sites. so some of us do know about it. but i have two technical questions for the project sponsors. one is when you discuss resiliency, is the project sponsor in the seawall modifications? >> so we're community our site is hiris higher than other site. we will both be lifting our site and working with the port of san francisco to rebuild the seawall and waterfront. >> the second question is related to what you have listed as sustainability and green elements. given the history of the site and the fact that it was a major source of pollutants, did you folks consider looking at creating a passive house here at the site? >> we did. there's a pasive house a passiv.

we have looked and would commit. we're in ab 900 stewardship and we have committed to greenhouse gases and as far as specific -- our sustainability plan has all of the sustainability plan for the project and targets we intend to hit and we look forward as our grid continues to green and improve. >> i think a passive house would go beyond that. at a minimum, it might be interesting for you folks to consider whether you create a passive house at your proposed hotel. >> we'll look into it before the next meeting. >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you for the presentation. it's always good to, i think, hear about this project i think i think it's testament to what you've all done in meeting some of the community request and just developing a project that i

think works great on this site. it's a mas massive site. we're getting a ton of affordable housing and the amount you're providing on a site not owned by the city, that's privately owned. so i mean, i think it's a wonderful project. it's great for this neighborhood and this site to reuse it in this fashion. 30% affordable housing, the open space and community benefits are somewhat unprecedented for a site like this and i look forward to hearing this again and hopefully approving this. >> thanks. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you and thank you to my fellow commissioners for their questions. i want to chime in and say i'm excited to see where this project has come. i want to thank both the project sponsor and the community for being really willing to work

together and collaborate because each iteration, continuing to see a more exciting project, really excited to hear the addition of a partnership with homeless prenatal project. you think so often our nonprofits, even our who serve our communities aren't able to provide that missing linker and giving the demographics and the history of this neighborhood, i'm excited we will be able to provide affordable housing as possible. i look forward to seeing project come back. >> there's a lot to love about this project. we talked about this before. other commissioners made

comments, the affordability and retaining historic preservation. but one question, one member of the public talked about, we approve these projects and sit in the, quote, pipeline forever. are you ready to build this project? >> it's funny you should ask that. we were discussing our phasing plan and committing it shortly. we're fortunate and happy that the city has taken on someone to bring similar to the oawd role for projects entitled and built. we've had our first heating with jejustin true and his team and we're committed to building this project. >> commissioner hilis? >> so we're initiating the general plan amendments no earlier than october 10th? >> on or after october 10th. >> second.

>> there's nothing further, commissioners, a motion to initiate general plan amendments and schedule a hearing on or after october 10th. pai(roll call). >> so moved, commissioners and that motion passes 6-0. that will place us on new discretionary review value. items 8a was withdrawn and ab was continued. item 9, for case 2018. 01137-drb at 133 camino del-mar. this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon to all. the item before you is a public initiainitiatated request for 2-

2018-0297.1583 could construct a 2400 square foot addition over a foot on 3 33 el camino del-mar. >> if you're exiting the room, could you do so quietly, please. >> it was determined this was a category b, historic resource, and that determination has not changed due to the name of the proposal. the reason for the dr, the dr request, frank derosa of 126 27th avenue, a neighbour to the southwest of the proposed project is concerned with three main issues. number one, that the roof addition appears to exceed the 35-foot height limit. number two, that the fourth story addition will set a precedent and transform this into a four-story neighborhood and impact the light to streets and backyards.

number three, that the massing of the addition blocks access to the mid-block open space from neighboring yards. the department received eight letters in support from the immediate adjacent neighbors. in light of that, the department has re-reviewed the project with the measurement of height and number one, the measurement height and the allowed projections for the dormer was reviewed by project planner, the zoning administrator and assistant zoning administrator and found to be compliant with code section 260. since the proposed number addition is set back 27 feet from the proposed facade and does not extended passed the

existing rear wall, it complies with the guidelines related to scale at the street and scale at the rear yard and number three, the impacts on light from this modest enlargement on either mid-block open space were not deemed to be exceptional or extraordinary. since the addition is on an existing footprint of a building shallower than neighbors and mid-block north of the open space. they find it meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommends the commission not take dr and take the commission as proposed and does not present any extraordinary conditions. this concludes my report and i'm happy to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. is the dr quester here? >> ok. >> good afternoon, commissionerrerings. i'm for the committee to preserve height limits and a dr

requester. our presentation will be made by myself as well as david field who will discuss what we believe are errors in the height calculations. there are any number of issues, not the least which is a 2013 settlement agreement entered into between the project sponsors and several neighbors. while i understand the commission is not in the business of evaluating settlement agreements, there's an important policy here. in this instance, when the neighbors approved the first stairwell penthouse, they relied and initialed a set of plans that included representations as to the location of the 35-foot height limit. and they very much relied on those plans when deciding to withdraw their opposition to the project. as can be seen on b, c, d and e,

hiding height calculations to the current project shows that the project is in violation of the height limits. there's some question as to whether or not the commissioners did get all of the exhibits, david, to the brief. so i've got copies of all the exhibits here if you're interested in reviewing them. but the fact is that if you took those 2013 plans and applied heights and applied them to this project, the project exceeds the height limits. the project sponsors says those plans were mistaken. were they? whether the plans were mistaken or not, should not all of the parties be bound since they signed them? if not, why would anyone enter into a settlement agreement if an applicant can turn around five years later and change the plans? i would suggest it's not clear

whether the original plans are mistaken. they rely on the implement's aps plans to be correct and don't actually review them for correctly but as you look at the briefs, we are showing that the plans are not correct. i would note that the architect has used the pitch roof exception of planning code section 268-.2, but i submit when that was created in the code, it was to create additional habitab election space within an existing building, with an existing pitch roof, not to have a dormer be built in an entirely new construction. and while we respectfully disagree with the view on this, i should point out the calculations do not work. if you look at f and g to our materials, you can see the applicants forgot to include the

stairwell area. instead of 19% calculation, if you include the stairwell penthouse area, it's 22%. if nothing else, tease plans neethese plansneed to be redones the wrong points to calculate the height. i would ask david field to address that for you. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm david field, an architect with richard avalar and associates. i was retained to take a look at the plans and see if they complied with the planning codes applicable here. if you take a look at the plans submitted, the elevation off which the 35-foot height limit taken is taken off the location

in the back and that's transferred to the rear el evacuatioelevation of the housed raises that above it would be at graduate at the front elevation of the house. that is one error i observed as presented on the drawings. i also did take a look at the penthouse, the stair penthouse that wa exceeds the areas as stated. those were two observations i made and i think you would find this does not meet the ordinance. thank you. >> anyone here in support of the dr requesters? come on up.

>> hi. thank you for your time today. i'm scott gutterman and my family and i live at 127 27t 127 27th avenue. >> you're a member of the committee to present height limits, correct some. >> correct. >> your time was during the presentation of the initial five minutes? >> so there's no additional time on that. >> for anyone not part of this committee can speak but as a party to the dr, you're essentially one of the dr applicants. >> true. >> you can have a two-minute rebuttal. >> so now? >> no, at the end. >> ok. >> there are any members of the pub not part of dr requesting committee to support the dr requester?

>> i'm peter temple and i have lived in the sequeth neighborhood in the same home all my life, since the day i was born, with the exception of 25 years i moved away to santa cruz. as much, many, many people who have known me since i was born. i am one of founding members of a group called sequeth cares. we have like-minded neighbors who support reasonable development in the neighborhood. we want to see good development that properly stewards the land, the open space, available light and so forth. and we are very much interested in compromise and to that end, that's why i want to speak

today. i'm concerned that the acceptable reneging signed in 2013, at least on the spirit of that agreement will lady to others in websit sequeth and beg required to go to remediation which is one of the requirements for a discretionary review. this went to mediation with no compromise. i attended a meeting with the project sponsor and pleaded with them for some other possibilities.

my concern is that this is a grey hat that's about to turn black and what i would like to see is dialogue between the project sponsors and dr requester and any members of our community that are interested in this, thank you. >> any other members of the public in support of the dr requester? seeing none, project sponsor.

>> my name is michelle carter. in 2013, we renovated our home and thought we would never renovate again. let's fastforward to today and our family has changed dramatically. we have two little girls and we have a house with every bedroom occupied. my house and i work at home and between us we have three sets of parents, all whom have health issues. this creates just enough space for us to meet our growing family's needs. throughout this process, we sent letters and attended a fourth meeting with the dr requester. we have the full support of 15 neighbors, including both of our next door neighbors and several

across the street. in 2013, we agreed to a settlement that specified how to access a roof deck and we entered that agreement to be neighborly and reasonable and never thought those neighbors would use it against us with a false claim that we could never vertically expand our home. the dr requester does not want anything on our roof and his light, air and privacy would not be impacted. ultimately, the real reason is a view from his bedroom window and deck will change. we wish there was a way to accomplish our project without impacting a portion of his view, but we value the needs of our family and want to raise our children in this lovely city. please help us stay in our home and deny this dr requester. >> we designed this project to be sensitive to the neighbors and fit contextually in the neighborhood. we have support of both immediate neighbors and the

three across the street. this modest 624-square foot addition is set back 27 feet from the street. it not be visible from directly across the street and would only be minimumally visible from other vantage points from el camino del-mar. it's modest in height close to code minimum. a roof that slopes to the rare following the guidelines. the lot itself slopes up towards the rear by 10 feet. this next slide will show how minimal the addition is from the rear yard perspective. over 30% of the homes have four stories or are over 35 feet in height. those over 35 feet are also outlined in blue. the next few slides show the block and surrounding buildings on the roof the project site.

many fourth stories, sloped roofs and party buildings create a multilayered surrounding context. because the addition is situated to the north of the mid-block open space, as david said, it will not shade the open space, affect the light, air or privacy of any neighbor, including every member of the opposition. the primary dr requesters' home is 100 feet away as shown by the red line. in the brief and presentation, the opposition incorrectly shows the slope of the existing grade from a small point in the rear yard within a drain well below staircase. they also erroneously use the lowest point of the sidewalk as a basis. this is not how it's done. we average the two points at the front and we use grade at the back. we have carefully reviewed this height limit calculation with staff and they've confirmed or interpretation in this case is correct. the opposition also incorrectly claims that the stair access, a

component on a separate roof area should be included in the allowed 20% basis calculation. staff again has determined it is code co compliant. we have asked them on three separate occasions to evaluate for performance. they're code compliant and follows our guidelines. thank you. >> i'm tom tunney on behalf of the sponsor. i'm just addressing the 2013 settlement agreement issue. you think the opponents don't raise the ush at this point that a future project was not prevented or prohibited by the agreement. they talk about the height representation in the plans attached to the agreement, that that was misleading and mistaken. it wasn't.

it was shown as an approximation of the height limit. it was accurate to the extent it shows the 35-foot height limit. it wasn't sloped as it now. it wasn't necessary at the time. there was no survey done at that time. we can talk more about that issue during the rebuttal or any questions. thank you. >> any members of the public here in support of the project sponsor? >> i would implore you to access this and we need more housing for families. >> anyone else from the public want to support the project sponsor? seeing none, public comment is

closed. dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> i'm frank de rosa and along with all of these neighbors, would you please stand up, most of whom are on the committee, so they're prevented from speaking. but all of these neighbors oppose this project. can you put the screen on, please? we have 15 exhibits to our brief. so we ask you to read the brief. it's a short brief and we ask you to look at those exhibits carefully. this is one of the exhibits. this is the settlement -- a drawing from the settlement agreement that shows the 35-foot

height limit on the existing structure. so, basically, it's at the roof of the structure. puand this label here says 35-ft limit. it's very specific. we relied on these drawings prepared by their architect, signed by them, initialed by them and our settling neighbors in the assuring ourselves that nothing could be built above this roof deck. we accommodated the roof deck, which is what they requested. nothing could be built above that. so we ask you, commissioner richards, at the july 25t july 25th hearing, you said when a lot of shenanigans going

on, you said that this commission is the last bastion of defending the public trust. we ask that this commission uphold that standard and honour a settlement agreement that was entered into in good faith, with information represented by the owners and reject these plans. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> just real quick. it's just not the case that the parties in entering the 2013 agreement thought that no future project would be allowed. even a vertical addition. in an email that the dr requester, mr. derosa sent two days before the settlement agreement was signed, he stated,

quote, i think all of us intend this agreement to apply to this permit proceeding. if five years from now, you're aglutton for punishment and want to remodel again, you are not constrained by this agreement in what you can propose. i have the email here and would like to enter it for the record. thank you. >> real quick, the red lane that was drawn on the subject from the previous project was created by the opposition to illustrate where the height limit was. it was estimated by the previous architect to be a straight line on those documents. the height limit is not calculated that way and we're clear about that and i don't think that the previous height limit designation was a form of

agreement about future development. >> his comment is finished up. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> the guidance for us on this particular project comes from the planning department and for mr. winslow as the architect. working with the applicant and also work work, and working wite dr requesters. i'm a strong believer in life that agreements are agreements, i cannot say that i am bound by the agreement or by the interpretation of the agreement because i was not party to it what i am bound to is to adhere to making sure that what we are

deciding on is within the responsibilities that this commission has and as we are advised by the planning department to understand the situation that is in front of us. that said, i do not believe with verification of how we calculate height and how we understand the building code or the residential design guidelines that this particular project is asking for anything exceptional or extraordinary. and i need to follow the department's recommendation and not take dr and approve the project as proposed. >> is that a motion? >> that is a motion. >> second. >> commissioner fung? >> two questions for staff. the height measurements come up a lot, especially in appeal and

remember a lot of cases that dealt with that. dormers and sloping gable roofs also come off a lot. and i didn't examine the code fully, but it was my recall that it exists. >> you can create a sloped roof that complies with the height limit. that same section allows for 20% of the roof area in the form of certain things, including dormers, to exceed that height limit and that 20% is of the roof area. so the other point in this case is the exact method of

measurement from the survey points on the survey, which i think project sponsor did the best job to illustrate how that was done, as well as staff's determination that it was done correctly. >> from your brief, you feel height was correctly done. how about the 20%? >> yeah, correct. so the 20% -- so the grey zone alleged in this request pertains to a portion of the stair penthouse. the portion of the penthouse has a sloped roof and it can be measured from the mid-point and not be considered a part of the 20% that could exceed the height of the roof as in the case of the dormer.

is that clear? >> commissioner richards? >> we've instituted a process if you come to an agreement, we ask that you put the agreement together and we hear the case in content and the plans and everything that are associated with that are memorialized rather than on private agreement so that we would have jurisdiction over what would come after that. so just for future reference for anybody out there or listening, it is a code compliant project. i do hear commissioner moore. i want to make one comment. it's a 3700 square foot house with a family room, a living room, a media room, looks like four bedrooms and there's a couple of rooms that you want to add on top. i just find this disingenuous.

we have families live in a space that a quarter lives in. it a co-compliant project and i just want to let you know it sounds riddle t ridiculous to m. >> there's a motion seconded to not approve the project as proposed. (taking roll). >> so moved, commissioners and that motion passed unanimously, 5-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 10 for 41 winter place, a discretionary review. >> good afternoon, vice president, kopple, david winslow. the item before you is a request

for discretionary review for a fourth story vertical addition to an existing three-story, too-family house. they are requesting a building to occupy a portion of the rear yard, the required rear yard. a public hearing for that variance was held at which time the zoning administrator took it administer advisement finding ag the outcome of this dr. they are related to loss of privacy and incompatibility with the neighborhood. historic resource is a category c. the reason, therefore, the first steve giovani of 764 green street, a neighbor to the south is concerned with first the scale is out of character with the scale of the alley in the mud-block open space.

second, that light and shadow impacts on adjacent neighborhoods will impact this. the building has two rent-controlled units. and four, that the proposed project will block views. the second dr requester, jason louie of 768, a neighbor to the south is concerned with scale, light and shadow impacts and that basically, the same as the original dr requester, and that the existing rent-controlled units will be forcing the ten the tenants to relocate and mitzie johnson, the neighbor to the eat, concerned with six main issues. first that the call of the

proposed story building is out of character with the predominant scale of the alley and mid-block open space, that light and shadow impacts on adjacent residences in the massing of the building will block or greatly reduce light to the rear yard of 11 august alley, her property. and that the proposed project will also impact privacy to the yard and building of her property at 11 august alley. four, that the materials and features are incompatible with the neighborhood character and five, the burde bird hazards duo large expansions of glass and increases in parking spaces. the fourth dr requester, peter gallagher of 776 green street, a neighbor to the south of the proposedded project is concerned with four many issues. first the scale of the bulg buig is out of character with the mid-block open space and light and shadow impacts on the

adjacent residences will block or greatly reduce light. and third, the existing building has two occupied representativel units, forcing removal of the tenants for a single-family residence and four, it will block view. surprisingly, to date, the department has received no letters in opposition and no letters of support. the residential design review found that the existing building extends beyond the rear yard beyonbeyond 51 feet deep and its three feet from the front of the building on winter alley, such that it is not visible from the street. this displaces an existing 325 square-foot roof deck at the rear and replaces it with an 88 square deck at the setback, which is five feet from all building edges.

as such, the scale from winter alley is maintained. the addition is immediately adjacent to the rear cottage to the west and to the north of the adjoining rear yards fronting green street. given the sides of the addition, the distance to the adjoining properties light and shadow impacts were determined not to be exceptional or extraordinary. the property at 11 august alley will likely receive shadows in its garden from buildings by late afternoon and similarly, the light and shadow impacts to the rear of properties, front and green street, will be minimal since the project is north of them. the proposed balcony and appropriate line windows of the audition represent potential privacy impacts to the adjacent yard and building at 11 august alley and should be modified. the proposed project is an alteration and an addition to an existing two-unit building

remaining a two-unit building. the planning department has controls for displacement in the case of the project sponsor seek under code 17. project sponsors may be reasonably allowed to alter or reconstruct portions -- additions whereby it may control rent-controlled tenants to be temporarily displaced. the representative board and relevant state boards has mechanisms for dealing with periods of displacement and provides remedy for these issues. to date, no tenants from come forward with issues regarding this. this is not a feature-related bird hazard and the number of parkings is the same so no foreseeable impacts are due to this project. this subsequents review has found that the issue related to

privacy with the adjacent neighboring property at 11 august alley raised by the dr requester is exceptional and staff recommends modifying the project in the following ways. one, by removing the side property lines balcony, reducing the size of the east-facing windows by raising the sill height to 5'6" or higher to respect the neighbor's privacy and selecting a cladding material in keeping wit materials on the surrounding buildings. this concludes the department's presentation and i'm here and happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. we will now hear from dr requester number one. >> thank you, good afternoon. i'm steve williams and i represent two of four adjacent neighbors who oppose the project and fueled the dr requesters.

mut subsidthis is a project that all wrong in terms of the code and -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. i want to know, so are you doing the presentation for both dr requester, mr. loui and miss johnson at the same time? >> yes. >> ok, got you. thank you. >> your time already started. your hear the buzzer at five and i'll restart for another five. >> i won't need all of that time but i wanted to let you know for both of them. >> thank you. >> this project gets it all wrong in terms of following the code and the housing policies of the city of san francisco. it's not code compliant. it seeks a variance, and that fact is not stated in the calendar and not stated anywhere in the staff written analysis. so let's start there.

second, it violates the residential design guidelines and radically so. provides no relief at all to miss johnson's one-story cottage and beautiful garden. three, i what say that it destroys nationa naturally, affe housing but it remodels it to a higher price point. the sponsor is a marine county resident and offering this as a short-term rental on the website hotpads.com. we can only assume that the purpose of this remodel is to get more money from short-term rentals. even if he was resident, even if

he was a neighbor, this is the wrong location and the wrong place for this kind of audition. addition. these tiny mid-block lots on dead-end allies are simply unsuitable for four-story buildings. so let's start with that point, start with my last point first. the project's location, size and scale. winner place is the name of this alley and it is one of the very smallest of the small alleys i've seen and in the last several decades. it's 11 feet wide, 11 feet wide. a car barely fits down it. it dead-ends after 140 feet. here is the view, if i may have

the overhead -- here is the view looking down the alley from mason street and then here is the view looking back up the alley from in front of the subject property. it's a substandard lot. in fact, less than one half of the code-defying minimum of a standard lot, which is 2500 square feet, less than half of that. by the way, that information is also not mentioned in the staff analysis and not provided and apparently not reviewed. so on these types of lots, as a matter of practice, policy and precedent, the commission has never allowed a fourth story. never. and i've had many of those cases on edith street, edgar street.

these tiny interior block lots, there are no fourth floors and there's not any on this block. there's no fourth floors on any block that fronts on this alley or initial else. now anand as the commission may recall, on an identical project this year, march 7, 2019 for a project at 120 varanez street denied a project and fourth floor. the only real difference between this case is that 120varan zerks is oez ison a much larger lot as not a dead-end alley but a through street.

varanez is twice as wide. it's not 11 feet wide. so at the conclusion of that hearing in march after rejecting the project, commissioners state ed this if that project returned to the commission, even with an additional unit, and that was a part of the issue in that case, even with an additional unit added, they would not support any increase in the envelope or massing. you went back and looked at that hearing this morning and that's a direct quote. they said it's just not appropriate on such a small alley, such a densely, inhabited area. so this excision has historically rejected all proposed fourth-floor additions on the narrow mid-block alley as and i list several in my brief and that's consistent over the years. why? why has the commission done

that? because the projects violate the residential design guidelines. when you try to put a fourth floor on a substandard lot directly adjacent to much smaller buildings, it necessarily violates the residential design guidelines and this does so dramatically. i mean, if you look at front page of my brief, you'll see that not only -- can i have the overhead again. this is missy's house down here, a one-story cottage, directly adjacenadjacent to the buildinge story. not only does it fill in that light-well facing her but adds another story on top. so i mean, without any articulation and without any consideration and without any setback whatsoever for that new floor, it's a direct and obvious violation of the guidelines and any fair reading or interpretations of those

guidelines, they do not allow for several naked stories above the adjacent cottage without any articulation or setback of any kind. that's what is being proposed here. i printed the illustrations from the residential design guidelines in my brief, which specifically state that over and over again. here is one found on page 24. it says that if you're running up a third-story next to a sec story building, you ought to set it back. you ought to articulate that. there's a rear yard cottage and miss johnson lives in a rear-yard cottage that says if you block light to that cottage, you ought to set it back. and those guidelines have not been applied to this project at all and i don't know why. she lives in a historic

rear-yard cattag cottage and mistakenly, it was not applied. this has been offered as a short-term rental over the last decade. neighbors have seen one group of enthusiastic young people after another come through the place, sat on the deck, having parties and none of them knew mr. sampson, the owner who claimed he lived and now conceded he hasn't lived there for more than eight years. so this short-term rental -- and i attached the print-out from hotpads.com as an exhibit to my brief. i just went online and printed it out a couple of days ago and attached that for you. it was never registered with the city as a short-term rental. the site was only pulled -- this

rental was only pulled from this site, second page of the exhibit, october 3rd, 2018, shortly before the 3-11 notification issued and just after the reapplication meeting in august of 2018. so obviously, holding rent-controlled housing off the market for nearly a decade, offering that same rent-controlled housing as un-registered short-term rent violates housing codes in the middle of our housing crisis. the city shouldn't reward that, not with a variance and not with an approval of this project. thank you very much and i'm here to answer m any questions you might have. >> we will now hear from the next dr requester.

please let's keep the conversation down. >> good afternoon. i'm peter gallagher from 776 green street and as the previous dr requester said, this gets it all wrong. it's way out of scale for the locaon. it's a very, very small lot on a very, very small alley and it's already overbuilt. it's already built out to the project line on either side, to the property line at the back. we want to add a penthouse to extend what's already like a petaaa tier. it's not solving any lack of problems in the city. at the cost of all of the

neighbors, we'll have a more densely occupied area. miwe're all losing something he. if you don't stop this, it will set a precedent and we'll have more people in the mid-block building up more of the tiny lots developed beyond capacity where they're build at. and i realize that the commission is predisposed to allow more destruction because san francisco needs housing. i realize that, but this is the wrong kind of housing and wrong location. this is on a tiny little alleyway and tiny lot. i would point to a couple of errors in the dr, the developer's response to our dr requests. i don't know if i can put something up on the scream here.

screen here? it's worth noting that when they look at what they can use to justify building up, they cite buildings and say, look at all these buildings. look at what's not there, not a sim address osingle address on . big wide streets. also, i highlighted only five feet in height above the neighboring property. but if you look elsewhere, they'll tell you, oh, yeah, it is on a download slope. this is at the bottom of the hill and now they're five-feet above the uphill neighbor and doesn't sound like much, but they're down lower and going up

higher, so again, it's out of proportion. one other thing which the previous requester eluded to, they've stated to you this developer is a residence of san francisco for the last 30 years and his own and occupied the third-floor unit of the building since 2002. well, he told us at a meeting last week, he hasn't lived there in eight years and somewhat conflicted about what happened before then. i know that may not mean a lot. everyone has a right to whether they live here or not, but this is as guy, as we've heard, has been renting this out on airbnb or something like that, says he lives there, says he doesn't. as members of the community, and i think mitzi and steve and i, we all live there.

my kids go to public schools in san francisco. my wife work for the city. people like us are finding it harder and harder and that's because more places are developed like this. this is not family-friendly. there's no backyard. it's not family housing. and the neighbors, i know you're not seeing a lot of letters here or not a lot of neighbors showing up. you have four dr requests because everybody is working, the mud o middle of the day andd to come here. that's really it. it's just out of proportion. please stop it, please. >> thank you, mr. gallagher.

we'll hear from mr. steve giovanini. good afternoon. >> i reside at 764 green street. my home is south of the proposed project. our home is the first one erected on green street after the earthquake. my grandparents moved in in the 1930s, acquiring the building from the asaroa family. i'm the third generation in our family's home. i took a walk down winter place to count the number of addresses the street has. there's four buildings with a winter place address, none higher than three story. perhaps just as important, this is a 140-foot alley and a scant 11-feet wide. i turned up mason from winter to count how many would be affected. on the east side of mason, there are four buildings with 17 units facing the proposed project. when i got to the top, i got to

main street and counted 23 addresses facing winter's place. there's a multitude of people that will have to look out and see the fourth floor obstruction. included in this one count or alex and jennifer, bobby, john and leslie, jack, matt, marco, cacamden, jason, melissa, not to mention the people affected on august alley. not everyone can file a dr or hire an attorney, but everyone on our block is interested in the long-term effects of the decision made on the proposed project. these are real people voting on our ballot, a ten-jury ballot. we don't want to see this being erected by someone notleyin notn our city or county. we hope you find a way to keep

our beautiful skylines. >> do we have any members of the public who want to provide comment in support of the dr requesters? with that, public comment is closed. >> project sponsor gets ten minutes. >> i was going to get to that. we will now hear from the project sponsor. this is, in fact, smaller in

scale than every building on the block. we agree with the changes proposed by staff and request they approve the project with modifications. it's been stated by the dr requester that the project would not be built without a variance and this is untrue. you can see the code here. so if necessary, we have a code compliant plan to submit. the building has a small footprint and small lot has been suggested with a rear yard and clear to us in the design that it was more logical structure to build over the existing fingerprinexist footprintand tho winter place and everyone feels this is impacting the alley when it's not visible from winter place. so it's a much more logical location and we thought the variance was worth fighting for. we have code-compliant plan. so to the main issue of the dr

requesters. they say this does not meet the bear minimum of the starts and that impacts the history structures. clearly, our planning stuf staff complies to the code and i find the historic misinformation completely ridiculous and the historic planning staff and wants to look at the planning information map, this is not a historic structure as climbe cly the attorney. the buildings may be old but not known historic contributors. they claim the fourth floor negatively impacts winter place. there's no impact to winter place at all. there are minor glimpses from august alley, but it's a small treat, not well-travel and i don't believe the impact of our addition will have much to complete with this highrise if the distance. third, they claim the project