some felt that this was an intrusion, even an attack upon the quiet serenity of our rural community. the plans were revised sensitively to fit in and be compatible with our neighborhood as of now, it seems like a very commendable project. sensitively rearranged, and something that would fit in, and as of now, bernal depends on this commission to be able to keep gentrification north of army street for us. i would like to salute one of the achievements of a past commission that encouraged and promoted the building of a scale model of the city at 100 inches

to a foot, 1 foot to 100 inches. the model was built in 1938, and now sections of it are presented at our branch libraries. it is wonderful to see if you are a san franciscan. i would like to thank the workers who have worked on it so long, and advise all to visit a neighborhood library, and see the section of that neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, my name is marti. i lived in cortland for 40 years we are a sleepy little village, but we are very progressive. i would like to present to you,

and i have sent you some pictures and so forth. here are over 200 signatures. i have not done this in 20 years. standing up there and talking to my neighbors. in fact, i have to say honestly, there are two signatures that are in middle school people. one of them is here. she said to, her mama didn't sign it, but she said, i would like to sign it. and i said you have to understand the issue. she understood the issue, she signed it. my neighbor is on their too. he saw me, and he said, what are you doing, and i said i am concerned about the heights of the buildings that are being allowed. so theo signed it. so you have two young people signing it, and 200 plus others. the petition is basically speaking to height. the proposed buildings are not going to be affordable. in fact, there will be three

rentals, condominiums, the neighborhood is changing. i live on a street where the houses go for a million dollars. and in -- then a million dollars is put in them. yes may need affordable housing. soon you will be guessing and asking for a permit for four stories. one of the pictures that this gentleman showed of the building, he showed you a three-story one. that business has been closed now for over a year, because the rentals are so extravagant. i show you this picture, which i believe some of you have. >> can you take the microphone with you, please. >> i wish i had said to you, please get in a van and come to our neighborhood. you can still do that for these other permits. to go into progressive grounds. if you sit in progressive grounds of the cup of coffee and the chronicle, they -- there is

a building across the way, and it is not owned by the insurance company, but it will be going up three or four. he will sit in there even with three, and you won't see the sky, you will not see the moon. the bicycle shop on the end of this picture, it is a lovely, sweet victorian. they didn't tear it down and go up, it is a business, and it is a wonderful business, and they kept the character of our community. i wanted to say in closing, we have many, many one-story buildings. we have two story buildings, we have a few three-story buildings. the petition basically speaks to height. two stories up are quite enough, and we have a lot of one-story buildings. once you start giving three, once you start giving four, one last picture, the bank of america. i don't know who owns that

building. >> thank you very much, your time is up. >> one-story building, if it goes up three, which it will, you will not be affordable housing. >> thank you very much. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is bobby, i am a 33 year resident of bernal heights, and i've said on a couple -- i've sat on a couple of community engagement boards. here are some of the people who are concerned as they did not get to make it to some of the meetings.

we have that to control. that cannot be said that traffic would be okay at bernal heights. cortland is a 28 year -- way street that runs through the heart of bernal. the streets are very narrow. they go and impact traffic -- traffic from bayshore to admission. so they will be impacted. i would like to comment on the general request that bernal is a neighborhood that is frozen in time. it is an old neighborhood, but they have a lot of class and a lot of integrity, and the projects they plan to do at 432 -- i think the last design was improved with the backend recess so the neighbors will get light and stuff, but i go along with the light on the front of it.

if it is going to be the first project coming in, to come down cortland avenue, give us something that we can take when the next project comes in. look at this. that is all we are saying. and we don't want to trade small business business for housing or vice versa, because we need them both. we will have to work that out. we have to get work on that, and we will come out. let's do everything right, you know, let's make some of the people happy, because they have been given a bad deal and some of the projects that have been coming in lately. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is herb, i have lived

in bernal for 35 years. i am active for the local community engagement committee, as well as upper folsom street neighbors in the community. i would like to speak to two different things. one is a rendering, which i don't want to pass around, because it is too big, and i have the p.d.f. on the rendering too late, but there is an architect, a local architect and neighbor who did that drawing to address many of the concerns that have been brought by the neighbors who are concerned about various issues on this project, which aren't addressed by the current architect. all lee is saying is there are ways to address that concern, and if there was enough time, in the process was different, he could have done that. i want to put my ore in the

water for my neighbor. the other or i want to put in the water is for planning. what has happened here is that bernal hill and cortlandt street specifically does not have a design review board such as we have at the east slope where i live, and that review board is functioning because it brings together, as all the stakeholders in the community, to look at various concerns. and there are planning staff that have been involved with the design review board in the past. this planning staff that have been involved with the east slope design review board currently. i know that they are meeting on developing appropriate language for a way as for the design review board to participate even further in giving their views on current designs that are proposed.

i would hope --dash the cortlandt street area would develop a similar design review board. there certainly is a need for coordinated planning on a hill wide basis, and cortlandt street would be a great start. it is a really good thing that so many people are talking in the east slope with members of the planning department. let's extend that process. let's take that process to cortlandt street and other parts of the neighborhood. there is more than one property on the street available and ready for development. we need to stop piecemeal planning development. we need to stop unplanned and irresponsible development. we have the tools, the talent, and the models. let's get going. thank you very much, commissioners. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> what i am handing in is part of your record, but i want to make sure you find it. i'm going through the c.u. resolution because what you are -- it is what you are asked to vote on. page 2 talks about -- it doesn't mention there is a really steep drop-off from the cortland street side to the north of the lot. really steep. it is not ever discussed in the staff report or in the resolution. it is public outreach. there is a page of public outreach in here, two pages. it wasn't done until the notice was put up for the hearing on

christmas. the notice was put up on november 30th for a hearing for december 20th, and it was an area that has a lot of merchants that were doing christmas business. they are supposed to get informed about the project over christmas? secondly, the outreach is what you are getting. just look at the dates. the dates are pretty terrible. page 5 of your motion, residential demolition. i don't even know. they plunk in a discussion of north of market residential his. the staff does too much cut and paste from previous resolutions. that just charge me. what are they talking about with north america here? page 6 of your resolution, it talks about, we don't understand

rent control, the rent or it can figure it out. this is an issue of expanding residential in an area that has a lot of rent-controlled housing, and going on to, i am basically talking about the c.u. conditions at the end. people were unable to come today, like lester and karen who run a good life, which is a grocery store. it is two units down from this place. karen raised the issue of demolition and construction. there is going to be massive dislocation of rats, and they will go to the grocery store. so what we raised at the hearing is the meeting that we had, it was a necessitous door his necessity to have a real plan for construction and demolition that doesn't wipe out the retail, it doesn't wipe out the

grocery store, doesn't wipe out all the people on the south side of the street. it is not about housing. it is about eliminating retail by two years of construction and demolition, which will condemn them to death. this has been a weak point for the mission. they did not do a good job. they never thought about that. they never thought about the effects. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i am the daughter of the people who -- the family that purchased the building. we just really wanted to -- >> i'm sorry, you are with the project sponsor. >> yeah, oh, i can't. >> it was supposed to be at the beginning when they did a presentation. thank you.

though we may have questions for you. any other public comment on this item? okay, with that, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> pass. >> okay. commissioner johnson? >> thank you. thank you for all the community members who came and spoke. i also hope that the little cat that is living in that property finds a home, a new home. i think one of the things that i was reviewing -- when i was reviewing this, it gave me a little pause. it was the design of this. actually, i know the corridor really well, and have spent a lot of time in the corridor, and i find the design to be -- i know you worked with the neighbors, but we heard from the

neighbors again and again that while they generally are supportive of the project, there are some concerns throughout the design and how it fits into the neighborhood. can you talk a little bit about how you came to this design, and your willingness to work with the neighbors and the department on it? >> yes, certainly. >> and i am particularly talking about the front. >> of course,. i think that it almost gets into a ideological debate about when you are building for today, should look like today, or should it look like yesterday, i and i don't want to get too deep into the weeds on that one, i know people can feel very strongly in both directions. what we have tried to do is approach it almost as a clean slate, and take cortland avenue,

and what we think is valuable about it, a little bit on his own terms without prejudgement concerning style and so forth, or materials or anything. and what we see is when we go up and down the four or five blocks that are central to cortland avenue, we see a lot of different things. we see a pretty significant mix. we have older buildings which have remained intact, we see buildings like our neighbor at 430 cortland, where we look at historic photos. it was once a beautiful building we see the grocery store two doors down, which is a big stucco block. what do we try to capture while we try to capture what is a valuable to make it successful for the people who are living there, we think it is a maximum transparency storefront that also has a nod to the other successful merchants in the area

it gives a recesses that we see at other locations, or many successful storefronts around the city, then we understand that although there are three, and even four-story buildings in the five or six block general area, this is really the center, and we understand that. we tried to say, okay, if we are going to introduce housing that is not just a gesture to a housing, studio housing, that is real housing and a family could reasonably live there, what can we do to mitigate that? is still feels like it is two stories tall. what kind of want to have our cake and eat it too. >> thank you, got it. i understand how you try to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods and neighborhood character and the mix of design, and i think i would love to see an improvement in materials and

making it warmer, and i think maybe picking up stronger articulations of some of the neighborhoods, and i generally supportive of the project, but if we are to move forward, i would like to see you work a little bit more with staff and potentially the neighbors behind the design. >> like i said in my comments, this is -- we will continue to work with neighbors. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore clasping at commissioner richards is still on. >> commissioner richards? >> interesting -- okay, sorry. we have a mix up on the roster. interestingly enough, i have been going to cortland street

since liberty café was there. i wish they were still there. it does feel like a village. twenty-fourth street feels like a village, and i think any project come again, you are right, there was a mismatch of architectural streets. i go up cortland all the time. i will stop in with the upper trader and get coffee at the place across the street. i think, i just wrote myself a note because i passed over a long article in the new york times about somebody writing, i don't know where i am not in america, because everything is looking the same. these creamy, stucco boxes, and i really thank you could really have a project that not only blends in, but it is additive to the neighbor, and the neighborhood street, at it has a little bit more, i don't want to

say ornamentation, but something that's slightly more traditional, perhaps on the ground floor, it is wood siding, i mean, i don't want to create something that looks funky, with something that blends in a little more. they there were 12 other examples that you showed us that were on the street. i gasped when i looked at those big if that's what cortland street will look like in the future, it will look like everywhere else in the u.s., cheaply done. i really want to have additional design. i really want to make sure that there is a construction impact mitigation plan because businesses are fragile, and any type -- my neighborhood, the castro when they did the sidewalk walking -- whitening, we were walking on plywood for a year or two, and half the businesses, they suffered and some of them went out of business. a robust construction impact, and i am working with the neighbors on the hours for it to be -- to be a good neighbor.

the other question is, the stair penthouse, is not required by the building code? that is something i see right away when i look at all the 3d models. can we do something a little less than that?

can convince them, we would be very happy to do it, in fact. that also speaks to your question. we made the minimum code compliant staircase. >> you put it in the place. >> we tried on to make it as unas summing as it could. >> i have construction impact concerns and design concerns. this is the future of cortland street. it is a 45-foot height story. if question is on the storefront

survey done did the coffee shop and the buildings rate so we can't have them demolished, category a? some of them look pretty original. >> i know we surveyed the neighborhood commercial corridors. our staff would have specifically looked at this issue. >> to the members of the public concerned about the coffee shop, look online at the storefront commercial survey, you can see what was rated category a. we just heard wild side west is a, that won't happen to wild side west. this is a c structure. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i believe that the commercial corridor of courtland does not have any residential roof decks, which

makes this building even try to attract more attention than it already tries to do. my comment is that the third unit, the largest unit on top is asking for private roof deck, not building wide, since they are not asking for variance on the rear yard, the rear yard should be sufficient to serve all three units. my own idea would be to ask that there is no roof deck because it is completely alien to the character of the commercial corridor. i would agree with your concerns about architecture, i believe the architecture is trying to attract a little bit more attention thanness, partially because it tries to distinguish itself. i believe it is fine to look for the architectural distinction in order not to look imitating

something, i think this building could be far more toned down and not try to be an video sign building, blend in a more understated way. i think the bay window is, for me, actually retro. it is kind of like da does not speak to what we currently do. i would just like my fellow commissioners ask the architect work with the department to create a more blended building. i would also suggest we take a very close look at the roof deck including the penthouse because that is so a typical for this corridor i can't support it. that is where we are starting to change the corridor in a manner we will not recognize it at all in the years to come.

there is something making it completely different, and in this particular case a third floor unit with a private roof deck just isn't part of that. i suggest that what do we do? we agree the condition that the roof deck and penthouse be eliminated and that the building itself goes to a stronger discussion with the department about a more blended toned down treatment of façade and window. that is a motion. >> second. >> go ahead, commissioner. >> i looked at the back here. each unit except for the middle, the second one, has decks. i agree with commissioner moore, eliminating the roof deck i didn't see that. would would get rid of the penthouse issue. i support that with the construction plan working with

neighbors to try to minimize impacts and work with staff on a toned down design. >> commissioner johnson: i appreciate the comments and i understand the surrounding community does not have that right now, and at the same time looking at the audience and hearing comments from neighbors who came out utto weigh in on this not hearing concerns about that aspect of the design just gives me pause. i would be curious what other people think if we should move that amendment forward. >> i am not supportive of this project as it is right now, not that i am ready to vote against it. i think that, you know, i lived in this neighborhood for many years. wendy, i miss you as my neighbor. i think there is magic in bernal

in the build environment. it is the wild wild west is a great name for that bar because, you know, people for hundreds of years have actually added things to their buildings. it is a very eclectic mishmash of forms but it works, you know, everything is built right against one another, but both the architecture of the neighborhood and its people are eclectic and vibrant and wonderful. when i hear folks talk about not building for the past, it bums me out because i think that the history of bernal is special. i remember when i moved in there it was still peoples republic of bernal heights. they are people. you know, when i see a building designed like this one, i do

fear for the future of bernal, for the commercial corridor and the entirety of the neighborhood. i hear you about there are pressures in terms of housing and the changes in retail. we in this commission have to respond to the changes. i do want to create circumstances where we can go higher on the commercial corridor and make room for housing. i think that will be good for the commercial corridor because we need more folks to be able to spend money to keep the businesses on the corridor afloat. however, it needs to be bun sensitively -- to be done sensitively and thoughtfully and to respect the character of the architecture and the people in the neighborhood. i don't see that in the projected right now. i don't see it in the design and

in terms of the mitigation of the construction. that cortland is not only a really vibrant commercial corridor but the thoroughfare between mission street and bayshore. whenever there is an obstruction, like a small one people are picking up kids at library. there is a traffic backup all the way to pay shore sometimes. i think that will have an effect on all of the other retail businesses in the corridor, and it worries me i don't see construction mitigation plan. there is something that mitigates that. those are my comments. i didn't have a question. it was just a comment. others might. >> commissioner hillis: thank you all for coming. we don't see a ton of projects

additions to existing homes or structures that we see. i think it is refreshing to see the project that adds unit goes to the commercial corridor. it is a special place. i don't think it is the bittenvironment. -- the environment. it is the people and types of uses that are there that make it interesting and special. i like the fact that this is not a developer coming here to ask for the project but something with roots in the community. i agree with the comments on the design. i think it was a little bland. you are responding to comments that neighbors have in getting the project that can get by but could be a little more, i don't particularly like that distinction between the difference between the upper and bottom floors. i think that can be worked out.

i like that we are adding unit goes to cortland and this neighborhood, especially without parking. they are decent sized units, not overly large. i had questions about the penthouse. i am glad that is removed. i agree with the motion to look at the design and work with the staff to make that front of that building more interesting and add a mitigation plan for the construction. i think other than that it works. i would be supportive. >> did you have something to add? >> commissioners i want to kind of allay your fears regarding the outreach the sponsor is doing with the neighbors and the agreements they outlined relative to construction and construction impacts. staff has input the condition we

can put that are under the purview of the commission. there was a whole series of other items dealing without reach with sfmta and other agencies we couldn't put in your specific motion that we know the architect and community members have been under discussion with. from what i understand you are entering into a private m.o.u. that will basically outline what those steps are and plans are relative to the project. on that end, you know, i think there is agreement and alignment with a lot of the community groups and neighbors on potential impacts of the project to the community. we definitely hear you on the design piece, and i am confident with our staff architects we can come up with something that provides better articulation, particularly on the materials and looking at adding secondary

details to the façade to add that depth of layer currently lacking. >> commissioner moore. did your motion include adding construction impact mitigation plan? >> commissioner moore: yes, it does. >> there is a motion and second to approve the project with conditions to include working with staff on façade design, adding mitigation plan and removing roof deck and penthouse stair. (roll call). >> so moved commissioners that motion passes 6-1 with commission president melgar voting against. that places you on item 14. record number 2017-013537 c.u.a.

at 233 san carlos street conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department staff. the project before you is conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 233 san carlos street. it is pursuant to code sections 20 the .4 and 303 to demolish is residence and construct a new are dense. it include -- new residence. iit is a single family resident and construction of 40-foot tall, 750 square foot residential unit. four bedroom unit of 3,000 square feet and one bedroom unit

of 720,000 square feet. the department has received a few phone calls about the project which expressed support and opposition. the department did receive an e-mail from existing tenants. the department received a few e-mails in opposition which are printed out. the department staff recommends approval with conditions. specifically it complies with the planning code and objectives of the general plan. it is fully code conforming and does not require variances. it meets residential design guide leans does not demolish a structure. it is located in zoning district where residential use is permitted. it fits in with the neighborhood character and is appropriate scale are. it is necessary and come pat able with the surrounding

neighborhood providing one additional neighborhood. the project sponsor is present and has a presentation. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am the project architect for the proposed project at 233 san carlos. our client engaged us in 2016 t design the home for the large family. they are mostly here in the third row and happy to answer questions specific to their needs. it includes demolition of one story wood structure and construction of new building. the ground floor apartment is for the elderly parents.

that is the existing house. the existing house is -- the ground floor apartment is for the elderly parents. unit is for his large family hence the four bedrooms and hence disparity in the sizes. navigating the stairs is difficult for the elderly parents. we need a one level for the parents. it is 25 by 75 feet. the existing structure has a nonconforming rear yard and front yard set back. we are significantly reducing the overall footprint of the building to comply with the planning code requirements with front and rear set backs. four feet in the front to 7.5. in the year 5' 7" to 18'

9 inches. we are limited on the one story units the despairty in the two unit sizes. i am going to quickly buzz you through the plans. the ground floor we propose two car tandem garage. we started with side by side garage and reduced to the tandem to bring the ground floor to the street. we are asking for approval of the two parking places because of the large family and the need for two vehicles is pretty important. we are not removing any on-street parking. there is no on-street parking in that side of the street. the driveway will not impact on-street parking in any way. i want to draw your attention to the light well on the ground floor on the top that mirrors

the one next door. that significantly increases in size as we go up. to a four-foot by 12-foot light well through the remainder of the building and increasing in size on the fourth floor. on the third floor an additional side set back to the neighbor on the opposite side. on the fourth floor additional set backs front and rear. we propose private decks for the master suite. it is set back from the front property line about 20-foot, 4.5 in the front. the deck is set back from the face of the building. it is reduced in response to planning staff comments as we developed. we have show you a quick bird's-eye view of the existing house and the new proposal. from the back, same thing. this is just a little quick for

fun view of what we started with. this is the very first design with side by side garages and triad's man route. second was the tan den. planning staff was clear they wanted proportions of the building to be specific to the surrounding. we have a modern style. what we have done is a good compromise to provide that kind of similarity in mapping, use materials in a more modern way and clean clear glass rather than double hung windows. we hope you can support that design approach. our project is fully com conforo planning codes. if you have any question they

are here to answer any questions. thank you so much. >> we will now take public comment. i have anovie. that is not public comment. do we have any public comment on this item? come on up. >> hello. i am clinton smith. i live next door 237 san carlos street to this proposed building. yesterday i ran around and got 28 signatures from local residents that are in opposition to building of this structure. i don't know if i can issue this here. i just got those in one day

because everything came down so quick with this. also there was the removal of the notification from the building after a couple days, i noticed. a lot of the block was not aware this was going down. ir knew about it because i live next door. a lot of people didn't know about it. anyway, my neighbors and i oppose the demolition of the one family house at 233 and building of the four story structure for many reasons. it will ruin the character of the neighborhood and block the sunlight and view for the whole street, especially my place next door at 237 and 239. it will take out that whole side. on the other side at 2277, that -- 227 that small house is fully

dwarfed with no sunlight. he is an elderly disabled man. we are concerned about the damage to neighboring structures as a result of the demolition and construction of the structure. my house was build in 1906. the house on the other side was built around the same time, 227. it is really old, i'm not sure. basically, the pollution and noise from the construction of the building is a concern. it will negatively impact the many people on the block who work from home and the child daycare center down the block. the nope of public hearing was removed after a couple days. i am worried i don't know how long a family when the owner moving goes on they have to stay there before they can move.

they seem ledge it to have their family there. i do know in the past that is an excuse to end up slipping it around and charging higher rent. that is all i got to say. if you look at the plans, you will see how my building and the building next to it are going to get totally blocked of sunlight from the structure. thank you very much. >> any other public comments on this item. public comment is now closed. commissioners. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: a couple things. we just looked at the project on cortland which was family housing, half the size of this. i don't want to make judgments how much space people need. this master bedroom on this project is two-thirds the size of unit number two down stairs.

this is an rto zoned area. the while point of rto zoning was residential transit. families need cars. i don't think there needs to be two parking spaces here. buildings survive families. kid grow, move out. the four bedroom home the too big you sell it and move on. i like adding two communities of housing to the housing stock. this building is going to be around a hundred years. i support the project. i would like to have the unit down stairs enlarged by getting rid of one parking space. >> commissioner moore: i have been wondering about unit equity. it is built with the larger picture in mind. given where the project is, i

believe the units being more equibly sized would be a better move for this location. the other question i have and i am concerned this building building is too heavy on decks wrapping around and extending from property to property line, particularly we are in an area of change. for example if we do not challenge the fourth floor pulling the deck from the east side in, in the future anybody who would build or expand the building next deer would have serious privacy impacts. this balcony reaches to the end of the building, which we normally don't do. we also would like to avoid balconies on the same floor wrapping around those hitting the long side of the ad joining believe. in the future any changes next door would have to remove the

deck again for privacy issues. i am concerned the deck facing the front on the drawing it is nonoccupiable roof. you could use the entire space to make it a balcony facing the street. i think the plan needs more tweaking. like commissioner richards, i would be concerned the unit in equity is an issue for me and dropping one car in the transit oriented district in the mission is a no-brainer. this is a c.u. resolution, i think. we would have to suggest changes. where is the staff planner? could you go through that a little bit with us as you heard our concerns?

>> i think everything is commission is proposing is reasonable especially given what we have gone through. you might want to suggest a five foot set back along the two side property lines. >> including the nonoccupiable deck on the fourth floor towards the west? that is nonoccupiable roof. it is a usable deck back from this side of the building. >> is that a motion? >> that is a motion. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i agree with many of your comments, particularly the decks and design. one thing i don't feel comfortable with is removing the second parking space. that is very rare for me as

someone who doesn't have a driver's license and is totally transit oriented. i am looking at a multigenerational family before us. without any input removing a second car that i could see families needing is difficult for me so i personally don't feel comfortable with that. i want to hear other commissioners' thoughts. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: the architect. i share some of the concerns. i am not against the second car. i think what gets me is just and you mentioned it the inequity of the unit. i get your designing this for a need that the family has, but to me it would be better to mirror those across the street elsewhere here where the one

unit isn't so small on the first floor. the third and four floor would be a unit. i think long-term that is the kind of housing we need. they could live in it as one unit, one building or interior staircase that connects those. that is an exit staircase. just long-term, that is what we are looking for. this reads like a big in-law unit in a massive home. i don't mind the parking. it was just the classic flats we have but done in a modern way. i think the architecture is good. we would feel better long-term we are doing something for the housing crisis and not an auxiliary unit.

mapping those as two units to be sold independently. that would be my concern. you would have to continue to get at that. i get the family's need to live in it differently than that. if that is where the design can go, that would be helpful. >> if i could chime in. i will not repeat. i agree with the comments said. after the second parking spot i understand what you are saying and want to be sensitive to the family. this is a block away from mission close, very close. it is walking distance to 16 and 24th street. one thing i will say in your presentation to the architect is that you said that you hoped that your client has a modernist sensibility, that you had designed for that and that you hope we support your design.

i don't support your design. i will say that, you know, you are designing the building in the context of an existing neighborhood. this is right in the middle of the mission. particularly displacement of the existing cultural character so to me this modern design with three stories, full-sized open windows to the street does not seem sensitive to the context of what is going on in the mission and what the neighborhood has been trying to do. i would support that you work with staff to have something more sensitive to the context of where the knowledge is, and everything else at all, my fellow commissioners, i support.

thank you. >> did you want to say something? commissioner fong, i'm sorry. >> i don't want to beat a dead horse. i agree the design could be a little more in keeping with the neighborhood and this particular block. as far as two cars this family needs two cars. it will be eight years until the two little girls go off to college. maybe we should look at it for an atu unit down the road for the next use in 20 years. i don't know if it can be taken into consideration now as the next phase-in trying to stay one step ahead of its ultimate use. >> commissioner itch charreds. i move -- richard.

>> commissioner richards: if you have more equitable units, two similar slabs and the a.d.u., i am okay with the parking. it would give us an additional unit. i think this is something that i was talking to one of the supervisors about. people who buy 3,000 square foot homes don't rent the a.d.u. out of the because it is a has sell. they have enough money to buy the home. we are making big assumptions with the a.d.u.s. i would love to look at all of the demolitions. i will do it on my own to see how many live there. we are feeling ourselves, i think, in the small units in big structures. >> i second the motion to

continue. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to continue the item. next available didn't would be march 21st. >> probably about a month we would need. march 21st should work. on that motion. (roll call) so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. that places you on the discussionnary review calendar. as a reminder to the public. item 15. 2017-129290 has been withdraw. item 16 at 1909 diamond street has also been withdrawn. that places you on item 17.

at 95 st-germain avenue. discretionary review. >> good afternoon. staff architect, david winslow. this is a request for discretionary review for permanent application 2015 to construct a three story horizontal front addition for a net addition of 144 square feet. if building's resource status is scatgorgory c. it is on behalf of 99 st-germain to the west of the proposed project are concerned with four issues. first lack of proper notification to neighbors.

second alteration to the building was not taken into account. three, that exceptional circumstances with respect to jointer ownership of elevator between the two properties and four the front ectasespansion will lock light, air and views. to date the department has received one letter in opposition to the project and no letters in support. that letter was received after the packet was published. i can pass that around now. the department's recommendation in light of the d.r. requester's concerned we have reviewed the project. after reviewing the department felt it is compatible the following issues are not exceptional or extraordinary.

one, 311 notification was duly conducted per planning protocol and notification for the variance hearing. 311 was sept be without existing drawings. the error as caught and notification was redone about a week later and all parties were notified. two, the building built in 1979 is not a historic resource nor age eligible. the status is listed as a c. there. project was reviewed and approved. that was considered a civil matter not under the planning department. therefore not to be resolved by planning issues. number four, pr proposed additin was reviewed. plans department policy. the modest scale of the