go ahead. >> good evening. i have owned my property for almost 20 years. i spent all my money and my work for my home to make sure that everything -- i have a downstairs room that was built in 2009. i know firsthand first hand how important it was to build with permits because of the hundred of code issues that must be followed. excavation of the foundation wall was required. i was very excited to have a family next door and i really welcomed them in the neighborhood and offer them any help they need. when i knew about the project of second edition on the top of the roof, i try to communicate and express my concerns. i asked the owner more than once

to legalize the room downstairs in the basement. two floors down from the addition. i showed them the photo during my project and how a lot of work is needed. the owners told me they will legalize it. but they never did. they applied for the permit for the second edition. i showed them my work. sorry. they never did. they applied for a permit for a second edition without taking care of the excavation that was done in the basement and without a foundation or permit or electricity. they said i wanted to delay them they asked me to have mediation or communication with the owner. they rejected the idea. we never tried -- they never tried to legalize before. it is a very time-consuming to

prepare all of these things. our house -- i am answering to their answer. i told them several times about the room downstairs in the basement, and the deck, and they need -- they never legalized it. if i can show this -- >> pull that microphone towards you so we can hear you too. >> sure. >> there is electrical work being performed without a permit it was previously installed without the permit information shared hi new construction requirements. it was used to fill out the application to show existing square footage as 1,706 periodicity public website is

1,087. shows new square footage. the legal square footage is 1,087. not 1,706. it should require much more analysis. a legal square footage may have been used. the owner should be amended for filing first application in order to get around the much-needed analysis of the major project. it was part of this. according to the structural engineer, those are correct. there are 12 of them. there are 1212 sides that can

observe. we can see how the first crack is about 16 inches. i don't know how far it goes up and down, because you can see the siding on the top. the bottom you can see the ground. you cannot go down. the white side is their side. i can see this from my garden. again, if you look to it, you can see the crack, this is another crack right here. the siding is not intact at all. and then they have other cracks also but i did not have a picture, and also we are in a very critical slope.

the houses of her 700 feet. i request that we have a new application. >> thank you. your time is up. >> you will have a two minute rebuttal. you will have a rebuttal of two minutes. his or any public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. i am the project architect. i'm here with charmaine. this is very simple. they have a two bedroom home and hope to add another with their children's bedroom. they wish to expand this over an existing portion of the building that is currently a roof.

so there is the ground level accessible from the street, and you go up one story, and it is half a level. they simply seek to expand that fully to the full building. you can see on the overhead that this is their property. and the adjacent property has done a similar expansion. if you go up the street, there are 18 similar houses they are all expanded to the full footprint. this is not an unusual circumstance. the filer has come before you and presented a lot of confusing issues about permits and building department history. to be clear, they bought this house about 20 years ago. they have done no work on this property. anything that may have been done was done by previous owner. they bought it as is. the d.r. filer filed six complaints against the property

with the department of building instruction. [please stand by]

we invested in the communities and relationships. the house will look almost exactly from the street. the building department complaints were filed on top of the dr to stop what is really a modest addition. you know, that cost more time. more money. and we are hanging in there, and

we are working through the system and we hope that you will, you know, kind of see this. thank you. >> thank you, miss curtis. >> any public comments in support of the project? seeing none. rebuttal. >> i can show you that shows this is a detriment to my home. this is my home. this is our home. this is also because of what was excavated. and also because of the -- they

have to fix it. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have never seen the pictures of the sediment cracks. i appreciate seeing that. i am a structural engineer who designs provisions to the cracks. just one other comment to follow up on what was said, you know, this is a map of the street and you can see all of the homes that have the full volume of

that second level above grade. this is the school that their children go to and this the subject property. >> okay. thank you. we will open this to the commissioner comment and questions. >> the residential designs here concluded and move to arrive. >> seconded. >> thank you. >> on the motion to approve the project. >> the motion passes unanimously. 7-0.

commissioners, item 18. discretionary review. >> first i would like to provide a photo of the aerial -- we have identified the subject property. publicly negotiated review for permit. i can instruct that one storey vertical addition, two family dwelling with changes to the front rear and side. this building has a historic resource and is category c.

[indiscernible] 34 kent street, on behalf of and 34 kent street. there is concern about two issues, the size and the windows will contribute to the loss of privacy, and unnecessary glare and the scale and pattern of the context of the space. the interior were incompatible with those found in the context. there is no letters of opposition and 12 letters have been received in support. on this recommendation, the question is concerned, we reviewed the project with the guidelin

guidelines. because of distance separating the two properties, it is excess of 90 feet, the issue of privacy are not exception or extraordinary. the primary facade material are stained wood and stucco. the project meets the standards and guidelines and recommends the commission not to take -- approve the project as proposed, it does not present extraordinary circumstances. thank you. >> all right. thank you. welcome. >> good evening. >> you can get closer and turn up the mic. good evening, commissioners, i

am here today for the submitted request. our building is located in the western end of kent street with a direct view of the proposed project. across the open space in the middle of the block. they have asked for a contin continuance because of a trip overseas. the request was denied on the basis of unspecified new procedures related to hearing dates. and so judy the point person was unable to attend today. continuance are common. we are not sure the request is denied. perhaps you can provide an explanation. the original design proposal resulted -- relocation of the proposed accommodations. we would welcome the family to the neighbourhood. the central purpose is to

balance opportunities for project development and the need for capability with the architectural and visual qualities within the neighbourhood. exhibit a. the building occupied the very prominent location on the eastern end of the terrace, the cul-de-sac alley overlooking the middle of the block with an unimpeded panoramic view of north beach, and quick tower. however, the proposed design of the project -- for the project is not in the surrounding context. for example, the window opening facing the middle block, open space is half the area of the facade. four floors of wall-to-wall and floor to ceiling windows with minimal detail provide an aggressive, inconsistent and are disruptive. there is no example of large

contemporary windows within various locations in the city. as presented in exhibit e, contemporary design is not the problem. the photos do a fine job of illustrating the negative precedent. the use of huge expanse of detailed glass in established neighbourhoods. smaller scale openings with detail window trim are the normal. next image. the argument in favour of the proposed design is clearly false. there is no commonalty between the surrounding windows and the proposed design for window openings approaching 50% of the area of the east facing facade. please do not compound previous errors that are clearly illustrated by the image of the attachment. the exception to the pattern of windows at neighbouring buildings of the north facing facade on the adjacent building

at 840 union street designed by the same architect firm. the next image. the west facing, the 2834 kent street will have a direct view of the east side of the project. we are very concerned, especially in the evening. we cannot choose when we don't want to see you. installation of this type of window should not be allowed. there is a loss of privacy and it will take away from our ability to enjoy our homes, decks and anything else facing the area. the reflected light in the window and nighttime glare from the interior lighting will create a drive-in movie from the surrounding buildings.

last image. this proposed design offers a new shiny reflective object to the middle of the low key residential neighbourhood. this is not necessary or desirable. it is as if macy's decided to open an outlet. it is a negative precedent moving forward and any future proposals. we require modifications to the proposed design. thank you very much. >> thank you. any public in support?

>> good evening. i am john buruso. i would like to discuss the proposed projects and excessive glazing. it calls for a wall of glass 16 feet wide. cutting through 1 and 4 floors. there is more glazing with a curtain wall of feet 22 feet and 7 feet inchs and 7 feet, 8 inches high. the residents are worried that all the glass will lead to a loss of privacy. the massive banks of window will glow like a movie screen by night. they reflect glare throughout the day. the project sponsors the

references, the east side glazing is less than what is proposed here. the discrepancies between the proposed glazing and that found in the neighbourhood is seen clearly in the exhibit b photos of the buildings facing the mid-block of open space. consider the interpretation of the design guidelines would leave smaller window openings that show acknowledgment of the surroundi surroundi surrounding architectures. the window openings all around the proposed building are smaller and spaced further apart. the open space is a precious resource providing light and air to surrounding buildings. the fact that the sponsors only open lot next door does not mean that this building will stand in isolation. it must respond to the existing

context. with 17 buildings facing the open space, the windows will be in plain sight day and night. reducing the glaze on the east side would do little to reduce the space and would preserve harmony. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker. miss courtney. >> good evening. i am katherine courtney. i am from the community association. i ask you to pay careful consideration to the request.

we believe the issue of excessive glazing will be significant glazing. a it is a poster child for excessive glazing. in the letter december 5th to the commission, mr. rubin said the intent of the rdg was for the character. where there is a mixed visual character which is present on the subject block, the rdg allows for greater possibility and opportunity and design, particularly on visible facades. commissioner, eastern space of 1012aladin is not a non-visible facade. the residences are surrounding

the courtyard. it is noted that the concerns are not simply privacy, but the probability of a drive-in movie show of light on the mid-block of the space. in the exhibit e, mr. rubin has provided examples of excessive glazing which the community association will be distributing to the sister organizations throughout the city because we have been -- we have to address the issue of excessive glazing. this is not a manner of taste. this is not architecture preference. it is a matter of public policy and the protection of the quality of life of the community. particularly when the open space is issue. the dr request, i met with the project sponsor.

to request modification of the excessive glazing on the eastern facade of the project. based on the discussions that took place, i was expecting some accommodation. that has not been forthcoming. i respectfully ask the planning commission take discretionary review and address the excessive glazing and coming to a favourable solution. i urge you to continue this case until mr. winslow is here and he can answer questions about it. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am chris bigelow.

i will submit a petition in support for your consideration. the petition has been signed by 28 neighbourhood residents who are in agreement that the issues delivered by the previous -- who represent the extraordinary and unusual circumstances of justifying a discretionary review of the project. how many copies should be provided >> as many as you like. >> additional comments? none. project sponsor. >> good evening.

the project sponsors. jimmy and renee have been reviewing the property. the project we are discussing accommodate themselves and their families. the project is compliant and there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that warrant the commission to -- the dr should be denied and the project approved as designed. the issue is the dr request claim that the amount of the eastern facade provides loss of privacy. that is reducing the ability to freely use the deck spaces. the property is over 100 feet from the dr. there will be 6 other properties with direct views and their decks. they are closer and constant from the subject property. the dr decks do not face the facade in question.

you have to go out there and turn to the west to view the facade. further, this art is disingenuous a bit. this is the rear facade on the property which contains a large amount of floor to ceiling windows and doors that lead on to the deck spaces. it is acknowledged there is some loss of privacy to neighbourhood buildings due to expansions and alterations. the block as dense as this one, some loss of privacy is expected. the proposal is not causing a loss of privacy to the property. for the amount of glazing of the subject property. the amount of glazing, i want to point out that the eastern facade is the only one. only the southern part of the eastern facade, the lower portion here, has the opportunity, there is a 7 foot

terrace, narrow around here and as you can see, the property spans to the eastern facade. the glazing that was proposed was carefully thought out. it did not do wall to wall, the entire facade, west to west of glazing. they chose to do it modestly, 60 feet on each floor and the lower floor it is important because we are going down slopes. as for the design, i will let the architect speak to that. i want to point out before, we don't have a petition, we do have 12 letters of support in the packet. there were an additional 4 letters e-mailed to you. i want to say the private sponsors are cognizant of the neighbours before they started the process. they worked hard in the process to meet with neighbours. the overwhelming support shows

they had a thoughtful and successful outreach. for these reasons, there are not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. i will turn this over. >> good evening. could i get the over head, please. -- overhead, please. relative to the context, it has a very mixed character. the facade faces the open space. it provides a greater design flexibility around the guidelines. regardless, the proposed design

still takes is relevant to the context. directly adjacent, the other buildings, the two buildings effectively speak strongly to one another in shape, glass and articulation. the finish qualities and glazing. the design is modern but contextual. relative to light, and air and glazing, it is generally understood and accepted that the facade the mid-block open space in the open environment is often the most appropriate facade for -- it is necessary to bring light and air to interior spaces. this is even more the case with this property, the front facade facing a 14 foot alley. and the facade faces a sliver of open space. the existing three floor mass extending 12 feet. on floors 1, 2. the glazing on the facade facing the mid-block open space is

critical and necessary to bring natural light and air into the interior space. thank you. >> all right. thank you. public comment in support of the project sponsor? >> good evening. i am at aladdin terrace. my property is 16 feet away from the proposed project. i look out of the building. it is one of the ugliest buildings of san francisco. i don't think there will be argument. it is an atrocity. i look at every day is a massive stucco, ash, asbestos wall. it is ugly. i am thrilled that they have taken the time and the sensitivity, the more windows my

neighbour has, and i have do not conflict substantially with the windows that are proposed. i would love to be able to look at the building with those windows rather than what is there now. what they have done, it will be a beautiful addition to our neighbourhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> additional public comments. seeing none. the dr request, we have a two minute rebuttal. >> from our side, i would make three comments. the first one is i am confused why there is no -- it is heard

for the first time. they want the right representation and comment, we want to hear from both sides with the right representation there. we find it agreeable. we are looking for two things to be addressed. the excessive glazing. some kind of solution. i said earlier, they can choose -- open the windows and close the windows. i don't have a say on the other side. that is a concern. and the size of the windows. there is another way to mitigate their concern. so those are the images to support that. and i will leave it at that. >> thank you. the project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioner.

the dr request have not raised issues that have not been addressed. this is a code compliant project. no significant expansions are proposed. it is regularized at the rear. importantly, the lower unit is going from 840 square feet to 1,000 square feet. and from 1,000 to 2100. the areas east of the building will remain open space. this is an amenity, not just for the project sponsors but for the entire block. the glazing on the project is minimal. with the eastern facade allowing all the glazing... again, the amount of glazing on the property is over 100 feet from the subject property and faces a side wall. it directly faces many other neighbours which creates a loss of privacy. the entire facade has more glazing and opening than the one proposed on the project. it is compatible in a neighbourhood that is eclectic in design.

there are modern buildings with more glazing than this one in the block. including the one next door. 840 union street which is the building that the dr requester had issue with. (please stand by)

moli . >> commissioner richards: i mean, where, if you have the drive in movie screen effect. there were times before where i lived i put a flood light out because people were congregating and doing certain things on my property. i got a call from my neighbor on noe street saying oh, my god, your light is shining right on my property. i never realized it.

i think the building is hand so handsome. i think it's an addition to the area, and i can appreciate the gentleman who won aladdin terrace. i do think we should take into effect both light pollution and outdoor living rooms. i'm a bit hesitant to take d.r. on this one because of the situation of the house and where the light is and where the light would actually fall but i'm waiting to hear what some other commissioners think. >> president hillis: i think it's a well designed project. you've got some constraints there on that small lot. this is basically the back yard of this house. i agree, we see some projects -- i have -- i think

this one doesn't rival other ones we've saw. i would agree, i think it's somewhat is the same configuration if you look at the percentage of glazing in the d.r. requester's done just done in a different style and a different way, but i don't think it rises to exceptional or extraordinary. i think it's a well designed project and will be a great addition, so i would support it. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: mr. washington, since this is a code compliant project, it also includes its conformance to the california energy code, correct? >> i will say correct in that i trust on our staff architect in that he's confirmed. >> commissioner moore: with this being a code compliant project and the difference between the east facing windows and the d.r. requester being s 100 feet, i believe this is not

an exceptional and stroor circumstanstroor -- extraordinary circumstance. there are not too many people other than the people 100 feet away commenting on it. i don't find anything exceptional or extraordinary about the project, and i'm in support of it. >> president hillis: commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: i, too, don't see any extraordinary or anything in that curtains, shades, or shutters could cure, so with that, i make a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> president hillis: second. >> commissioner richards: second. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i wish you would have turned in the 3-d drawings that you put on the overhead. i spent hours struggling with

the context. maybe in the future, if you do have those, please include them in the packet. >> president hillis: very good, jonas. >> clerk: very good. there's been a motion to approve the project and not take it d.d.r. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7-0, and i believe that would be a wrap. >> president hillis: yep, our meeting's adjourned. thank you.

>> manufacturing in cities creates this perfect platform

for people to earn livelihoods and for people to create more economic prosperity. i'm kate sosa. i'm cofounder and ceo of sf made. sf made is a public private partnership in the city of san francisco to help manufacturers start, grow, and stay right here in san francisco. sf made really provides wraparound resources for manufacturers that sets us apart from other small business support organizations who provide more generalized support. everything we do has really been developed over time by listening and thinking about what manufacturer needs grow.

for example, it would be traditional things like helping them find capital, provide assistance loans, help to provide small business owners with education. we have had some great experience doing what you might call pop ups or temporary selling events, and maybe the most recent example was one that we did as part of sf made week in partnership with the city seas partnership with small business, creating a 100 company selling day right here at city hall, in partnership with mayor lee and the board of supervisors, and it was just a wonderful opportunity for many of our smaller manufacturers who may be one or two-person shop, and who don't have the wherewithal to have their own dedicated retail store to show their products and it comes back to how do we help

companies set more money into arthur businesses and develop more customers and their relationships, so that they can continue to grow and continue to stay here in san francisco. i'm amy kascel, and i'm the owner of amy kaschel san francisco. we started our line with wedding gowns, and about a year ago, we launched a ready to wear collection. san francisco's a great place to do business in terms of clientele. we have wonderful brides from all walks of life and doing really interesting things: architects, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, other like minded entrepreneurs, so really fantastic women to work with. i think it's important for them to know where their clothes are made and how they're made. >> my name is jefferson mccarly, and i'm the general manager of the mission bicycle

company. we sell bikes made here for people that ride here. essentially, we sell city bikes made for riding in urban environments. our core business really is to build bikes specifically for each individual. we care a lot about craftsmanship, we care a lot about quality, we care about good design, and people like that. when people come in, we spend a lot of time going to the design wall, and we can talk about handle bars, we can see the riding position, and we take notes all over the wall. it's a pretty fun shopping experience. paragraph. >> for me as a designer, i love the control. i can see what's going on, talk to my cutter, my

pattern maker, looking at the designs. going through the suing room, i'm looking at it, everyone on the team is kind of getting involved, is this what that drape look? is this what she's expecting, maybe if we've made a customization to a dress, which we can do because we're making everything here locally. over the last few years, we've been more technical. it's a great place to be, but you know, you have to concentrate and focus on where things are going and what the right decisions are as a small business owner. >> sometimes it's appropriate to bring in an expert to offer suggestions and guidance in coaching and counseling, and other times, we just need to talk to each other. we need to talk to other manufacturers that are facing similar problems, other people that are in the trenches, just like us,

so that i can share with them a solution that we came up with to manage our inventory, and they can share with me an idea that they had about how to overcome another problem. >> moving forward, where we see ourselves down the road, maybe five and ten years, is really looking at a business from a little bit more of a ready to wear perspective and making things that are really thoughtful and mindful, mindful of the end user, how they're going to use it, whether it's the end piece or a he hwedding gown, are they going to use it again, and incorporating that into the end collection, and so that's the direction i hear at this point. >> the reason we are so enamored with the work we do is we really do see it as a platform for changing and making the city something that

it has always been and making sure that we're sharing the opportunities that we've been blessed with economically and socially as possible, broadening that

>> this is the regular hearing for wednesday, december 19th, 2018. i would like to remind members of the public the commission does not tolerate criticism are outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off. when speaking before the commission, to state your name for the record. i will take role at this time. [roll call] >> commissioners, first on your agenda is general public comment members of the public may address the commission on items of interest for the public that are within the