take in a youngster as you'd say in the industry and to just open up her office up with open arms. one thing they could say is that if you guys do take us into consideration and just take in all of the exhibits, i think that one through five that she provided all of us, that we're not doing all of these community things to get a pat on the back. we do it because we genuinely care. we are here to enliven the neighborhood and to reach out to anyone in the community that needs it. so if you could take us into consideration we'll carry that on. thank you. >> any additional public comment? thank you all. seeing none we'll close public comment. and open it up to commissioners. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: sticking with my vote similar to last time that we rarely see both anastasia and asie in support of projects like these. and they're very vocal at these

hearings, so besides that the situation wasn't perfect. i don't know that this warrants creating another vacancy. and i don't think that she's per se taking this spot from any other people that are supposedly just in line to grab it. so i'm in support of the c.u. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: miss swan, would you mind coming to the mike phon microphone there. if you have land use you would have my support. lots of things have been said to you which are circumstance to keeping our neighborhoods vital and vibrant. the question that i need to ask you is i heard that you are opening a new office reasonably close by with 7,800 square feet. and talk about that and the two locations and reasonable proximity to each other and what it means for energy and your

focus and commitment. would you speak a little bit about that. >> sure. so, you know, the reason they tried to find a space in noe valley in the first place is because i live in noe valley and i love noe valley and i own my house there and i would like to be able to walk to work. while my company has signed a lease for a bigger space to have their headquarters and different departments that are beyond residential real estate in the castro, and i think that will be a great addition to the castro and the space that it is, it doesn't mean that our team or the agents who live in noe valley who work out of our office would not be at the space anymore. so it's kind of our noe valley presence and hub and we love that neighborhood. you wouldn't see us just sitting in the castro and having an empty office. so i hope that answers your question. >> it does to a certain extent. and the second part, as you are

in real estate and observing the corridor, the numbers that have been thrown out seem to be all varying. somebody says that there's 16 vacancies and someone said that there's 13 vacancies and four are under contract and four under seismic retro-fit. can you help me to understand what the real numbers are better some. >> so there are a couple places under contract. i'm sure that you guys just heard the real foods was removing a grocery use from this space and there's three spaces that are brand new construction that they're working on inside of the envelope of that building. there are multiple other places that are under construction that are going to come on to the market. there are two places that i know that are -- have applications and for pot clubs. one is right next to i.c.a. so i don't know how well they'll fare but i don't think that you have any real guarantees there. i mean, our board works every day on developing and trying to

bring new people to noe valley but it's hard with, you know, the economic changes and amazon and things that have happened. so right now we're just trying to focus on the experiences and how to get people out to 24th street versus, you know -- we're trying to find a shoe cobbler right now. we wanted the space and a spot for a hardware store. so we have identified things that we really need there but it's been a challenge for us to get merchants and retail in there given the economic climate that we're in today. >> you answered my question, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner fong. >> commisioner fong: thank you. i think that this particular hearing added clarity in the fact that we had public comment down to one minute added to that clarity. but i am in support of the c.u. while there are an abundance of agencies on the street, at the moment services like this i think are what people bring out and whether they're clients or

services or vendors that are coming into your shop or others, they're also buying coffee and lunch and everything else. so the more folks out right now, at least in san francisco with its challenge to retail, and the more folks on the street is better and i'll support this c.u. and thank you for the exhibits and simplifying this to some degree, with the pathway to get here. and i'm sorry that you got here at this crooked route, but you're here. >> commissioner melgar. >> vice-president melgar: in that case i would like to make a motion to approve the c.u. for 3848 24th street. second. >> there's a motion to be seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner fong. and commissioner koppel. and commissioner moore and commissioner -- excuse me, commissioner moore. and so moved, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. [applause] >> thank you all. we have other items. thanks.

>> if you could -- those people departing the room could do so quietly we would appreciate that. item 14, case number 2018 2018-009178cua, 2909 webster street, conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, department staff. the item is a request for conditional use authorization to establish a retail use and to have extended hours of operation. the business, core power yoga is classified as an instructional service and would occupy a 4,000 square-foot space that was formally a restaurant. the subject project is in the union street neighborhood commercial district. core power yoga, a retail has 186 locations worldwide. requiring authorization as a former retail use under planning code section 303.1. and there's six active locations

of core power in san francisco, one at 2353lombard which is a half mile away from the project site. there's other locations in san francisco that are entitled but not yet operating. core power yoga focuses on hot yoga classes for all levels of yoga practicers. each location offers accessory retail sales of related equipment and apparel. the proposed power will allow them to expand and to serve a growing customer base. the project is requesting conditional use authorization for extended hours of operation. in the union street and the permitted hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. the following day. the project proposes to begin pat 5:30 a.m a.m. every day and closing at 11:00 p.m.. it allows for sufficient time to prep and to conduct classes prior to the traditional work day. and the project proposes minimal alterations to the facade of the building, mostly signage with small claims to the entryway. the department has received support for the project and the project sponsor conducted

community outreach and received over 150 neighbor signatures and 100 merchant signatures in support. and the marina community had supported the project. and one phone call was in opposition to the project. they thiend that it's compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. it focuses on the area that it reside 234-z and it results in a lower vacance rate and is on balance consistent with the objectives and the policies of the general plan. for these reasons the department recommends the approval of the project with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for follow-up questions. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon, with core power. nice to see you, happy new year. i'm excited to be here today to present to you a core power yoga studio that we would like to open at 2909 webster street between union and filbert.

so as you can see this is the existing building now. and we plan to refresh the exterior of the building and to add a tasteful sign in keeping with the character with the street. and the interior studio will have two yoga practice rooms -- one on each level. so this is a two level space. with a reception area, including a small space for retail. in addition there will be a lounge space on the second level and full men's and women's locker rooms with showers and full amenities. as you may know that we opened up a small studio in the marina a couple years ago and the addition of this studio really was in direct response to the overcrowding that that studio is experiencing. and it has one small practice room, a few showers, and very minimal locker space. and give the number of core power students in the area, we knew that cal hollow needed a

studio of their own. so when we began looking for a studio in this neighborhood we looked at several options and 2909 webster was clearly the right choice for us. and it was a former restaurant that had sat vacant for over two years. and our landlord had been unsuccessful in leasing the space to another restaurant tenant and was happy to sign a lease with core power. the main challenges for a restaurant in that space are mainly due to the location being off of union street as well as its size. it's quite large at 4,000 square feet. and it always has an awkward layout where the kitchen was on the second level. and anecdotally several immediate neighbors on webster told us that they were relieved to learn that a yoga studio would be moving into the neighborhood instead of a restaurant that brought smells and large amounts of trash. so it's otherwise a residential street. in addition to those words of encouragement we have submitted

to you several support petitions. one is signed by 100 local merchants and small business owners in the immediate neighborhood. and another is by 150 san francisco residents that would like to see a core power yoga studio on webster. and in addition we did work closely with the marina community association to sponsor their tree lighting ceremony which, unfortunately, had been to be cancelled due to the weather this year. so we're looking forward to doing that again. and that's all i have. i'm happy to answer any additional questions. >> thank you. we may have some. let's first open it up for public comment. i have one speaker card. alexander, but if others would like to speak, please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is alexander yuen and i represent the landlord, my

father is unable to attend today but has a letter in your package. our family has owned the property in question, and since then we have been fortunate to only have two outstanding tenants. they were both to have a space as a japanese restaurant. and one vacated the property it was a hope to fill it again with another restaurant. as i detailed in the letter, although we went through substantial efforts we were unable to find one, despite the service level interest from a number of restaurants no proposals were brought to us. however, we believe that core power is perfect for the space. and having grown up myself nearby and my parents and i still live there, as residents of the neighborhood we personally have a civic interest in the quality of any tenant going into that space. our dealings with core power so far have been nothing but professional and through this experience i would like to put forward our votes of confidence

that core power would not only be a responsible tenant but more importantly a responsible neighbor and that their presence on webster street will enhance the health and i hav vitality oe neighborhood. thank you. >> any additional comments? >> my name is david blattus and i was the property manager and leasing agent for this owner and i have been involved with this property for almost 40 years. yoshidia, the restaurant, came into 35 -- almost 30 years ago to lease the space. the building was originally designed to be a two-story office building and while it was under construction yocertain hidia came in and came up with the weird idea of building the kitchen on the second floor. and they had their own technique and their own way of doing business. and so they survived and did well with that. after they left the restaurant

transferred a couple times but it really never took off. and during the process for the last -- starting a year before the last restaurant left, so almost three years now, we have been trying to find a restaurant tenant. we looked at 40 prospective restaurants through that building and everyone looked at the kitchen and the cost of reconfiguring the building for a restaurant use and they threw up their hands and walked out on me. so having core power there as a different kind of business on that street would be i think -- is a logical thing. thank you. >> thank you. additional public comment? seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioner fong. >> commisioner fong: i am -- we approved recently another core power -- a little bit leery about that but maybe i can ask core power -- if you don't mind coming up.

maybe you can explain a little bit of your floor plans in covering san francisco and what would be the best case scenario. maybe -- sometimes when we have hospitals that have multiple locations or schools -- we ask for an i.m.p., a master plan to forecast what the impact would be. and i recognize that certain portions of san francisco are fitness havens and this is being one of them, but, like, in the next 12 to 24 months what is the ideal plan for rollout? >> so right now we're not currently actively working on abouwork anyother locations in n francisco. this would be the last studio that we would hope to open in 2019. so dubose opens on the 31st of this month and our other studio will open hopefully in may. and then beyond that, and i would say, you know, our sort of five-year plan for san francisco is that we see the potential for

probably an additional five studios. there are other markets that we're not currently in that we believe that we could well serve such as the inner sunset and the inner richmond has been something that we have been talking about. and those are the two sort of that spring to mind right away. and in addition the potentially the city center project is of interest to us where whole foods will be opening. so those are right now are the three targets, and westportal is also a neighborhood that we think that we would be welcomed in. so that is sort of -- >> thank you. as you know, i'm a fan of core power. but i want to see you guys to be successful in san francisco and san francisco to be fit generally. but there's a bit of sensitivity -- >> absolutely. >> the overimpact or overuse in certain areas.

i will be supportive of this to the landlord and hats off to your grandfather who built that building. that was a beautiful restaurant. i'm trying to scratch my head in the last five minutes, i believe that i was there for my prom date dinner and it was just arkansaarchitecturally a beautil restaurant and i'm sure that core power will do justice to that structure. so congratulations. and i don't want to see any vacancies and this is not right on union street but around the corner which is tougher to lease these around the corner spaces. but they're great spaces. if our president could make a claim that we have a crisis on our southern border i'll make a claim that we have a retail crisis in san francisco. so i don't want to see vacancies and i support this project. >> commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: we have enough eating and drinking establishments in this city so this balances it out and i make a motion to approve. >> second.

>> sighing nothing, commissioners, there's a motion to approve this matter, on that commissioner fong. and commissioner koppel, and commissioner moore, and commissioner richards and commissioner melgar. and item 15, for case 2018 2018-001936 cua 799 van necessary avenue. >> the idea before you is a request for conditional use authorization at 799 van ness avenue to establish a retail gym use on the second floor of a commercial building. and the business, with the business name yet to be determined, would occupy a 40,000 square foot space. and the subject property is located in the downtown civic center district within a commercial high density or rc-4 zoning district. it is a historic resource and within the van ness special use

district and the automotive district. the automotive district only permits new automotive uses. in the rc-4 zoning, they have retail on the first floor and below but need special authorization for the second floor and above. it's a two-story building with a basement level beneath the ground floor. the project proposes to occupy all floors with the gym use and requiring conditional use authorization pursuant to planning section 209.3. and the gym use is not a form of a retail use and it's by one up fitness north america, known by a company known as mick fit. and no expansion of the program is exposed or the expansion. as the out automotive is in the same footprint, and it's incorrectly noted as being required on the agenda. and it's considered a permitted

use pursuant to the planning code section 178. the project proposes minimal alterations to the facade of the building, with signage and the small changes to eddie street. it has three roll-up garage doors. and although the project is not utilize them in any meaningful manner. the department recommends to remove these three existing roll-up doors and installing windows or access points to increase transparency. the project has a full service accessory restaurant, alcohol included, on the second floor. the department could not find any comparable uses in san francisco as most gyms with food service do not include alcohol. while unique with the accessory use and it would activate the space and only be accessible to members of the gym and ensuring that it's an accessory use. and the project requires a transportation management or t.d.m. plan pursuant to section 169. and it requires 13 points and we'll achieve that target by

providing bicycle parking and no automobile parking and signage. the department has not received any public comment on this project. the department finds the project is necessary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as it provides use for the area that it resides in and it's on balance consistent with the objectives and the policies of the general plan. for these reasons the department recommends the approval of the project with conditions. this concludes my presentation. if you have any questions i'm available. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is amy lee and i'm here to represent the project sponsor, one of fitness group north america and its application for conditional use for the second floor gym use. and the owner's representatives, the president of one up fitness group, will also provide a brief overview of the fitness club and its programming. the owner of the property, mr. eric schmidt is also here in attendance for questions. first of all i want to thank the

planning staff for their assistance on this project. when one up fitness saw the beautiful building at 799 van ness they want to maintain the facade. there were modifications to the internal components so no changes were made to the exterior and the windows would remain. and any construction would be internal improvements and structural upgrades. all efforts were made to preserve the character defining architecturally beautiful features of this building. while we can appreciate the planning department's recommendation to remove the rolling doors on eddie street and the remaining rolling door on lark street that will not be in use we're reluctant to replace them with new windows or entrances. i might have a quick picture here. and as you can see on this photo on eddie street there's already six large floor-to-ceiling

windows on the first floor and the exterior wall has 89% visibility with 18 openings and two doors that already provide transparency along eddie street. we wanted to keep the roll-up door to not only provide a level of privacy to the gym located behind it, but also because we're trying to preserve the historical building and would prefer to not make any exterior changes on. lark street similarly, there are four large floor-to-ceiling windows and one remaining roll-up door on the level. the exterior wall has 83% visibility with four doors that provide ample transparency on the width of the building. by replacing the back roll-up door with glass or a new entrance it would impact our fire rating as well as eliminate the privacy to the functional training room that would be located behind the roll-up door. not withstanding the additional costs for replacing the doors with windows or new entrances the time for changes to the

internal space allocation, we do not want to make unnecessary changes to the historical exterior of this building. overall the building has a total of 6 of bay bays with 59 glazed openings that provide 90% total visionibility of the exterior envelope. a it the moment i'd like to pause and introduce sebastian to go over the gym and the servic services. >> hi, good afternoon, my name is sebastian schopp, the president of fitness group north america and i would like to walk through the concept for this integrated fitness center and the incidental hospitality complex. and we have several fitness club concepts. and also fitness apps. we're germany-based group which is europe's leading fitness operator with over 20 years of experience in the fitness and lifestyle industry. the club in san francisco, however, is managed by a local team and a local company. it's adapted to the san

francisco market and to fit the space. this location at 799 van ness is the only location for this brand in san francisco. the proposed 40,000 square foot health and finess club has the following workout areas and group studios and locker rooms and a spa with saunas and a pool area and beauty salon and a restaurant and a lounge. the club is managed by a general manager with several department heads such as fitness managers, and also food and beverage managers and guest experience managers. and in total we're creating 80 part and full-time jobs and the mini cooper dealership is consolidating with the b.m.w. dealership so we can hold on to the staff as well and eric schmidt is moving them to the other dealership. so we're not losing any jobs. first time that we saw the building we did actually fall in love with it. i'm from germany myself and coming to san francisco this building resembles san francisco to me. it's nice loft windows and very

industrial looking and we like it for the central location and the historical appearance. so that's why we propose no change toss the outside of the building. the interior design and all of the furnishings on the inside will embrace the character and to help us with this task we have actually engaged a san francisco-based design firm to help us to get the product on point for the san francisco market. and we also believe that it complies with the objectives and the policies of the van ness special use district by making it a central location. all in all we're excited about moving into the neighborhood and also creating a neighborhood with a use for the community. we would like to have this fitness club and we have a social element and you go and you do your work and you get out but there's nothing wrong with a beer after a workout. thank you. >> i'm not sure that if the commission was made aware but yesterday marilyn morgan of the council anded us to continue

this hearing today. despite our efforts and the council could not accommodate having us to present the project to them, we were able to -- we were initially set to go to them january 8th and they had to cansle and we didn't hear feedback and we're now scheduled for a meeting on february 12t february 12th. i intoeck to her today and given they had no issue with the project they are no longer asking us to delay this hearing. we'll continue to meet and work with them on their questions for this project. and supervisor brown's office and i also spoke and i confirmed our commitment to meet together and to spntd t respond to questt the council may have. they may want to have a plaque to memorialize the previous use as an auto dealership and we're happy to do so. to be clear the car dealership was already vacating. and no jobs were lost. while not required, we also reached out to the neighborhood nearby businesses and residents and we have letters of support

and signatures as well. they are all eager as we are to open up our gym and to perhaps clean up the alley streets now full of garbage and human waste and homeless encampments. the first of many applications were submitted on february 8, 2018. and this project is not seeking to make and changes to the exterior building and its gym is a permitted use for the first and basement floors in this zoning special use designation. as a result this project -- sorry -- this project is already beyond schedule and it's taken over 11 months to get approval for just the second floor use. it still needs review by other departments and we hope that this will -- this commission will move this forward today so we can be business friendly and we respectfully request that we do not have to make the changes with the conditions today in terms of making the remaining roll-up doors glass material. thank you so much. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> any public comment on this

item? seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: could you please explain why you are describing -- particularly the second floor -- while the building is goodbye t going to e operating as a gym on all floors, why is the second floor mentioned by miss lee and as well as by you? we are approving the c.u. for the entire building for use as a gym, is that correct? >> the conditional use authorization is required for retail on the second floor. so a gym on the first floor and the basement would not come to you guys. because they're occupying -- proposing to occupy the whole building they have to get the conditional use specifically for the second floor. >> commissioner moore: glad to hear that. my question is, has -- somebody from heritage called and asked

they have not been contacted and not been asked and, obviously, nobody is here and i would actually share a concern that removing the roll-up doors creates a change to the building that i personally feel would be detracting from its consistency within the district. but i would like some comment from the historic preservation to look at that and if those doors are not used, what else are we seeing other than people who are practicing yoga if you walk over the length of the door there will be yoga practitioners -- or gym people on the one side and the next side. so we're not losing anything by leaving those doors. could you comment on that plea please? >> i can comment on that. elizabeth jontier, northwest team leader and a preservation planner.

so we had staff look at this, specifically those doors in that area. and preservation staff was comfortable allowing the doors to remain. when we did take a look at it from an overall design perspective and activating that street, there was a recommendation to demonstrate where the roll-up doors were and that the area itself, the opening, would still be reflective of the historic character. but, again, preservation staff did look at this, and evaluated that the doors could remain and be compliant with the standards. jackson sinc>> commissioner moon gyms are open and fully limit up anyway, i think that leaving it as roll-up doors would create more variety on walking down this alley. i personally would support leaving of the doors.

my general comment is this application is -- i think that it was a little bit thin. there was no description of the business model that is underlining this project. there was not any real calling out if there would be a lifestyle restaurant and have a beer afterwards... i do think that all of those things are really necessary for us to give a fair look at what is being proposed. the plans for the gym layout are less than spectacular. i happen to belong to a large san francisco gym which has been around for a long time and operates in an historic building and in multiple other locations. and their interiors are far more exciting than what is the plans that are not particularly well presented to make that a selling point of why i would support it. i'm just saying that a bit of

tongue-in-cheek and what i'm trying to convey here is that the submittal is very thin. and including mentioning the name of the entity who was behind it which we heard for the first time today. so if i could use that as an encouragement for the department to perhaps hold a project one week longer if you don't have the material or you have it and disclose it to us that allow us to google and go into some background research on our own and to support something. i have one question of what we doing about parking? these types of gyms and these types of locations will not just be frequented by people who live nearby, but they will be frequented for people who are most likely driving to work and stopping by and needing a parking place. what are we doing about this? >> i would simply remind us all that we just removed -- you just

voted to eliminate minimum parking requirements city-wide and i think that in general we believe that this is a transit corridor, this is a bus rapid transit corridor and i think that it's a good thing they're not providing parking. >> you're correct. but ultimately we're creating a parking crunch around the corner and there are obviously parking resources in the area. i happen to know belonging to the gym they described that parking early in the morning or at night is at a premium because at night people do not take the bus to go to the gym. they are mostly drivers in their own car and the same on weekends when you hop in your car at 5:00 in the morning and try to find a parking space. and you're going to the class. i'm just pointing that out. there will be additional competition for parking in that area and that is just the reality of where we are. with b.r.t. being more than a year behind, which would perhaps

be a way of getting there, and going down van ness is one of the biggest challenges that you ever encountered. i happen to live on a bus line that could get me from my home to city hall, but 35 minutes or 40 minutes to do so, i say, forget it. i'm just trying to create a little bit of a slice of reality of where that location is, what it tries to do, tries to do the right thing, and i think that it's a good animator but there are a couple of additional questions that i think that leave it a little bit limping. >> commissioner melgar. >> vice-president melgar: thank you. so i support this project. it's a conditional use authorization and i on the whole support changing from, you know, a car dealership in the long scheme of things. i'd rather have people to be healthy than to add to global warming and our climate crisis.

even though minis are pretty good for that. you know, i like it that it's going to be respectful, that this really beautiful building and it's an iconic building for san francisco. i do believe that eventually, you know, that the transit will work on van ness. and, you know, this is temporary, but the use is much longer so i totally support this project. and thank you for being respectful of the architecture of the building upon. >> i'm supportive for many of the same reasons and i think that it's odd to put a plaque on here to talk about the car dealership. but, i'm in supportive of keeping the roll-up doors and i think they talk back to that as an auto use more than a plaque would. so i'm fine with the project and i think that it's a good re-used and it will keep as commissioner moore said the roll-up doors intact. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: when

people take over this building they are building in obligations for proper maintenance of windows and materials when you move forward. so the windows fail five years from now, and the current occupant would be obligated to execute any restoration of when those windows to the standards that come with representing historic buildings, correct? >> yeah. yes. this is a resource. it's a category a building. so any renovations, rehabilitations would have to comply with the standards and to be reviewed under those criteria. >> is that something that needs to be expressed in our motion or is that standardly a condition when you move into something like this? >> it's a standard practice. >> okay. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i move to approve. >> second. >> we're doing that with the

roll-up doors intact? >> yes. >> is that okay, commissioner fong? >> yes. >> okay. very good then, commissioners on that motion to approve this matter with conditions, allowing the roll-up doors to remain, commissioner fox. and commissioner koppel. and commissioner moore. commissioner richards and commissioner melgar and president hillis. so moved. commissioners it passes unanimous 6-0. item 16 under your review calendar, and placing this for case 2017-012929 dinner rp. 830olmstead street. discretionary review. >> david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for a review of the application 2018.11 --.01112, to construct a two-story addition that extends

to the rear of a three-story family dwelling and maintains the existing side and setbacks and roof form of the existing building. this building is a historic resource category c. and the d.r. request is julie kelnar of 142 peralta, is concerned with three issues. the first is that the scale of the mid-block open space is not compatible with the surrounding properties. and number two, that the building is not articulated to minimize the impacts to light and air to the adjacent properties. and, third, that the privacy to the proposed side windows of the addition. and the d.r. requester had proposed changes that includes providing a 12-foot upper floor setback and reducing the overall length of the addition by five feet. and public comment to date, the

department has received a letter from the review board in support of the d.r. request. and the letter also takes exception with the failure of the property sponsor to engage with the east slope design review process. and i have that letter, a copy of that letter for your reference if you so desire. it was received to me just yesterday. the recommendation in light of the d.r. requestor's concerns is that we review with respect to residential design guidelines and the bernal heights e-slope design guidelines and we found that the extent of the rear additions approximately the depth of the two adjacent neighbors which are two-story buildings. and it's comparable in scale and massing and, therefore, maintains the mid-block open space pattern. and the existing side setback to the north is also maintained which provides further physical

and visual buffer to the d.r. requestor's property. and the additions articulated by maintaining this seven-foot three-inch side setback to the d.r. property so as to not create any impacts to light or air or privacy. and furthermore, the bernal east slope building guidelines were reducing the rear massing, and closer inspection that isn't -- that was intended for downsloping lots. since this is not a downsloping lot this guideline does not apply. the project meets the department standards and guidelines and recommends that the commission not take the d.r. approve as proposed. it does not have exceptional or extraordinary conditions. i would be happy to answer questions. >> d.r. requestor? >> i'm the d.r. requestor and i

live at 114 peralta avenue. i believe that this project to be out of scale with its neighboring buildings, thereby, conflicting with the residential -- >> will you pull the mike towards you. >> they design the height and depth of the building to be compatible with the mid block open space and i don't believe that is the case. the project description in what i found online, the d.r. abbreviated analysis that you might have in front of you, says it's a two-store horizontal addition. i think that it was just stated that it's actually a three-story addition and not a two-story addition and i want to make that clear. the subject property, unlike most on the block is three stores above grade and the addition spans all three stores. and the rest of the block is three stories, and others below grade at the rear. so it's already a story taller if most, if not all houses on

the block. and regarding building depth in the residential design team review findings it says that the incident of the additions approximately the average depth of the two adjacent buildings. the adjacent building to the west is i believe -- it looks like two buildings butted up against each other. i don't know if that matters but the lot effectively contains three buildings overall with very little open space. and i'm pretty sure if it's not meeting the current code and it could not be built today. most importantly the combined depth of those two front buildings that is being treated as one is an anomaly on the block in terms of depth. my building which is 10 feet less, is the deepest i believe on the block as far as i know. so the average depth of the adjacent properties is based on a structure that is by far the longest on the block and not to code. and the longest one that is to code. in summary, the property is already a story taller if most,

if not all buildings on the block. this would make it the deepest building on the block with one exception that doesn't meet the current code with setbacks and open space. and being the tallest on the block and the deepest on the block and without any vertical setback on a block with plenty of vertical setback it will be bulky and out of scale with its neighbors. they didn't respond to this issue of scale which is my concern. i don't know if they visited the site but the plans don't contain the heights of neighboring buildings. without that information it would be difficult to assess real titch scale. and since they may have thought that it was a two-story addition rather than three-story they may not have been properly informed. we would like to see a rear offset that is consistent with the existing buildings on the block and would reduce bulk and the overall depth of the building. a at minimum i think that this project should be considered more closely by the planning department before proceeding.

finally, i feel compelled to say they would have liked the opportunity to discuss these issues more openly at a community review board meeting that i was deprived of that opportunity and i don't think that is fair. thank you very much for your time. >> okay, thank you. any public comment in support of this the d.r. request? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ann botwell and i represent the review design board. the board supports 144 peralta. the fact that it falls within the east slope d.r. review, the plans for renovating this property never came before us. we have since addressed this failure in communication with the planning and we hope to avoid the situation again. though we can't claim that the neighborhood meeting would have avertded the neighbor's decision to apply for a d.r., often in

the past we have been able to mediate between the sponsors and the neighbors to bring about compromises in plans and expectations on both sides and to move projects forward rather than to retard them as this one has done. there's three points to counter. first, the east slope guidelines are not restricted to downsloping lots. this is a misinterpretation of the guidelines. and it's a question that we address at our reviews, regardless of the slope or the lack of slope. and second, maintaining the setback adjacent to the requestor's property is more to maintain access to the separate unit in the back of the lot. so that isn't really such a give back. and the height and the length of the overall diagnose will impact light and air and privacy of the requestor's property. and the west wall of the structure would present an unarticulated solid wall at the property line and block light and air to the building at 146 peralta. and the lack of any step down in the back of the 20-foot area is

not in character with the building and the size of the lot should not be used as a rationale for how intrusive or incompatible with neighbors that a building can be. thank you. >> any additional public comments as part of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor. >> hi, my name is gregory smith, i'm the architect proposing this addition. i'm not sure who the representative was from the review district but i contacted terry milna who is listed on the planning website as the member to contact for that district. and i contacted her twice by telephone. even after the d.r. was requested i asked them if the east slope group would like to review it, they declined. they've been notified twice in

the official notifications. so i'm not sure what this is now. so we did contact the east slope group. second of all, the contention that the down slope lot contention in the -- in the east slope design group guidelines about a setback on the third floor -- it's specifically says that the intent is to not shave down slope lots. now that would mean that if a lot slopes to the side of the building that your building would not cast a shadow on the reariard of the adjacent building down slope.

>> we really did our best to try to stick with that. thank you. >> thank you. my public comment in support of the project? seeing none. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttle.

>> regarding the setback -- >> regarding the setback for dowdown slope be lots, i'm not e to speak for the guidelines but the interpretation that i have is that it speaks to slopes as an example for the reason to avoiding massing with set backs. in the summary, at the end of the guidelines, where it lists in summary, it states that requirement that i think the final 10 feet of the building has a vertical offset that is stated without any references to slopes. using that slope example as the sole rationale is the interpretation of the viewpoint. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor. you have a two-minute rebuttle,

if you'd like. >> again, i'm not sure that there's anything to add. the planning department reviewed the east slope design guidelines as their part of the planning code. the east slope group had the information you have. they declined to accept this project, which they were notified officially up and and unofficially. by not agreeing to take it up, tech said that they had no observations tobjections to it. it seems to have come to the same conclusion that we are well within what is allowed. thank you. >> thank you. that will close this portion of the hearing. open it up to commissioner comments and questions. >> i have looked at the plans.

they have an unusual way of annotating plans that reminds me of my own past. i have not seen anything exceptional and extraordinary about this particular addition. i believe that the push-back and interpretation are coming from planning is exactly what has shaped the project so that we do not need to take d.r. and can approve it. i would make a motion to not take d.r. and to approve. i'm curious what the other commissioners have to say. >> i would agree. we're not saying that there's no impact to the d.r. filer in the neighbor. there is one. someone builds back like that. i think, you know, given the side setback and how the project is built here, it's not anything extraordinary and i would agree with the motion and second it. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing nothing further there's a motion that has been seconds to

not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> ok. and we're adjourned. thank you. happy new year.

>> i lived in the mission neighborhood for seven years and

before that the excel see your district. 20 years a resident of the city and county of san francisco. i am the executive director of a local art space nonprofit that showcases work that relate to the latino community and i have been in this building for seven years and some of my neighbors have been here 30 year. we were notified from the landlord he was going to sell the building. when we realized it was happening it was no longer a thought for the landlord and i sort of had a moment of panic. i heard about the small sites program through my work with the

mission economic agency and at met with folks from the mayor's housing program because they wanted to utilize the program. we are dealing with families with different needs and capacities. conversations were had early in the morning because that is the only time that all the tenants were in the building and finally when we realized that meda did have the resources to buy the building we went on a letter writing campaign to the landlord and said to him we understand you want to sell your building, we understand what you are asking for and you are entitled to it, it's your land, but please work with us. what i love about ber nell height it represents the diversity that made me fall in love with san francisco.

we have a lot of mom and pop shops and you can get all your resources within walking distance. my favorite air area of my homes my little small patio where i can start my morning and have my coffee an is a sweet spot for me and i

>> welcome everyone. my name is david cook. i am the president of the board of the directors of the episcopal community services. is my privilege to thank you all for being here on this wet but very important day as we inaugurate the bryant street navigation center. i wanted to take a minute to give a special welcome to our distinguished roster of guest speakers will be hearing from in a few minutes. the mayor is here, filled tagging tag tony tried various, and rebecca from google. i would also like to welcome leaders and staff of the department of homelessness and supportive housing, here. i would also like to welcome all our other partners and friends and members of the press who are covering these issues so diligently. a special welcome to the board members and staff