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 couldn't believe

the last project that was up, because that's also a flag lot. this is the full access for this project. life safety is a major concern for the neighbors of this group. i'm actually a developer as well. i build power plants, and life safety is something we take seriously. having a single egress in event of an emergency, frankly, is something we are having a really hard time understanding, especially when a conditional use has to be granted by this body, saying that that is the right decision to make. so if there was a fire at this restaurant that's here, the building next door, residents would have no way in or out of this area. as you can see, this is the only access, ironically when this picture was taken, a house was getting painted so i'm not sure how residents would get in or out next time the house has to get painted. this is the property. you can see there's only one

three-foot access in and out. so just talking about the fire danger, so i think one of the issues with this project is they're classifying each unit as its own unit and not a permanent building so that allows them to only have one access in and out as opposed to a building of this many units would require multiple egress. all the buildings that are surrounding this have at least two ways in and out. i'm not sure why these buildings on the interior should only have one way in and out. also if there is some kind of catastrophic event like we had with that shooting and everyone is trying to get out via one constrained way, again, it doesn't make a lot of sense to us. finally, nfpa is something i'm a member of. i understand there will be a fire sprinkler system. there will be no gas hookups which means they are electric appliances so if there is a failure on the electrical side, the sprinklers will not put out

electrical fire. they'll put out the other pieces but not the electrical fire. this body is geared to approve or deny variances, so there's a couple variances i would like to talk about. first is the rear yard. so as you can see from the design, this project is basically using a zero setback on 17 different lots. and all of those lots have setback requirements. so frankly, the neighbors don't understand why this project should be allowed to have a zero lot line. also while the developer is saying there's only an eight-foot wall that will be used, if you look, they are all sloped. so they are not not eight foot walls. they are ten or 12 going up to 20-foot walls. the parcels on the back, as you can see on the next image, on the right, that's a 20-foot wall. that's not an eight-foot wall. next is on density.

so this is an r2. so you are allowed to build additional units with each additional 1500 feet. however, that's if you are including the setbacks and the year yard variances that mr. fung, you brought up in the last issue. those are not being respected in this design. this project is being built up against the fences of 17 different lots, roughly 40 different units. if you look at the variance application that was filed, you'll see that they did not bring up the issue of auxiliary units. there are a number of auxiliary units, in-laws that are in various stages of legalization in the area. and also owners who are interested in putting in auxiliary units at later dates, i can't imagine this body or a future body is going to allow back-to-back units to be allowed on zero lot lines so in essence all those 17 parcels will not be able to add an auxiliary unit should they want to in the

future. this project which was brought up, i thought it was a great example of a project that the neighborhood could support. we are not here against development. what we are against are these variances which will allow for luxury condos to be built to maximize profits at the expense of us having our backyards. so you can see they built in the center of the parcel and they use the space on the outside to be able to create a buffer with foliage. the other thing i think is critical is there's a ten-foot access. it's the developer has three and a half feet of access which frankly is the minimum requirement. it's basically a breezeway. this site has ten feet which allows for access. the developer has taken public comment, but that was only after we got in touch with our supervisor and she reached out to the planning department and

looked into this. despite the public comment comment, the developer hasn't changed any of the plans since the first submission, which sounds pretty different than the previous different. construction on this project which i can't believe these images were provided by the developer. they want to do this all by hand, no cranes, no equipment. we are terrified they are going to get halfway through this and run out of money. so, yeah. [laughter] so the developer brought up other flag lotses like the oakwood lot in chelsea park. i think there's two differences. one, they have sand pipes coming out to the street as well as the york, there was no sand pipes in this development. further, access for the oak street is via multiple entries and exits on multiple streets. so if there is a catastrophe, there are multiple ways out. we don't want people in the event of a fire, i mean shelter in place, if there's a fire and

i'm in my house with my daughter, i'm getting out of my house, and if i have to go over the fence, i'm going over the fence, and that's what we are trying to avoid. finally, i would like to point out we are not -- we are supportive of affordable housing. we are supportive of a development in that unit that respects the zoning code which means it doesn't require substantial variances. it also would allow for something that is in the center of the lot so we are not looking at walls instead of fences that we currently have. we are really only looking for what's fair and equal treatment under the code for this project. so we want to avoid the potential for a catastrophe at this site, which is going to reflect back on the decisions that are made here tonight. so we ask that this project is not approved as it's currently envisioned. thank you. >> you still have a minute.

okay. >> you have been here a long time. i'll stick with that. thank you. >> okay. any other public comment on this item? okay. >> i understand it's late. my name is abby. i own the unit at 662 -- the development would be up against my garden, my fence. the thing that concerns me most is the fact they want to use my backyard for their setback. i love gardening, i love being out there. and what actually is going to end up happening is the enters goes from my backyard out. so i know that, for instance, like the garbage for all of these units is going to be right in front of my fence. that's where they have to roll it out every week. that's my garden. what else, the courtyard,

actually, commissioner melgar, what you were saying with the york project, the courtyard that they had building community, seeing children playing there, they have a courtyard, but they've excluded the existing neighbors. we don't have any access to their units except by -- i just find that -- when you said that comment, that really struck me. again, brandon really presented it really well about building the auxiliary units and just visual impact, but that's it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm on 1821 fulton. i own the unit that borders the entranceway and my backyard would have a building right against the back fence. i have a lot of complaints about the project. i think safety and security is

huge. i think one of the big ones for me is the lack of neighborhood engagement in this. the developer never has reached out to me directly. i went to one meeting because my neighbors told me about it, but i didn't get any notice from him. i got the notice for the first agenda, for the first planning commission meeting but nothing about the second one. the sign was taken down. so it's especially i think after seeing the previous project where it seems like it's been a dialogue between the neighbors and the commission and the developer, it's discouraging to see the lack of interaction. it felt like when he's reached out to the community it's been kind of a box-checking exercise, and there hasn't been much follow-up, even with people that attended the initial meeting, they didn't get notification about the next meeting. he said he would send out notification, i never got that so i missed a meeting. it's been a discouraging lack of dialogue, the one meeting i did go to, someone asked what about

trees and surroundings backyards, because we have some. and the reaction was like what trees, there are a few trees here, but there was no awareness that i have two trees close to the property line and where he is saying he'll build. so it's discouraging to see the lack of community engagement because i think we are open to there being something there. we would like it to be a discussion around something that actually works for the whole community, given how unique the lot is. and one other thing, the entrance is on fulton, and this hasn't come up, but there's no parking with this unit. and i also have concerns around the lack of parking and the fact that the 5r is important to the city and so many people commute on the 5r every day and there's going to be ubers and lyfts in front of this entranceway, getting in front of the bus, and a lot of people are trying to get to work, including me. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is medical -- melind. i live at 613 masonic. i'm opposed to this project. thank you so much for your time by the way. i forgot that. so i'm opposed to this project. and in large part because of the zoning issues that are here. and that none of this -- i'm totally for affordable housing, but none of this is going to be affordable housing. the developer, when we asked at the october meeting that we were inviteed to after vallie brown's office got in touch with him and suggested that he contact us, we asked if he would consider blow-market housing, and -- bel-

below-market housing, and he said he would not. if these condos were for public servants or other people who could afford below-market housing, i think a lot of us neighbors would be more for that. in this case, though, it's -- these are going to be luxury condos. with all the variances and all of these -- the impacts that it will have on our community, it's just really hard to support. at the october 22 meeting as well, the developer said -- mentioned something about noise and said, you know, it won't be like you are going to hear suitcases going up and down and up and down that long corridor. and it just scared us because it

suddenly occurred, these are luxury condos, what would prevent them from being short term rentals. so now we have a bunch of airbnbs in our backyard. so in general, we are not for it. and one thing i wanted to mention, the tree, we are all concerned about the fire hazards and everything. the tree, the developers say is a special part of the project that they want to protect. then there's the fire hazard. the tree itself is combustible, and it's huge. so that's just something to think about. you can't really have it both ways. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is mary, i own the building at 631 and 633 masonic avenue. i've lived there for 23 years now. i have many concerns about this project. i am opposed to the project in

its present form. i'm actually quite concerned about the tree. in the 20 years i've lived in this address, the tree has grown probably three to six feet in height, which means it's a very, very healthy tree. the tree splits the lower part of a very significant slope. the slope comes down from ashbury street down to masonic avenue. so the fact that this tree is there, it's being watered by the rains that come, that's the only source of water for the tree. the teresa tree -- tree as a caa live oak. they are threatened by pollution, development and soil compaction. because of the fact there are going to be quite a few buildings on this parcel, there is very little space for anyone to go to or to stage during the

development of the project while they are actually building. there's not a whole lot of space except under the tree. once the development is actually built, if it were to be built, there are proposed storage sheds along fences along the masonic and grove sides i believe there for bicycles. so automatically you are going to have people walking under the tree constantly to put their garbage or bikes or whatever. so you are going to threaten the tree during project construction, because of soil compaction. also if the tree does survive that phase, then ongoing, while people are living there. if the tree is weakened, it could become susceptible to live oak disease, sudden oak death, which is endemic in the bay area. i know over golden gate park, they are quite concerned about

this. they have arborists paying attention to the trees in the park, but this project doesn't have an arborist that's going to be around while the project is being built. what about after the project is built? is anybody going to take care of the tree? just today, there was a photograph that one of the neighbors sent around. there was a raptor in the lot. they use this space during annual migration. it's a beautiful amenity. we would hate to lose it. i'm not opposed to development. i'm opposed to this project in its present form. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is eric davenport and i also love that tree. my wife and i have been living at 1850 grove street for almost ten years now. and i speak for everybody in the building right now. we are all opposed to this.

specifically one reason for me is it terrifies me because of the fire, and i know everyone is saying that but on the fourth of july, 2017, one of the backyards caught on fire. it was sparklers or fireworks or something. my wife and i happened to be looking out the window at the sky and all of a sudden we see some stuff fall down and then, boom, it goes up really, really fast, about ten feet high, i would say, i'm guessing. but luckily it was a still night. the fire burned itself out. it didn't get over the fences. but if there was a breeze, all those backyards would have been up. and anyone living in a place like this would be surrounded by fire with no way out at that point. so this terrifies me. all seven people in my building are way against it. and thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is jarvis rich.

thank you for the opportunity to speak. i i live at 637 masonic. it's one of the lots on the side that's directly below this project, squarely. and i don't see how it improves the open space. if you were to look out of my rear windows where i have an office, you would see a very peaceful scene. and i don't think they are improving on that. with respect to the parking, i think we have lost too much parking too fast. most recently masonic, which is a big cross town street has had all the parking removed and replaced with bicycle lanes. and bicycle wrecks have been on

grove street, replacing four parking spaces. and the other side of ashbury, there are two parking spaces reserved for shared cars. i think i finished what i had. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to speak to you. my name is joseph. my husband and i live at 40 and 42 ashbury and rent out a unit there. we've lived there for 23 years. i rise in opposition to this project. it is out of scale for the neighborhood. we've already, as shown by the developer of this project, supported a lot of density in our neighborhood, and the traffic is horrendous.

it's very unsafe for children and for elderly, handicapped people. so i have to say in my heart, it's a beautiful green space that i don't think i could ever be enthusiastic about structures being built over. but i also, with a number of new families moving into our neighborhood, i feel very deeply the need for housing. so i hope that they can come up with a project that is smaller in scale and more suitable for our neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, commissioners. thank you for your time. my name is jessica. i'm a homeowner of 1828 grove street. our property directly abuts the live oak area of the project in question. i have three points that i wanted to emphasize to our new

to the proceedings. i fully agree with everything that the other homeowners and renters in the area have articulated. the first new point i want to make is relative to the york project that you approved earlier tonight. our block, our lots don't have any water management issues, that this project would solve in contrast to the york project where water management during the rainy season and the steep grade of that lot would be helped by the project. we do not face any such issues. the second part you heard in the york proceedings was that there were many homeowners who disliked the open space in their backyard. i think there was comments about rats and racoons. we strongly value the open space in our backyards, not just for the falcon and raptors but also the other wildlife and the ability to see our neighbors and have this open space.

the last point was briefly referenced earlier, which is around potential crime to the folks that are around the project area. our house has been broken into three times since we moved in in 2012, one of which was due to someone who hopped one of the low fences facing the open space. our concern would be that with more units accessible through a breezeway, that there is heightened chance, especially if airbnbs or the like were to be an option for these units, that we could see an increase in crime through our backyard area, which today is relatively secure. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is jason chu. i'm the owner of 1836 grove

street and two separate lots and four units. i wanted to raise my opposition in the building variances. so the zero lot construction, which unfortunately impacts my lots the most. in terms of that, i would like to see a setback as to code. in addition, there's detriment to my property value, and i will show you and demonstrate later on how it's going to reduce the number of affordable units in the area. basically, i'm the real estate agent since 1991. i have the accolade of being the youngest real estate licensee ever in california. i'm a journeyman contractor. i have a m.b.a. in nonprofit real estate development, and that's one of my focuses. i acquired these properties near condemnation state. we worked with the city, department of public health and this commission to rehabilitate and provide affordable housing units to people.

that's what my family does. basically the project that is proposed would cast shadows, block views, originally we thought there would be privacy issues because we have infants being nursed by mothers and their windows would face windows in other projects. now i'm hearing there's going to be 20-foot walls. i don't think that's conducive to a young child's development as well. as i said, 40 years ago we bought three properties on this block including 1850 grove, which i also lived, so i have a history of living there for 40 years. there were drug havens and needles, there was rat urine everywhere. it was a living room the size of a car. my tenants have told me they don't want to be living here anymore. they've been here 15 to 20 years. they don't want the monstrosities that they have to face every day. they don't want the noise.

even though they've lived in rent controlled units in excellent conditions that i have maintained daily, weekly, monthly, annually, they don't want to live there. you are going to lose four units. in addition, i am a businessman. although i'm a responsible, socially responsible businessman. i propose to you that you -- these four units i will not be allowed to build a.d.u.s. for the public record, i will build two brand new a.d.u. units for free and give rent for free to s.f. public teachers for five years if you do not allow this lot variance. [applause] >> okay. no clapping, please. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm john. i live at 1829 fulton street, which is the house you saw in

the photos next to the long walkway. and i'm here to express opposition to this development and primarily because of fire hazard. i literally walk by this passageway every single day. i can look down on it and the idea that when there's an emergency when there's fire back there that people, according to the developer, as i understand, the sprinkler system would mean that people would stay there when there's a fire, that they would hunker down and wait for the sprinkler to put it out. i don't know the about you, and my 20 month old son, i would get out of there immediately. and this walkway is like a shoulder way that i have. i don't really imagine that people are running out and fire crews are running in. i don't really understand that. i don't know code, i don't understand all the latest sprinkler systems. but i know people panic.

i know these are going to be up against our againstline. i know if there's a fire, it would probably catch on fire with our fence. we don't have some fancy fence. it's a wood fence. and my son is there, and he's obsessed with fire trucks and firemen, maybe fire is top of mind, but somebody explain this to me. it's common sense, this seems crazy to me. can you imagine if there was a fire and you couldn't get out? what were your options? you just wait in the center. if the pathway is obstructed you wait in the middle of the block next to old houses that don't have sprinkler systems and hope you are going to get out? there is no other way out other than this three and a half foot walkway. it does not look like an entrance for maybe 20 different people to go in and out in an emergency. and so we express a lot of concern about that. we also heard from long time

neighbor that the center of the block was supposed to be a fire buffer. it's no longer a fire buffer for us but could be a risk for fire for us. and of course we have concern for the people who live in the center too. i don't think it's just about us either. so there is concern about construction. i did look through the window and see that they are going to be using materials that aren't as vulnerable. but my fence is flammable. their materials might not be but my house is flammable that's right next to us. so thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. last time i was here it was good afternoon. i'm a renter. i live on golden gate avenue so i'm in the neighborhood. i'm also an haight ashbury neighbors for density. i want to express support for

this project. i just wanted to kind of talk about the opposition you've heard. and you listen to neighbors whose lives will be changed by a new house but there's someone you haven't heard from tonight. the people you haven't heard from are the people who will get to live in the buildings. we are talking about kids growing up in a small three-bedroom house. and they get to grow up in one of the biggest cities in the world. they are going to grow up blocks from golden gate park. they are walk to the park on a weekend. you are not going to hear from a young couple who want to move in together and want more space than a studio. that voice will not be heard tonight. you are not going to hear from a new professional who maybe just got that job that will let them move out of their parents' basement. those are words you are not going to hear from. and all these people are people who are going to thrive living in a city where they can get on

a bus, go to work without burning up the atmosphere from driving cars and use the bike lanes that we have been trying to install throughout the city. they are going to have all the advantages of living in the city. i want to headache face my last few seconds and talk about the opposition -- i want to take my last if you seconds and talk about the opposition. what is a luxury is to be able to say sorry, i own this other builder and i don't want housing built near me because it's going to shade my garden because i'm body about an airbnb or a parking space in a world that's burning. there's suggestions of we should go back to the process, let's talk about the process. let's talk about the process on york street building had. the building took 32 years to get built. 32 years. as i said before, i'm 31.

i want a place in the city where i can raise my kids, not my grandkids. you have the opportunity to build housing for the future, please get it done, not in 31 years but this year. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is henry. i live at 1831 fulton street. i also live right next to the 100 by three and a half feet breezeway through which all the entrances and exits will take place. i'm definitely not opposed to development. i'm absolutely not opposed to trying to prevent people from moving into san francisco. i've lived there for 12 years. i thoroughly enjoy san francisco and would love to see more people there. but not with this development. there are some differences between this development and all the other flagged lots including

the york street one. first is in the area of community involvement. as some of my neighbors mentioned, there has been very little community involvement. i never received notice on any of the three community meetings. i went to the first one through word-of-mouth. a neighbor of mine said there's this meeting. so i attended it, left my e-mail address, had been in touch with the project sponsors and received no notice for the two other meetings. i was surprised to hear that they happened. the comparisons to york street to oakwood and others are vastly different. and the main -- there are several reasons they are different, but the main one is that this is serviced only by one narrow three and a half

foot, 100-foot breezeway, as many of my neighbors expressed, there is a lot of concern about safety, people trying to get out at the same time the first responders are trying to move in with equipment, hoses, stretchers, whatever. the third point is the scale of the development. while the project sponsor has mentioned that the density is lower than some of the comparables, what i've experienced from where i live is that it's going to be two tories right against my fence, right up my fence. there's a slope and then there's a second story. so it's going to block my enjoyment of my yard. it's going to cast shadows. so i would urge the commissioners to vote against

this project as it's currently constituted. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is julia. i am deeply troubled top here, because i had on my calendar to be at the meeting for haight ashbury for density. increasing our density is critically important. living at 1854 grove street, i have looked down this ally many times. i want to demonstrate something to you. could not walk down this access point. could not pass each other. this is a very long passageway. i do not understand how units with potentially 15, 18 people

can live at that length down a passageway in which two people carrying groceries could not pass each other. that's all. >> thank you. >> okay. any other public comment on this item? okay. come on up. did you already go? yeah, sorry. [off mic] >> i'm sorry, you are out of order. >> sir, you are out of order. >> thank you. so with that, public comment is now closed. commissioners? okay, commissioner koppel. >> every thursday doing our best to approve housing dense if id, shrink the housing -- density,

shrink the housing shortage. we are not trying to be exclusionary. i am going to say i like this project, i want something to be built here, but i can't ignore the extreme concern of not looks or little tiny details but their lives. and i'm going to prioritize our existing residents over our future residents. i wanted to ask a question about that life safety system. will it extinguish an electrical fire? >> thank you, commissioner. to be honest, i don't know about an electrical fire, but i would make the point that the framing of the home will be metal framing. it's not plywood and 2x4s so there's nothing combustible to catch on fire, except, you know, furnishings, the carpet, the table, so there's no real ignition source. in terms of an electrical fire, if there is a short or

electrical fire, it would normally be, the breakers would trip and shut off the power in that event, because there would be a short circuit, and that's what they are designed for. so the continuous ignition from the electricity would not be there. the breakers would shut off, and there's no fire. >> thank you. >> i would like to hear what the other commissioners think. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm concerned that the 3' 6" addressing portion of the project is far too small to have anybody read that there's a substantial piece beyond. the fact that most of these units are built to closely to each other makes this project appear more like a barrack-type

assembly than putting five units in a looser arrangement into the lot. the fact that they are all sitting literally on the property line with 17 other units further creates the impression that the project is too dense for where it is. it is not the density on the lot, per se, but the way the units are arranged creates a massiveness for the surrounding residents while the interior is informally arranged, i think that doesn't quite carry. whoo i was concerned about when i started making dots on where the entrances are, where windows and bedrooms are, that there was a significant amount of lack of privacy or intrusion of privacy among the units with each other. when you follow that path, people are getting to the front doors by directly walking by the bedroom window of the adjoining unit. and i found that not just an

exception in one case, but i found that pretty much throughout. i believe that this project needs to run -- i'm not sure how to say this. it's difficult to compare this project with york street, particularly the entry feature to york street is a building that's an integral part to the project which is beyond it. here, i believe, the project almost a detriment to the adjoining units which are being affected by this. imagine picking up the garbage can. three and a half feet on this type of circulation pass is almost impossible. so i believe there is something that doesn't quite work. i'm not sure what the answers are, but at this moment i cannot support the project as it's being presented to us here. >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff.

[off mic] it's also kind of interesting that i see in your story, adjacent to a property line? >> yes. on golden? >> interior. >> interior stores? >> storage. >> the trash and the bicycle path. is that what you are saying? >> yeah.

>> i guess it's a little difficult to -- [off mic] i share commissioner moore's concerns with the 3.5' breezeway breezeway, entry point. [off mic] if you were to normally do -- [off mic] between your structures and the adjacent neighbors. this went it, it opposite way.

went the opposite way. so i'm not sure what to say. >> okay. so before i let you speak again, commissioner moore, i'm going to give you my integrations. so i work in youth development. and one of the things that they, you know, one of the tenants is that you say all the assets first, you know. you just kind of like -- so i will tell you what i like about the project. and i'm not going to repeat some of the things that the other commissioners have said. but i do have some things that haven't been said. i love the green roof. i think that that is a great solution.

and i think it works, especially if it's lower than other buildings. so i do like that. i like the skylights in the green roof. i think that works too, very well. i like it that you are preserving the tree. i'm a tree person, so i love that. and i do like the interior courtyard. i think that that works well. so the things that i think could be improved upon are that i understand that it was rdat maybe that insisted on it being lower than the other ones. but that the buildings surrounding it. is that what happened? >> yeah, i mean it's a team process. and generally speaking, this is fairly similar to when it was first admitted. the property lines within the bulk of the lot, maybe was a built by it taller. and our review and the meeting

with troy, we came up with the solution of in certain places, we incorporated setbacks to where it would obstacle be one story or in other places a sloped roof to help balance out, providing some floor area for the units while also trying to respect the property lines. >> yeah. so i got to say that the structure coming right up against the property line, that doesn't work for me. and i would rather have height in the middle of the lot and space in between than lower. i get it, it's a trade off. and this is such a difficult site, and it's a very densely-built environment. so i get it that we are making trade offs. i love the living roof. but i've got to say, if this were my house, you know, i would have a really hard time with it. compounded with the life safety

issues. because i get it with the materials, but i still don't understand how you are going to get construction equipment in there. even if it's done by hand. that's -- that's a lot. i don't understand it. so the big difference with york street, of course, is that they had that block in the first, and you could phase it and build everything and then build that structure last, and you can get cranes in there and everything. you can't do that here. i'm not really sure how you are going to do it. but even if it's metal frame, you are still going to have to be doing welding, you are going to be doing stuff there that's right against the property line of other folks. and so those -- that really concerns me. i don't like it. i wouldn't approve it. and then the 3.5' whatever it is, long -- i still, you know,

you said that it was very similar to york street, but i didn't hear any specifics. so i would like to hear that again how it is, you know, where is the fire hydrant, where is the shutoffs? what's the plan? where will people congregate? so i'm not convinced. and to me, that compounded with the structures being right against the property line is just a no deal for me. so. you can come back up and tell me if you have something more specific other than that it's just like those guys. >> sure. thank you. i thought i had five minutes with this presentation and i could have gone into more detail in the original. >> i don't want the rest of the presentation, i just want the answer. >> sure, in terms of the fire safety issues. to be clear, it's the first

50 feet that is effectively four feet wide and then it widens out to five and a half. and the reason the fire department said that was fine is because the 20-foot height limitation. and what that's based on is that's based on a ladder. so they can reach the roof of a 20-foot building. and ours is below 20 feet. we are at 19 feet, with a 24-foot ladder, and that's carried by two men, carrying it like this, next to their bodies. a larger building takes four people, because you have a 35-foot ladder, and they carry that side by side. so we went through a long exercise with d.b.i. fire check who ran it up to the fire marshal. >> i see. >> so that's the justification for why three and a half feet. secondly, we have a standby. there's a hydrant in the other corner they can hook up.

pump water into that sand pipe, and we have two interior sand pipes within the property. they also wanted the red curb zone. we discussed -- i can talk more about the fire sprinkler system. but the fire -- if you talk to a firefighter they say you got a call on a system, that fire is out before we get there, it's fully extinguished. and each of these cottages have individual firewalls up against each other, so it's not like an apartment where you have one shared wall with a one-hour fire rating. you have a two-one-hour fire ratings between each property. so it's very compartmentalized so it doesn't spread from unit to unit like it would be with an apartment building, again, if there were anything to burn which would be your furnishings, blankets, it's not the structure. they have asked for a fireman's

key box at the gate. the other thing i would mention is if you imagine you are a san francisco single-family home, you have bedrooms at the back. and sometimes you don't have a passage to the street. what the building department says is if you can crawl out that bedroom window, and you have a 25-foot backyard, you are considered sheltered in place far enough from the hazard, right? you are in your backyard and your building is on fire. so there's a bulletin which they apply. and it says 25 feet is the magic number. so from any one of these units you can get to another place on the site that has this 25 feet away, that's easily 50 feet away from any one unit that's on fire fire. there's other questions about exiting.

>> i understand now the issue with the height and the fire. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> that actually doesn't help me in terms of making this decision, but now i understand it. i think it's maybe one or two units too many, you know? because of the way that the access is and how it sits with all of the properties around it. okay. commissioner moore. >> thank you for saying what you said. because if you look at drawing 801, you realize that it's not just cottages, it's basically a completely connected building form, joined the entire side, given that the west side as well as the east side has a large portion of storage sheds and other utility structures, which completely fill out the sides. so i would agree with you, commissioner melgar, that less would be more.

and that would be creating fewer units in a slightly more informal way that compliments the openness of the surrounding backyards and do not completely dominate the entire space in which the buildings sit. i think it requires a redesign. it requires reduction in unit numbers, potentially reduction in unit size and still leaves the overall attitude of how the building reads to the street as an address very unrevolved, because i personally don't believe that it is enough. that it's mostly the width of a tradesman entrance in other parts of the city, and that is not very convincing to me. but as far as building mapping and side organization, i think this project needs to do other things to properly respond to the surrounding development. >> commissioner fung.

>> given the chance to create a more sensitive solution, and address some of those -- i'm not as concerned about the fire issue as is my fellow commissioners. i'm acceptive of what the other departments do. but the issues that we normally deal with, you know, how is the noise handled, people coming in and out, deliveries made. what do people see from their rear yards and a lot of this stuff is right up against the property line. so i would support a continuance and give them an opportunity to see if they can come to a more sensitive design and perhaps

come to a lesser number of issues that their disagreement with their neighbors. >> okay. commissioner diamond. >> [off mic] it's not on. >> you just turned it off. >> when i read the packet, i was extremely worried about the fire danger and spoke to staff about it in detail, and i'm appreciative of the information that was handed out today that indicated the numerous ways you are going to address it, some of which are similar to york street. but as i focused on the site plan and saw that you had zero lot lines and heard all of the operational issues, you know, i just don't understand how you are constructing this with a 3' work passage way. i don't see how you are getting dirt in and out. but even if you solve those problems, i do believe that you

should work on the design and that less density may address some of these issues, but i would also ask you to focus on how you are going to deal with garbage and move in and move out and the noise concerns so even if we get beyond the fire marshal signing off on this, i still want to know how you are going to make this function. but the idea of being able to add additional housing back there has a great deal of appeal to me. so i'm hopeful that you are work on this and come back and address the concerns you heard today. >> i had one more question for staff, because a couple of folks during public comment talked about a.d.u.s in backyards. so can you talk to that issue? just explain whether that is a thing, if there's anything that can be done to remedy it or -- >> so are we talking about the subject property? >> no, absolutely not.

just to refresh you, during the public comment, several commenters said if the structures are built right up to the lot lines, then i cannot build an a.d.u. >> generally speaking they wouldn't be able to build a.d.u.s out of the blue regardless of what happens with this lot. what's happening at the subject property has, no, no, impact on whether or not they can build a.d.u.s. generally speaking they can't because of where a.d.u.s are permitted. >> i don't see any reason why a development on this land-locked lot would prohibit development on other properties under building codes, you have to meet your code requirements on-site. you can't rely on other properties. >> that's not a thing? >> it was never articulated how they would be prohibited.

it was said they would be prohibited. so unless the public has additional information they could share. >> okay. you can share it with him. thank you very much. did somebody make a motion? you said a continuance. did you make the motion? >> i didn't but i will. >> thank you >> second. >> move to continue this to allow project sponsor to revisit his design. >> how much time do you think? >> three months? >> at least two. >> okay. that will put us into february 13. >> not a lot of time with holidays and stuff. >> you want to go march 12? >> yeah. >> second. >> very good. on that motion to continue this matter to march 12, [roll call vote]

so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. zoning administrator. >> i'll continue the variance to march 12. >> thank you. commissioners, that will place us on items 18a and b for case numbers 2018-015446cua and var at 740 clayton street. you will consider the conditional use authorization. the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. >> good evening, commissioners. planning department staff. the project before you is requesting conditional use authorization to allow five dwelling units at clayton street, which is zoned rh3 and only permits three dwelling units. conditional use authorization alis for one dwelling unit for 1,000 square feet of lot area with approximately 4600 square feet of lot area. the project is requesting a variance from the rear yard

requirement as one of the dwelling units is located in an existing storage area in the rear yard. the current use of the subject property is as a church and single family dwelling. the church has been vacant for three years. the project proposed to convert the church and dwelling into a three-family dwelling, construct for a fourth unit and convert the storage into the fifth dwelling unit. the department received one comment on the project which expressed concern about plastic- traffic and parking. the department finds it to be compatible with the general plan and desirable for the community. it repurposes existing structures while maximizing density creating little to no impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. thank you. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. yeah. >> good evening, commissioners. mark on behalf of the project sponsor. you've been here a long time so we'll try to keep this brief. the architect is here to answer

design-related questions that you may have. as he said, this project proposed an adaptive reuse of two existing structures on the site nahorsonal addition. it replaces a large and vacant resident and church with five moderately-sized condo units meant to appeal to potential homeowners of all walks of life. you can think about the project as three components, one, converting the main structure into a three-unit building with two condos and one three bedroom that would be between 1100 and 2400 square feet in size. two, constructing a new three-story, three-bedroom unit on the footprint of the property's driveway, making good use of the space. it would be about 1400 square feet, and three, converting the rear carriage house into a one-bedroom unit. the two and three-bedroom unions would be ideal for families in a neighborhood that doesn't have many opportunities for new condos. i want