 12 at 827 irving street.

a conditional use authorization. >> good evening members of the planning commission. i am from planning department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use operant -- authorization to convert a space for 2500 square feet of floor area briefly occupied by radioshack, a former retail use to another formerly retail use. a wireless communications retail store at 827 irving street with a zoning district. the proposal would involve interior tenant improvements to the grounds for the commercial space and there will be no expansion of the building envelope. according to the project sponsor , which is headquartered in saint -- in santa ana california, it is an authorized at&t retailer and currently has hundred 24 stores worldwide locations in the united states.

of which two stores are in san francisco and puerto rico. the proposed project will allow for the establishment of a new my wireless at&t store location in san francisco with an inner sunset commercial districts. there are approximately 5,000 at&t stores locations worldwide of which ten other stories in san francisco are directly operated by at&t or other authorized vendors. the former retail findings are included in the draft motion for the commission to consider. today, the department has not received any letters or phone calls in opposition and support or opposition to this project, the project sponsor conducted a preapplication meeting on december 2017. no persons other than the project sponsors were present at the preapplication meeting. as a former retail use the project has been reviewed for compliance with the performance based design guidelines, interior tenant improvements are

proposed as well as signage alterations. the proposed signage will be required to have a separate sign permit and comply with the requirement of the planning code and retail sign guidelines. although the project generally compliance with the guidelines and planning code and does not have a significant adverse effect on the architectural and a static characteristics, the planning department staff is recommending the proposed signage logo and lettering height to be reduced in size approximately 25% and the projecting blade sign be removed to be more consistent with the former retail sign guidelines. staff will continue to work with the project sponsors on the proposed signage details. the planning department's recommendation for the project his approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. thank you.

>> the project sponsor, please. thank you. >> thank you. my name is joel and i'm the vice president of sales for my wireless. first off, i want to thank the committee for your time and attendance, your time and your consideration for this. as staff stated, we would like to locate at 827 irving street between ninth and tenth avenue. we will sell a variety of wireless phones, phone plans, accessories while also providing the neighborhood with assistance and in how to use their cell phone service, also providing the service of directv. the one thing that i would like to share with the proposal, is with respect to the sign. and at&t is not small retail but we are. we do not have the ability or

the size or scale to be on main and main within the city. we usually will service communities like inner sunset. our business model feasibility is dependent on retail traffic and our retail traffic is dependent on the visibility of our story. therefore the location selection that we look for and exterior signage are to have the most important components of select location. in san francisco, we have to be ultra- sensitive to this because this is the market with the highest operating costs. so what we need to do when we select the location is we need to make sure that foot traffic is going to be at the highest level possible so that we can generate the type of revenue to keep the store open. our proposed signage of what we are proposing is a 24-inch sign. it is still going to be drastically smaller than the majority of the tenants that are

on the avenue and i will have this man invited up to give you some of the specs to that. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. the issue here is we appreciate the recommendation that the project to be approved, but approving the project with a 25% smaller sign as he indicated is basically denying the project. what i would like to do is show you some graphics of comparisons so you can see that the sign, within context -- if i could have the overhead, i would appreciate it. this is the existing condition, commissioners. you can see the radioshack sign is 18 feet long and 2 feet wide and the next one is sterling bank which is 2 feet wide and 2t office is 12 feet wide and 24 inches long. what we would like to do is put

in at&t sign which is 10 feet wide and 2 feet long. which is a substantial reduction from what is there now and what i would like to point out is the tree. there is a tree right in front of that sign and i will show you the graphic. so the fact that there is a city city-owned street tree right in front of us here is the sign it is critical that the tree is deciduous so does not have leaves all year round, but you do get some visual penetration and we do need to have the sign. the project has a blade sign that exists right now which radioshack has. they would like to have an at&t sign and they really do need this 24-inch height letter sign.

when you see a comparison of the numbers, the planning code measure science and by the square footage. the post office sign is 24 square feet. the sterling trust is 50 square feet. the existing radioshack is 36 square feet. what is being proposed is a 21 square foot sign. substantially smaller than the radioshack sign. we are running out of time, commissioners. i would like to point out that the sterling sign is actually a projecting sign 3 feet out as a bowl and then a competitor of tee mobile on ninth avenue has a 50 square-foot sign around the corner. in terms of the guidelines of having an equitable and appropriate business exposure, we believe that what is being

proposed is appropriate. but it doesn't work for us --dash anything else doesn't work for us. >> thank you. >> we would be pleased to answer any questions. >> we may have questions after public comments. thank you. >> we did give you a recommendation that included language that would include the sign. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have two speaker cards. >> that is me. >> all right. anymore public comment on this item? come on up, please. >> good evening. >> speak into the microphone. thank you. >> thank you very much. i appreciate having the opportunity to represent one person's point of view about the neighborhood. i lived there and works there and i've been there about 30 years. there has to have been no reason why the city made some

guidelines around formula -- formal stories stores. the owner's sun said -- the inner sunset is a small old-fashioned neighborhood and there has been a gradual influx of some of these formula stores. we do have a verizon and now we are going to have in at&t about a block and a half away. i'm also kind of, true for the elite just truthfully a little surprised at what is being said to you by the sponsor is that they are telling you how they feel the size of the signs should be. and that they are suggesting we are not going to continue with their application. i'm not sure if that's what they meant if you don't agree to us having a larger sign. it is important to remember we don't want to repeat certain things that have been done in neighborhoods just because something existed, doesn't mean it is something we really want to continue.

and permitting another formula store into the neighborhood is going to keep this kind of a trend going. i would really encourage you to consider further whether this is the best fit for the neighborhood and whether this is really how we want to characterize our safety and the future of our city. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? ok. commissioner moore. >> looking at what is in front of me is basically the approval of a formula retail in the location indicated. there is a -- is it common for staff they will recommend to continue working with the project sponsor? that is all in front of us. we are not here to determine on the sign. i have great trust that the department knows how to properly away all factors and do what they need to do.

there are trees and there are signs and they are deciduous trees and evergreen trees. nothing of which we have any say on. i'm very confident that the department knows what they are doing. i am in support of what is in front of me, having a former retail moving into a former retail location. i make a motion to approve that part and support staff and their desire in their suggestion to continue working with the project sponsor on a separate issue that has been called. >> second. >> is there nothing further? >> no, or we will not take public comment. >> we would like a denial. >> his or, may down. thank you. >> commissioners, on that motion to approve this project with conditions. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4 -0.

commissioners that will place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 14. d.r.p. at 277 jensen avenue. discretionary review. for those who may not be aware, items 13 a and b. has been continued to november 8th. >> good evening, commissioners. i am with department staff. the item before you is a public initiated requests for discretionary review of building permit application number 201508 123993, associated with the proposed project at 277 jensen avenue. the subject property is located on the south side of jensen avenue on the mid-dock within the outer mission neighborhood and directly adjacent to the ocean avenue campus of city college. the proposed project entails a rear and side edition to extend all four levels, addition of

exterior stairs to provide access to the usable open space at rear, changes to the front façade and an interior remodel including -- the legalization of an unpermitted dwelling unit through the addition of an accessory dwelling unit at the lower level of the existing two-story building which currently contains one legal unit and one unpermitted unit at the lower level. the existing unit will increase from 4-5 bedrooms while the lower unit will decrease from three-to bedrooms resulting in no new bedrooms for the property the proposal will increase the size of both units and add common space. the proposal will not increase the overall height. the d.r. requester's concerns include three primary issues. loss of light and air to the height and scale of the rear addition, loss of private views, and potential use of the subject property of student and group housing. the department supports the project as proposed does not find an exceptional extraordinary circumstances that

would warrant changes to the court compliant project for the following reasons. the proposed expansion is contextual and compatible with no impacts to the midblock open space or light and air to the adjacent neighborhood due to a 12-foot setback of the upper level and a 6-foot setback at the lower level proposed at the eastern shared property line. second, private views are not protected by the planning code or the residential desired collector his design guideline and the project sponsor has clarified the property will be occupied by the property owner and their family once a renovation is completed. additionally, the department is recommending a condition of approval to ensure the existing property will remain a two unit building. to date, the department has received a petition stating 13 neighbors do not object to this proposal. a copy of this petition is included in your pockets. the department finds a project to be code compliant and consistent with the residential design guideline. i recognize approval of the project with the flap just following condition.

all work should be reviewed by the planning department and shall not include the addition of any new bedrooms or bathrooms i believe the project sponsor is present and i am available for any questions. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. >> is the d.r. requester here? >> you are the discretionary review requester? >> hello. good evening. my name is ivan. i live on 271 judson. the adjacent property in question. it was a well presented what is happening there with a few caveats. the property was when the owners brought the property years ago. it immediately was turned into dorms. we lived next to the dorms for the last -- i don't even count

however many years which created a bunch of problems for us. we never complained. we lived with it as it was. we had a proposal in 2015 i believe one it a first draft was sent to us. it was obvious to us instead of just -- it is turning into a bigger dorm. weighted 10-15 students living next to us and i'm afraid that this will be even larger crowds living next. so with that, with the first draft and the first drawings, we were granted or it was requested -- it was not requested by us, it was the planning department that sent us a letter that the monitoring of occupants will be placed on the property, which we were pretty much ok with it. we loved the idea. i didn't want to -- within the

next up to the finish of construction go through the same process again and just complain and what not. with that said, i would like that to stay, monitoring occupancy. then there is definitely light issues and privacy issues. the privacy issue is such that they created a balcony on the east side which when you stand in the balcony will be looking in our bedroom, our living room, into our bathroom which means i will have to accommodate and i will have to do something so we are not being looked at. another thing i would like to bring up, with the drawings and what was given before i asked her to give me the drawings, they were presented here.

there were no windows on the east side, east elevation which was one of the things that we discussed this project with the sponsor. suddenly they appeared to there peerk they -- appeared there peerk. they are privacy windows. they can be easily changed as well with the construction after it is done. we will be staring at each other there are some minor issues while i was talking to the new architect. he mentions, very cavalierly about excavating the existing space to get some extra headroom , which again, i don't see it on the plan, anywhere where there is no new footings and no new foundation. so i would like to put it on the

record that if that could happen , i need to be aware. when we remodel our property, i have a full new foundation there , fully waterproofed with drainage underneath it. these are six-foot spindles with a 5-foot footing. very extensive work was done there. if someone started excavating in that portion, i am looking at possible damage to our foundation which i would like to prevent. in the same discussion we discussed that they might raise the roof or something, which i was surprised again how it can be if i don't see anything in the drawings. in the same thing applies. i have a new roof which we have a flashing next to the east side so that would just create a huge amount of problems for me. basically redoing our roof or whatnot.

enclosing, if i have a few seconds, those are the issues. we are looking at the privacy issues. some issues. they do have a sound study there but the sound study shows you noon. and around 2:00, if we have a sunny day, will i see the sun and the living space downstairs and in the bedroom upstairs? sun issues, privacy issues -- >> thank you very much. you do have a two minute rebuttal after. thank you. do we have a project sponsor? >> we should take public comment in opposition to the project in support of the d.r. >> is there anyone here supporting the d.r.? ok. seeing none, the project sponsor

>> hello, sir,. >> ok. >> good evening. my name is tom. i'm the architect for 277 judson street. first i want to briefly introduce the project scope. it is just to -- to legalize the unpermitted secondary unit which

is existing at the basement. we also said that the purpose is the family and it is to improve the architectural and structural quality of the house because it has been nearly a 100-year-old house and it has not been kept up with the maintenance. so the owner is a senior person. they want to run away the house and move in. they have elder parents in their nineties. so they want to move in and age together there and they have siblings living nearby so they want to enjoy their house. so the owner will probably give her statement. >> the location of the house is very unique. it is located on the south side

of judson avenue. facing west it is a more open space that belongs to city college. and then to the east side there is the neighborhood. [please stand by]

and seems this down slope site and each house has some view from the back looking to the south. so in this case we could see part of city college, city college of san francisco. this is the front of the house, as you could see, it is pretty run down and the paint is pealing and the front window has been replaced in the past with cheap aluminum sliding windows which is out of the

character of the neighborhood. during the process, it's been a long lengthy process. it started from 2015 by the other architect and they did extensive outreach to the neighbors, so they got 13 neighbors support. and then it was nearly approved by the city and then mark 2016, the adjacent neighbor request design review for this project. so looking at the concerns of the d.r. request is concerned we try to work with him, many,

many times. the first concern is more light and air so we have proposed to lower the height by using flat roof from the first and the second level to minimize the height and the mass and we also agree at the end not to have any window facing east to their property. the owner also -- >> thank you, your time is up. >> thank you, very much. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> you will have to use the two minute rebuttal.

>> can we hear the rebuttal from the d.r. requester? you have two minutes, sir. >> thank you. so i just heard about the open spaces and that's exactly the thing. it's nice open space and there's a reason they were built with the same depth so we all have the same quality of life which is actually being diminished now with this structure being built there.

we almost had an agreement, a final agreement. they reneged on the agreement at the last second. nobody talked to me. every time i talked to them i talked to different people because there are seven different people on the title and i have no idea from, there's no continuity from meeting to meeting. i would like to come to some kind of equitable resolution but it simply didn't happen. i still request modifying the occupancy and the windows, i was flabbergasted when i got the final drawings when we were talking about the drawings before. i didn't get any reply, i didn't get any conversation going. i would like to definitely rest those issues.

>> you have two minutes for rebuttal. >> we arranged for translation services.

so we can move into our only possession property so we can live together. thank you. >> thank you. with that, commissioners? commissioner johnson? >> thanks. excuse me, i have a question for the d.r. requester. you said you were close to an agreement. what were the terms of that agreement? >> it was the first set of drawings. they don't reflect this at all what's placed in front of you. the agreement was there would be no windows on the east side then and monitoring of

occupancy would be in place. that was our agreement at that moment which was actually two years ago, or close to two years ago. when he was close to sign it suddenly they reneged and i didn't hear from them for close to a year or something like that. and then the whole process kind of started all over again. they hired a newark tekt. -- new architect. i just want to add when they bought the house for the first time they showed up and they basically said the same thing, that they are going to live there as the neighbors, elderly and all this stuff. it's the same story, i'm sorry. maybe i'm callous but we were lied to then and we were lied to even when we were in a discussion. i don't have time to repeat a lot of things. that's where we are. >> thank you.

yeah, i think the staff's recommendation takes into account there is a concern we want to make sure that what is being presented is built and that we will monitor the occupancy of the housing. at the same time, you know, i would be amenable to the windows on the east side but i am curious what other commissioners have to -- think. commissioner moore? >> the hardest thing is the plans are difficult to read. we heard the family describing how it's going to operate, that's not an issue, we all have different expectations how we want to live, what the minimum and maximum requirements are, however, the existing condition is looking like a more student group occupied building. and the proposed condition

which is supposed to be the residents for multi-family living doesn't show clarity either by which i clearly can read is what is intended. i'm really disturbed there have been non-matching conversations about what is intended, what to be done and in the end isn't done. i've been really trying to be fair and understanding to this project. the project is a very large project. there's a lot to be done, it's almost like a demolition because there are so many changes to the building. i would like to ask that we continue this project. ask for a clearer representation what is and what isn't. and also very much have the d.r. requester be in an open

dialogue with the applicant, yes, this is part of what we want to do, or not part of what we do. i don't want to be called in the middle. i think that is a fair compromise. it's not denial of a project. it just needs a little more clarification of what's intended here. so i'm making a motion that we continue this project for at least six weeks in order for that to be properly worked out. >> i would second that motion. looking at these plans, i agree with you, commissioner moore. it's not entirely clear to me where things are in terms of the existing conditions and what is proposed. and you know, i take to heart the windows issues on the east side. i'm not exactly clear as to what's going on with that either. so i would appreciate a little more clearly laid out plans and

also the time to have discussions happen between the neighbors. >> commissioners, six weeks puts you at december 6th, however you already have a full d.r. calendar on that date. december 13th? >> i'll take your recommendation on december 13th. >> okay, then on that motion to continue to december 13th, [roll call] that passes unanimously, 4-0. this has been continued to december 13th. with direction from the commission. commissioners, item 15, case

2018-002953drp, 253 chattanooga street discretionary review. >> commissioners, to construct a garage at the rear of a 25 x100 through lot with a one-story 1175 foot single family house built in 1900. the building was determined to be category a resource. mercy alley is a city owned dead-end driveway. the reason for the d.r. request, the d.r. requester of 1010 dolores is concerned with speculation of the future use of the garage structure as an accessory dwelling unit and associated issues related to that. and two, further impacts to the use, density and safety of

mercy alley with respect to parking and residents. the department has received no letters of opposition, and no letters of support. in light of the d.r. requesters concerns, we have re-reviewed and found one there is a pattern of garages and uncovered parking on mercy that provides access and preserves landscaped front setbacks along this portion of chattanooga to be uninterrupted by curb cuts and driveways. and number two the garage structure is compatibly sized. the future use is speculative and not regulated by our planning code. and with this the staff finds the project meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommend the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed

as it doesn't present a circumstance that would justify. it might be added, it is in your report the z.a. took this matter as a variance and either approved or intended to approve. i can't remember exactly which but it's been heard from the variance standpoint. >> thank you. we will now hear from the d.r. requester. >> i'm chris forrigno and i support the project except with the attitude they sign there will never be an application for an additional dwelling unit. i know that's unusual but i didn't have a chance to get my land use attorney who will appear at the appeals board if it's approved. because we are looking at how this whole system works. i believe they had five criteria to meet, whether it's a burden on them or this or that, i'm not sure about that,

i only have five minutes to speak so i will rush it a little bit. that will be determined whether we can do the san francisco two-step. build the envelope first and then get your a.d.u. that will be challenged. whether it's effective or not, i wanted to give you a history. on january 24th, a neighbor of mine lee bender who came in and opposed it because she said this doesn't look like a garage, this looks like a dwelling unit. my real estate attorney says this is a dwelling unit. how is a variance going to be passed to build a dwelling unit? i think the fact they aren't willing to sign something that may restrict something they may be entitled to in the future. but the big question is

i have 1010 dolores is my house. 1050 dolores behind the subject property. there's been a murder on that alley. and i think that the city, there's no proper lighting to even think about putting an

extra dwelling unit and i have letters from my tenants saying they have been delayed by construction vehicles. by many things to get in and out of their place. i have 17 parking tenants, trying to get out an already crowded and congested street. so, i also think that i just don't know how the city could, in promotion of a.d.u.'s these people could, or their successors could give up their garage and i've got their first letter saying what their use is. i'm trying to help them. i'm trying to get them to get the project done without further delays like the board of appeals but i think you can see, hello, chris, i'm your soon-to-be neighbor at 1053 chattanooga.

i heard from lee, who walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, amazing neighbor who chips in on the alley and things that need to be done. she is very appreciative of that time. the street, i'm going to paraphrase this a little bit. the intent of the garage is to house our 2008 silver prius, one cargo bike to transport kids, two adult bikes, three kids bikes, three scooters and every now and then martin gets a woodworking bug so he hopes to have a workshop there. we were encouraged to talk to elizabeth, the planning person to talk to work things out. we had two meetings at my house. they said to me i will take out

the bathroom, i will put something on the roof, which will discourage anyone from putting a roof deck. so i was relying on the permanency of their use. and i think this is very important that we don't do this san francisco two-step. it really is going to be a problem. and i think it has some real legal challenges that i can't speak to. that will be andrew's and that office. i would like you to reconsider this. >> thank you, sir. do we have anyone here who wants to comment in support of the d.r. requester? okay, with that, we will hear from the project sponsor. welcome. >> thank you, planning

commission, and thank you -- based on the material request, he doesn't want our garage to become an a.d.u. and he considers mercy alley a substandard street. we believe we have addressed these concerns. we plan to build a one car garage workshop and storage. we have a lot to store. you could see basically confirmation of the things we told him we were storing. note, his own home has an a.d.u., accessible through the backyard mercy street. to be clear, we have no problem whatsoever with his a.d.u. second concern, increased traffic. we are actually reducing potential traffic in the alley. note that his properties all

have parking accessible from the alley, he told me in a meeting he has approximately 20 parking spots. more than anyone along that alley. again, we have no problem with it. mercy being a substandard street. d.p.w. fixed the potholes this year. it still isn't beautiful but it's definitely functional and there's been no crime on that alley in the police crime reviews for the time they are available. we have a strong history of working with the neighbors. i write letters of support and we asked with our neighbors to add sidewalk gardens. neighbors on the immediate north and south are supportive of our project but it's been hard to reach consensus and we have found it very challenging

to work with mr. ferrigno. we have heard he has a history of aggressive behavior and intimidation to get what he wants. one neighbor noted he screamed at her over the phone. he has a youtube video talking about winning fist fights in grade school and winning this girl. when we were leaving starting to walk down the stairs, he could not help but call after us, get ready for a very long process. as a result i haven't felt comfortable talking to him and my husband is the only one who interacts with him in person. on the issue of the d.r. we have a hard time figuring out his true concerns. added a green roof and living wall, he said he didn't want to lose green space. he made clear all remedies don't satisfy his concern which is the possibility of future a.d.u.