the california building code inquires internal rooms that are used for habitation, not a bathroom, not a kitchen, and are unable to get direct light and ventilation from a wall facing a street, and ally, blah blah blah , a courtyard, are allowed to get their lights and ventilation from the room that is between the window and the nested bedroom. in order for them to get the required lights and ventilation, the code requires that that common wall be 50% openable, minimum 50% openable of area. you could literally do the top half openable, or you can take a portion of the wall and make that openable. that is what we do. we take a portion of the wall, we slide the door past and now it is wide open, but then you have to take the ventilation requirements for the nested bedroom, which is a 4% of the

floor area, and the light and air requirement which is eight% of the floor area, and add that to the same four% and eight% for the in between room, and that tells you the minimum natural light and ventilation area you have to provide in the exterior wall, the window. >> right. on these nested bedrooms, what percentages are you at? >> the opening? >> how would that stack up? have you provided the minimum? >> in most cases, we are over the minimum, just to be sure. we are somewhere between 50 to 260%. the units are tight and some of the kitchens run to that wall so we have a drywall partition there, and we make the window a sliding partition as large as we can. we use a private firm from san francisco and we have been doing it for years. i want to get paid for that. >> i have one of the same doors and my bedrooms. >> let let me add to that, you

mentioned that the building code requires 50% opening. the building code allowed that to be like a wall and literally be open. >> that 50% opening has to be wild -- walled off in this way. it has to be enclosed so that is why we often see these floor-to-ceiling glass doors that provide an opening for the light and can provide a full enclosure. >> versus a pony well. >> if i might, one last thing. and all of our units, we are bringing in outside air for mechanical ventilation for all the apartments. because it is on venice, so meet to -- to meet the sound issues, we are bringing fresh air from the inside, putting that into the bedrooms, but the bedroom does not have to rely upon the sliding glass door to be open to get ventilation. >> great. one of the questions with

administrator, the apartment requirement, people injured -- mentioned that there is too much parking. what is allowed on van ness? >> i would defer to the project planner for that answer. >> sorry, i should have asked you first. >> there is a maximum of 35 offstreet parking spaces for proposed uses and they are proposing 24. >> oh, so they are way below. >> they are below already, yes. >> i'm happy to second a motion provided that there's no corporate housing on this, as well. >> i am amenable to that addition. >> commissioner moore? >> i just wanted to say, that generally in comparison to other nested bedrooms, the rooms that are exposed to the outside are slightly better proportioned

than what we normally see, so given the sliding nature of what is proposed here, the nested bedrooms or better than in many other cases. >> singh nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended, including a condition prohibiting corporate housing. on that motion... [roll call] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> approve the public hearing on the variance and grants the standard commissions. >> thank you. that will place you on item 14 at 233 san carlos street. this is a conditional use authorization. please note, of every 21st, 2019, after hearing and closing public comment, you continue to

this matter to march 21st by a vote of 7-0 and subsequently continued the matter again on april 25th, may 9th, and june 27th, all without a hearing. commissioner fong, you have not yet been seated, so if you could acknowledge if you had reviewed the previous hearing and materials in order to participate today. >> i did. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with planning department staff. the project before you as a conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 233 san carlos street. the convention must provide a conditional use authorization to demolish an existing one-story single family residence and construct a new four story two unit residents at 233 san carlos street. the project includes a demolition of existing one-story 1300 square foot single family residence and construction of a four story over basement, 40-foot tall, 4,500 square-foot

residential structure with two units and two offstreet parking spaces. the proposed dwelling units include it four bedroom unit, measuring about 26,000 square feet -- 2600 square feet. and another three-bedroom unit which is about 1400 square feet. the department has received a few phone calls about this project which have expressed both support and opposition. the department did receive an e-mail from the existing tenant which stated their support for the project and acknowledgement of a planned relocation. in addition, the department has received a few additional e-mails in opposition to the project, which are all included in your packets. of figure 21st, the commission reviewed the proposal and expressed concern over the difference in size between the water proposed dwelling units in the façade design and its compatibility for the surrounding neighborhood. since a public hearing in february, the project sponsor has revised the project as follows. they redesign the project to provide more equity between the

two dwelling units, they have expanded and created a basement level, they have reconfigure the entry to provide for a future a.d.u., which could be accomplished by converting the tandem garage into a studio apartment. they set back all roof decks by 5 feet on the building edges, and included revision to the project designed to discourage future build outs by reducing height of the front parapet and have reduced the size of the exterior windows to better fit in the surrounding context. after analysing all aspects of the project, the department committed approval. the project complies with the requirement of the planning code and is consistent with the policies of the general plan. the project is fully code conforming does not require any variances or touch ins from the planning code. is located in a zoning district where residential uses principally permitted in the project is necessary and desirable and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and provides for one additional housing unit on top of the one existing, which is a top

priority for the city. the project sponsor is present and is prepared with a presentation. the sink concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> hello, project sponsor. three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners it is nice to see what again and welcome, commissioner fong. i know they are missing you at appeals because even reference to last week in the hearing. my name is serena calhoun, i'm the project architect for the project. as a quick refresher, when you sauce in february, it this project includes demolition of a one-story single family home and construction of a new four story two unit building with significant increases to both front and rear setbacks to conform to planning code. we have designed this for the option of a future third unit, which i will show you quickly. in response to staff comments at our last meeting.

this project is for our client and his very large, multigenerational family. last time we were here, the whole family was here. they took up an entire row. unfortunately they cannot all be here today, but my client his is here in case you have questions. the ground floor is intended for use by his elderly father and we designed it to be accessible for that purpose. you may recall that we requested approval of a two car garage due to the larger size of his family and the many generations who will live in the building. since we last appeared before you, we made substantial changes to the overall project design in response to your feedback and we believe we have responded to all of your outdated -- updated concerns. your feedback at the last hearing included the following, you preferred more equality between the size of the dwelling units. so in the previous design, we had a ground-floor apartment for his father, which was just a one-bedroom, and then the three stories above for the remainder of his multigenerational family, which included four bedrooms and four and a half baths. we were not able to easily

connect the ground-floor up into the second floor. we evaluated that, but it was cutting off rear yard access for the upper-level unit, so we chose instead to go down and excavated a basement level for two additional bedrooms, two bathrooms, a den, and we reconfigure the entry where you come in so that the elevator could be utilized by his father to get to the basement. we have also moved the garage to the opposite side of the building from the middle, so that, again, in the future, that can easily become a third a.d.u. studio apartment. this is the basement level, showing the two bedrooms, the closets, the bathrooms. we have created this large light well set back and actually, because of the grade, this is not a fully below grade basement apartment. it is about halfway below. i will just buzz through really quick. there is the new a.d.u. i thank you have it in the updated designs.

the plans upstairs did not change very much except for the setback. this was our previous design. the size of the windows was a concern, so we have change the design radically to really confirm -- conform to the proportions and scale, with a large windows or still important for the way that we live now with an open floor plan of creating natural light. that is it. >> thank you. we will now open this item up for public comment. since we have heard this item before, we will limit the public comment to one minute. if -- i don't have any speaker cards, but anyone who wants to speak, come on up. okay. i guess that is it. public comment is now closed. commissioner johnson? >> thank you. i know our comments around this last time were really focused on

making sure that if this house does transition, it really could allow for not only the uses that the family needed, but future uses that might incur after the family isn't there anymore, and those changes have been made. also, just the comments about making sure that the exterior fit better with the neighborhood i appreciate those design changes. overall, i am supportive of the project and i would move to approve. >> commissioner fong? >> perhaps my question would be, could we perhaps be handled off-line, but i have been hearing this for a number of cases where there is discussion about equalizing the size of

units, and i'm not sure i understand the logic of that as a desirable effort on the part of this commission. if you have -- it doesn't matter whether it is a larger size in terms of four or five bedrooms, multiple floors, combined with a smaller size unit, the smaller size unit, logically, probably, and market wise, would be more affordable, not necessarily affordable, but more affordable, and so i'm not quite sure where my fellow commissioners are going with this were they talk about equalizing unit sizes. >> perhaps we could have that policy can discussion. it has been a consistent policy direction of this commission for

a couple years now. >> i heard it in reviewing the video of this particular case. >> yeah,. >> we can handle that off-line. >> okay. we don't have a second to the motion. >> i will second. >> great. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve this matter with commission -- with conditions. on that matter... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. placing is on item 15. 2966 24th street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i am with planning department staff. the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow the conversion of unauthorized group housing and to retail sales and service use for two retail

tenant spaces. the unauthorized group housing, which includes an interior floor , stairs, bathrooms, and 28 bedrooms, was constructed within the building envelope of a former automotive garage. the proposal includes removal of all unpermitted construction within the building envelope and interior remodel of the façade. it would result in two existing commercial tenant spaces of 517 and 1,410 square feet. in order to proceed, the project requires a conditional use authorization to allow the conversion of the group housing to a retail sales group service use. the project would result in the loss of the group housing through conversion, however, the unauthorized group housing is substandard. it lacks open space and exterior windows. legalization of the group housing would require the demolition of the rear quarter

of the building. construction of a vertical addition and would yield only eight rooms. such a project would not be financially feasible, furthermore, the legalization would create a gap in the active ground-floor retail uses required upon 24th street. the department has received correspondence and support from the project from the latino cultural district. they express, that in this circumstance, the removal of substandard housing and conversion to commercial space would be appropriate and create potential new local and latino business opportunities. in summary, the department finds a project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons. the product is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the missionary plan and general plan, the project meets applicable requirement of the planning code and provides new commercial spaces consistent with the intent of the zoning district, the project promotes opportunities for small business ownership and employment opportunities, and the

unauthorized group housing to be removed was substandard and an ice -- unsafe and could not feasibly be legalized. this concludes our presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor? or we having technical difficulties? >> i don't think so. there we go. it is up on the screen here.

>> start talking in san francisco and san francisco government t.v. will help you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is robert salma, i am an attorney, and i have represented bill rodriguez and his mother who are both here this morning in the front row -- this evening in the front row. they are the owners of the building. i have been working with them since march of 2018 to help navigate the planning and building process related to their property, in addition to abatement notices and the challenging requirements of planning code section 317. we are all relieved to be here finally before you today because this is not a particularly easy process. i will speak for a few minutes and then i want to turn over the presentation to the project architect, and then over to bill to tell you about his family history in the neighborhood. my main purpose, however, is to urge you to approve the conditional use authorization to return the rodriguez property to a commercial use.

the family has deep roots on 24 th street that continue today. sylvia founded the music shop on 24th street in 1972 and made significant contributions to the neighborhood between 72 and 2012 when the store was closed. the reason i put the image up was because it is to the left in the former disco -- and the former music shop is to the right. the sign was preserved because of the historical value and the role of the music store in the rodriguez's family in the neighborhood. bill grew up in the neighborhood and around the store. a little bit more about bill and sylvia, they are of modest means and it is their only property other than their homes in daly city and pacifica, and they have always rented this building for a commercial use. unfortunately, it is honest tenant converted the property without ill and sylvia's

knowledge and without permit to illegal and unsafe housing, which amounted essentially to very small sleeping rooms with no light or windows. acting on the complaint, the san francisco fire department deemed the property unsafe and alert to the rodriguez family who learned of the problem for the first time. they followed the legal process and funded the other tenant's low -- relocation. the property has been vacant since 2017 which has meant that it has generated no rent for the rodriguez family since that time worse yet, d.b.i. continue to issue notices of violation of vagrant orders despite the fact that the planning code requirements require that no work be done to address those abatement orders until this conditional use process was complete, so we were stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of responding to d.b.i. , which we communicated to them and the planning department

this has been an extremely time and cost intensive process to get to you today. so far it has taken 16 months and it has cost bill and sylvia about $300,000. two examples, there are two appraisals required as part of the section 317 process. this two appraisals amounted to $18,000. there's also a requirement for a construction cost analysis, and it includes bids by subcontractors. that amounted to about $7,000. those are just two of the costs that contributed to the 300,000-dollar cost. these costs have forced bill and sylvia to get a hard money loan and use their homes as collateral, and all the while they haven't had any rent. so the two reasons the planning commission should approve this c.u.a. today are the rodriguez family has always rented this property is a commercial use and wants to continue to do so, but

for the dishonest tenant, the property was continued as a commercial use. the second is legalized group housing, which is what the zoning in this area calls for is not financially feasible or practical. the planning code section 317 requires an analysis of whether it is financially feasible to legalize unauthorized units based on the cost to legalize the units in comparison to the added value of the property if the unauthorized units or legalized. in essence, if it is not financially feasible to legalize the units, the conditional use authorization must be granted. based on the two appraisals that are in your packet from the planning department and the professional construction consultants' detailed estimate, the cost and gain would be as follows. the property in its current illegal condition is appraised at $1.5 million. the property in a legalized condition with age group housing units is $2 million, so that is

an increase of $500,000 with legal group housing, the problem is that the cost to renovate and reconstruct this building, the property would cost $1.1 million , that music rodriguez family, if they were to legalize the building, would lose 550 to $600,000. just as important is the fact that they do not have $1.1 million available to spend on that type of legalization and or currently facing significant debt because of the hard money loan that they had to take out to pay -- to address this process. on top of all of this, the current structure is a commercial building that does not have adequate setbacks, light, or air, and converting it to group housing is not at all practice. >> thank you, sir,. >> david is want to talk about -- >> you are out of time. >> how much time as i granted? >> five minutes.

>> we understood from looking at the agenda that we had ten minutes. >> up to ten minutes. >> okay. , so we have the family here in the architect here. >> do they have questions? >> it's okay. we will now open up this item for public comment. i don't have any speaker cards, but i see several folks. come on up. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm from the latino cultural district. ever since i can remember, that property has been a commercial space for many, many, many years the businesses that they own next door is quite -- has been open for quite a few years. they or very respectable business owners in the neighborhood. this property next door had been leased out to someone who was doing taxes in that space with a large garage space on the side.

the community had been noticing a lot of people coming in and out of that space over the years , and it became apparent that there was people living in the space. we were able to go into the space to see what was happening there when the fire department was coming in to investigate. what was built inside were like two sheds made out of plywood. there was up to about 30 people coming in and out, rotating. the individual that was leasing the space was actually collecting more rent than he was paying there and actually taking the additional funds. i think this is, you know, something that we really need to look at, you know, what was there, how it was managed for a lot of years, and making sure that it goes back to the commercial space, that can be run properly by someone who will be equitable. we have been looking at other tenants for them to be able to work something out with them.

they are also working with our conditional use requirements. they or very aware of them. they are willing to work with us , so i think this space has to be commercial, it is laid out for a commercial space and i think it should remain so. we support the conditional use. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay, public comment is now closed. >> i'm normally not supportive of getting rid of housing, but this is not housing. i completely support the see you to turn his back to -- the conditional use to turn his back to commercial space. i hope the city goes back to the person who is profiting off of this inhumane venture so i moved to approve. >> i second. >> if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion... [roll call]

so moved. that motion passes unanimously at 6-0. that will place us on item 16, 2075 mission street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening, members of the planning commission. michael christianson, department staff make the agent before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 202.0 to establish a cannabis retail use measuring approximately 3500 square feet. and the first and a partial mezzanine level of a three story commercial building. is located at 2075 mission street. the mission alcoholic special use district and adb and 40 x-height and bulk districts.

the upper floors are occupied by arts activity. the project includes interior tenant improvements with little exterior alteration given the historic resource deficit of the building. the site will be pursuit -- preserved with a new space. mr. hunt is prepared -- has prepared a presentation on his background and his intend for the facility, which he will present after my presentation. there were no schools or other m.c.d. or cannabis retailers found within 600 feet of the proposed locations. the potentially sensitive uses that were found that are not disqualifying were listed in the executive summary of the project along with their proximity is. as such, the project was found to meet the 600-foot rule.

the project also includes a request for authorization of on-site consumption, and the floorplans included in your packet include an on-site consumption lounge. the department staff as reflected on the cases that have come before the planning commission recently to develop criteria for when the department may recommend allowing or disallowing on-site consumption at a project site. the first criteria is whether similar on-site consumption uses are allowed in the subject zoning districts such as ours. at this location, the mission alcoholic beverage special use district prohibits those uses fully. additionally, controls have been added recently to the district to limit restaurant uses within the corridor, setting a firm cap to retain the corner statuses a retail corridor rather then an entertainment corridor. second criteria development developed whether there are immediately adjacent public open spaces which maybe impacted by smoking or vaporizing which may otherwise occur on-site. that's her -- there is a small park which is located around the block from the subject property,

and the 16th street bart plaza is about a block north of the site, but there are no spaces immediately adjacent to the proposed site. the third and final criteria is community feedback so that we are tailoring our recommendation to the specific needs of each neighborhood. in this regard, we -- it is a mixed bag. we received immense general comment expressing support for our consumption lounge from the general public. we also specifically reached out to united to save the mission, which expressed opposition to a consumption lounge at the site citing the same justification posed by the planning department staff. given these factors, the department is recommending a conditional approval to disallow any on-site consumption at the site. which would require that the plan be revised to remove the lounge prior to permit approval. in terms of public comment, the department received only one letter in support of the application and nothing in opposition. since publication, the

department has received an additional 87 letters in support and one letter in opposition. the letters in support generally expressed support for the business, confidence in mr. hunt 's ability to manage the business based on his prior experience managing a business within the mission district, and strong support for authorization of on-site consumption as part of the request. the letter of opposition was received. the letter expressed concern with compatibility of the proposed use with the opening of the elementary school and the area. and concerned that the area -- the school is not shown on the city's interactive cannabis you tell map which warns applicants of uses. the school is not shown because it is not yet in operation. it is a new school, and when the school does begin operation, staff as noted it will be added to the cannabis retail map as has been directed by the zoning

administrator. however, staff to verify that the distance between the proposed cannabis retail location and the proposed elementary school is 763 feet, which is in compliance with this seven -- the 600-foot rule. as for the proposed use activating a retail store, a vacant storefront, compressed with the general plan and planning code requirement, it supports his city's equity cannabis program and provides employment and economic opportunity for the district. the department recommends approval of the application as conditioned by staff to disallow on-site consumption. this concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions >> thank you. do we have a presentation for the project sponsor -- from the project sponsor? sir,. >> i'm sorry, the project sponsor is currently speaking with the united states with the

mission outside of the chamber and has requested time to continue speaking with them. >> we can have a continuance of the project, but we need a presentation by the project sponsor. or what we can do is go on with the agenda and then here you at the end. >> we're making really good progress. >> we have a whole lot more agenda items. what we will do is just pause this item and then come back to it at the end of the hearing. >> thank you, i apologize for the inconvenience. >> very good, commissioners. we will table this matter and we will move on to item 17 at 349 third avenue. conditional use authorization. >> okay. , good evening, commissioners. i am with plenty department staff. the project before you is

requesting conditional use authorization to demolish a single-family dwelling and construct a new four family dwelling pursuant to planning code section 303 and 317. the subject property is located at 3,493rd avenue -- 349 third . the second, third, and fourth floors are identically styled flats with three bedrooms each. the ground floor has a smaller one-bedroom unit located behind the garage. the building proposes it one accessible car garage. the project also proposes a 400 and 80 square foot deck and a common rear yard. the project has received 23 signed letters of support and fighting the increase in units is necessary for the neighborhood. the majority of these support letters were not from the inner richmond neighborhood where the project is located. two letters of opposition were received citing park concerns in one anonymous voice message.

it is necessary and desirable for the community and it requires approval with conditions. it does remove a dwelling unit, and the increased units provide offset for that loss. thank you, and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. i am a little out of order here. hi, jeremy shaw with an architect firm. i'm here with my client and her extended family. betty and her sister patty bought this building in 1980 with a dream to provide housing for their next generation. they have been living in the building since 2014.

thank you for this hearing today , and thank you for shepherding us through this project. i site is zoned r.h. one. it is a 3,000 square-foot site that allows for four dwelling units. the existing building is the only single-family on the entire block with predominately three and four story unit buildings. we explored several remodel alternatives that would create additional housing units, but came to the conclusion that just about any project adding units would trigger a tantamount to demolition thresholds threshold -- threshold. we're here today to ask for your approval for a c.u. of demolition and new construction. the existing building is about 2500 square feet of living space here are some of the neighborhood context photos. existing site plan, it is about 2500 square feet living space with 575 square foot garage. originally constructed in 1898 with several alterations since.

this building has been declared on historic last november. this is the proposed site plan. the proposed new building maximizes density by providing four dwelling units, three units designed for clients' sun and nieces -- son and nieces, and a future home for betty to live in alongside her family. the new building would be approximately 5,860 square feet, 40 feet tall, with 188 van parking space. the overall building footprint is only slightly larger then the existing size. the front of the building is now designed as a full 25-foot frontage which required us to remove the side walls which would trigger the tantamount to demolition threshold. the project has an increase of about 1,000 square feet and six bedrooms on the site, and the

amount of offstreet parking is reduced from two down to one. so here is the existing floor plan. you can see it has an odd friend projecting area that triggered the tantamount to demolition threshold. here is the third floor attic space with two additional bedrooms, and the current condition of the existing building. our grand -- ground floor plan has 188 van parking space, one fourth unit in the rear, has one 88 van parking space, one fourth unit in the rear. this is a typical floorplan. each for the extended family. each of the units is three bedrooms and it is about 1100 square feet.

this is the roof deck as matt mentioned, about 480 square feet the building would have mostly wood signing and stucco with aluminum windows. i am getting a little low on time so i will let our client speak. >> dear commission, thank you also much for taking the time to hear from us today. i am jessica chow, co-owner currently living at this location. my sister, cousin, and i have all grown up in the bay area and or currently working in san francisco while living in the richmond with our significant others. we embarked on this project with the wish to build three identical units with shared spaces to allow us to continue building our lives together in the neighborhood we know and love as we each start families of our own and fill the building

with children, elderly parents nearing age 70, and dogs. we also wanted to take a moment to mention the absence of crucial need for a one good size accessible parking space to support our family's needs and allow us to maintain strong relationship with the neighbors, given the competition for street parking on our block between gary and clement. all the design choices we made were very personal and we can't wait to begin construction to turn our childhood dream of living together as a big family into reality. >> you can have another 30 seconds to finish up. >> we sincerely appreciate all the effort you've dedicated to reviewing this project. thank you very much. >> thank you so much. we will now open up public comment -- we will now open this up for public comment. i don't have any speaker cards. anyone who wants to comment on the item can come up. okay. public comment is now closed.

commissioner fong? >> i am prepared to move to accept. >> second. >> if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us under your discretionary review calendar at 63 law sought street. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. elizabeth from planning department staff. the item before you is a publicly initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application of 2018 to construct a new three-story, his in the family dwelling on the recently subdivided lot, vacant

lot fronting laussat street. the dwelling would measure approximately 2014 square feet and would contain three bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. roof deck measuring approximately 147 square feet that is proposed and would be accessed by a sliding roof hatch the d.r. requester is the adjacent neighbor to the east and is concerned with primarily one issue that the proposed substandard rear yard will diminish light to his property. his proposed alternative is to reduce the building depth at the rear by 5 feet to increase the rear yard to 15 feet. in regard to public comment, to date, the department has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support aside from the d.r. requester. the planning department's recommendation is as follows. the department's residential design advisory team we reviewed the addition after the d.r. was

filed and confirms that the project meets the standards of the residential design guidelines with respect to the existing development pattern on laussat, which, like many alleys in the city, has been developed with a pattern of small residential buildings with small rear yards, and constrained midblock open space. they have found that the proposed project is set between two and three-story houses with a footprint, massing, and rear yard consistent with the development patterns of the block. they recommended that the design incorporate a raised front stoop in accordance with the market octave you fundamental design principles for ground-floor residences. they also recommended a lower sale of the ground floor window and the introduction of additional vertical space and the street facing windows above to be more in keeping of the vertically oriented windows. he also found that the d.r. requester's concerns regarding the loss of light and privacy

were neither extraordinary or exceptional at the height and set back of the proposed building are appropriate and maintain access to the midblock open space for the d.r. requester's property, and that the proposed new building will maintain a rear yard comparable to those of the adjacent buildings on either side. staff recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed the project has not presented any exceptional orchestra near circumstances that would justify further modifications to a code compliant project. this concludes the department's presentation. >> thank you. do we have a d.r. requester here yes, no? are you the d.r. requester?

are you entitled come on up. >> i live next to the backyard. basically, we live closer to the barrier because we have a large window -- kitchen window serving the property which is less than 15 feet away from the back order -- back border. i spend much time in the kitchen because i like to cook. i like to see the backyard and the building. and also, myself, my husband,

the architect who is the other owner of the building of this property has been meeting in the backyard prior to the first hearing. he told us there is no building to make any changes on this proposed building, otherwise they are going to sell the building to the contractor, which will create more construction on the new building thank you. >> okay. thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? okay. do we have a rebuttal?

i'm sorry, project sponsor, come on up. >> can i use the overhead? good evening commissioners. i am here with the project sponsor and the project architect. first i want to thank staff are helping us work through this process. before turning things over to leslie to discuss the design, i want to briefly touch on the concerns raised by the d.r. requester in -- and all efforts to request -- address them. he has engage the d.r. requester to discuss his concerns. unfortunately, the d.r. requester has not responded to meeting invitations, and the d.r. requester continues to assert the same concerns in his request for discretionary review as voiced to him for proximally 18 months ago prior to the pre application meeting in october of 2017, notwithstanding design refinement -- refinement since then. a staff mentioned, the project confirms ins gail and is in line

with the develop and pattern of the nearby buildings and neighborhood. six of the 13 through lots in the block have been subdivided wouldn't longer lots facing longer and shorter lots facing laussat. and 19 of the 26 lots or substandard. the d.r. requester raises concerns pertaining to the preservation of trees, including the tree on the shared property line and the loss of sun and light. in areas where -- where there is a building pattern, some reduction to light can be expected with building expansion on a vacant lot such as this one though the residential design guideline acknowledged such, that d.r. requester takes a position that exceptional and externally circumstances exist. that is not the case. he has informed the d.r. requester he is willing to preserve the tree on the shared property line, provided the fire marshal and d.b.i. are okay with

that. in addition, he has offered replanting any vegetation and suitable trees in the backyard of 266 waller street and 63 laussat street, adding to the newly created and newly established midblock open space. finally, he is offering to remove any trees on his property to increase sun and light exposure to the d.r. requester's home. i will now turn it over to the project architect. >> good evening. leslie arnold, architect on the project. i would like to briefly go over the proposal. he created his lot and was required to provide a 3-foot easement for 266 waller street. he chose to place the easement along his eastern property line to create an 8-foot wide

building separation between his home and that of the d.r. requester. he has respected the existing side of his neighbors and has chosen to add to it by providing is required rear yard adjacent to the side yard. rarely in san francisco does a property only get an 8-foot wide separation between the property. displacement of the side yard will -- well on the eastern property line benefits both property owners. he specifically chose to place his easement on the eastern side to benefit his neighbors. i thank you can see there is an 8-foot -- there. you can see there is 8 feet between my client's house and the d.r. requester's. substantial changes were made to the design of the building at the benefit of the d.r. requester. namely the removal of a fourth story. the combination of removal of the fourth story and the 3-foot easement creates a very small building envelope, which is why

he is requesting a smaller rear yard so that he can provide a home that meets his future family's needs.

i don't see any, frankly i think he's been very generous and accommodating all of the neighbors. i can't think of a single reason why it should be approved as proposed. >> thank you so much. any other public comment in support of the sponsor? >> hi. i live in the neighborhood, and i also am a teacher in san francisco. i think this project is really nice, and i think it will be

supporting the neighborhood. we desperately need more housing like that, in the area. please approve the project, as it is. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment in support of the sponsor? okay. requesters, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> the only thing i want to just add, the building is going to take a lot of light, in the space, we need more yard. also, adding a garage creates more problem on the street parking. my husband already provided some photographs of my building,

whatever you decide to do, we cannot do anything. >> thank you. >> project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. thank you for allowing me to speak. i just want to say, me and my fiancé, we are private citizens, we are not developers. we have day jobs, we go to them every day. we have a big mortgage. i have been with this project since tran11, it took me a few years to get the lot, and a few years to get here before you. during that time i've never hit -- hid my intent to which is to build property on the subdivided event. i have aging parents, my dad is 75, my mom is 74. we want to raise a family with my fiancé.

i just feel like, throughout this process, i very much like peter and mara, by the way. they are great people. i've tried to extend and accommodate as much as i humanly could, foz will not timeframe. as leslie pointed out, i just want to be clear, i specifically chose to record that easement on their side in order to preserve as much light as possible and as much distance as possible. i completely relate to the fact that, you know, they have enjoyed the view for a long time of this empty place, in a lot. i get that. it had been fortunate it had been empty and vacant for so long. i would really love to build this modest single-family home .-dot to in our view fits perfectly within the powdered of this neighborhood -- -- pattern

of this neighborhood. we are going to stay in san francisco, we are going to raise a family. we both work here, my fiancé and i do. we are hopefully going to bring my parents and even her folks to live in the existing house and create more housing for elderly folks, as well. thank you. >> okay. commissioner richards. >> i think this is a sensitive project. i like the fact he recorded the easement. you seem like an overall good guy. i was ready to make a motion to not take dr unless i am i am convinced. >> i share the same opinion as you. i work a little bit always at the first block of fillmore. this is a small street, large alleyway.

all of the lots are small. all of the houses are originally built because of the size of the lots. also, i agree, the developers being more than gracious by literally placing the easement, and sharing it with a neighbor. i am in support. >> a couple of questions for staff. do you know whether the dr was filed based on the original scheme, they -- rather than the revised scheme? >> i think -- >> there is a big difference. >> right. yeah, i would defer to the project sponsor on that. >> though dr was taken on the site permit plans. we have revised it based on discussions with our team. based on that that is the plans that you have before you.

>> has a revised set been provided to the dr requester? >> yeah, it has been provided. >> okay, ma'am. it is provided as part of the packet which is uploaded to the website and is public information. >> second. >> ma'am, you are out of order. until they are asked a question. >> i assume all of those lots have been subdivided, and required a variance? >> um. yes, looking out the parcel map there are um, it is the nature of the block to have smaller lot

development. >> the property line between the subdivided lots do not match up, is not also correct? >> well, that was -- the subject property was a subject of effort previous variance granted by the zoning administrator. >> i understand that, i'm saying that subdivision compared to the one next to it, that the rear property lines do not line up, is that correct? >> they do not. that is correct. they do not line up. i do not have the previous variance in front of me. i am not sure. >> okay. >> ms. arnold, i am in support of the project. i think it is a sensitive project. the only thing i would like to ask is that since this

particular small block does not have any roof decks, that is your roof deck setback properly once there is a roof area on the other part of the roof, on roof as part of the submittal? do you see that? >> there is a little outline, i'm only taking a third of the area. >> i know that. what i would like to see is a drawing that shows the area surrounding the roof deck as being an unoccupied roof. we have seen, unfortunately in building things, i would like to have that recorded as the roof area that we are proving today. i would like to state again that the street itself does not have roof decks. we are basically adding something, which i believe is appropriate