and stacking buildings down the hillside to preserve views from homes above. and commissioned a new soils report and geological investigations and found that the existing soils overlaying the fractured bedrock presents today even a geological hazard in the significant event that rock can be expected to fall off the cliffs into the neighbors' rear yards. the solution derived is to cut the cliff back to a 45-degree slope with the stability and replant the area and add drainage to the base. beyond correcting current hazard this, approach creates more openness and green space visually extending the rear

yards of the caesar chavez homes. we also had to solve for runoff issues leading down to the north. under current conditions, the winter rains have saturated overlaying soft soils and surface water runs down the rear yard and into the homes below. our approach was to integrate site drainage and storm water management solutions and gather water from the roof and put them into a central cistern. it presented significant fire and life saving challenges. we worked with several areas for the following provisions. red, no parking zone in front -- is that's it. >> you can finish. >> no parking zone in the front. new fire hydrant. wide 5 1/2 foot pedestrian

walkway. and fire rated construction, higher standard and sprinklers and sites throughout and safe dispersal area in the middle. every partee is a small pedestrian hillside community. we take a cue from the gables on the street. bring these into the mid-block and face them north downtown. the materials is modern and differential to local form, wood siding, aluminum win dose. here are a few images as you walk around the site and essential green, access to the back unit. private rear yards.

all right. good enough. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. i have a few speaker cards. [calling of speakers] line up on the left and anyone else who wants to speak can come up at this time as well. >> anybody, please come up. time is ticking.

come on up. >> i am kathleen campbell. i live at 84 peralta avenue on the south side of the project uphill. my late husband bought our house in 1968. it is in the middle of the block and it is one of a row of 1907 picture classic but humble painted ladies. not quite as fancy as those. for the first time since 1997, i am actually expressing support of this project. i have have been a fairly vociferous opponent since then. i testified in november about the exactly the concerns that the architect raised. i feel that having this new architect has made a world of difference. he's reached out to the community, especially the neighbors who would be most heavily impact and caesar chavez and york street and done his best to address their concerns and also the general concerns

about the bizarre mechanical features and the turntables and also quite serious cliff and geotechnical realities and runoff. i mean, there are people surrounding this project who have little creeks running through the basements during the wet season. i admit it is not perfect. it's i think the best we're going to get given the challenges of the site and i also appreciate the time and energy that the planning department has put into this project and the commission for over 22 years. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> i am linn lazlo. and i have a disability and if you don't understand what i say, please i'll write it down. in regard to the project, we as neighbors for 30 years, we have a few comments about issues that should be addressed before approval of the plans submitted by the owner, developer, and the

architects. we assumed with this we have been -- in 30 years of this project, we have all turned gray. we assume that the rs2 zoning would limit the developer to a total of four houses in the interior area. this plan would allow eight houses or four duplexes, plus two condos with gated entry

building. with respect to the kr creative and ingenius ideas of the architect, we argue that most of the problems stem from creating too many units on steep land on a narrow street. we think you should go back to four houses, but we are not opposed to development. our neighbors have no voice in

this procedure. and never have. we have questions that would not be answered at all in the presentations before the commission and. in no particular order with no vehicular access to the houses, how would residents as years go by manage to move appliances, heavy furniture, and other

walkways. as for development by -- as you can see by looking at the map, these -- they can't have a visitor within easy access. and plans to change this for residents and visitors with

mobility issues, that would be me. we see no provision in the plans for pathway or shelters in case of rain. people would have to have umbrellas. in case of events like a mudslide -- >> sir, your time is up. >> and residents have any other shape beyond the bottleneck. >> thank you, sir. sir, your time is up. >> one last thing. no homeowners have been -- thank

you for your time. >> thank you, sir. i have a copy of my notes. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker please. >> i am a resident at 41 peralta and acquired the house from an old friend of mine, which was fascinating. i have been a native and it is interesting. i am very well acquainted with the history of the neighborhood. hour house was built in 190 # o and photographs from 1917 and what neighborhood looks like back then. a lot of the construction that was done in the neighborhood around 1927 was really quite fascinating to observe. and so permit my -- i didn't want to file a d.r. to the project, but i do have some

fundamental objection in terms of the traffic on york street. it is really a one-way and access is limited and multiple accidents and issues on that street. if they were to purchase the property on caesar chavez and flatten it, that would create the appropriate level of access from a business sow thoroughfare as opposed to a thin and inaccessible thoroughfare. and beyond that, the the density itself. the design is well thought out and is elegant and is friendly to the environment and the area. they have done their homework, but i do think having that many people and that many units in that small of a space and inaccessible presents fundamental issue, but that would be the extent of the objection. i represent probably five other neighbors with the same issues or the same thoughts, and i am basically representing them today. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker please.

>> good evening, commissioners. i am the external secretary of the east slope design review board. we have been -- i won't say wrestling -- with this project for a number of years and it has improved expotentially for today, and as a couple of other people will mention, there are a lot of beneficial elements that improves the neighborhood, that improves the housing situation, and we we were massaged by the planning department over a period of time that we ended up with a nice geological plan with the landscape plan and plans for the buildings themselves.

and we i'm sure wrote you more than one letter endorsing this proposal that z you have before you today, so i think it should be approved because otherwise we're going to have a vacant lot in the middle of the neighborhood for another 50 years. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> ai am the former partner and we tried to develop into apartment building and got turned down president in the early 90s we tried to build five single family house. still didn't go through. and after a while then we changed to build four duplex and one single unit.

and still that doesn't go through. and getting tired and try to sell my interest. and about 10 years ago so i now i saw the new plan and incredible and i come to support the project. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for jour service. as a friend and extended family member of mr. quinnlan, i am just moving back to san francisco after having lived here several years earlier and my reason for levering was for lack of adequate affordable housing. so it's not a surprise to me that we're still struggling and seems like the proponents of most of the projects were about housing today.

i just want to say that it sound like the people with the project have done due diligence and trying to have a viable plan and make the provisions for housing and comfort for the new tenants that would be in there. i am coming back as a licensed family therapist and will also be looking for housing and i want to say that 10 units is significant to the housing crisis we have. and in defense to the diligence that he has put into this project over so many years. i'm sure as part of his retirement planning and has committed a lot of funds and question whether or not he'll have a retirement or be overwhelmed with that.

i hope that a concurrence is in the plan. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hi. my name is sidney. i am going to be reading letters and statements from his neighbors. three of them are in spanish and four are in english. this one is from a 91-year-old neighborhood who has trouble walking and i will read the letter. dear planning commission, i am frank navarro married to antonio for more than 50 years. i live at 287 caesar chavez since 1960. i am 91 years old. my home is my castle. i support building 10 units on the empty lot. the houses will increase my

property value. i do not like empty lots full of weeds, rats and raccoons. we want more housing. our big family of five kids has difficulty parking and they do not visit as often as i would like. i have a suggestion for the planning committee. make hampshire one way up from chavez to peralta and north one way down to chavez. humbly, navarro. this is in spanish. [reading in spanish] and all of the english is pretty bad. and our city needs more housing. we need to build more housing in

the city and this neighborhood. [reading in spanish] >> you only have 46 more seconds. >> dear planning commission, president melgar and commissioners. i am writing in support of conditional use authorization and variance for 1513 york street. they have brought this project forward over the last 32 years and each version has improved from the previous one. in the end the project has answered the community concerns and a beautiful design that takes into effect this open space as well as the need for

multi-bedroom family housing. the project is desirable and necessary for the neighborhood and worthy of i a prooufl for conditional use authorization and variance. i urge you to i a prove this project. sincerely, supervisor john avilas. >> thank you so much. next speaker please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is michael and i am here to share my personal sentiments along with sentiments of the neighborhood. i am going to read a letter. and i will read it quickly. it is getting kind of late here. and i am a resident at 1566 hampshire street adjacent to the property in question. i have been following the project closely for the past five years or so in all the iterations and attended the neighborhood meetings and held by the east slope design review board.

after having attended the neighborhood review meetings, read the geological surveys and shared opinions with many neighbors and spoking with him directly, i see no reason for this project not to go forward. it seems relatively straight project, albeit an emotionally charged one. at the neighborhood meetings i have been a vocal supporter of the project although the previous iterations of neighbors engaging and spreading of misinformation and fearmongoring. for example, distributing flyers filled with inaccuracies and dangerous assumptions about technical matters in the geological report are pegging the project as a hazard despite the captain of the local fire battalion standing up in the meeting and saying this was absolutely not an issue of fire safety. further more, mr. quinnlan, the design team and review board

have had to deal with the ridiculous requests of the neighbors who suggested the site would be better suited as a park or neighborhood garden. he has shown an incredible willingness to work with the neighbors to make the project as positive as possible for the neighborhood. he has owned the property since the 1970s and trying to develop it since the early 1980s. to me that means that i consider mr. quinnlan not just to be a neighbor and not to be someone trying to develop it but also a neighbor as the people who live up and down the block. it is clear to me from attending the neighborhood meetings over the past few years that it is not a sentiment shared by many of the neighbors. there are many for whom any development at all is objective and they will use every excuse they can muster based on, in fact, a fantasy. to prevent this project from moving forward, it seems to me that the proposal is within the

legal zoning for the project and is following the design process faithfully. while no construction project is without impact to the surrounding area, i believe that mr. quinnlan is sincerely doing the best to minimize the impact even when he isn't legally required to do so. at the property owner, he should be allowed to develop his land as he sees fit within the bound ris of the zoning and responsibility. on a personal level, i -- i want to add that i am always happy -- >> thank you. your time is up. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is theo gore dan a31-year-old renter in the city. i live in a studio. i want to have a family some day in san francisco. i can do that in a studio. i mentioned i am 31 and this project is least 32 years old. i could have been born in one of the four unit houses and grown

up my entire life here. but those housing units were denied and we lost the opportunity to have four more families in our neighborhoods. tonight you have the opportunity to get 10 more families into the neighborhoods. get 10 more people an opportunity to live in one of the best cities in the world. transit rich, open minded, jobs rich, lots of opportunity. and yes, this will change some people's views, but also change other people's lives. and because of that, i ask you to support this housing project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> the projects are really important with the kind of projects born out of somebody crazy not giving up for decad d they are the project of a lot of love and endurance.

they are also the kind of projects that will move forward even in a recession. they are out of capital that a person has invested in and is deeply committed to. and these little small units projects, the infill projects will be the thing that sustains us when the inevitable downturn hits. we are going to still need to be producing housing and the harder we have made it to build these kind of projects, the less of them we're going to have. when all of the mega projects with the paid advocates able to rally a lot of support for the mega projects, when those dry up, we need these projects. so not only do can we need to i a prove this project, but you all need to think systemically how to make sure projects like this don't take 30 years. how do we make sure we bring down the fees for these kind of projects so that somebody who has a little bit of money saved up can build those kinds of duplexes, triplexes, and mid

rooiz density that everyone likes to say they would support, and if only, if only, if only, and you guys need to figure out how to actually make that happen, make that work. a small project in this area cannot take the same amount of time as a large project in soma. that is -- that does not make any sense. and right now when we have neighborhoods like corona heights and the west side of san francisco and all of these neighborhood where is the nice little infill projects could be happening, that could be figuring out how to make them not apply for as many cus and figuring out how to streamline the process for owner occupied housing being turned into a six-unit project. that is the kind of creative thinking that you all need to apply so that when the downturn hits, our housing does not just plummet. that we don't lose that time in a downturn.

thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hi. my nam is alex wong, one of the neighbors that live adjacent to the parcel on caesar chavez and york around the corner. i think the project from my eye looks good. i think it's better to have something there with the water management than an empty parcel. and so go to some of the other speakers that are talking tant importance of more housing. and i also believe in that. and as a way to kind of hopefully one day will able to afford something in the city, but otherwise stay in the bay area region. every little bit helps. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hello. i am brian rosen. i am the neighbor on 1515 york street directlied a va sent to

the townhouses that are going up. as the neighbor most likely affected most by the proposed development and i followed the entire closely and i have been impressed by what toby has done and appreciate the good faith efforts to address the many concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods including the real impact this development will have on my own house. that i believe the current plan is a fair surprise and the green roof that is going to be directly outside our window. stlongs that is not used as a roof deck, we are okay with it being a green roof and agreed to put that in the ccr. we want to get that on record. it was said. and with that change, i believe that this project is something of a bimby as inbearable in my backyard. and i will also thud the first time in the 20-year history of

the project that i feel like my concerns were actually heard and listened to and seriously taken into consideration. and i do think mr. morris and mr. quinnlan have been flexibility an willing to comprise. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> pi i and we build affordable housing and that thing that everyone says they would support. we have 1,000 units around the area. so i would argue that i am the biggest neighborhood of this project. frn and we are absolutely in favor of it. and for the concerns for the people living on the streets and is kind of a policy failure with the empty lot, and it is exciting that you have to opportunity to reverse one today. please support the project.

>> next speaker please. >> and i want to point out that this is not a failure of the process like several people have expressed that this is a failure of the process. i think one of the first iterations of this project showed a 30 foot wall at the back edge of the lot. this obviously didn't have to be there. this provides just as much housing with a better design and it impacts the neighbors less. and the fact that planning commission is -- not you personally, but commissioners over many years said no, that is not the best you can do, this is the process worked here. thank you. >> thank you. and any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner moore. >> very happy to see as many

people come out and knowing about the past what didn't work and coming forward to 52-week spooek to what they -- coming forward to speak to what they support today. vividly remembering what we discussed when we saw this project last time. it was quite painful. i'm delighted to see that this particular project is skillfully designed respecting context and not just convection text in the broader way of building height, shaping roofscape and also taking all the site considerations of steep cliff, drainage, fire access, etc., all in consideration. we really get a project presented at this level of skill rarely because mostly everything is kind of it works but no explanation to how it works. so i am delighted to see this project is also great example of this in context. anybody can put too large building and say i am adding units. few people have the skill to

design something where it is completely natural, so to speak. nothing objectionable about it because everybody else still has their cake and eat it. so i'm delighted to support in project. thank you, mr. morris, far beautiful effort. and i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> commissioner fung. >> perhaps staff can gives how the department is approach this is lot, landlocked lot, in terms of setbacks and how the department has approached this. >> there is a page that shows -- overhead please.

so the project is seeking several variance including rear yards, which shows in this line, blue line here. and require 45% of rear yards and because this is a flag-shaped lot, enforcement of a 45% of rear yards will basically require all the development to focus on a tiny portion of the lot that could be developed. then the second variance that is seeking is the exposure. currently there are a few units that meet need exposures and the central grade. and this one two flats facing york street.

and the other four which is and the last one is a front setback variance. and averaging between one of the neighbors to the south as well.

based upon your definition of front setback and the lots are merged and to the rear of the landlocked lot, wouldn't that be over that entire distance. and two full questions and the rear yard is measured. and just answer the first portions of how the front setback match up first. and the unit on 1515 york street. and the only building frontage that can reach and have to match and is about work and the front

setback and and another building to the south and unfortunately, it won't be able to use it. isn't the entire lot running from the street side to the far end and 45% would be over that longer distance.

with the 10-foot orange line here that shows the required 45% and are setting back 15 feet and the 10-foot additions in the rear and that is what we show in the dashed blue line. >> the rear yard is based on lot depth and maybe pull that plan up a little bit more to see the full width of the lot. you can see on the lower portion of it and the shaded area and the segment which is longer and goes to york street and where we are getting that measurement for the shorter depth of the lot which is tucked behind because this is a flag shaped lot. and the rear yard is shown correctly on the plans there. it varies in the length because the lot itself varies in the

depth, and is shown correctly on there and is based upon the depth of the lot and the depth of the lot varies and the rear yard varies for each segment of the lot if that answers the question. the only portion is the front on york. >> that i understand. this is unusual that i don't think i have ever handled a landlocked lot. they are not uncommon, but lots of varying depths are and this is how we apply it for those circumstances. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson. and i would love to just since we are seeing more of these, to double click more on the life safety evacuation and can

someone come up and talk more about that. >> may i finish? >> that would be great. the light on that. there is a lot so i apologize. we started with fire and fire said this is beyond us and this is an unusual condition. you need to talk to the city

fire marshal. so we put together a series of provisions to ensure that this actually works. and both the fire chief visited the site and walked the site and talked about solutions. these are the provisions. a new main line up the street to in front of york street with a new fire hydrant. the head building will have fire department connection on it and signage next to the entry gate indicating where all the units are so there is quick identification of where you are going. the street itself will be striped across red across the front of our property because the fire chiefs were expressly concerned on the narrow street they would come up and find a car park there had.

no parking here. and then we had negotiations over the proper width of the walkway, and in the end they were comfortable with 5 1/2 feet. so now you come and you power up the face of the building and that pressurizes all around the site so that we're also giving all the buildings into type 3a which means it is much safer and they also have a higher level of sprinklering. that means that firefighters don't have to worry about emergency egress win dose and they run out there with the hoses and can hook up to the santice. and then also because there's only a single means of egress off the site, they said they want this sort of safe dispersal area in the mid sol residents know there is a place to go if

the head building is on fire, they just stay in place. so those are all the components. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> follow-up question. so how does all of that get documented? what is the process? >> so we have basically -- i was really struggling to get this all absolutely wrapped up for you for this hearing. we have approval by the fire marshal for this in concept, and then he went on vacation last week. and so we are waiting to get what is called an administrative bulletin approved by him. >> and that becomes what? is that a precondition to getting the site permit? >> yes, basically, right. and it is the restriction on the property.

>> so i love the design. it is hundreds of times better than what we have seen before. and i particularly like the attention to what the life will be of people who live here. i love the central green space. i can see sort of envision kids playing there or adults meeting up in community building. it is really great. and i also like how the project works with the slope and not against it. and looking out over downtown. and just everything about this works. even the thoughtfulness of figuring out what to do with water and the runoff of the water. so that's big kudos to the architect team. i think it's really, really well

done. thank you. >> if there is nothing, further, there is a motion seconded. on that motion, commissioner diamond. >> commissioner fung. >> a commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner koppel. >> commissioner president melgar. and as the zoning administrator would say -- >> close public hearing and the grant the acceptances noting the exceptions and to thank the project sponsor and architect for continuing to work on the site. >> very good. commissioners -- >> i'm sorry? >> you want to keep going? >> do you want to take a little break? okay. >> up to you. >> so sorry, guys. we have been here for a long time. we're going to a 15-minute break

to go to the bathroom and get some water. we'll be back here at 6:15. >> today is december 12, 2019. i will remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices. we left off under your regular calendar on items 17a and b for case numbers to 18-011441cua and var at 1846 grove street. you will consider the conditional use authorization and request for variance. >> good evening, planning department staff. the project before you is requesting conditional use authorization to construct five single family dwellings at 1846 grove street on a lot zoned rh2. conditional use authorization allows for one dwelling unit per

1500 square and with five units total. additionally, the project is requesting variances from the rear yard exposure and bicycle parking requirements of the planning code from the zoning administrator. the project underwent review with the design advisory team to ensure compliance. the new changes the project underwent was the reduction of property line at the second floor. this was accomplished by incorporating setbacks in certain areas and sloped roofs in others. the goal was to reduce impacts to adjacent properties. the project has been deemed exempt from ceqa review. while the form states six dwelling units in one building may be exempt, a department policy from 1998 stated that given the urban context of san francisco, there was a negligeable district in

environmental impacts in dwelling units whether in six structures or one. it's concluded that six dwelling units in one structure would have an exemption. the project contains a three and a half foot access way into the proposed portion of the lot to be developed. this is the only access to the lot. prior to the submittal of the application, the sponsor conducted a preapplication meeting with the department of building inspection and fire department to ensure it was fees building from a technical and safety standpoint. they signed preapplication meeting notes stating it was feasible. the project sponsor will provide further specifics on the safety measures taken given the limited access. additionally, full review of the project by d.b.i. and fire would occur after the potential planning approval. this would ensure no construction occurs until d.b.i. and the fire department have

fully vetted the project of any concerns. since the publication of the case report, the department received 25 letters of opposition detailing concerns about the address, density, safety and environmental impact of the project. on balance, the department finds the project to be compatible with the general plan and necessary and desirable for the city and recommends approval with conditions. while the lot presents challenges, the project maximizes density and is designed with the residential guidelines, creating minimal impacts to adjacent properties. >> thank you. we will hear now from the project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is troy. i'm the project architect and one of three co-owners. we are seeking conditional use

approval for five unites. first the basics about the lot. we have a large lot, almost 8,000 square feet, larger than three standard city lots. it has access from a gate on fulton street. the first 50 of the site access is effectively four feet wide, three and a half of that is our property, six-inches belongs to the neighbor. the next 50 feet is 5' 6" wide. it has a gradual up slope of ten feet. in the corner of the property is a live oak. we are protective of this tree. we are working with an arborist to make sure this tree is protected and preserved during construction. in early phases we met with building, fire for application review.

the review was at the highest levels of the fire department with mitigating measures matching those of the street. we have builders of type 3a construction which is not combustible construction. we have a height limit of under 20 feet. we have the highest level of fire sprinkler protection in the handout i distributed, it talks about the difference between different types of fire sprinklers. this system is designed to extinguish a fire rather than just suppress it for exiting purposes. early in the process we met with planning staff, quadrant leader david. they suggested a project that had three criteria. one, it was low in scale. the second one is that it was broken up in terms of massing. the third, that it be visually permable rather than providing

building a very large block. recognizing the impact and unique conditions of this lot, we have proposed a modest series of cottages. we sought to minimize the height along adjacent property line walls, building to the edges of those property at one story particularly at the north side we've pulled the second story volumes back where it would have shadow impact on the neighbors. so as i mentioned, the property line walls are largely about eight feet high and we are using the topography to get a little bit of extra ceiling height by excavating and removing some soil from the property. so we are nesting the building to reduce height. the project has a low floor area ratio. a typical lot could be developed to a f.a.r. of over two. the project at york street has an f.a.r. of almost one.

this project has a f.a.r. of .66 so we are less dense than the project you approved. in our proposal, most of the area is either landscaped courtyard or living roof. 72 percent or three quarters of the site is landscaped. may i have the overhead, please? we shaped the volumes for visual permeability so neighbors wouldn't be looking at large blocks. we oriented windows to face the internal courtyard, and we did this for privacy reasons, really, for the neighbors. we are working with materials that reflect the unique nature of this site. instead of asphalt and shingle roofs, which would be looked at by the neighbors, we are

providing living roofs as a way to create habitat and provide a more serene exposure looking down from stories above. we intend to use the modified siding. one reviewer expressed it as a san francisco version of sea branch, and we take that as a compliment. they have their own private patios which link to a collective open space. bedrooms and living spaces are at garden home scale, meaning smaller than typical. we have eight foot eight ceiling heights in our bedrooms. we've had three meetings with the neighbors, one very early in the project and two more recently. in terms of our approach, we did not come to this with some very large project that we assumed that we would show compromise and cut back. we came with our -- what we thought was the most reasonable and modest project we could and

still accommodate three -- i'm sorry, five family-sized units. our neighbor request, we agreed to a continuance to allow further discussion and additional meetings. we provided story poles for the neighbors that were illustrative of the height and volume, so you can kind of see -- go back to the previous. so you can see the sloped roof and then the two-story volume and then at the rear of the property you can see the unit three beyond near the larger apartment building. while the project is unique, it is not without precedent. we have just heard the presentation for york street. i watched those hearings and tried to glean as much useful information from that project as i could prior to getting into the design of our project. by way of precedent, i'm going to show you a number of mid-block buildings and

projects. so the first one, 18th and oakwood, where we had 24 units, maybe some of you here would remember that one. and buildings of up to three-story in height. in our immediate neighborhood there's precedent with larger buildings with greater impact than what we are proposing. here's 800 masonic where we have a three-story building. three stories, four units in this parcel. 1600 block of fulton south side we have a block of three buildings with five units, three stories in height. at the north side of the 1600 block of fulton, you can see there's a number of large buildings, two and three-story in height for up to eight dwelling units.

so then 1600 block of hayes, we have a three-story residence and a 5,000 square foot rectory, also a similar mid-block condition. so there's a way to do this to minimize impact. in summary, our cottages are low in scale. they are mostly one story, and i think you can see that from our 3-d views in your package with two-story pop-up volumes. and that one story volume is essentially similar to an 8-foot fence. the code would allow up to a ten-foot fence without a variance in the rear yard or around this property. so i don't think we are creating a bigger impact on the neighbors. and we are inwardly facing. so we try to focus the project inwardly to minimize noise and light on to adjacent parcels.

and, again, keep in mind, there's up to 72 percent of our lot area is either open space or living roof. i know there will probably be question being the fire department review process. and i've provided you a handout. i'm happy to answer any questions. so i welcome your questions, and i'm happy to work with planning staff based on your recommendations. seeing our modest proposal, i hope you can approve this authorization in variance. and thank you for the hard work of this commission. i know it's a volunteer job with long hours. and it seems almost full time to me. but thank you. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. i know that there is organized opposition. so i would ask that you come up first. and it's 6:30, so i have a lot of speaker cards.

i think most of them, as i look, are in opposition to the project, so i would suggest if it's not completely necessary for you to speak, if you just want to stand up at some point during your presentation just to show who is here. but if you have something to say that would add to our deliberation, of course feel free to come up and say it. so, go ahead. >> hi, i'm michelle with the save s.f. open space neighborhood group. >> hello, i'm brian with s.f. open space as well, 627 masonic >> i'm brandon keith. i'm a neighbor here as well. we have copies of the presentation as well as a petition that was signed. so this is -- here we go. over 100 signatures on the petition 75 of which are folks in san francisco that are in

opposition to this project. so i've lived in this area for about 12 years with my wife and one-year-old daughter live in one of the buildings adjacent to the lot. so we've been very focused on this project. so i know i've only got ten minutes. i appreciate everyone staying late. i'm going to go over nine points in that time. so first point, this hearing was not actually noticed properly. the sign was removed two weeks or so, and the sign that was up had the wrong date. further, no mailer went out for this hearing to any of the residents in the vicinity, which i believe is improper via code. so this is a picture from yesterday. this is the access for the site. as you can see, there's no sign. this is the only frontage that the project has. so i believe that's incorrect. second, and i