we're using brick as a facade item, which is very typical of that neighborhood, and we're -- i'm locating or incorporating a bay window in the center. again, very typical of the neighborhood. a refresher of what the neighborhood looks like and how we fit in. this is an elevation of the east side, where you can start to recognize the set back and the community room in the back and the adjacent neighbor. the back elevation is moran mated than side because the sides are zero lot line. as you can see, we've set back

the top floor square footage from the back of the building. originally we had shown it to where we have a balcony on the top of the building, but we've set back that floor continuing to maintain that look of a cap, a body, and the base. but after meeting with neighbors and talking about the planning commission and planners, it was deemed beneficial to change that and move the square footage on the top floor to the street, strengthening that facade which is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood's facades and then opening up the back of the building a little bit. in addition, we did a glass handrail system on the seventh floor -- or sorry, the eighth floor balcony so that the view and the sun light are taken advantage of as much as we can

based on the square footage of the property. this is a difficult section to show and my words are going over -- when my words are going over the front of it, but i believe you also have that in your packet. i believe that's the wrap-up. the owner's rep is here to speak for a quick few minutes, as well. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> president melgar: you can use the other one, too. >> good afternoon, commissioners -- that's much better. thank you. my name's patrick connolly, and i'm a representative of the owner of the property. i just want to make a real brief statement that this project will provide much needed high quality housing, including affordable housing. there's one affordable unit in this project, even though it's a very small project. the project attempts to

maximize the number of units on the site per planning's recommendation. we are very mindful and cognizant that this project such as almost any urban in-fill project in a high density area is going to have impacts on the neighbors, including light and air, and so we have made modifications, as the architect had mentioned to you, to the project design, to its initial design to allow more light and area to the rear of the structure which would help out the neighbor's concerns to the rear. and if you look at specifically executive summary, it's reducing the massing at the rear and allowing for a greater

amount of light and area adjacent to the buildings. as well, i understand as mr. tizar said, there's a glass railing at the top to try to address those concerns. so the project sponsor believed they've done what they can with the small lot and supplies with all the required codes and staircases and things to make this a workable project and try to address the neighbor's concerns the best they can. any kind of further reduction in height in the project or anything like that would generally make the project economically unfaeasible, so w think it would be most

beneficial to move forward on the project. >> president melgar: okay. thank you. at this time, we will take public comment, so if you want to give public comment, please come up. if you want to give public comment, please lineup on the left side -- thank you. >> hi. my name's patricia diar. so i have sent you signed petitions in which nearly 45 people in my neighborhood want to have the height of 820 post being keeping with the adjacent buildings, at five to six stories with a ziggarat in the back. my neighbors, alec and nina also want the height restricts as do those in -- restrictions as to those in 711 leavenworth. the small cutback on the eighth

floor will not do much at all. it really won't. everyone feels the power of the sun. it brings us warmth, it brightens our mind and invigorates our sense of enlightenment. my home has been my refuge, my place of work and creativity. i stated in my letter of january 2 that i suffer from depression, and the loss of so much sun light will affect myemotional and mental well-being in a profound way. san francisco is a beautiful city, and lots of folks want to live here and it has become an obscenely expensive place to live. the bay area's characterized by an extreme concentration of ultrawealthy people, many of

whom are in the i.t. or business sector. san francisco in some way has become a company town. currently, there is a monopoly on living spaces. it is a reasonable demand that our needs as human beings, as citizens of this city be considered in light of these circumstances. while we need affordable housing, 820 post is deemed for the sale of condominiums. the current estimated cost of instruction is $3,500,000. if the design were shortened to five stories or six stories, mr. fu would still make a profit of $2.5 to $3 million, not to mention the benefit of the commercial space on the first floor. even mr. pearlman stated in a letter to me that he initially wanted a five-story building, but that the city had pushed him to raise it to eight. this needs to be a humane consideration for how this proposed structure affects

everyone living near the site. if the commission wants to keep a diverse and healthy city, you need to make it livable for all of us. i'm asking you to have empathy for those of us that live there, those of us that work in diverse fields. please allow us to keep some of the light in our homes. i would be most grateful if you would consider our health and well-being. it really matters. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for having me today. i live at 775 post street, which is about 300 feet from the proposed building, and i wanted to speak specifically to the petitions that may have been received. i became aware that the landlord of my building was organizing petitions against this proposed development, and i expressed that i did not agree with that, that i am in support of such a building, and my support was not included. in fact when support was added

to said petition that was explicitly disclaiming this property, it was removed and a new one was created. i want to be very clear, this neighborhood needs more housing. it needs more people living there. it needs development in order to grow. our neighborhood is not well p populated with stores, with groceries, with businesses. it doesn't have the food traffic to support them right now, and it is candidly, rather disgusting. i understand this is described as being in knob hill, but it is more like being in the tenderloin. i would support the development of this building and any other nearby, understanding there are consequences to building tall buildings because it is necessary to have the supply of building for people like me, for young people, for people who are just making it in san francisco to have a place to live.

moreover, i think it is a good opportunity to examine whether six or eight stories makes a material difference in the character of the neighborhood. i understand there's some concerns about light, etc., but from my understanding, it only affects the buildings next door. the neighborhood as a whole has a relatively high ceiling of buildings, and i don't think adding another one would be changing that character. >> president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tyler mac, and i'm the resident manager of 711 leavenworth street, which is on the corner of post and leavenworth, which is next door to the proposal. i believe that you, commissioners, have received a letter from the owner of 711 leavenworth, a woman named

barbara stoth, wh. what i hope to do is echo what she spoke about in terms of height considerations. the adjacent buildings are only about four story or five-story buildings, and it would be great if this building were similar in height. an eight-story building would tower over the adjacent buildings, and the concern expressed by the first speaker, my neighbor, patricia, is -- can't be emphasized enough that our beiaccess to sun light wou be destroyed by this project. it's not only the buildings next door, but patricia's building, as well, which is a little bit north on leavenworth street, that her lighting, as well, would be destroyed by this project. so i hope that you will consider voting against it. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ron catall. i live around the project from this project on leavenworth street, on the 600 block. some of the correspondents talked about the neighborhood character and the adjacent buildings, and there's some people here aren't talking as if there's no eight-story buildings nearby. i want to tell you that two doors down from 830 post, which is an eight-story apartment building. just down the block, the gentleman lived at 775 post, but the two buildings immediately adjacent to that, 765 and 757 are both towers. i support this project because i think there needs to be more housing in this neighborhood and if we're going to talk about what's out of style with

this neighborhood, i think a one-story dilapidated building is out of character in the neighborhood. my neighbor lives across the street at 825, and she looks out on the sidewalk face at this abandoned building. as is mentioned, there's not a lot of feet traffic. the block is kind of dead. we're seeing more traffic where there's now a goodwill, there's an art gallery. there's no activation, and it makes kind of quiet, a kind of scary, a not good active block. i hope that you will support adding more housing to this site. i hope that you will support

lesupport letting this building go up to eight stories. but i hope that you will support this project. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. teresa flandrick with senior and disability project. i'm here in opposition to this plan. in terms of permanently affordable housing, there will be one unit. and i understand as a previous speaker spoke of condominiums, that they will be sold as that. so in terms of it being economically feasible or not, there's a good chance it would be feasible to also bring down the height. the concern is, again, we do have is growth is accommodated

without substantially impacting neighborhood character. i would take that into the human character, which is this should not adversely affect the tenants, especially those 12 units that actually face the west side of this project, especially the 31 studio building. it is about light, it is about air. and as the owner of the building said, that some of whom are elderly, spending much of their day in their apartments. so what happens when there's less light, when there's less air, again, is the dampness in this city, right? and mold grows, so it does have an affect on health -- as well as not just your physical health, but your mental health. i would ask you to take this very sewereously. this would impact four sure 12

tenants immediately there are in those 12 units as well -- for sure, 12 tenants in the back, and you need to consider adding 11 units, one of which would be affordable, and bringing down the height to something like five or six so there can be more light. that would be something i would ask you to please consider in this. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you very much. i made a mistake saying this there was no speaker cards. i do have a speaker card from miss sonia trauss. is she here to speak on this item? okay. with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i would like the architect if he can show us a section which is taken to the front of the building, basically showing us the distance from 711. you're taking your east-west sections deeper into the lot into the adjoining building where you have a year yard, but

it leaves the commissioner a little bit at odds exactly what the dimension is on the west facing facade of 711 1and your building. >> you're asking about the west facing elevation? >> commissioner moore: i'm talking about the transfer section in the front of the property. >> if you go to the computer screen. [inaudible] >> commissioner moore: this is 715. i'm looking for the 711 building, which is at the corner, the one in which the apartments are that are being affected. >> commissioner hillis: right there. >> okay. now, i understand. on the screen, you can see 820 post is in the center and the corner building is to the right. and there's an eight-foot gap above the second floor.

i'm trying to talk as little as possible because my words go over the top of the screen. >> president melgar: we can still see it. >> commissioner richards: we can see all of your -- all of your presentation with no translation here. >> oh, thank you for that clarification. >> commissioner moore: so is the dimension plus seven -- plus seven to 8 feet, is that what i read? >> correct. >> commissioner hillis: 8 feet, right? >> it does have a cornice at the top of the existing building, but it does go back about 8 feet. >> president melgar: if you have any questions, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: no. my question is 8 feet standing in the room, that is a very

small dimension. the unit that are facing west will be 8 feet away from a very tall blank wall. that is basically what i wanted you to say, and i understand it now. thank you. i do not have any questions. thank you. >> president melgar: okay. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so two -- two questions, i guess, first, from staff. on the -- on the historic exemption from ceqa based on standards, i don't see a study done on the building itself. >> so yes. the p.t.r. form, and i apologize. that was not included with the ceqa determination, however, my understanding was the building was not determined a resource. the only thing that we were looking at for this project was the capability of the proposed structure with the historic

district. >> commissioner richards: if you don't mind, if you can e-mail me that. i would be interested in that regardless of how we rule. i am worried about the quality of life of the tall studios next door. 8 feet, when we start doing matching light wells, 3 feet and 3 feet, 8 feet and 8 feet, the cornice, it's more like having a roof over that open space. like, how far does that jut out? >> on the adjacent building? >> commissioner richards: yeah. >> so if you actually look on a-1.3, the photographs that have been provided. >> commissioner richards: maybe i'm confused. when you showed the picture that commissioner moore asked for, that doesn't wrap part -- that wraps around the side. >> if you look here --

>> commissioner richards: yeah, i misunderstood. i guess the interesting thing for me on liveability, these units get a certain amount of sun light depending on the time of day, time of the year. i don't know what eight stories would do to that. i think there was a letter that mr. pearlman included in the packet that was sent to somebody on a sun light study that w that was done in summer, fall, winter and spring. can i see that? >> i believe staff did a preliminary study, and they were studying whether it affects parks or public property. we have some studies that we did and shared with the neighbors in one of those meetings that shows the throw of shadows. >> commissioner richards: can we see them? [inaudible] >> commissioner richards:

somebody's holding one up in the back of the room, if that's yours. >> we may have a copy. [please stand by]

>> that is really what i am looking for. >> correct we did do a study of spring, summer, fall, winter, and she has a copy of that, luckily. you can could probably rotate it the other way. there we go. >> i wish we all had a copy appeared to look at as well, but we don't. >> the one you're looking at right now, the noon picture. the property that the folks are having the negative comments,

you can see the back of their building, and their numbers facing their rear yard. >> and that is noon. >> that is on december 21 -- december 21st. >> okay. >> said the sun will be as low as it ever gets -- so the sun will be as low as it ever gets. >> okay. do you have questions, commissioner richards? >> i am having a hard time understanding the impact without what i talked about. i really would like one before a vote on this. >> okay. any other commissioner comments? >> i understand the concern of the neighbors pick what is changing things for me is looking at the aerial photos. if you are standing right next to the building, eight stories can seem incredibly large, but looking at the one block radius, eight stories fits in.

this is a really small city. we don't have room to go horizontally. the only thing we can do is go up, and the b.m.r. is on site. we don't see it as often as we would like to. there is no parking on this site and i think the project sponsor has done the best with the challenging site dimensions, and i am in support of the project to. >> thank you. commissioner hillis? >> thank you for the presentation and for the comments from the neighbors. we base -- we face this every week in the resident structure that is built into the city. there is not a deck or a remodel that doesn't have an impact to neighbors pick to me, this is asking for a.c.u. to go higher then the five stories are the six stories. that is kind of the question. it would be as of right.

it has a.c.u. for the taller building. it is well-designed, and works well in the neighborhood, and the historical context. it is certainly not a building that is out of context. there are some smaller buildings, but there are larger buildings also here. it is one of the densest neighborhoods in the city, so tough to build in without having an impact. i'm sympathetic. the neighbors asked certainly to the north, into the east, are going to be impacted by this project, every product -- project we have, there are neighbors that are impacted. to me, i just don't see the benefit of lopping off floors. i think will be half the same problems with shadows and a loss of direct sunlight, especially to the building on the corner. it was built like that, to send back 8 feet. that is what we planned for. we don't plan for no impact, but

we plan to minimize impact. that is why it is set back. i just don't, given the crisis that we have in housing, and the need for housing everywhere in the city, and everyone is carrying his wait, i don't see the benefit of lopping off floors in the building, or setting it back for -- more than 8 feet. i would be supportive as it is proposed. >> commission are more? >> i think it is a well design. we -- commissioner moore? >> i think it is a well-designed. it provides housing. the question is, it provides the type of housing that is not on the deficit scale of what we need. it is market rate housing, with one affordable unit on site, and it is not so much the height

that is of concern to me, but his impact on the number of rent-controlled impacts -- rent-controlled units. i would ask mr. perlman and his office to consider tightening the building above five floors in order to create a building that is slightly shallow. if the lot is 40 feet wide, it is being designed at 39 feet 8 inches over the front façade, and it is extruded on that dimension. if you would tuck it in a little bit from the east side by a few feet, that would mean creating units which are slightly -- that will slightly vary in sizes as you go further up. you could create a building form that would provide more light into the unit -- units that are seriously affected. that does not mean you lower it to less than eight stories, but

you change the profile in the east and west direction. is that possible? will beget a slight shift in unit size, but the units are generously sized, and it doesn't really completely change the building, it changes the way how the building becomes more customized towards the upper floors. >> i certainly follow the logic of that discussion. the layout, as it currently stands, we have our stairs moved out as far as we can. if we were to set it back in the upper floors, weaver -- either have to stagger the stairs, which creates inefficiencies, or we pull the entire stair area, and now we have this on square footage. >> again, i i am throwing out a design challenge in order to address a larger issue, and i'm

not asking you if i can or can't do it. it will require some rethinking, that's clear, that's where the challenge lies. it can be done. it is a question of whether the commission feels we need to hold up creating new units, but we also have a very strong mandate to protect affordable, rent-controlled units, and their quality of life. we have two responsibilities, and i'm trying to meet both objectives here thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner. as to the see you -- as to the c.u., i'm wondering if there is a housing accountability act -- housing accountability act issue here. >> we are inclined to disapprove or reduce the density of the project, then yes, you would have to make housing

accountability act findings. i think that commissioner moore was proposing something that wouldn't lower the density, but would change the configuration of the building, so it depends upon which direction the commission wanted to go. if you are inclined to lop off floors, you would be required to make findings under the act. >> thank you very much. i am generally supportive of this project. i understand the concerns of the neighbors. i think that whereas we have legislation that protects playgrounds from loss of light, we don't have that for private buildings. i understand that we live in a buildout environment where there are consequences to any new building. i do think that this is a well-designed building, it is appropriate for where it is. it will add to our housing stock commissioner koppel?

>> i want to make a motion to approve. >> second. >> commissioner richards? >> the side of the building is facing the apartments. what color is it? it looks dark. >> it is a stucco finish, and we proposed a darker color. we could lighten the color. >> i would like to amend the motion so the side of the building has the most highly reflective coating on it to allow light to be reflected into the windows that are being blocked. >> we are happy to work with your staff to come up with a lighter -- >> is that amenable? >> that is totally amenable. >> there is a motion and a second to approve the project with an amendment to work with staff on the colouring of the wall. on that motion ... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes 6-1 with

commissioner moore voting against. commissioners, that takes you to the next item, item number 13. record number 2017-009635 c.u.a. at 432 portland avenue, a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm from planning department staff. is the value all right? great, thank you. the agent before he was a request for a conditional use authorization for 432 portland avenue to allow demolition of an existing mixed-use building within the n.c. 1212 zoning districts. the project requires a c.u.a.

pursuant to planning code section 317 for defective demolition of an existing unit. the project site is currently occupied by one story over basement mixed-use building. the ground floor commercial space is currently leased out to two architecture firms on a month-to-month basis, and the basement level residential unit is currently vacant, and has been vacant since the current owners purchase the property circa 2016. the proposal includes demolition of the said mixed-use building, and new construction of a three story over basement building with three dwelling units, and one ground floor at restaurants. dwelling unit makes -- may consist of 22 bedroom units, and one one-bedroom unit. the project includes a private deck for each of the residential units, as well as a commonly accessible roof deck.

the project sponsor worked with the department on a few design concerns, including reducing the overall building depth, reducing the stair penthouse on the rooftop, and making a more pedestrian-friendly commercial frontage. staff's last designed comment is a proposal should incorporate more traditional waveforms on the exterior street facing façade. this has been included as a condition on the project for your consideration. in your packets, you have one letter in support of the project, and ten communications in opposition to the project. concerns relate to the number of residential units, tenancy displacement, traffic concerns, impacts for the neighborhood commercial businesses, and overall scale of the project. after the commission packets were distributed, department received three additional letters in opposition to the project, noting similar

concerns. additionally, the department also received six letters of support, including from the directly adjacent neighbor. these have been submitted for your review. the project sponsor hosted two community meetings, in addition to meeting individually with neighbors, and also meeting with the burnell business association. the results of these discussions the discussions and outreach, the third floor vertical edition has been sent back, and the straight face and -- excuse me the setback from the straight face, and the rear mapping has been reduced and set in. additionally, the project sponsor has entered into a private agreement with the bba, and a number of these conditions are outside a planning's jurisdiction, so we will defer to other respective agencies regarding those matters. however, i have a copy of amended conditions with conditions regarding communication, hours of construction, and noise control.

i have a copy available for review. these conditional -- of these additional conditions will be included in the final motion, and it will also be recorded against the property. the department is in support of the proposed design, which was reviewed by our residential design advisory team, and meets all of our resign -- design guidelines. the department recommends approval with conditions for the following reasons. the project proposes two family sized units to the city's housing stock. the project will not displace any tenants as a result of the project, in the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. this concludes my presentation, and i am available for any questions. >> thank you. is there a project sponsor presentation? >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you. i am with d. and m. architecture and the project sponsors.

with me today is elizabeth, representing the property owners and my clients. functionally, and i believe you have the project before you, functionally, our design program is to create three things. and inviting and viable retail space at the street level, ray local merchants can build a successful business, two new apartments, large enough for families which may also house employees at the retail space, or nearby merchants, and a one-bedroom garden apartment that replaces the existing currently vacant unit, and can be used by the family. while the family are not professional property developers, this project should be architecturally compelling, contextually sensitive, and commercially viable. thank you. as you are aware, there is an existing two-story building on site.

a historic resource evaluation conducted in 2015 by tim kelley consulting concluded it is not eligible for listing in the california register. although it originally dates to the turn of the 20th century, most of the elements according to the report on the façade or altered, not original, or their providence cannot be determined. following his two processes through the environmental evaluation application, the planning department determined that this building is currently a class c., no historic resource present. in addition, wheelchair accessibility is not really feasible with the raised floor and the front stoop that encroaches onto the sidewalk. and lowering the façade is a screen for a new building, for us it is age of hot -- defective demolition. and we think it is disingenuous to the street. foundations are partially bricked, unable to carry building expansion, small windows and the entry on the façade are not attractive or appealing for an operator of a retail business who would like

to have more transparency. so we understand that bernal heights is a special place in san francisco, and cortlandt avenue is it's hard to. while it does not have a unifying architectural style, the street is eclectic, it is scaled to the pedestrian, and it is alive. it feels like the heart of a village in the city, but it is not a village frozen in time. it is blessed with stable merchants, but there are new shops and restaurants. with or without s., the street is evolving, and it must evolve to remain vibrant. to better understand, would decided to take a look at the height of the four blocks at those around us. many people associate with a certain building height and bulk, but it is quite varied. i know we can barely see the slides here, but it is quite varied. in comparison to the surrounding buildings, just a few doors away, our building is, in fact

on the taller side, but not especially tall, doesn't cover as much building area, lot area as more than half of the surrounding neighbors, and his deep, but not as deep as many others. in fact have just one block away, there are two very similar, relatively recent buildings constructed with a very similar bulk and height. nevertheless, we have tried to create here a modest building that fulfils the functional requirements of providing viable retail space, and decent housing while respecting the scale of the immediate neighbors. were even modelled the entire block to study the scale of our building and a larger context, and we feel it is not really out of place. architecturally, the building is organized very simply. total apartments stopped over

street-level commercial space, with a small apartment at the rear yard level. the retail storefront maintains the scale and character of the street. in particular, the scale and character of its immediate neighbors at 430 and 434. we can see that the maximum transparency is transparent -- is provided. it is recessed to provide interest and production, but also recall some of the more traditional storefronts elsewhere in the street, in the is also a not true tradition -- is a nod to tradition. apartment access is on the east side of the building. similar to the current building. the third story apartment features an asymmetrical bay window that repeats the angle of the storefront recess, and creates a folding effect. i'm sorry.

i clicked too fast. the bay window creates a folding effect, and that's façade is terminated, providing the appearance of a two-story building from the street level. is recessed 3 feet and features a different wall treatment. the reason for this is two fold. visually, it stops the building at the second story about the sidewalk, and also, the lightly coloured panels are playful, and seem to fit into the eclectic character of bernal heights. the rear living spaces and decks oriented towards the south for sun exposure and privacy, in the rear of the building has the same attention to detail sensitivity to context as the front of the building. the rear yard is 37.5 feet, or one third of the lot depth, rather then the minimally required 25%. from there there, at building steps back at each floor to further reduce its impact on the

midblock open space. the entire east face is 4 feet on the rear wall to reduce its impact on this neighboring property. we added an additional 5-foot by 5-foot cut out area on the upper three stories to even further reduce the shading impact and protect their privacy, a roof deck at the top is held back a minimum of 5 feet from the east and west façade to protect privacy. similar to the cortland side, cement five or panels, this time in a green pellet, are used to soften the overall building massing. because of these articulations on all sides, we can see from the shadow found that we created that despite its mass, almost all of the frequent shading, which is shown in red, falls on the roofs of the neighboring buildings, rather then in the rear yard. we understand that our building, and especially here has impact, that through its mapping and

materials, we have tried to design a building that fits into, and even enhances its context. we do understand the feeling of loss, and nostalgia with a once viable, button on the, to -- and neglected building is replaced by building better suited to the street and the community. we have tried to design a building that will be not only comfortable, but will enhance it, both aesthetically and commercially, and we hope that someday it will be appreciated and defended as a piece of the community with the same fervour that this community defends all of its heritage. i would love to stop there, or continue speaking about the merits of the building, but i know that soon some of you will hear complaints about our lack of community outreach. up until a certain point, they are right. the architect and the owners, who are not professional property developers were politically naïve, following

department policies, we most groups that we found on the website, including the supervisor's office in 2017. we conducted a neighborhood meeting in august of 2017 with proper notification. no group ever responded, and only about 2-three people showed up at the meeting. so we applied for the permit. we worked for about a year with planning staff on design revisions to satisfy the departmental requirements. the department scheduled, and we accepted an initial hearing date on december, near christmas, that was insensitive to merchants, and unthinking, but it was not enough arias pick once we saw the reaction to the initial posting, we agreed to delay the hearing date, and make significant revisions based on their input. we had just met several times of neighbors, and twice with the bba. we previewed our risk -- revised designs for further input before submitting to the planning department. we immediately e-mailed the new design to all of the e-mail

addresses that we had on file, as well as others were e-mailed through the supervisor's office. we responded as the staff is mentioned to writing to the bba's concern regarding construction process, destruction -- disruption of neighboring properties. not all of this is the purview of the commission. and we have agreed to even include these at your discretion as conditions of approval. i believe that staff has provided you with this document. we got off on the wrong foot, but since that early december hearing posting, we have done all in our power to be responsive to anyone who contacts us, insensitive to their concerns. we ask for your approval today of the project, and we know we have a long road ahead until the permit construction and occupancy are complete. we are part of this community for the long-term, and although i know we cannot make everyone happy, will continue to be open to dialogue and responsive to community concerns. thank you for your attention.

i am available for any questions. >> thank you, sir. i would like to open this up for public comment now. i have one speaker card. eileen and bill. please come up if you are ready. if anyone else would like to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room. >> thank you, commissioners. i reside with this fine woman and our young daughter in the back. i would like to have my own remarks, then leave separate if i may for my wife. we appreciate the work that all of you are doing and thank you for that. i can't imagine the joy you must feel in engaging in all of the conflicts, and all of the individual homes that you deal with. you are impacting lives, and we appreciate that.

six quick points to make. number 1, 432 is currently unoccupied, as was indicated by people. it is unsafe for people. it is unappealing to many people , and it does need a development, so we fully support the move forward, and we are glad people are willing to put time and effort into that. number 2, the original plan of the project sponsors do, as we understand, to specifications from the department, was overbearing and inconsistent, basically had the building jutting out out of the street to attack us as we walk by, and while he may have made some efficiency sense, it really wasn't a good precedent to set in the community. i would ask the commissioner the department, or whoever is in charge to rethink that process. we are very pleased with how the project sponsors have responded to that. they have engaged in good faith, and developed what we think is a much better design.

everybody has their own design sense, so i will leave it to others for that, but we much appreciate that. number 3, most important to the community, as i believe darcy lee, to whom i will defer on these issues will maintain, is that retail is vital to this community. it is the heart of burnell, it is what causes people to circulate. it nourishes us, and anything you can do to protect retail against the amazonian threats that it faces is much appreciated. darcy has spent time on behalf of the b.b.a., of which we are also members, to define conditions, which i believe are moving forward well with the project sponsors. we appreciate that. number 4, my daughter is here, witnessing democracy in action. she wants to make absolutely sure that the rights of cats are

well protected with this developments. there is a cat occupying that neighborhood, in and some kind of cat development, or relocation plan should be adopted. you may not have to worry about that part of it. number 5, most important to us, much my wife will focus on, is that we maintain and improve our quality of life, as much as we can. shade is the biggest issue. it is not a deadly challenge to us, it is an american problem, but it is something that has real impact on our quality of life, and we believe there are ways to mitigate. it is challenging -- my six-point -- >> can you hand that off to your counterpart. >> we have to give three minutes -- >> we have to give three minutes -- >> this is a process that doesn't work anymore.

i would invite the commission to look at ways to engage neighbors together -- >> your time is up. >> this is an example of what i am saying. thank you very much. we appreciate your efforts. >> sorry about that. we should have filled out two speaker cards instead of one. >> that's okay. you each have three minutes. >> okay. >> you only have three minutes. >> okay, no problem. we have been sitting here since 1:00 p.m., and we have heard all the other comments, and i realize that the shade issue is probably very difficult, and they understand how it is very difficult in the city, but our situation is that, i don't know, can you see, i do have to echo my husband's comments at the architect -- at the first iteration, they did send ripples of shock to the community because we were not prepared for the design. he has worked with us quite a

bit since that 1st of january meeting, and working with the design, but this is our house that is in yellow, and this is your typical shadow study. this is the worst of it. this is during the winter, but in the shadow study that was provided by the architect, basically we will lose most of all our morning sunshine, and that is pretty much all times of the year. the reason why, for us this is pretty significant, is a lot of livability issues in bernal heights, but in our particular house, we don't have a front facing windows, and that's because we have a commercial space in the front, so there's two residential in this location as well, and our windows are in the back, and that is it for the light. in the morning, this is us at

about 7:30 a.m. this was taken recently. you can get the tenor of the neighborhood in the back where you see that greentree, that is the lots that will be developed. so this property is quite large, and moves all the way back, but not all the way. this is just to give you a sense of the backyard that is now going to be taken. in the morning, you know, this is our house right here. this is the property that will be developed, and we are basically going to lose all our morning light. i understand what you are saying , and the other cases you have heard that you can't develop without impact, but for us, in our particular living situation, that is the entire amount of light in our house, so

this is our back porch, this is where the light comes into our house. okay, so that is my comments. david has worked with us. we are really pleased with that. he has some setbacks. i don't know if anything -- i'm not an architect, i am really new to this. i just know that our life will be changing because of the loss of all that light. whatever else can be due, if there is a solution, that i don't know about, and you're more experienced minds do know about, we would love to hear it. >> thank you, your time is up. next speaker, please. >> hello. i have lived in bernal heights since 87, a long time, and it is the heart of the neighborhood. i came here to support the project because i know people were canvassing the neighborhood saying don't build this

building, it will be terrible, and i think we do need housing, and three stories is very reasonable, and i would like -- i like the plan, for the most part. i did not realize they were demolishing it until i got here today. so my objection right now is it is extremely ugly. what we have right now it might not be historic, but it has a victorian -looking character on the front, and there are a lot of victorian -looking characters along that street, and this one is plain stucco, all glass, and up above plain stucco, no trim, nothing around it at all. it is very out of character on the front, from what it looks like, and if they could just make some changes to the façade to have it fit in more, i like the way they take the second story and they move it back, or the third story and move it back so looks like two. there's a lot of things that are good about this, but i do see buildings a lot in the city

where they meet the technical requirements, but for the outside of the building, they use the cheapest material possible. it's flat stucco, no trim at all, and that is not the character of this street. there are certainly some new buildings, but that's probably all i have to say on that. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is darcy. i am one of the leaders of the bernal business alliance, but i'm not speaking from the alliance, i'm speaking as the property owner of the building next door, which is 436 cortland this is my personal take. my building has a retail store car up just called heart felt that i own, it has been there since 1999.

i lived in bernal since 89, and watched many cycles shift and change. the whole city is changing faster than we would have ever expected. there are buildings on the block and along cortland that i would fight for very hard for them to not be torn down, because of their historical value, to me, this is not one of them. here is my take. a vacant building that has not been maintained for more than 20 years, i'm right next door to it, does not add to our community. the edwardian façade has been mollified with brick, and would be difficult to adopt for handicap access under the federal law. it doesn't lend itself to successful retail because of the window placement. change is going to happen, and it should happen within san francisco, and we feel that our concerns regarding what we can't control have been heard by the architect.

stepped back, more relative to the street façade, construction concerns, et cetera. we know this will have an impact on us, yet we feel they have been really communicative, which makes all the difference. i fully support the project because the building is literally falling down. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is terry mill, i am from bernal heights. the first proposal for this project was presented at a community meeting, arranged by the merchants association and our supervisor. the meeting was vivid, and the pleasant -- presentation was contentious, and issues of compatibility with our peaceful cortland village was disruptive. 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