hardware or even sam's news stand which after five years of being vacant has a holiday pop-up store for the month of december and in january they're gone. today we can take a healthy step for the noe valley. the real estate agency has contributed to the community and her unpaid volunteer role as president she brings creativity to the street and produced over 11 major events and why you have 50 letters from merchants and residents thanking rachel. police allow the c.u. to a business owner who has been an exemplary leader. >> commissioner: thank you. >> i know. thanks, guys. >> commissioner: any additional public comment on this item?

any additional public comment. seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioners. this say hard one. -- this is a hard one. we think hard about commercial corridors an listen to neighborhoods and there were a lot of good points for and against. we want active neighbors and retail but we see there's vacant storefronts and we're trying to make the neighborhood corridors what they were 10 and 15 years ago and we're seeing more professional service type uses an less traditional retail going into spaces.

there's concern how it came about and there was an i'd to -- idea here with the agency. ultimately it's something i agree with that we'd be in a predicament where we have a vacant storefront. it's not an enormous storefront. it's more of a mid block retail establishment. it seems the agency has become a part of the community and so i'm generally supportive of keeping it there though i tend not to like too many of these professional commercial service uses and i see more harm than good in denying it. i'd be supportive. commissioner fong. >> i have a difficult time with

this. they're active in the community and all the activation is great and we don't want to see a vacancy, however, rules are rules. of all types of business, a real estate agent brokerage to come in and have the tools to know this is not the right use and to do it i have a difficult time with. if it was a bakery out of naiveness didn't know but the fact it's a real estate business and not knowing is very difficult and a little suspect. i think all of us here at the commission have heard many times where there are properties where the property owner bought the property and someone who helped them buy the property told them it was an allowable use and they could go up five stories and that's what the broker told me. i don't think we should reward people who in a hot market in

san francisco reward people who are taking a chance to bend the rules and hoping for forgiveness if if they get caught. i think it's setting another precedent level. it's a tough one because it's an active business and i don't want to ruin that. i could be wrong. i'm wrong about the facts? >> commissioner? >> so i'm feeling the same way as you are, commissioner fong. i think one of the public commenters talked about how we shouldn't punish the business. i'm feeling like we should punish this business. i'm not sure we should punish the business specifically by denying the c.u. because i do agree that will do more harm than good but the process we

have is what it is. i ended up voting against the pet food store though i didn't like that vote by me. i didn't like it because i think 24th street like north beach is suffering from a dramatic change in the retail environment and our planning code hasn't quite caught up to that. i don't think we quite have the tools we need to maintain a healthy corridor and at the same time address the feelings and concerns of the neighbors who moved into -- in to the neighborhood because they love

the feel of the corridor and retail in america is changing. i don't want to have a 16th vacant storefront. i think that would be counterproductive. but also like you, if it was a bakery or pet store it would be a different story than a real estate agency that should know about land use and zoning. also is advising complaints on these issues in a very complicated regulated environment and setting. i'd like to hear what my fellow commissioners have to stay is a. i understand -- have to say. i understand we want more diversity of retail and like my fellow commissioner said i'm willing wary of having so many brokers, banks, but i think this particular business is doing

right by the community. i think it's an asset and bringing in traffic and doing good things. i'm torn on this one. >> commissioner: commissioner koppel. >> i have a question nor the -- for the city attorney. i'm not trying to reward a project sponsor for doing what they did when we see legalization we know something suspect but right now they haven't done enough for me to automatically shoot it down. if we approve the c.u. business as usual and don't approve it, does that mean they're gone or have to start selling retail? >> you're being ask to approve or not approve so if not approve they'd have to cease and desist as a real estate business. >> i'm not at a point myself to

get rid of them. >> commissioner: commissioner moore. >> thank you, commissioner fong. summarized well what my thoughts are. make a mistake and ask for forgiveness later. unfortunately over the last six to eight months we have an increase in all levels of make a mistake and ask for forgiveness later and many mistakes have been lingering in different parts and different situations . what i regret to say is ms. swan is not here to speak to us herself. for me that's a grave oversight. she could have asked for continuance if she wants to represent herself and stand here and explain to us of who she really is. i appreciate her as a person doing the kinds of things she does but as a realtor, who we as planning commissioner through

the city with planning rules and regulations have to strongry -- strongly rely on attention to detail, i regret to say that is unfortunately not a positive mark on your professional performance and i have to believe the 24th street corridor and noe valley has enough channels to communicate what is necessary to work in a small neighborhood corridor environment. we're not here to be vindictive or here to make people wrong but again make a mistake and ask for forgiveness quite a bit later doesn't not quite add up for me because i have too many of them and i believe as commissioners we need to point out to the world we are to uphold and adhere to. i at the moment will not be able to support the application. >> commissioner. >> i'm not sure if i'm going to

help us get any further but just reading the use it seems like ms. swan is an incredible, engaged, involved, thanthropp thanthroppic -- philanthropic person and it's difficult to see all that effort and then see a suspect flagrant going against the laws they think she knew about. i think the business is absolutely contributing to the corridor and community and i

agree another vacant storefront but i wish she was here and helped us understand both what happened and bringing more color to this because as i see it i have a hard time rewarding this. >> commissioner: commissioner melgar. >> commissioner: was there a continuance? >> it's been two weeks. >> i took it over and we asked for continuance. pl pla plans -- planning staff asked for a continuance. >> commissioner: we felt we needed to bring it and the

commissioner felt they needed additional time and it's on the commission. >> commissioner: ms. yenney, can i ask you a question and have been on the corridor for years and have strong opinions on things. you see what we're struggling with and i know you know the corridor and you know the process people go through. it is a little questionable as to why they didn't come to get a c.u. before. you're supportive. how do you get beyond? >> one thing i want to make sure you know about, when rachel swan was going to open, she was going to open with all of this and all of that who spoke to you. originally it was going to be retail as well as real estate. i think that's where part of the

problem started. instead of coming up front with the whole idea of being a role for there was confusion because all of this and all of that was intended to move to 24th street with her. there's no doubt about that. . the neighborhood's changed. i think the c.u. process needs to be revisited in the neighborhood. it's huge. it goes from church to diamond. it's to big. we don't have enough retail to support five or six blocks. it needs to be smaller to the banks and realtors could be outside 24th street and i want to see the neighborhood zoning changed so the c.u. process is the middle four blocks would be the most important to protect so

i have mixed feelings about it and hate to see banks and realtors and nail salons. the bottom line is there's so many fewer of us. i'm maybe the oldest store in the neighborhood now which blows me away. i'm the oldest person on my block on alvarado. i've become the oldest of everything and it's tricky because it's hard to encourage young people to go into retail. it's not profitable. i don't make any money anymore compared to like what you can make working for goodwill. it's tricky. i understand it. we have a lot of realtors. of all the realtors in the neighborhood, there's only about a third of them that really, really contribute to the neighborhood. i try to support the people who

support us and rachel's one of those people. she's one of the realtors who really supports us. i don't want to name names but there's others who got approved and two are on the other two corners, no names, but two are on the other two corners and they do zip for the neighborhood. rachel does. i'm here to sort of support something that in general i don't support but specifically because that's how the c.u. is, right. it's about specifics. the c.u. says we can't have any of those things so specifically, i support her. i don't like the way it all happened with the backdoor situation but here we are. >> commissioner: thank you. i agree with all the comments being made. i just ultimately think about ms. yenney's business and i want to make sure it works. we're getting mixed signals on

rachel swan. she's either a horrible person who securitied -- skirted our laws or sister lily said she's wonderful. if we deny it i don't know what we get or go through the process again with another use we don't necessarily want. i still think i'm leaning towards supporting. commissioner moore. >> i'll ask for a continuance on this matter. i would like to hear ms. swan speak to the commission, explain herself and allow us to ask questions including in the absence of commissioner richards, i'd like to have a full set of commissioners attend the matter. the violation i understand mr. washington his reason of why they're pushing it, however, i think it is fair to give her an opportunity for better or worse, to explain herself. i'd like to support for

continuance. >> commissioner: commissioner fong. >> is that a motion? >> commissioner: yes. >> commissioner: i'm not going to second just yet but to share thoughts, to your comments we need to look at the rezoning or take a look at how this area's being used and how these streets are being used and maybe review that. as you guys recall, there's been an excess number of financial services and battle over banks and atm machines and services battle and wasn't to clearly separate the business operator who seems great and the land use question that's in front of us. i may vote for a continuance but if we vote i'm going to vote aopposed not in favor of approving this based on the unfair competitive advantage it appears here. meaning that another retail store, business, may have looked

at the location and decided no, that's a great location for a real estate office but i can't do it because it's not allowable and this person went ahead and took the chance and it's an unfair advantage and unfair to people who try to abide by the rules and stay in the rules and pay their fair share. it's a lot of work to do just that and it's not right to reward those who take advantage of the uncompetitive advantage. >> commissioner: good point. >> commissioner: so there's a motion to continue. there's not a second -- >> commissioner: the motion dies. >> commissioner: i'm not sure what a continuance gets us. >> commissioner: it's hard. i think you're right. it's hard -- i don't think we'll ever quite find out what ms. swan whether she intended to

violate the rules. there seems to be some though it's disputed and there was interest in making it retail. there's that notion to say a portion of the use has to be retail. she has to partner with somebody. we make that an enforcement nightmare down the road and it's window dressing to make us feel better about it. i don't know it does anything but keeps it there and gets around. it's a little bit of punishment in doing some retail in the space. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner: i'm referencing the hearing on the pet store and that was more clear cut. i think where the possible approval of one business would directly not just affect but potentially put another business out of business. i don't see that same threat here with all the other

vacancies and not going head-to-head with another direct long time local business owner. >> commissioner: i love this because it's democracy at work and i think what it is for not having a vacancy at the corner and what it does to the rest of the corridor. what's not desirable for me is setting a precedent where you can just break the rules and the competitive advantage it gives the other folks who do follow the rules.

we don't have a mechanism to send the message. our tools are limited and i don't want to punish the rest of the corridor by having a vacancy here for years when we could have had a successful business that is a good actor in the community that employs ica girls and all that stuff. i'm leaning towards supporting this.

and they've been a supporter and i'd support the commission. i want to leave the door open for this particular person who was a person in the community to speak for herself and her actions as a realtor are still to make mistakes and ask for forgiveness later and that doesn't do it for me if we're voting today and not continuing it i'd vote against it. >> commissioner: commissioner fong. >> we're ping-ponging back and forth. you made a notion to continue and i'll sponsor that. i think the sponsor should look at the other havevacancies.

if any allow this type of use, if there's a plan b to move upstairs, downstairs, next door -- they're all c.u.s? so this comes back to the point of us having to look at the entire -- i'll second the continuance and maybe it starts the conversation about rezoning better. >> commissioner: is it there a date we want to promote? >> two weeks, a month, next year? >> commissioner: next year. >> commissioner: i don't think there's anything new. we don't have the mechanism to start and you can say start an internship with a school or say

start something in the community and she's started a farmer's market. if there was another realtor that said nobody came out from the neighborhood, sure. but we certainly got a lot of discussion about the good things the office has done which you tend not to see from a realtor. >> commissioner: if the recommendation is to approve with conditions can we have retail. we're recalling an item on valencia and the issue was the amount of storefront retail and we conditioned a specific amount of square foot retail in front of the store. >> it was the medical facility. >> it was a restaurant bar. the merchants wanted retail and the sff storefront.

>> commissioner: and a medical office. that seemed to be the intention early on. >> commissioner: so rachel wanted >> rachel wanted to be here and we're happy to continue for her to be here on the 20th. the vision for the space was always to share it with a retailer. we don't know if the intention was add for the business strategy call or skirting the requirement wasn't there then. they're residential real estate agent not brokers and they maybe should have known better but it's not crazy they didn't know all the ins and outs of the planning code and if was that as to figure out my office wouldn't be as busy as we are. >> commissioner: is there an alternative to do what was intended to share with a retailer? >> my impression was there

always an attempt to have a retailer component and the original partner didn't work out and had a second partner was there about a year. there's no other partner now. there's a small retail component but it's just branded products of the agency. it's retail but not the primary use. i don't know what the capacity is to expand that. i'm sure they're open to that. >> commissioner: thank you. [please stand by] .

[laughter] >> did you compare notes class. >> that is confirmed that the project sponsor can be here. okay. we will put it to december -- what was the date again? >> january 10th. >> january 10th. shall i call the question? on this motion to continue this matter to january 10th. >> hold on one second. mr washington, is there an issue with the date.

>> january 10th is what we are looking at. >> all right. we will continue to move it. okay." ahead. [roll call] >> that would be a tie and the motion would fail. >> unless there is an alternate motion, the project would be denied. >> continue its. we would have to have a motion to deny or accept it. >> that motion is adopted 4-3,

excuse me 4-2. >> okay. >> see you all on the tenth. january 10th. >> that will place us on items 19, 20 a -- they have been continued. we have to continue 20 be. >> i will -- >> commissioners, if we could quickly go to item 20 be, the zoning administrator code can douche -- to continue the matter to january 10th. >> what is the issue?

>> we will continue until january 10th. >> thank you. that will place us in item 21. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon and members of the commission. the proposed project before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to merge up sloping interior lots and construct five new 2-3 story dwellings for a value of ten homes ranging in size from 1,04t per unit. one duplex with -- would front onto york street and access to the dwellings will be provided through a terrace or podium level driveway which begins at the rear yard of the locked

front in york street and connects to stairs and sloped walkways to the dwelling units. a covered garage underneath the podium level would contain six offstreet parking spaces through three mechanical car lifts, three additional surface spaces, a mechanical car turntable to allow vehicles to exit the property front first, and any designated area for 26 bicycle parking spaces. the project requests a variance for rear yard and dwelling unit exposure which the zoning administrator will consider immediately following the hearing for this item. the project site is located in the east slope area and currently consists of three parcels, including one lot with 25 feet of frontage on the east side of york street, and two rear adjacent lots in the interior of the subject block for a total area of 17,295 square feet. these three lots are undeveloped

, and the interior lots slope upwards approximately 35 feet from front to rear. between the front boundary of the interior lots and the rear yard of the adjacent properties, there is a bank that drops up to 30 feet from the top, to the break of the slope. the immediate neighborhood is predominantly residential with single and two family homes but there are two gas stations nearby. if you neighborhood retail stores are located along the north frontage of the street and the 24th street mission street and c.t. is approximately three blocks to the north. in addition to the public comments in your packet, there are two letters of opposition to the projects that were handed out to you and they will be added to the administrative record. after analysing all aspects of the project, that we find that it is on balance consistent with the objective and policies of

the general public plan and the slope building guidelines. the project does not exceed a density of one unit per 1500 square feet of land area. we will add ten family size dwelling units to the housing stock, including one permanently affordable units. and includes a site plan and building design that is subordinate to the surrounding homes and compatible with the scale and height of the neighborhood. the department also finds the project to be necessary desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. based on the findings and those contained in the draft motion, the department recommends approval of the conditional use authorization. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions the project sponsor is here to address the commission. >> all right. project sponsor?

>> good afternoon, commissioners i am the architect for the project at 1513 york street. this project is a very long-running character it may compete for the long distances. i can't say, it was 1986. but it has been through several recessions. several revisions of design, and we are here today with a culmination of a lot of policy changes, just in the four or five years that have really pleased me as the architect. it is, i think the best project that could be on the site. so you have a very thick sets. i will not go through every sheet. it is five building permits for five duplexes. they are freestanding on the

ground and in the center of the large block. by way of referencing the conditional use process, this is generally something that we want to avoid. in this case, it seems to have solved the problem inherent with this very unusual site. which is the earlier scheme is a completely code conforming project. no request for conditional use and no variance is requested but it resulted in four large homes in the middle and a very deep excavation to get parking and and houses a 4,000 square feet. as a result, we have a project where all the parking is localized in this area.

it does not go past here. it is underground. the two story houses are sitting largely on the ground. there's very little excavation. the main excavation is along this line. the shared property line of the properties. i will just walk you through some visual renderings. it is a somewhat complicated project to explain. let's see. you enter the project here. the front unit has a direct entry to a two story townhouse. off to the side is a pedestrian entry that goes all the way to the rear. then you come up the walkway and

you have the option to ramp back or go up the stairs with this little entry trellis. this unit in the rear is entered from a front porch or i guess, a rear porch, and the other units, you start entering along there. both of the interior units, the caption is right in the way. you enter here and there is a winding stair app. there is an attempt to make the units, even though they are not accessible directly to the parking spaces and you have to walk up to them, to be accessible as possible. so there is sloped walkways and there is a vernacular along the side. it will allow goods to be carried up and it will benefit the construction because it is a steep hill and there is no general access this is a shot

down, i don't know what to call it. a sort of a courtyard, but i walkway to access the rear units i think i could answer any specific questions. i might turn over to the landscape architect. this is another view. it is back in the middle of a very large amount of open space right now. we are leaving on this sight on the rear quite a bit of space that will be landscaped. i don't know if you want to go through one of those. >> let's see.

this is sort of a representative section through the hillside and parking below a terrorist. this angled -- dose it would either be a stairstep or the vernacular that goes up to the central line. i will end with the landscaping and the proposal for a high degree of native landscaping and birds and the planting. i am available for questions. i have the landscape architect here. did you want to go over anything

>> sure. >> good evening, commissioners. and the landscape architect in the project. as you can see, it is a very complex project. it requires retaining walls but it does have open space and some community space. i just wanted to plan it or design the landscape to encourage gatherings forward the neighbors to screen the walls from the bottom and the top and to create edible gardens and also viewing spaces from the top of the hill. it is very well planted, and with the edibles, the shrubs and fruit trees, they are supportive plants for birds and bees. it will be a really charming space based on the space that i had to work with. i am available for questions.

>> okay. thank you very much. is that it? >> that's fine. i will answer any of the questions. >> we will open it up for us for public comment if there is on this item. >> i have one card. go ahead. you can speak. you can leave the cards right there. >> hello. i am actually speaking on behalf of myself and also my children and my housemates in the neighborhood. and there are about six people in all. one of my housemates was here earlier and she had to leave to go to work. but she did leave a statement, which i will read to you. first of all, with the process of my three minutes, my name does she do have letters from me you have been receiving letters from me over the course of this time. i have been living at lot 20

which is at the base of this project facing cesar chavez and backing up on burnell hill. since 1988 door since 1998. i work in the performing arts in the city for 30 years. i'm also a photographer and i have been photographing that hill for ten years. i work at home and my office looks over the backyard into the hillside. i am very familiar with the hillside. one of the things that scares me the most when i look at these pretty plans is they are all from the top. they are all from the surrounding areas. i'm at the bottom of the hill and at this point, at the bottom of the hill, i'm getting all of the rain, i'm getting all of the instability from the hill, and everything. it just slopes. thirty% on down through our yard into the street. when i look up into the space, i am looking at a space that literally ends right about where the top of that light is. that is where the project will

be. my back door, this developments. and i am very concerned that such a narrow space is what is at the top of this particular lot of zero to zero, will be turned into a large space with an excavated hill, additional traffic, an additional home, and another additional home, and a retaining wall. to date, there has not been a survey of the hillside itself. so i have no idea where their property and development will end, and my property will start. and in looking at the plans, it looks like there is no way for it to be up against it or over it without taking over my property, which in my world, coming from colorado is called a land grab. i will not stand for that. i'm also terrified of

earthquakes. something of this magnitude on an excavated hillside puts everything underneath, not just my home, but the homes of all my neighbors at a tremendous risk. if an earthquake were to come, and god forbid it could happen, it would take literally, and i looked it up with calculators, three minutes, three minutes for an average collapse to come down to my door. 60 feet. that is unacceptable. totally avoidable. granted, and lot 020, it is an access that would have to go to the back lot. i accept that and except there will be a build to their. >> thank you. your time is up. >> overbuilding is unacceptable. >> thank you. >> i want to put this in for my neighbor. >> you can leave it right there. next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is kathleen campbell. i live at 84 per alto which is in the middle of the block. my backyard and my neighbor touch up backyard border on the southern border of this. my late husband bought our house in 1968 when he was a resident of the san francisco general hospital. we raise our family there. i have pictures and videos afterwards. i am definitely fixed in the neighborhood for the last 50 years. it is a friendly neighborhood with a mix of owners and renters of all ages. probably half and half. young people are all at work. i just see the older ones here. i want to express my incredible gratitude to the planning staff. this represents probably the

fifth attempted project at this location, starting in 1997. i have been along for the whole ride. i am very grateful to the planning staff, and especially the most recent one. he has been amazing. i think what i had to say at the last meeting that i attended of the slope design review board, for me, personally, this is a project i can live with. i am uphill. i am very minimally impacted directly. my main concerns with the design our safety, geological stability and property management. with regard to the public safety issue, there is no access for emergency vehicles of any kind. my understanding is the current zoning requires sprinklers and all the buildings. i think that would help as long as it is not some exterior structure that catches fire like somebody decides to burn someone

or something like that. also the relevance of this is the architect's drawings is this a green space and this green space, these are our backyards. this is nothing to do with the project. these are the backyards of the surrounding houses. i mean if you can find any green in there, congratulations. [laughter] there isn't any. i think, i also was talking with the architect in the hall and he was telling me they propose putting a hydrant, a freestanding, not particularly fire department quality, but something inside the project. the geological survey, i share the same concerns as the previous speaker. i had to do extensive foundation work, not that long ago because my contractor informed me my house was slowly and glacially sliding down the hill. this is not going to make it

better. it is bedrock but it is unstable bedrock which is kind of an oxymoron. and so the retaining wall is critical. the property management, a lot of common areas to be managed. who will manage them. that is what i would like to know. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. thank you for listening. my name is kathleen turner and i am an owner of a house two doors down from the other kathleen. my husband and i have lived on per alto, which is at the southern edge of the development for the last 40 plus years. we have seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood. but that aside, i think to me, there are things that are of

utmost importance that i think i want to bring to your attention. one of them is kathleen also is already speaking about it but it is about the ability of removing vehicles to get into that area. it is only one garage with wide to get into that area and we have already been told that a fire engine could not get in there and turn around. so i think that i understand that there is going to be sprinklers in those buildings but i think that is of great concern. >> please make sure you speak into the microphone so we can hear you. >> i'm sorry. i think that should render more attention. the other thing is that they call them units. will they be sold as single-family dwellings, because there is no green space. like kathleen said, what they

were showing was our backyards and so with no green space, i don't know how that fits into the city regulations or the planning code. i'm not a planner. i don't know anything about this stuff. anyways. i am concerned about the lack of open space available. because we do need to more housing for families and we are not saying that we don't want any building there but we want it to be -- make sense. we want it to be friendly to families. families need to have some open space as well. for children. lastly, the open space, if the open space doesn't belong to each unit, will take care of all of that gardening that they are talking about and all the wonderful trees and plants, et cetera, et cetera? will there be a condo association period how is that

going to work because i don't understand how that will work. but it seems to me that there needs to be a little bit more thinking about how that will work as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is constance. i am sorry i did not do the card thing. i live on cesar chavez street like the first speaker who spoke the other speakers are up on per alto. it is a world of difference. i have lived and worked in the neighborhood for over 30 years. i am a public school teacher. i bought the house because i could walk to work and i have seen the neighborhood change quite a bit. some things are good to, some things are not so good. what the city and state did was change from configurations of the street that i lived on that used to be a residential street that is now an on-ramp to the

freeway. so not only do we have cars and trucks, because that is a semi turnaround to go on the freeway, the opposite direction, but now we have a bike lane and increase pedestrian traffic. to get out of my driveway, i am blocking the pedestrians and i am blocking the bike lane. i am in the way of cars and i constantly get pumped at as i try to exit. they have pushed the traffic up against our front porch and now the only saving grace of this property was this beautiful open space in the backyard where we get to see trees and flowers and birds and butterflies and all that will go away with this building that is being planned for this project, basically is putting a whole new look in our

backyards. we have ten units and they are proposing ten units more. that is basically a whole number -- and other city block of people, pedestrians, cars, traffic, you name it. we are being squeezed on both ends and now the back, the other thing that will happen is because we are at the bottom of the hill, because it doesn't show in the drawings that it's a pretty steep hill. if you try to walk up that hill, you will get bit by the time you get to the top of the street. the housing will tower over our houses. it will create a very dark and dimly lit and very damp -- san francisco is a damp place. we will not be seeing a lot of light. with the increased traffic, the increased impact of the late, i

highly recommend not this building. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is brian rosen. i apologize in advance for the nervousness. this project has the capacity to impact my life a lot. i live on 1515 york street which is a house directly adjacent to the townhouse that would be built as the sole means of access for this division. it would require an excavation below my foundation of the 15 feet at some points. it would require the construction of a retaining wall directly to the full length of my property. which means there will be a story below my house and the entire building would exist and extend above my roofline. that is not considering the roof decks that they would add which would greatly reduce the privacy

of my backyard. in addition, it would walk property line windows on my house. one of them entirely and the other one by quite a bit. not to mention the months of our years of disruption that this project would give me. i'm not looking forward to this project. it started as something that was concentrated in the center and then reduce the number of units and instead build a townhouse right next to mine. if on balance the impact is average, that is because most of the wait of the balance is on my property. i understand these things need to be developed and developments have happens. all of wait have asked for is moved the townhouse at 10-15 feet towards the curb either by reducing the size or asking for a variance to reduce the footage they are so with of our house could remain unchanged , which is a huge part

of the character of our 110 year house. but the developers have never given me any sort of -- they have not budged a bit. they have made all sorts of changes to the inner lots in changing the size and scope of those units, the unit directly addition to my house has not changed a bit. the entire project chafes at the law to -- it tries to get the maximum amount legal to squeeze the most amount of units possible into spaces. it is an unusual space. we have to make strange accommodations. this is including a vernacular, a turntable. there is not enough room for the cars to park. there's all sorts of weird accommodations be made to squeeze every bit of unit after the acreage. ideally, we would like to see the project to reduce the lot in scope. something more in character with the community.

but at the very least, if the developers aren't willing to agree to a 10-foot shift with the accommodation of a neighbor, i don't see why the public or commission should agree to accommodate variance from the planning code as written. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm from the action. this project hasn't gone through our vetting process, and so we are not making a formal endorsement of it. i understand that there are slope issues and whatever else but i do think it is necessary to speak about the type of opposition that we are seeing today. because of windows are not protected. views are not protected. looming-this is not something we should be taking into account. a few issues have been brought up that warrant further investigation. if the fire department is objecting to not being able to get their, we should have someone from the fire departments, from the department of building inspection give you

an accurate reading of whether that is valid or not valid. you should not be forced to make a judgement call on whether this is fear mongering or a valid concern. i think that i really like what the last guy said that we are trying to squeeze every last unit into this project. we aren't trying to squeeze every last unit into that project. i think that is a public policy goal. get rid of the parking. i don't know. talk about whether the fire department is accurate. the great thing about building on an unstable slope is that the new person liable for the stability of that slope is the new developer. some people who are worried about earthquakes might take a look of solace in saying if anything goes wrong, i know exactly who to sue. these are things that the department of building inspection is supposed to be in charge of. not necessarily the body.

they are supposed to give you an accurate read on whether this is fear mongering or whether it is accurate. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is lynn. i have [indiscernible] >> if you don't understand, please raise your hands. i apologize. i live at 1540 hampshire street which is in the backyard of this development. we have lived there for 30 years

we don't -- we are not -- we expect sensible development in these two lots. one look provided by -- should tell you that this is too cluttered. too many houses. too many compromises. if you would consider taking a look, you will see that the street is about as wide as 20 what double belts. which mean