fitting into a community and retail corridor at its size is extremely important and i think anybody can learn from that because we would like the cannabis retail to blend in and i'm speaking more from the european perspective like in holland you just walk down the street and it's any other store not just any particular high-profile store but just blends in and this particular application shows how to do that. >> commissioner fong. >> with that, i'd like to make a motion to approve but i stepped out for a second and would like to say thank you to nicole elliott for all her work and hopefully she made us move past this and in these to follow and i think california will benefit from her work as well. >> is that mart of the motion? -- part of the motion? >> sorry.

>> clerk: seeing nothing further there's a motion seconded to approve win conditions on the motion. so moved. commissioners the motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> we still have business here so if we can keep it down, that'd be great. >> if you can leave the room quietly, we'd appreciate it. >> commissioners this is under your discretionary review carolinas for 20a and 20b. for the property of 1794 through

1798 fillbort street and this say discretionary review and the zoning administrator will consider request for variance. >> good evening, commissioners. elizabeth here the northwest team leader on behalf of mary woods. at the november 29, 2018 hearing the commissioner continued the proposed d.r. project for a new third floor and roof deck to the existing two-story build at the subject site to allow the project sponsor to explore alternative to add an accessory dwelling unit on the ground floor beyond what was originally proposed and a plan for the tenant remaining at the site. in response to those requests the project sponsor amended the original plans to include a modification that would convert

the existing ground floor commercial space to an a.d.u. with a one-bedroom and shared dining and kitchen space. the staff reviewed the proposal and affirmed that is acceptable with waivers for density and open space through an administrative approval process by the zoning administrator per planning codes sections 207 and 307. with regard to the relocation plan for the one remaining tenant they have reached a mutually negotiated agreement with the tenant and a letter has been afforded to you by the commissioner secretary and i have a copy if you need to review it. in sum the statement states the tenant would be moved during the construction period. the moving and relocation expenses would be paid by the project sponsor. additionally, the tenant's rent would remain the same during the construction period and finally the tenant's rent would remain

the same upon returning to the rent-controlled premises when the project received a certificate of final completion and occupancy. since the previous hearing staff has received one additional letter of opposition to the project. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you very much. we'll now hear from the d.r. requester. >> we have two. >> the first. >> my name is richard sarelco. we continue to oppose the

project for the reasons stated in our d.r.a. and because the owner's amended plan plans to build four units based on his erroneous clean one unit is an accessory dwelling unit. moving the first-floor residential unit to the unoccupied commercial space does not add a dwelling unit to the existing building, therefores it not an a.d.u. within the meaning and intent of the planning code. if he wants to build the commercial space as an a.d.u. and have four units he needs retain the first floor residential unit so the space would be an additional unit. the third floor cannot be build as an a.d.u. within definition since it's not within the building envelope since the properties are in and the third floor cannot be built as a fourth unit. the owner's variance request

must also be denied. section 305 of the planning code states a variance may not be granted unless all five factors shown here are met. none of these factors are met. factors one, two and three. there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that do not apply generally to other rh3 property and it did not impose a hardship on the family whose owned it 60 years and the rear yard applies to all other rh3 properties in the district. no property owner is permitted to build in the year yard setback. the owner is asking for rights other owners do not have. factor four. the variance will be detrimental to the public welfare as it would remove affordable flou flougs -- house and replace it with high rent and no parking

and it would adversely effect the general plan making the owner's non-conforming building more non-conforming. they're asking the zoning commissioner to make non-conforming buildings in the area the benchmark for variance. the property is already a non-compliant structure and section 180 states non-compliant structure are incompatible with the purpose of the code and must be brought into compliance as soon as the parties permit. sections 172 and 188 provide a non structure may not be intensified if it creates new discrepancy and would not permit it for the zoning district and prevent the non-compliant building to be increased by constructing in addition to the

year yard area which is not permitting in the zoning district. thank you for your attention. >> thank you very much. [please stand by] .

>> under peskin's proposed merger, an expanded -- and expanded legislation, 1200 feet would be the norm. third, this private elevator, do we need legislation about private elevators? 'cause this is 505 grandview all over. let's not fool ourselves. this isn't about a.d.a. improvements, this is a social

stratification tool where new affluent tenants are going to be whisked past the old rent control tenants to the penthouse, and this isn't about improving everybody's lives. i still think the third floor expansion is way out of scale, and we should try to preserve the existing humble little unit on the ground floor. thanks. >> thank you. we will now take public comment in support of the d.r. requester. >> good evening. this project proposes adding a third floor 1800 square foot, three-bedroom penthouse with private roof deck and elevator and eliminating a small ground floor affordable unit. this isn't comparable and goes against planning code objectives. it's a loss of afford an housing in a city where we want

to preserve and protect existing housing for our tenants. commissioners, our goal, as you heard earlier today, must be to keep housing affordable and keep our residents in place. i urge you to deny the project. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is sherry schoenberg. i li i -- mer -- adding the proposed luxury third floor would change the building envelope and preclude any new unit from being an a.d.u.

an a.d.u. could only be built in the building envelope as it existed three years prior to the filing of the application. that three-year requirement is intended to prevent projects like this where the owner is seeking to avert the density limit. if the owner wants to create an a.d.u. in the vacant commercial space, he needs to retain the existing first floor residential unit because this way, he would be adding an affordable dwelling unit within the envelope allowed. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. your time is up. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. >> clerk: just put it face up.

time's running, sir. >> my name is alex wagstaff. i live at 1755 gilbert street where i've resided over 35 years. here's a picture of the existing buildings at the corner of gilbert and octavia. the residential design guidelines state that in areas with a defined visual character, the design of new buildings will be comparable with the patterns and features of the surrounding buildings. the property owner should have followed the model that's in the commission guideline, which is compatible with the patterns and arc tech right lane features of the -- architectural features of the existing surrounding building. instead, they've created a design for an existing modern

building. the commission should require that the project be redesigned to comply with the guidelines. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you very much, sir. any other public comment in support of the d.r. requesters? okay. with that, we will hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening, members of the planning commission. my name is sarah hoffman, and i'm an attorney assisting the project sponsors tonight. first of all, we would very much like to thank planning staff for all of their hard work in helping us develop a proposal to respond to the concerns raised by the planning commission at the hearing in november. and i'm going to focus on what those concerns were. so the principle concern expressed back in november 2018 war whether this project -- was whether this project would result in the relocation or rent eviction of the existing

tenant at the property, and we're very pleased to concern as staff has already concerned, an agreement that's already been entered into with the tenants at their property. the tenants will be able to stay at the property. they'll be confirmed

complies with their requirements. finally, there's been a bit of consternation tonight about the size of the property. the property owners are renovating it for their anticipated old age so they can still access the top of the unit without going up a lot of stairs and they're providing a.d.a. accessible housing should be a priority alongside all of our other housing priorities. so in terms of the some of the design issues, i'm going to hand it over to erica stevens, who was the designer on this project. >> clerk: you have 30 seconds, ma'am. >> thank you, commissioners. so i just wanted to just

highlight some of the points from my previous presentation, which is the building's 110 years old. it needs a new foundation and therefore it makes sense to add a new story at this time. it's a very small lot. it's 30 feet by 60 feet. there's a roof deck on the design which is only accessed by the top floor -- the new top floor unit because when we met with the building department they told us we would require a second stair -- >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. your time is up. >> thank you. >> president melgar: okay. do we have any public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. so you have -- no, no rebuttal. this is the second time we are hearing it. okay. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: yes.

unfortunately, the project has not yet risen for me to a level of credibility in response to the challenges we posed to the project in november. i think it is still a thinly veiled demolition, and i do not think the project contributes towards the retention of existing housing stock. to the contrary, i believe it is a project that strives to add an excessively aggressive unit on the top floor, and all amenities that this project may offer, like parking with an elevator and a roof deck, which is excessively large seem to be primarily targeted to the unit of the unit on top. i have not seen any written documentation that any agreements have been reached with the tenants, but that is neither here nor there because nothing has been added to the

package that was in front of me. and i at this moment can't and will not support the application in front of us. if i may, if there's no additional comments by any of the commissioners, i make a motion not to take d.r. and -- not to take d.r. and disapprove. >> clerk: you would need to take d.r. >> commissioner moore: i need to -- >> clerk: to disapprove? yes. >> commissioner moore: i'll take d.r. and disapprove. >> clerk: is there a second? >> commissioner richards: second. >> clerk: can i call the question? there's a motion, commissioners to take d.r. and disapprove the building permit application. on that motion --

[roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes, 4-1, with commissioner fong voting against. >> i'll close the public hearing for the variance and i will take it under consideration. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. item 21, case number 2016-009554-drp at 27 fountain street. discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners, president melgar, happy valentine's day. not included in your packet, some additional material that might be necessary to make it through the rest of the night. david winslow, staff architect.

before you is a public initiated request for a discretionary review of building permit application sts

to sky lights, and new massing will block light and air. their recommendation is to revise the third story addition to a gabled roof. to date, the department has received no letters in opposition, no letters if support of the project. our recommendation in light of the d.r. requester's concerns, the department has rereviewed the project with respect to the residential design guidelines. to do so, we requested additional graphic information

to be provided. after reviewing these, the department confirmed that the issues raised by the d.r. requesters related to light, air, and privacy are not exceptional or extraordinary. specifically, number one, through the modestly -- though the modestly sized garden unit is identified with a clear and direct identifiable entry from the street and in a manner that provides quality with respect to light and air and direct access to the rear yard, it's 19% smaller than the original unit which confirms to code 317 with respect to dwelling unit mergers. second, there's no hot tub shown on the current plans. third. the building mass is reduced along the south side by a 40 feet side stair and an interior court to mitigate blocking of light and privacy impacts to the d.r. requester to the -- i can't remember the direction -- to the west i want

to say. the second floor upper deck and balcony are modestly sized so as not to prevent unreasonable invasion to providecy. with this project staff meets the design guidelines and proposes that the d.r. is not taken as proposed. i'm here to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. winslow. we will now hear from the d.r. requester. you have two minutes, sir. -- i'm sorry. there's two d.r. requesters, again, sir, five minutes [inaudible] >> clerk: this sounds like testimony. >> president melgar: okay. go ahead. >> i was going to say good afternoon, but i guess i'll

change it to good evening. my name is lenis roukas, and this is my wife. we live next door to 27 fountain. in an effort to get in good graces with the commission, our presentation will be documented as the presentation has been extensively documented in our d.r. finding. we are objecting to the proposed project on three grounds. one, the placement of the hot tub, outdoor shower and deck on our property line and below our bedroom window. two, the merging of a two-unit building into a single-family home and significantly smaller ground floor sham unit, and lastly, we object to what we feel has been preferential

treatment of one of the project sponsors, jeremy paul, a long time permit expediter by some people in the planning and building departments, which we learned through e-mails we received by a records request. i'd like to now go into a little bit more detail. the chronology of the hot tub is as follows: the initial plans had a deck in that area. the second plan had a hot tub, outdoor shower, and deck on our property line. when we objected and while we were still in the process of discussing moving the hot tub to a different location, mr. pau paul applied to get a permit for the hot tub over the

counter obje counter, ostensibly so he could grandfather in the hot tub. before that could take, inspector duffy and james paul had a meeting, and in that meeting, inspector duffy told paul a permit wasn't required. in this e-mail dated april 10, 2017, duffy added on the deck issue i am not sure we discussed that when we had our conversation at d.b.i. last week. however, if you believe that you are exempt for a permit per planned work per sfbc building code, then that should be fine. we don't understand why when starting a blank piece of paper, the project sponsors are insisting on placing this entertainment complex which will be shared by the main house and ground floor occupants of the property line below our window.

>> president melgar: please pull up your mic so we can hear you. >> when we purchased and moved into our house in 2014, a single-family home in upper noe valley, there are two separate families living in two separate units at 2729 fountain. they had lived there by decades. currently, the lower unit is occupied by mr. paul and his family, and the upper unit by various families. because of the inequity of the size in the proposed two units, thus reducing what was equal and adequate space for two families to live and reconstructing it into two spaces of vastly unequal size, it appears the proposed construction is to circumvent merger and conversion building regulations by adding a significantly smaller unit, possibly a sham unit airbnb with recreational entertainment

features such as the hot tub, deck, etc. that will be shared by all in that home. finally, the owner, and all the associated people in the project are known flippers. and there's nothing wrong with that, but we feel that mr. paul, who is a long-term expediter has gotten things done by going through various people that he knows within the planning department. mr. -- okay. so we just want a fair shake, we want a quality of life, and we would like for you to review this project again based on what we feel has been some favoritism. in conclusion, we request that the hot tub, outdoor shower and the deck be moved to a less impactful area and the planning department reconsider the size and equity of the two proposed units. thank you for your time and consideration. >> president melgar: thank you.

>> thank you. >> president melgar: okay. do we have another d.r. requester? okay. yes. >> good evening, commissioners. i'll keep this as brief as i can. my name is chris lewis, and my wife and i -- my wife angela and i are the owners and occupiers of 33 fountain on the south side of the project. long story short, we have been working with jeremy paul, the facilitator for the project for, i don't know, the better part of maybe two years now to come to some sort of equitiable agreement. we made a lot of progress on a number of things, but we filed the d.r. because we felt that we still hadn't got there on two major issues. one of those being privacy, and the other one being light. the other has to do with the size of the deck on the second floor and the fact that anyone standing on that deck would be able to look back into our

daughter's bedroom as well as our living room. that's why we're here tonight. we tried to reach an agreement, but we reached an impasse, and so we've come to the d.r. phase, and that's it. thank you. >> president melgar: okay. do we have any public comment in support of the d.r. requesters? okay. so public comment is closed. we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. congratulations, president melgar, vice president koppel. i've been doing this on a regular basis at the planning commission for about 30 years. this is the first time i've got up on the place that i live.

i've been there with my wife for nearly four years, and my friend, rob fife owns the property, and we want to remodel the house to accommodate both his family and my future needs. the existing configuration is very problematic. this was a single-family home. this is the only home in this cluster of homes that was split into two units on this site of fountain. and as it was done, it didn't create quality housing. i'm going to have the project architect come up and walk you through what's being proposed. i wanted to tell you that we have done everything we could to have a sensitively designed project. rob and i discussed numerous

architects. we settled on sarah wilmer who is a noe valley entirely based women's firm. i think if you look carefully at the way this plan is shown, this is not maximizing any aspects of the buildable area of this property. so i'm going to run you through a couple of slides if i might. jonas, do you want to start the -- i don't think it's a new system.

okay. if we can go to the overhead, please, i don't think i'm going to get the full screen. okay. so there i am in the middle. you've got angela and chris, the greenhouse. at 33, and you've got lenis over here on this side. you can see this house extends considerably beyond where we are and considerably beyond where we intend to build. the entirety of the deck at 21 will extend beyond where our house will go at its maximum. the yellow line that you see there shows the maximum to which we will be building, and you can see the deck on the adjacent house that extends

beyond it. this is the site plan in our existing configuration. you could see the relationship of the three properties pretty well, and this, although a little bit more busy, it shows -- well, there we go. this is shot from 30 -- excuse me, 21 across our yard, and you can see the glass windows on the far side are angela and chris'. so the existing stairs that we have coming down. the plan is for me to move down stairs to the garden level, so our unit will be able to access the garden directly. the idea of there being a sham unit is completely -- it doesn't make any sense here.

she's comparing the square footage of the larger unit, which is the unit that i live in now, with the square footage of the smaller unit of the two. the upstairs unit is about 980 square feet right now. the lower unit that's being created is over 1,000, so there isn't going to be a loss of housing. what we're doing is taking a badly laid out unit that's okay for a couple but certainly not for a family and making a really good unit for a couple. and then upstairs, taking a unit that is difficult to live in by anybody but college students and turning it into family housing. so sarah, if you'll come up and walk us through some of the floor plans, sarah wilmer, thank you. >> clerk: and if i might, there's a little icon on the bottom that's slide show, i believe. in the middle.

it would be easy for us to see. you're on -- you're on presentation mode on the bottom. >> thank you. >> clerk: move over. yeah, see, so you're on that one. move over two. >> commissioner moore: up, up, into the white zone. >> clerk: there you go. >> president melgar: there. >> clerk: on slide show. >> well, we're going to go to the overhead now, anyhow. thank you. >> hello. i'm sarah wilmer. i'm the architect for the project and happy to be here to represent our client. so i thought i would take you just through the design and let's start with the facade. they are very modest proposals to the facade, trying to adhere as much as possible to the planning department to keep the urban fabric intact.

so if you slow down, we removed the two fences that enclose the lower level, and then move it up, jeremy. and then, we added a stair because the existing stair is not compliant, and then added an entrance to the existing garden unit on the right-hand side. so if you look at the site plan, that's the existing site plan, and if you zoom down -- so what we did was we kept the gabled roof at the front with kind of a traditional 15-foot set back. by flattening it, we were able to keep some useable square footage. and the number of things we did here was to -- in deference to

angela and chris' house, we did a couple of things. we did some things to the house in terms of sustainability. but it becomes a project to pull back the wall, the property line wall from 33 fountain. we did a couple of things, so scale down the massing along angela and chris' house. this is a section diagram, which shows we haven't gone up to the maximized square footage. and those orange boxes is sort of where we started with the massing in some early conversations with both neighbors at 21 and 33, and in conversations about the scale, we sort of stepped it back.

so you can see the orange is kind of what we cut out two years ago during conversations with the neighbors. so specific to kind of the edges, 21 fountain is set back from the property line. so the impact of like a one-hour wall is not as significant there, you can see from the plan -- >> take it with me. there we go. >> president melgar: yeah, there you go. >> this one here is existing wall, so we basically, on the side of 21 fountain, we matched the property line extension. we came in significantly, like

more than the -- the required 5 feet. on the other side, if you go up here, this is where we sort of stepped ba support of the proj?

okay. wow, they're not here. okay. so do we have a rebuttal from the -- come on up. >> i did want to comment about the hot tub. on the plans, it shows that area is permit exempt landscaping because of the over the counter permit was granted, it's going to be allowed to be grandfathered in. where it shows permit exempt landscaping is an outdoor shower, a hot tub, and a deck, and it's right below our bedroom window on the property line. go ahead. >> and that's the most significant problem we see with

their property in their renovation, in that he had a blank slate, and he could put this hot tub anywhere, but he chose to keep it on the property line, which is right where our bedroom is. so it's not a matter of privacy as has been stated. it really has to do with quality of life and us being able to go to bed and go to sleep and enjoy our property, the home that we bought in 2014. with a hot tub, the pump going 24-7, the noise from the shower, people congregating this, it being like a party area, so to speak, this is what we envision, and we just don't have any proof of that. we know they've been implacable since day one when we asked him not to put it below our bedroom. now we understood he took it

out of his plans -- >> there are some hijinks involved. >> bottom line is it's probably going to be there, and we're going to have to live with the noise and the congregation of the noise down there of the shower and the deck. we're concerned about our quality of life, and i guess that's all we have to say. >> president melgar: okay. thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. oh, there is -- oh, i'm sorry, there is another d.r. requester. you get two minutes, too. >> i was in public comment. i had surgery, and i had to step out to go to the bathroom. i'd like to comment. you closed it, but if i can't, i understand. >> okay. let's get the rebuttal from the second d.r. requester, and

then, you can speak. you have a two-minute rebuttal if you have any other points to make. >> no, i don't have any rebuttal. it just goes back to the comments that i already made. >> president melgar: mr. moskovic, do you have any comment? >> i know mr. paul. i've been over to his house. i wouldn't normally testify for a friend because i hate it when people standup and testify and they live 16 miles away. i live three blocks away. my daughter lives two blocks away, and my son lives two blocks away. we've lived in the neighborhood 33 years, so i think i qualify as a neighbor. i've been to his unit, it's pretty funky laid out. where he lives is not family housing. it's okay for a couple, but beyond that, it's not great housing. i know him well enough.

he think he's living here in the next ten years. this is not a sham, unless someone's told him that he's moving out. for a permit filed 30 months ago to be expedited as a favor, that's ridiculous. if that's undue, i'm sure he doesn't want it. but the building needs work. >> president melgar: okay. thank you. okay. go ahead. >> thank you, president melgar. i appreciate you letting mr. buskovic speak. if we can go to the overhead, please, go to the computer. we've diligently followed the residential design guidelines. we've met and exceeded the requests of both the neighbors and of the planning staff. i really appreciate the input we've gotten from the three different planners we've dealt with. i appreciate mr. winslow's

meeting with myself and each of the d.r. requesters in trying to work things out and make things better for everybody. i want to say about this -- the idea of my getting preferential treatment is absurd, like i said, you see this application was filed three years ago. these planners have been harder on me than they've been on any other case i've handled, believe me. the hot tub question, there is a space outside of my unit which is a natural patio, which we wish to have an outdoor shower. it's covered partially. it's adjacent to the fence. yes, deborah and lenis' house is configured such that three stories up is a bedroom. in the three-plus years we've lived there, we've never had a party. we've never had more than two other people as guests there.

that's not how we live. we're not going to start having showers because we suddenly have a hot tub and outdoor shower area. we've done everything we could. we really appreciate chris and angela as neighbors. we met with them. i was over there last night, talking with them about this. and they need the satisfaction to have gone here and heard that this really is a decent project. debra's deck projects out beyond mine. they don't look at us. >> president melgar: okay. thank you, mr. paul. >> thank you. >> president melgar: okay. with that, this public hearing is closed. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i guess i have a question for the project sponsor. could you walk us through sheet 010, please, from the second d.r. requesters issue of

privacy and light, these kind of view diagrams? the last page, this one. >> how do we -- there we go. yes, early on, a couple of years ago now, we met with angela and chris at their house, and we recorded where their sky lights were, and then, we created a section if you were standing in their space, what would you say looking out? you can see there's somebody standing at the ridge, and what they see is red. so they barely see a building,

right? when that person's looking up, they see blue sky, and they'll see that corner. that person standing back there will get the top -- i have the dimensions in here, top couple feet of the building. >> commissioner richards: okay. >> so this one is in their daughter's bathroom. so in the middle of the ridge, you see nothing. if you're standing back -- you have to imagine. i don't think you can see anything because we have since brought the roof line 14 inches by the request of the planning department. we made a kind of set back at the front so you see it less. >> commissioner richards: and there's no useable space on the roof. >> electricicorrect. >> commissioner richards: so it's not like they're going to be standing down looking at the

sky light. >> and angela most recently requested this one from the stair. you're standing at the landing at the top of the stair, you'll see just a little bit of their building. >> commissioner richards: i guess a question about the hot tub. i was at the russian river last year, and i was like why is the hot tub on? the reason you keep it on, you don't want to use the energy to heat it up. do you know what energy hot tubs run at? >> the question really needs to be about where the equipment is going to be located and whether the equipment is going to be adjacent to -- to the fence. if the equipment is going to be exposed so that a pump sound could carry as it constantly keeps it clean and warm. >> commissioner richards: sure.

where will the equipment be located? >> as you know, i frequently work with charles salter's office. he and i discussed this. we are going to have the equipment pack enclosed far from the property line. we don't want to hear the sound. that's going to be adjacent to my living space, much closer to my bed than it will be to the 3.5 stories above to our adjacent neighbor. that said, a permit is not required for a hot tub. we took a permit out for the hot tub, hoping that we would be able to vet that issue completely at the board of appeals and deal with it with debra and lennis at the board of appeals. senior inspector duffy said this permit was issued in error. the code does not require a permit for this action, and we're not going to hear this at the board of appeals. >> commissioner richards: not even for plumbing? >> no. only for electrical. if it's a closed system,

there's no permanent hookup to plumbing. it's only an electrical permit. >> commissioner richards: okay. thanks. >> president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have been wondering about the hot tub issue myself because in the packet, it seems not quite clear what's going on. we all have to admit in a dense neighborhood, it is not just the equipment itself, it's the activity of the hot tub on a cold winter night or whatever. and since the plan sort of circumvents spelling it out after reading this thick package, i'm wondering why doesn't it say landscape exempt feature instead of permanent hot tub to come to the

conclusion that there is indeed a hot tub? let's just have it on the table. that aside, i would ask miss wilmer when there is a second unit in any building, we would like the entrance to that building somewhat readable to the street and not just kind of tucked away. that is kind of the way how we look at second units in any building. and i'm wondering why you chose to put the entrance where it is. >> it's an existing condition, so it's an existing, to me, like, a service door, so we reuse the existing condition, and the effort was to create a garden sequence arrival into it, but there's a kind of level change, so like i said, we used the existing door. >> commissioner moore: you -- you may probably heard at least by reference that this commission, when it comes to the extent of renovation that

we have here, we do like more equitiable unit sizes, and we to like a second unit to more fully -- >> we could augment that articulation with, you know, like, a covered canopy and obviously some good lighting, and you know sort of play up the landscape a little more. it is really a garden unit. i think the beauty of that unit is that it's on the ground. one of the difficulty of the houses in san francisco is they're all off the ground and you aren't near the garden. this unit was going to be -- actually have -- even though it's smaller, it was going to be a beautiful unit because it did have the garden. i think we can articulate a more gardenlike, you know, entry, with a canopy and good lighting. >> commissioner moore: this would be two issues. i'm still on the fence because of the lack of clarity of the hot tub, which i think is an

issue of concern in a built up neighborhood and the clarity of the second unit would be issues i would like to have the rest of the commission comment on. >> president melgar: okay. so -- commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: i happen to like hot tubs. i think they're very healthy for people. i think it's a great way to relax in a cold climate like san francisco. as we get older, it's good for muscles, it's good for arthritis. modern hot tubs and the equipment are incredibly quiet. i think many of us grew up with noisy pumps and filtration, but a modern pump is nice and quiet. i don't have much issue with this and support the project. >> president melgar: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i'd just like to call d.r. requester number one up and ask if you -- you mentioned that you wanted the hot tub in a less impactful location, and i still feel a little confused

about that. could you just clarify that for us. where would that be? >> it's not the sound of the hot tub, it's the people congregating in the hot tub, having drinks, glass tinkling. yeah, and the shower, the outdoor shower, that's going to be noisy, as well. >> we would just like it to be in an area that is not so close to the property line, which our bedroom is on that side of the property line. so what we've requested of mr. paul is to put it in a place not -- not on the property line. could he not put it more center or a little bit back, just -- that's what we have requested, and they've been implacable. >> maybe not have the shower. >> but mainly the hot tub. it's going to be an area where people are going to congregate. like, it's cool, you get in the hot tub, you have a beer, it's clinking, we're trying to go to

sleep. >> and could i add -- >> president melgar: no, sorry. co >> come on, i like to talk. >> commissioner johnson: mr. paul, could you tried to tell us how you tried to -- to you tell us how you tried to meet your neighbor's request for quality of life around this. >> yes, commissioner johnson, i appreciate the question and the spirit in which it's asked. because i believe this is the least impactful location for it to go despite their concerns otherwise. if you'll take a look at this site plan, if we can go to the overhead, please, and i'll bring the microphone with me. we have a large garden area, all of which is very visible from the deck that is above it and projects far beyond us and from the living area here.

but tucked away here, there are no windows directly above us. it's true that three stories up is a bedroom, the master bedroom, but if we are right in here, we are someplace where in the very foggy location where we are, this is ---it's called noe valley, but it's twin peaks, as far as the weather pattern. we can go through the house without running into a storm, and having that adjacent to it means that it's less visible and less exposed to the neighbors, and we're going to do it in a way that preserves our privacy as much as theirs. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i certainly understand the impacts around congregation and noise and folks living in their back yard. i have a hot tub next to my apartment in the back yard, and it does happen that people are

out side more, and i certainly hear them more, but i cannot -- personally cannot think of a location in which there just wouldn't be impact, so i'm struggling to -- i hear those concerns, and i think it's been thoughtfully done. >> i think it's a design problem that we're prepared to solve and having it exposed out in the garden is a nonstarter for us. >> president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: mr. paul, the hot tub, how much of it is enclosed under some type of a canopy or roof? halfway? is there a stair above it? >> it wasn't originally -- there was definitely -- >> president melgar: thank you pull the mic