counting shake shack. now there's no mention of outdoor use and the noise at night. there is no mention of space for parking, but there's mention of space for bikes. this is discrimination against young families that can't afford still to live in this neighborhood. that does not maintain existing neighborhood serving businesses, because with the extra parking and the extra traffic, they are going to lose business. people simply don't come if you can't find parking. in the decision there's a differential in the hours. says 11:00 at night, the decision says 2:00 a.m. what are the neighbors getting? i ask for a continuance, because i felt that we could possibly get something as a compromise, but i don't see it.

at this time, because there was no continuance. but this does not pass the planning code, the general plan, it exceeds the number of restaurants in the area. i think that we can do better. but all we've seen is pushing this thing through, as is, and then they added a kitchenette grocery store. >> secretary: your time is up. >> okay, thank you. basically said they weren't serving the neighborhood. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment? >> hi, i'm kelly sterling, and i'm a local business owner, and from the perspective of a local business, there are a lot of vacancies in the area, which has hurt a lot of our business and

doesn't support the foot traffic that we need to sustain our businesses. i think that any businesses that are willing to join the neighborhood to help with foot traffic, to bring in additional tourism, and help the local economy would be really beneficial to all of the business owners within the area, so i am in support of the project. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. did you want to speak? okay. if anybody else would like to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room here, so we can -- >> my name is keith howell. i have a business on union street. union street, as you know, is not doing very well since the van ness corridor was cut off, it's very difficult to get to union street. a lot of the businesses are suffering badly. what they need is traffic,

people on the street, whether they are going to grocery stores, which would be great, if somebody would volunteer to put in a grocery store. but failing that, they need businesses that have a reputation that are dynamic and will create traffic. that's what union street needs more than anything else. it's not -- people have said it's not in a very healthy situation right now. many of the businesses are closed because of the high rent and the lack of traffic, partly because of difficulty of access. so i definitely think a business such as this, if you can't find a grocery store, and apparently you can get a grocery store. the previous one went out. it's unlikely another one will do any better. this is a valid business, and i recommend that you approve it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners?

commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. so i am very familiar with this corridor area. i remember the loss of real foods and have watched and seen this space sit vacant and always just kind of wondered about its potential. i think in taking into context not only this parcel, but the surrounding corridor, we frequently actually talk about the commercial corridor in this area and what we can do to kind of support it and the small businesses around it. one of the -- i had the opportunity to chat with the project sponsor, and, you know, in thinking about changing this use from a grocery store to a more diverse use, i know that is a real concern, i think a valid concern, of the community and i just wanted to call the project sponsor up and just ask for you

to share what is in our packets in case other people, members of the public, have not been able to read these pieces about the exploration that you have done around the potential of a grocery store tenant. >> my name is alex paddock, and i'm going to try to pull up a couple of additional slides that we put together. >> commissioner johnson: great. >> maybe i won't. so initially, to elaborate on

the initial points, we reached out to grocery stores in an effort to try to figure out how to incorporate a grocery tenant for the entire space, and after that, the physical constraints associated with the building became evident that wasn't something we were going to be able to do, we shifted our focus to try to find a grocery tenant that could occupy a portion of the building, specifically the filbert side of the building, which is about 6,600 square feet. so we actually worked exclusively with -- or collaboratively with buy rite and luke's local to put together a couple of layouts to try to find a solution where they utilized that 60% of the building, and we really ran into kind of the similar constraints, you know, that the original group of tenants that we worked with, you know, found, that made the space infeasible. and that really kind of led us to try to find a solution

specifically for this building that kind of worked within those constraints. and that's really how we landed on the design specifically to work within the building and the constraints we were working around. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. just to follow up on that question, you know, i think we take a shift in land use very seriously, and especially making sure that a neighbor can have all of its needs met, and so when exploring this, the question for me was, one, is it feasible to have a neighborhood-serving grocery store in this place, given market conditions, and, two, if new tenants are going to come in, will they contribute to the livelihood and -- of the neighborhood and its commercial corridors? i do have some questions around parking and delivery and things associated with the tenants that will come in, but, you know,

when i think about these specific tenants, i think that they are unique in the city. and they are a draw. i was recently in new york city and going back, and shake shack in particular is a business that people travel from neighborhoods all over the city to visit. so i think it's an interesting use. it was really interesting just to kind of better think about the constraints on grocery stores in general in the current market, and so i -- yeah, those were my questions, and i'd love to hear what other commissioners think. >> president hillis: thank you, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a couple of questions, opening times, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. is one of the numbers i saw. that may be a typo. the other thing i'm trying to

see is, how these three establishments lay themselves out with each other. i am only to discern the local place and the grocery portion, but i'm unable to discern of how the rumble gym fits into this. partially because the sizing of each of the elements with each other is something that is not fully explained. so i'm wondering if you could show that. >> sure. so with regards to operating times, businesses will open 6:00 a.m. and shake shack will be the last operating business and will be open -- or will be closing by 11:00 p.m. on weekends. so no later than 11:00 p.m. with regards to the layout of the space, shake shack and indy

superette will be sharing the filbert portion of the building, the patio space, which will be common area seating and also the sale of produce, fruits, and flowers. and they'll be sharing kind of that space in an open market hall format. and rumble, the space will be divided by a demising wall and fire-rated exit corridor to provide fire-rated egress means for both of the uses and rumble fitness will be occupying the long and narrow filbert portion of the space, which was utilized as back of house cold storage and storage space for real food company. and that component of the space has really always been the challenge from our perspective on finding an operator that can utilize it, because of the narrow and long nature. it's been very difficult to find a user that can operate in that space efficiently.

and we're excited about rumble fitness, because they are able to utilize that very long and awkward space. you know, we're really excited about this mix and layout, because we think it maintains the historic nature of the building, while taking advantage of kind of this unique layout that we're working with. >> commissioner moore: thank you for showing this diagram. it makes it easier than what i see on the plans. can you explain, please, what the white person is to tortion ? >> restrooms that will serve shake shack and the grocery store. and the orange is the exit corridor that will serve both uses. >> president hillis: all right, commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: yeah, i actually think this is a creative solution for a big, but also kind of awkward space. i ask the same question that commissioner johnson did about your efforts to seek a full

grocery store and understand that it's a little bit small for a modern typical grocery store to enter. loading access is difficult, refrigeration is difficult in this space, so i think three different tenants in this is a good mix. i am a strong believer in foot traffic, and while foot traffic may benefit these three businesses, the larger picture is how they'll fit the other businesses, small and large, fitness clustering is fascinating how many uses can go into the area, however, they seem to survive, so it's got to be the fittest part of san francisco, i think, which is good. especially if you're eating burgers, which i like, as well. so i am supportive of this. i hate to see that building, which i think is very unique, it has a great sort of marketing corner opportunity to go to waste and go fallow, so i am

supportive and will make the motion to approve. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: okay, you just said everything i was going to say. one thing that we have seen in this commission a lot lately is about commercial corridors with buildings that are older, not necessarily historically significant, but significant, you know, for the neighborhood in terms of wanting to preserve them, so i think this is a creative solution. i think i've been involved with other grocery stores, and it is tricky, so just compliance with refrigeration, building codes, require electrical and ventilation and things for older storefronts are difficult. and this one in particular, i think i see the difficulty.

there are other grocery stores in the neighborhood. that's what swayed me. i was thinking along the same lines as you were, commissioner johnson, so i think that this is a good way to drive foot traffic into the corridor. and i will be supporting the project. >> president hillis: thanks, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd still like to ask the question, the smallness of the grocery store is a bit of a concern to me, and i do see grocery stores adding food components that are successful and 700 square feet may prove itself to be not quite enough once it takes over. indeed, there is a tendency of more prepared food being eaten by almost everybody, given the length of which we work, the inconvenience of having to go buy new supplies every day or every second day. everybody sits here and nods. as much as i hate admitting it, i do it, too. but what i'm asking is, the question, i personally would like to see the restaurants not

be on the facade, but the facade be a little bit more transparent and add perhaps a little more square footage to the grocery and flip the restaurants more to the rear of the store. i know i'm throwing you for a curveball here, but i think that would be a response by which there is a little bit more administration to the neighborhood's needs for grocery, and 700 square feet is very small. i'm just floating the question, if you can respond in terms of how you have investigated that possibility, i'd like to at least ask you that question. >> sure. so with regards to how, i guess, to restate the question, how did we come to locate the restrooms in the location that we did. >> commissioner moore: correct. >> it was a collaboration with the amina group and shake shack. again, when two tenants are sharing a space, you have to

create common area seating and an entrance that kind of works for everybody, and so figuring out how to focus really the common area seating, not only right on the entrance to the south as you walk in the building, but also on the outdoor patio space. that's kind of where we decided to focus that space, and then, obviously, locating shake shack's kitchen area kind of tucking that into the back corner took you have a lot of space. i think the strategy in laying that space out was tuck the kitchen equipment into the back corner of the space, focus the seating area around the outdoor patio, and what do you have left, kind of that portion to the east of the building was kind of the logical space left over for the restrooms. >> commissioner moore: thank you. >> president hillis: all right, jonas, we have a motion and second. >> secretary: very good, motion

and second with conditions on that motion -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on item 13 for case 2018-010482cua, 3509 california street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. alexander kirby with department staff. the item before you is conditional use authorization to establish an 1,100-square-foot

formula retail use doing business as susiecakes bakery within the laurel streets shopping center between locust and spruce streets. susiecakes bakery currently operates 23 locations in the united states, seven of which are located in the broader bay area. the new formula retail use will minimally increase the total number of formula retail uses in the shopping center from 14 to 15 of the existing 38 storefronts, three of which are limited restaurants. the project will occupy an existing location previously occupied by a retail use and no exterior alterations other than a compliant wall sign are proposed. today staff has received three letters of support, which were just provided, and no opposition to the proposed retailer.

staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization and finds the proposed use appropriate, as it meets all applicable requirements of the planning code, it's found to be compatible with the commercial nature of the laurel village shopping center and neighborhood commercial shopping district, and would minimally increase the overall concentration and retail frontage of formula retail uses within the district. susiecakes would attract a diverse customer base and contribute to the vitality of the district as a neighborhood and serving wide district. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. chloe angeles on behalf of susiecakes. as allie covered, we're seeking a cua. susiecakes would occupy approximately 1,100 square feet.

susiecakes would be the first stand-alone bakery in laurel village. its popular baked goods are expected to drive foot traffic to the corridor and would employ somewhere between 12 and 20 people. this project will not result in any substantial changes to the building and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. the n.c.s. district has a range of neighborhood-serving retail, with a mix of formula retail and independently operated shops. with only 15 feet of frontage, they'd have a marginal impact on the percentage of formula retail frontage in the district, increasing from 40.10% to 40.92%. a representative from the laurel heights improvement association indicated support of the project at our neighborhood meeting in june, and susiecakes obtained 60 signatures in support of the project, which i'd like to provide for the record, if i can. support from neighborhood merchants includes letters from books inc., which is next door

to the project site, and from tracy toroka, president of the sacramento street merchant association and owner of poetic arts and antiques. tracy shared a follow-up e-mail that during the sacramento street holiday stroll last weekend that she, quote, only heard excitement and positive anticipation that susiecakes is moving to the neighborhood. the only objection is susiecakes wasn't already open for business. not only does it have the support of the community, but no objection whatsoever. accordingly, we ask you to approve the c.u.a. i'm going to hand it over to the owner of susiecakes. >> president hillis: thank you very much, welcome. >> i'm susie of susiecakes and the company is founded on my

grandmother's recipes from chicago. we are all about bringing people and families together over cake, and our secondary mission is to create career opportunities for women in hospitality. so we'd love to be part of this community. it's very family focused and it would be an honor. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: i move to approve with condition. >> second. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: this is -- this is my sister neighborhood. i live across the way on geary, and this corridor has really struggled to have and support an anchor tenant, and, you know, interestingly it's my birthday yesterday and my one request of my partner was to drive to susiecakes and get some birthday cake, so it will be nice to have

a business closer to the neighborhood. i think it's a great use for this corridor, to really bring foot traffic to it. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. happy birthday. >> secretary: very good, commissioners, motion and seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that will place us under your discretionary review calendar. item 14 has been continued. >> to when? >> secretary: to january 31. >> president hillis: okay. >> secretary: placing us on item 15 for case 2018-006613drp at 610 el camino del mar. >> president hillis: all right. we've got a staff, windslowe,

mr. windslowe, sorry. >> good afternoon, president hillis, commissioners. david windslowe, staff architect. the item before you is a public-initiated request for a discretionary review of the building permit application number 2018-0425-7347. it was determined that this building is a category "a" historic resource. the reason for the d.r. is that the d.r. requester representing the the property owners of 620 el camino del mar, the adjacent property to the southwest, is concerned with three main issues. first, that the alteration will impact the historic resource and whose rear is visible from seacliff avenue and china beach. two, that the deck expansion will impact the mid block open space, and, three, the deck expansion will impact the light and privacy of the adjacent

properties. public comment to date, department has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support. in light of the d.r., requester is concerned department has conducted a review of the project and found that, one, the rear deck addition is modest and due to the intervening buildings and topography, it's entirely visible from seacliff drive and china beach. two, the modest enlargement of the existing deck over the existing, which is set back three feet from the side lot lines does not prevent an exceptional or extraordinary condition with respect to light or privacy. with this staff finds the project meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommends the commission does not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer questions. >> president hillis: all right, thank you, mr. windslowe. do you have the d.r. requester? >> yes. >> president hillis, members of the commission, dennis attending

for the owners, larry and pam bear. the site is a little unusual, as you see from the photograph, the solarium is partly in the setback. there are a limited number of, as we put in our letter, of terrace decks in the area, and none are adjacent to the property, other than the subject property. we believe the deck extension will impact the mid block space corridor and does not satisfy the design review guidelines. the extension will also impact the privacy rights, as the deck will further extend over the rear yard of my clients. now, i will be the first to concede reasonable minds, including the reasonable minds in the planning department, may differ in our views of the impact, but i should point out to the commission and one of the major issues that we would raise here is that in 2011 this issue was first raised with the commission in an application for discretionary review was filed. at the request of the department and the commission, as is normal

in these circumstances, the parties got together and negotiated a compromise, and the compromise is the deck that you see in place today. the original application was to take the deck to the location where it is being proposed today. that is all the way to the setback line. i think there's an interesting sort of policy issue here, which is the parties get together, someone makes an application to build the deck terrace, the parties get together, and they make an agreement. and the agreement is, we're going to agree on the deck as it currently exists, we're going to agree on a deck extension. the deck extension is built, the parties both work together and both participate equally in reaching an agreement, and meet the terms of the agreement. and now five, six, seven years later, the applicant comes back and asks now to extend the project beyond where the agreement was originally.

and from a policy standpoint, we ask the question to the commission, shouldn't the original agreement be the agreement that binds the property going forward? otherwise why would anybody be agreeable to entering into these type of agreements if two years later or three years later or four someone could come back with the original application and extend beyond where the agreement originally existed? so our focus is not necessarily on the whether we agree in the mid block open space, although we do think that the privacy issues are real. we ask that the commission respect the original agreement of the parties with respect to the deck extension. pam bear is here, as well, my client, and she'd like to make a few comments. thank you. >> hi, my name is pam bear, and thank you all for listening for a moment. what was just said is, you know,

we did this seven years ago, and we -- we thought we were being neighborly and coming to a conclusion without getting into a lawsuit and doing -- taking a lot of your time and the city's money. so in good faith, you know, i thought we had an agreement, and we've been trying to be neighborly. i'm here because i think this is unethical. i think the city of san francisco, what they did, they took out a swimming pool and they built a full basketball court, and that's plenty. i mean, a full basketball court in their bottom, which is under this terrace, and now they want to do more. and i just, you know, the light and privacy issues are one thing, but it's the unethical part of this that really is bothersome, and that's why i'm here. and that's why i just want to set a precedent in the

neighborhood, you know, saying, you know, let's all work out these neighborhood, you know, discussions and rebuilds and stop using up city time to do this. because i know city has a lot of other things that you all could be doing and working on and building new communities. so thank you. i just want you to look at the ethical part of this, you know, thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any public comment in support of the project sponsor? seeing none -- sorry, public comment in support of the d.r. requester. yeah, you'll have five minutes and a two-minute rebuttal and two-minute rebuttal. so project sponsor, welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name's jeremiah armstrong on behalf of the owner and the resident, mark hang, and i believe as the requester made clear, the substantiative issues

here seem to be not really their main point of contention, and ultimately the way the 2011 agreement is being interpreted is quite different, particularly when you provide some context during that period of time. so in 2011 when this agreement was executed, mr. hang was in the middle of a much more comprehensive project at this property. this was a property that was in need of significant renovation. it was built in 1929, and in order to get past what looked like a pretty significant road block as part of those plans, he did negotiate in good faith with the bears in order to get as far as he could to move forward with his project. it's important to note that, that agreement in 2011 was about much more than simply how far

back the patio went. that agreement included some agreed-upon restrictions regarding what could be placed on that patio, the type of railing that would be put on there, and the kinds of plants. so mr. hang intends to absolutely abide by that. what has changed since 2011, seven years since then, mr. hang did put in a sports court in what used to be a pool, because the backyard of that property is quite small. he determined that it would be beneficial to his family and his kids for there to be a play area. however, one of the drawbacks with the play court like that is, unlike a pool, it's much more sensitive to water intrusion, and given the fact that this solarium is built many years ago, we've provided photos, there are significant issues regarding water leaks

into that portion of the solarium that's now a gym. those windows that make up the sunroof are very, very difficult to replace, aside from the fact that it's a very unique structure just from a framing perspective, so ultimately mr. hang desires to change this not as a mechanism to cause problems for his neighbor, but this is a modest proposal in order for him to get as much play area as possible for his family. and as part of these plans, which we think are very modest, they do not impede in any substantiative way on the view for the bayer family. we will continue to have the clear glass railing around there. so with that, thank you. >> president hillis: thank you.

>> i represent the owner. >> president hillis: pull the mike towards you. you have two minutes remaining. >> thank you for your time. so i just want to talk about real quickly the ethical issue that they were talking about. there's zero mention in the six-page letter that they submitted to a specific clause in the contract that says that that 2011 agreement applies to this proposal. the reason is, there isn't one. and i have the proof to show it, you know, back in 2011, their neighbor drafted a contract with this clause. essentially it's general language that says, look, this is an agreement that's going to last past this project, right? in response, we told their lawyer to delete clause 6.5 in its entirety. in the subsequent -- that clause

was removed and there was no replacement clause. subsequently, that same agreement was executed and distributed to all parties concerned. that same agreement, with no such clause and no replacement clause, was submitted to the planning committee. i think as far as the ethical issues concerned, you know, they have used the same strategy to stop the as from moving to san jose. either the wording of the contract matters or it doesn't. the wording of this contract says that that agreement doesn't apply to this current project. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you'd like. sorry, public comment in support of the project? >> i wasn't involved in the drafting of the agreement at the

time and i don't know what the machinations were of the agreement, but that tells me somebody was intending to go back to the original project. and to me it's about the ethicacy and our process, right, and when we agree that we're going to agree to a certain scope of a project and the project is approved by planning and the commission as part of that process, then that process should be honored and the conclusions of that process should be honored. that's our point of view. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> seven years, circumstances changed. we now have a play court under there. we are not acting in bad faith in any way, any aspersions otherwise are not well taken. this is an appropriate project. the planning department blessed

it, and under these circumstances, i do not think that there are any exceptional or extraordinary reasons in order for a discretionary review to be instituted. thank you. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. just i think it does pose some interesting questions about, you know, we're not, obviously, a court. we don't adjudicate kind of the civil agreement, but we do have often the case where neighbors agree on a settlement and we honor that. whether we adopt it as a d.r. and take d.r. or not. there is a big issue whether you can kind of come back and ask for the same thing, and i think it's clear what you negotiated originally was a reduction in this deck. sorry, what was called out in the agreement. so, you know, i think on its face, too, there are some extraordinary circumstances. there aren't a lot of big decks on the second floor. you've kind of created a bit of this problem by having a solarium that goes back into your backyard. that's kind of beyond the

variance line. the deck goes to both sides. i think it's appropriate to stick with what was agreed upon, and i would definitely support taking d.r. and not approving the project. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: appreciate your opening comment, president hillis. i sat on the commission in 2011, and looking back, i do very vividly recall the specific pushback the commission had to the proposal, but i also know that just as you summarized, when the neighbors reach an agreement to which we are, obviously, not party, because it is a private agreement, we honor that and take that as a basis for our actions. and in the spirit of that, i do not see a large difference with what was asked then and what is being asked today. i will basically support the position i took then and honor the agreement that was reached at that time, which for me was a

clue to deny the d.r. to deny the project, that's what i meant to say. >> president hillis: commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: a couple of random thoughts. one, the ownership hasn't changed, correct? okay. so in some cases when ownership changes and there's a change of a use of a house, there's an in-law that's come in or grandma come in, added elevator or maybe there's a family reason to change and go back against an agreement, but in this case that doesn't seem to be the case. curious if the play court, did that exist before the last agreement seven years ago? that was there, correct? tell me yes or no. >> no. >> president hillis: sorry, you have to talk in the mike. >> the existing footprint was actually the same when we purchased the property in 2011. so that solarium was actually there to begin with, and there was a swimming pool, indoor

swimming pool underneath there. >> commissioner fong: right. that's all i needed to know, there was a swimming pool before and a play court was changed. >> yes. >> commissioner fong: and which way does the basket face on the basketball court, baskets, plural? >> there's actually only one hoop, so it's actually on the west wall. >> commissioner fong: on the west wall. facing the ocean? >> no, no. >> president hillis: facing their lot. >> on the side of the d.r. requester's home. >> commissioner fong: that's the south, right? >> west. >> president hillis: road curves a little bit there. okay, okay, thank you. >> and would you get in this proposed change additional ceiling height in the solarium? you would? >> if i would be given the

opportunity to say if you look at the plans from both projects, they are actually different. they are not the same project. >> i'll be very straight and frank, is part of getting the ceiling height in the solarium so you can get a three-point shot and get arch to the ball? >> no, no, because it -- no. that's not it. i mean, we already have that arc. if you're thinking the top of the left key, we already have that arc. >> president hillis: you would square off the solarium where it is currently? >> if i can real quick, so this is the existing balcony, and it's just an extension of the same balcony at the same height. >> president hillis: we got it. all right, thank you. >> this is what it overlooks on the neighbor's side. there's no structure over there. >> okay, thank you. appreciate it. i remember participating in this conversation seven years ago, and i remember specifically asking the neighbors to try to get along. they were going to live together

for many years, hopefully their kids many years after that. so i'm going to, as well, honor the agreement and make a motion to not take d.r. take d.r., and deny the project. >> second. >> secretary: seeing nothing further, commissioners, motion and seconded to take d.r. and deny the building permit application. on that motion -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0, placing us on item 16 for case 2017-1011478drp on duncan street, discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners. before you is a public initiated request for a review of a building permit application 2017.0845.4881 for a horizontal

expansion at the front and rear and excavation to add a second unit to an existing two-story building. the project also includes facade alterations and a roof deck. building's historic resource status is a category "c" and it's not considered a demolition by d.r. section 2017. there are two d.r.s, the adjacent property of the east is concerned with four main issues, first, the building is not compatible with the scale of other buildings due to the excessive extension of the proposed building and the excavation. two, that the new construction does not respect the pattern of side setbacks. three, that there are impacts to light and privacy due to the building mass and decks, as well as number four, endangerment to an existing tree in the rear yard. the second d.r. requester at 460

duncan, an across the street neighbor, is concerned with four main issues. first, that the roof deck disrupts the scale of the building at the front and will be highly visible and tantamount to a vertical addition. two, that the loss of the existing facade disrupts the existing neighborhood character by removing historic architectural detailing, materiality, and scale. three, that the extensive demolition and expansion undermines the general affordability and quality of a second unit, and that the extensive excavation also raises issues of affordability and hillside safety. public comment to date, the department has received no letters in opposition and no letters of support. a recommendation in light of the d.r. concerns with respect to the guidelines and confirmed that, one, the building was not listed as either an historic resource or a contributor in a district, and, therefore, the existing facade was not a preservation issue. direction was given, however, to

improve the window proportions, facade composition, and better relate the patterns to the block face per residential design guidelines. the roof deck was determined to be modestly sized, set back from building edges and accessed via an internal stairs. this complies with the direction planning commission has been consistently giving over the last couple of years. number three, excavation is typical and regulated by the structural requirements of the department of building inspection and geotechnical reports and engineering. the project is not a demolition by the planning code definition. number four, the location of an additional dwelling unit below the street level due to the down slope of the lot does not create an exceptional condition. single aspect dwellings of this type are common and normal. it is configured to provide a legal dwelling unit. the department can't speculate on the future use of the space, but it has a distinct front

entrance and relatively close sized parity with the upper unit. the project sponsor has received a letter from an arborist regarding survivability of the tree under the proposed circumstances. the residential design advisory team review also recommended that the project sponsor reduce an articulate massing at the rear by, one, providing a 4'4" side setback adjacent to the east property line at the first level. adjacent to the d.r. requester's property, and, two, the project sponsor additionally reduce the size of the garage and the rear extension of the top floor by five feet, which they have done. with these changes, staff finds that the project meets the department standards and guidelines and recommends that the commission does not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed, as it does not present exceptional or extraordinary conditions. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions.

>> president hillis: thank you, mr. windslowe. we'll hear first from the first d.r. requester, then second d.r. questioner, then the sponsor will have ten minutes, and we'll have rebuttal. overhead, please. >> hi, i'm the immediate downhill neighbor for the proposed project. i've lived in my house 20 years and been in the neighborhood longer than that. we arrived before the commission because folks from the neighborhood have raised issues with the project since it was initially presented to us in august of last year. concerns regarding the project's bulk and depth were communicated at that time, and since january of 2018 this year, these concerns were formally submitted to the assigned planner by myself and other neighbors. however, the plan has been changed because of planning staff suggestions. no attempt has been made to accommodate neighbors' comments. i'm requesting that the commission reject the current proposal on the basis it is excessively long when compared to its immediate context and to

the broader neighborhood. this determination would be consistent with residential design guidelines and the most recent actions of this commission when you look to the construction on the street of 437 duncan street about three years ago. you can see from the overhead and the data in the d.r. packet that the proposal creates the longest building on the block. the proposal is the red rectangle on the screen. the only similarly sized structures are multi-unit buildings constructed in the '60s and '70s, not two family dwellings. constructing developers to build, not proposed buildings out of character with the surroundings, thus protecting the general neighborhood character, or at least having it changed gradually. this project is purely speculative. the house in question has been in the same family since it was built in 1927 and with the passing of the last owner it's been snapped up by a developer, who's seeking to maximize his return by chewing up the mid

block open space, regardless of whether this is appropriate to the immediate or broader neighborhood context. there's a number of different complaints in my d.r. filing but most can be mitigated if the building is reduced and meet the concerning context and encroachment of the mid block open space. to come up with an extra long building, the proposal is making use of what i consider to be a loophole in the planning code. the uphill neighboring lot contains a single nonconforming house of the size and length consistent with the rest of the block, but it's built to the rear of the lot and has a large front garden. because of this configuration, it isn't covered in the code. the rear setback calculations permit the developer to use the rear of the adjacent lot as a neighbor's rear building setback, the two neighboring houses then give the developer the opportunity to go back most of the lot. if you tack on an extra 12-foot extension and you take into account the existing structure

is a nonconforming three-foot front setback, the developer can build on nearly the entire lot. the proposal is only limited in length by the need for a 25% rear yard, and you can see all of these points in the architect's plans for the project, which are in the back of the d.r. now, section 132-c-4b in the planning code has something that's pretty informative. it states when an adjacent lot has a single building at the rear of the property it should be discluded from setback, but a rear alley or street and this particular case there is no rear alley, there's no rear street, just a building that predates and it's a modest size and large front garden. if the commission were to agree with my claim that the proposed development is excessively large and need to eat into the mid block open space, some guidance should be given to the developers on what would be

acceptable. i could suggest a number of alternatives, but they all boil down to a house similar in length to the rest of the buildings on the block. for example, large house two lots up from the project at 471 duncan street, which has the same three-foot front impact. so to reiterate, the proposal at 463 is speculative, looking to dig out a new basement with little light and using a loophole to extend the building by 50%, resulting in a structure that is out of context with the neighborhood. all in all, to maximize the developer's return on his investment. i urge the commission to reject the design, to request new plans and maintain the existing mid block open green space. >> president hillis: thank you very much. you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i'd like to have the overhead, please. thank you. this is a photo of duncan

street. here's the house there. 463 duncan, right there. and i like this photo, because i think it illustrates the issues in my d.r. request. it shows that people are parking in the curb cuts in the driveways, including the tenants that have lived at 463 for the last few years. and this neighbor up here, and other neighbors, they don't use their garage, and we can talk about that later. it shows the originality of 463, which is a barrel-front mediterranean revival house that i will talk about related to the mary brown study of the sunset, which i think is important. and it shows that the roof is quite visible and any vertical expansion, certainly a roof deck, would be visible from the public right-of-way and block the church. okay, so the facade. your own department issued mary brown's study in 2013 about the

sunset, and she makes a lot of information about the barrel-front mediterranean revival houses. [ please stand by ]

>> he knew about it and liked it. that is what he built. as she wrote in her report, this style was raley replicated after construction activity resumed. it was one on the street and there are others from that era, a couple other houses. the fact that it was rarely replicated. you have been talking about façades. this is a 90-year-old house. maybe you need to consider preserving these, particularly since mr. friday says you are doing a survey of the whole city. these have value to the san francisco architecture. i want to talk about the second unit. i know you want to dense fi. two years ago this house would have been perfect for the a.d.u. because of the entrance and

garage space. things changed. no one on the street. let me put it this way. most people on the street do not use the garage. they park on the street. it is dead end. we don't have been street cleaning. i shouldn't say that. everyone will park there. it is reality. you could put a really nice level apartment on that second level using the trades man entrance and not create a unit with questionable live ability. i think the way it is now, my fear is the second unit will be staged. it is a speculative project. that is fine, you know. when it is sold, it would be staged to be part of this a

4,000 square foot house. i am looking for affordability. no roof deck, which will be visible, contrary to the rdgs on duncan street. it adds to the cost. the open space in the rear yard. preserving the façade because it does have value and merit. it is a very particular san francisco style of architecture. i think 90 years old at some point you have to start considering them especially after mr. fry's survey is done. the subterranean unit can be more livable and affordable unit if you do that. just to finish up here, here is an array of photos to share showing all of the cars parking

on the street in the driveways on duncan street. >> any public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am jim lynch. ir live two houses east of the project. i am one of five children of immigrant parents who married in 1955 and spent their life in the valley. i have witnessed the transition. my professional career spanned 31 years in the san francisco police department. 20 were at the management and executive level working with community stakeholders and department of management in the development of consistent public policies and procedures. this leads me to conclude approval would be in conflict with sound public policy principals. the lots adjacent to the project

on the west and rear are two legal nonconforming properties built a century an go and grandfathered in. built in reverse to current compliance structures. the rear of the lot and the open space in the front. the proposed project is using the depth of the rear nonconforming building to ignore the guidelines developed by this department over the last century. the property at 463 duncan street according to the permit is under built in light of current san francisco planning policies. it is 20 three below authorized zoning. the developer proposes 18 feet below the authorized height. othehorizontal. it should be one story taller to

provide the square footage requirements and reduce the negative impacts in the mid block open space. it proposes to remove permeable ground from 80% of the lot and replace it with free roof decks. this replaces a natural rear yard with artificial deckerring. the aerial view would be similar to looking at a cruise ship with recreation ship decks at dry dock. it will be negative on the sewer system and privacy to the neighbors. unless the commission puts the restriction on the property it is reasonable to conclude the front deck will be marketed as perfect place to add premium living space. my family is in no way opposed to the concept. it would be built to balance the

vision of the developer and respects the neighbors and respects the existing code also. i urge your approval of the dr. >> thank you, mr. lynch. project sponsor. >> william, architect 42 year resident of the city. 40 years in eight as bury district still there. i have listened to the people downhill from us, and i agree with them. we would love to go up. it would be great. we would have gotten views, more light. as an architect when i looked at the project, my clients brought it in. i scratched my head. having studied the elevations at the front of the house, my thought was this is not going to happen. my belief is instead of three people opposing the people you would have 20. i believe georgia would lead the

pack