this job in san francisco. so it's a san francisco business that's hiring the people. yeah, it's in san francisco. >> so roughly then the delta of those who come into the city to work is the delta between the 7 740,000 number and the 500 and something number are those who come into the city to work but are not residents? >> it sounds right, but i will have to check the math and get back to you. >> then the last question would be, your slide on the employment rate was different than what was in this brief that you folks gave to us. it showed the unemployment rate was 1.9 or something like that and here it shows 2.3. >> 1.9 is as of november 2019.

so the inventory is for the year of 2018. >> so there has been a change? >> yes, scoring down. yeah. >> thank you. this is a great report. i appreciate it. i also -- you know, i realize that we're mandated to do this and then we -- there is a formula to it. in reading it, there's still questions that i have, particularly in the nuances, you know, of what we track. so, for example, we track -- we see that overall waged have gone up steadily over the years, and i'm wondering if that's the case by industry across the board. so i mean, i think that that makes a big difference, whether we track the wages of hotel workers versus the wages of tech

workers. i think there's a really big difference and it impacts matters of transportation. it impacts affordable housing, all these other things. i mean, this tool is useful for making policy. i'm wondering if, as we grapple with issues in this commission like we looked at the intermediate rentals, for example, how we can look at how the wages have risen and for whom, you know, to make the policy decisions that we make on intermediate rentals. so it would be great to have a little bit more nuance in those areas. [ please stand by ]

. >> president melgar: as we wake policy, how do we get into the

weeds of what's happening right now, and that's something we did eight years ago because the board said we have to track these things. >> i think you raise interesting questions. there's nuances. a lot of what happens in the office and people's homes and even lyft and uber. the data isn't, unfortunately, available to us. they won't provide the data, so it becomes this struggle to kind of gather that data. and we've done some of it through the m.t.a. and the t.a. and, for example, studying the t.n.c.s. the office space in some people's home is illegal, but clearly, it's happening. but it just makes the data gathering that much more challenging, but i appreciate your points. i think we can have conversations about how we might get into the nuances in the next couple of years on

this report. cop -- >> commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: what does this mean? is a proxy a good demand for hotel space, and we haven't had a big demand for hotel space, and therefore, we aren't growing the number of hotel employees or there is demand for hotels but there's not space to build or there's not space to adequately build for hotels, or this doesn't meet the airbnb i.o.

is there a need for more hotel, and is this report a resource that we can use for information as to how to measure demand for hotel space, so if you could just comment about that. >> director rahaim: yeah. i was struck by that same thing. these are just pure numbers, so whatever reason, the number and stats show that hotel jobs have slightly decreased. this is my own conjecture, so bear with me. until the last couple of years, we were seeing -- we had almost no hotels in the pipeline in our department. so we were seeing some hotels converted to other uses, a couple. but what's happened in the last two years is there's been a huge spike in new hotel applications. so the last time i looked which was mentally three years ago, there were 35 hotels in our pipeline. but those are hotels that are going through the approval process, recently approved, under construction. so my guess is that this number

will increase in the next year or two for that very reason. but for a long period of time during the peak years, if you will, of this economic cycle, we were seeing almost no hotel applications for new hotels. and i think because part of the reason is because housing was so much more lucrative. and the other was the expansion of the convention center. that has generated demand for new hotel space, as well. >> commissioner diamond: the general comment, the implications of it was too expensive for hotels and conventions, so that in particular caused me concern. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, we can move onto item

15, at 1500 mission street. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. david weissglass, planning department commission. this is pursuant to planning code sections 210.2 and 303 to allow the establishment of massage use within a spa that is within an approved fitness club in dc 3 g zoning district and the mission 3 gsud. it would be within the equinox gym. the permit has been issued. it's to occupy space on the

ground floor as well as the basement level at 1500 mission street on the corner. the department has received three letters of opposition to this request from a community member, as well as representatives from the mission economic development agency and the tenderloin chinese rights association. the letters raised concerns about this placement in gentrification as well as concerns with human trafficking. we recommend approve with conditions. the conditions will be approval of all messages in the city. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> as david just described, the only issue before the commission today is whether the proposed massage treatment rooms in the equinox gym meet

the standards of the code that apply to massage establishments. darren capetta from equinox is here to describe the layout of the spa and how they meet the standards of 303 n. what's not before you is the appropriateness of the gym itself. the 1500 mission building that is scheduled for completion in march of this year is at the corner of south vanness and mission street. you approved that building in 2016. in december last year, you received a presentation on the public art program. the equinox gym will be located in a portion of the basement, ground floor, and second floor of the residential building. there are also other retail spaces in the building that will be available for other

retailers besides equinox. other gyms are located in the zoning district where 1500 mission is located. the tenant improvements to accommodate the gym has been approved to facilitate the construction. i'll now introduce darren capetta. >> hello, commissioners. darren capetta, general manager, equinox. so first of all, do the overview, brief overview. equinox is a fucurrent operato of full service gyms and spas. currently, we operate four facilities that offer spas in the city of san francisco.

in this equinox location, it is approximately 31,000 square feet over the basement, first, second floor within the existing building. the proposed area will be comprised of open exercise areas, studios, cafe selling snacks and drinks, full service day spa with full service amenities, and locker room with lockers and showers. >> on the basement level, the full service spa will occupy approximately 500 square feet within the fitness club containing only two treatment rooms. service will focus on

alternative treatments focusing on face and bodies. all will be equinox employees and possess licensed from the california cosmetology council. as far as access and floor plan, the spa's access on the corner of mission street and south vanness, with check in and waiting areas on the ground floor, which is our tradition entrance. these are both well-lit and easily locatable. it does not have a direct exposure to the street or the building's facade. access to the spa from equinox is provided by an internal stair or elevator located on the map. in blue is the actual spa itself, located about midway through is the stair and elevator. access to the spa from equinox

is provided by the stairway. in addition, the elevator used by the spa visitors will feature public retail, clothing, shopping, and cafe, and an internal stair and elevator will connect the ground with the spa and retail availabilities in the basement. we are looking to work in partnership with meta and other organizations to provide a job drop off in surrounding communities. that's all. do you have any questions?

>> thank you. we may have questions. is there anyone else from the public who'd like to comment on this item? >> good evening members of the planning commission. i represent u.s.m., a coalition that represents over 16 organizations in the mission. i'm here today to ask you to speak on behalf of the coalition to reconsider the permit on mission street. the values of equinox do not reflect the values of the mission. my colleagues in u.s.m. spoke with representatives from equinox to hopefully better the lives of mission residents, and they would not even entertain

the idea. [inaudible] >> -- yet their representatives here in san francisco are unwilling to sit at the table to better the lives of marginalized san francisco residents and integrate them into our communities as good neighbors. i submitted these letters to each of you have various civic organizations operating with within the mission, soma, and tenderloin. please consider this when you make your decision today. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. lisa petrucelli with united to save the mission. i was a member of the team to try to reach out to the members to try to figure out how they could bring a community benefit

and a working environment to the many communities of color adjacent to their project. and i have to say as many conversations as i have had residents, business owners, and developers coming into our community and city, sometimes difficult and emotional conversations, i personally have never encountered a project sponsor team more tone deaf to the humanity of our working class communities of color that border the project and the challenges that they face, including hypergentrification. when it was conveyed that these communities had a great need for access to opportunities to fitness and wellness, the response was it couldn't happen at their location. that they were in the business of luxury fitness, and prided themselves of being one of the most exclusive clubs in the world is what they actually said, and the only avenue for someone of a lower income

working class background to have abseccess to programs or fitness space was to either pay the exorbitant fee or work at the club. they said they could hire working class people, and if they worked at the club, they could have access. they flatly refused to have any kind of lower-cost avenue so that people could work out -- lower people could work out alongside someone of affluence because that would be out of line with the exclusivity of their brand. so i have to tell you, egg segregation is alive and well today. and businesses find many ways to circumvent inclusion, and san francisco should not be in the business of granting benefits to promote companies

that benefits from segregation and inclusivity. this should be rejected by a unanimous vote from this commission. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. kelly hill with united to save the mission. in the project description, the developers tout 50,000 square feet of neighborhood serving retail. is equinox gym neighborhood serving? seeing their unwillingness to meaningfully engage or address concerns, i guess that excludes the smallest of community benefits. this meeting is a request to

correct something that's flying in the face of the humanity. directly on access with south vanness, the new tower represents continued extreme luxury in everyone's faces, now moving south to take away what neighborhood folks are fighting hard for. this corner was once beacon to the goodwill flagship store. now it's home to exclusion. i don't think the public had a chance to given put on this occupancy. this vanneis an awful project all of you going into the planning department building. it's going to face the entire space that you occupy.

you already know how stressful it is to go to these city communities. all visitors to the department, no matter what their financial means, will be subjected to this view into this space of exclusivity every time they come to plans. one of the first retail spaces that comes available and is one of the hub projects will clearly need every benefit of equity it can get. will this be the death of the north mission as we know it? we really need to be doing better for our communities. the trump affiliation stuff is really gross. the c.e.o.s of equinox and soulcycle say they promote exclusivity but in reality,

it's not even close. i repeat, this commission's decision today is an opportunity to correct or at least mitigation the lack of equity that's really harming our community. >> thank you. anyone else from the public like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner melgar? >> president melgar: so i'm having a hard time with this one because i get everything that the public has said, but we already approved this project. this is just for the spa, so i'm having a hard time sort of thinking what could mitigate the community's concerns at this point because if this is already entitled, they're already going in there. so whether we say no to the spa doesn't really make a difference, you know, in terms of, you know, getting them to the table to associate community benefits and, you

know, everything else. i want to hear from my fellow commissioners. i'm having a hard time with it. >> commissioner moore? >> i think the discussion starts at the beginning because the impacts on the community that existed before the hub started is where the question started. when it was decided to create a second downtown with heights that exceed of what we currently have now, a c.b.d., the transformiational approvals for that particular chain date years and years back. some of us accepted more others, but that's the raility. the question i have about the space is how -- reality. the question i have about the

space is how it meets the community needs of what we need to do. there's more of a normal fitness club downtown in lombard street. it's a fact of who's working there, who's employed there. in the bay club, i see a wonderful element of equity unfolding with young people of all creeds and color, adding a wonderful kind of energy into what was a pretty exclusive closed-door type of a club. and i would assume, aside from my concerns of how they animate the ground floor, that the club focuses on the community, and creates a grounded experience where everybody who works in

the planning department and goes to d.b.i. seeing everybody struggling, losing pounds on the exercise bikes near the window. so if active retail can indeed dominate the spots, i'm not an concerned with equinox, but i would like the spots to be occupied to create an active working environment. >> commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: we're revisiting something that has already been titled, is that correct? >> that is correct. not too much more to expand on

that, but yeah, it's purely the spa use. if you decide to approve this case, the equinox will be there. if you decide to reject this case, the equinox will be there. this is purely about the massage use, which my understanding will be in the basement, two rooms, if approved. >> and that's what i was kind of thinking along the same lines, building's approved, gym's approved. just the size of that is not going to damage anything too greatly. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: can you address the concerns that were raised? >> yeah. when we started conversations, we were very open to doing things in the community, as we stated earlier. it is a community-driven business, the employees and community that accesses the

gym. we don't necessarily have clear, laid out plans. we'll address the needs based on what the community says they are, but we were pretty much flat lined on our ability to have discounted dues. that was our sticking line. >> president melgar: so can i be specific? are you going to offer discounts to planning employees, or, you know, all of the civil servants that are going to be in that very big building? it's going to be fire, d.b.i., message even. i'm asking you for specifics.

>> on pricing? >> we offer our services on the community. >> president melgar: but that's just being open for business, not just -- okay. i gotcha. thank you. >> commissioner diamond? >> i don't hear anything about discounted memberships. is that true across all equinox facilities? how would one facilitate that request? >> we don't currently have community discounts on memberships. we have very few percentage of corporate partnerships that are subsidized by corporations, but we don't have community discounts on memberships in our company currently. >> commissioner diamond: you're

a large corporation and i'd like to understand how that request would are analyzed. >> i guess we consider them on a case by case when they're given to us, but our whole pro forma is driven on our ability. did he ha deviating from that is tough. >> commissioner melgar? >> president melgar: you know what? i'm going to say no to this. i think you're asking for us something additional to make your business a little more robust and offer an amenity to your luxury clients, but you're offering nothing to us, so i'm going to say no on this.

>> commissioner moore? >> it's interesting. the types of services that you offer, maybe at a slightly higher price point, given your location, are typical for downtown health clubs. what i would like to know, though, and i thought i heard you say that, that anybody who works for you is automatically a member. >> that's correct. >> and that is, i think, the kicker here. so if you have 20, 30 people that are starting even as junior trainers, etc., who come from minority and -- backgrounds and come from the community, there is a lot of opportunity for them to have memberships. they provide all the other services that range from the

juice bar to the retail to other customer services, so it is not completely that you are keeping people out. >> commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm really struggling with this. i guess that you're already there, it's just that you want to add the spa. i want you to be successful, and clearly, use is good every day, and it brings by walk-by traffic. there are many other facilities in the city, one of which i'm familiar with is the jccsf facility, which when it first opened, it went to great lengths to consider what sort of memberships it could offer and what discounts could be

offered. i'm sympathetic to what commissioner moore said, but we don't know who's going to work there. we don't know if they're going to be people from the neighborhood. i'm really struggling with this. i know that it's the last little piece, but i'm really struggling with this. >> commissioner melgar? >> president melgar: i'm done, thank you. >> i just wanted to throw in my two cents. if this was a message parlor all on its own, i'd look at it a little differently, but it's a message facility in a gym that is -- massage facility in a gym that's approved. i can't say no to that. >> president melgar: okay. well, i'm going to make a motion to disapprove.

>> second. >> it's not in front of us today. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded to disapprove. i think we should have a motion of intent to disapprove, unless you want to articulate findings today. >> president melgar: okay. i guess i would make a motion of intent to disapprove. >> clerk: and continue for two weeks? >> president melgar: sure. how about one week? can we do one week? >> clerk: well, staff needs to produce the motion and put it in your packet a week ahead of time. so on that motion of intent to disapprove, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion fails, 2-3, with commissioners diamond, moore, and koppel

voting against. is there an alternate motion? >> commissioner moore? >> motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> and the motion i'd add is to specifically look for neighborhood residents to find employment. >> clerk: very good. on that motion to approve with conditions -- >> president melgar: i'm sorry. i have questions on that motion but i'm not sure what that means. >> let us first outreach to local organizations, meta and everybody else, to figure out if qualified people are in the neighborhood who would normally not be first considered in the

employ. >> president melgar: i understand you're worried, commissioner. i just have a hard time seeing how they'd be considered through the conditions of approval and how they would be sourced other than through the first choice hiring program that we already have. i'm not comfortable with those conditions of approval, but okay. >> clerk: there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this motion as amended to seek to employ neighborhood residents. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: motion fails, 3-2. is there an alternate motion? there's no alternate motion, the conditional use authorization application will be de facto disapproved.

>> commissioner melgar? >> let me -- >> commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i guess i would be open to considering a continuance to see if the project sponsor wants to get together with the neighbors to see if they can put together a proposal they're in favor of and come back to us with that. >> clerk: is that a motion? >> commissioner diamond: yes. >> clerk: how long do you think? >> commissioner diamond: two weeks. >> second. >> clerk: so on that motion to continue to january 30 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. commissioners, that'll place us

under your discretionary review calendar for items 17 a and b. you will consider the discretionary review for the property at 2028 through 2030 leavenworth street, and the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. >> good evening and congratulations, president koppel, vice president moore. david winslow, staff architect. this is a discretionary review of building application 2019-06274546 to legalize a rear addiction at the second and third floors performed without permit, which also requires a rear yard variance. the permit to legalize also proposes to remove an internal connecting stair that has merged two dwelling units without the benefit of a permit. during the course of

construction work, the front facade was also altered without review or permit by the department. the building was built in 1910 and therefore was an age eligible historic resource. because of the age of the building, any changes to the facade would have required an evaluation to determine its historicity. this did not occur. the plans proposed only minor alterations, and the department has determined this is categorically exempt. this pertained only to a permit to construct a roof deck. the scope of work in the previous permits did not trigger ceqa review. the building was miss categorized to category c for some reason that we can't

explain. claimed that the construction date is 2017 -- obviously less than 45 years old. that's not the case. the building was built in 1910 and it was or is an age eligible building. the evaluation has not occurred. the d.r. requester, no address provided, is concerned with five main issues. that this project moved and merged three units into a de facto single-family resident without a permit. two, attempted to hide demolition from code enforcement, and three, extended the project into the rear yard without variance, and four, projected into the rear space, and five is tantamount to demolition. to date, the department has received no letters of support or opposition to this project. the department has an

outstanding enforcement case open on this project to rectify the work performed without the benefit of a permit. the original 2014 permit included relocating the second floor flat, unit one, to the ground level by adding square footage from the garage, and also including the unauthorized dwelling unit, which was removed or merged into that unit. it included infilling of a light well, inclusion of a new roof deck, a new elevator, new stairs at the roof deck, new windows, and replacement of front windows in kind as was stated on the permit. it did not mention removing the unauthorized studio dwelling unit, but this is shown on the plans as part of reallocating space from the two legally existing units.

in 2014, when this permit was applied for, the removal of a nonconforming residential use was allowed. per code section 317 b 7, a dwelling may be enlarged using space from another unit. if it results in a decrease in space by no more than 25% of the original floor area of the other unit. otherwise, it would be considered a merger. at that time, there's no flats policy that sought to maintain the parity of unit quality. the lower unit of 1446 square feet, which is actually an increase in size from its original 1238 square feet, and therefore, the size of this unit complies with this provision of the code. on june 27, 2019, a permit was filed to legalize the work performed without a permit. this includes the removal of those internal stairs that connect the two legal units and

to legalize the rear in-fill that also requires a rear-yard variance. this is not a demolition as defined under planning code section 317, and the excavation did not exceed 50 cubic yards of soil removed per the threshold for ceqa review. however, since the frant facade alterations were done beyond the scope of permits and without appropriate review, staff deems the case exceptional and extraordinary, and therefore recommends taking d.r. with the following recommendations. restoration of front facade, specifically restoring the double-hung windows with integral o.g. lugs, restoring the lower windows with mullions, restoring the master

roof, and restoring the stucco detail on the facade. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. we hear from the d.r. requester. >> if possible, please, could -- projection on, please? thank you. commissioners, my name is kevin chang. what the project sponsor has done is illegally combined three units into a single-family home with stairs and elevators connecting all

floors. a single permit that was erroneously approved by the planning department. the approval was based on misrepresentations on the original permit, this should be considered as no approval for any work done since that permit was misleading. so does the single-family residence hid the single-family residence from code enforcement. expanded into the rear yard without variance or permit. the staff report is incomplete and inaccurate. so the zoning administrator originally determined permit issued in error and facade restored. please see the document attached, which is the document to the planning sponsor.

there is no explanation as to why that determination has now changed. the main permit does not remove the third unit. there's no mention of removal of unauthorized dwelling unit at basement. the zoning administrat the -- [inaudible] >> -- noting only two existing units. the drawing shows each unit will have independent access kitchen, bedrooms, and bathrooms. information from the assessor's office also indicated three units on-site. the permit was mistakenly approved in 2015. why is that the case in point? because the permit was submitted in 2014 but approved in 2015 and then appealed in 2015. the unit cannot be removed without review in 2015 and was

still strongly discouraged in 2014. so why was initial approval granted? why would initial approval be granted at any time when a unit merger was even permissible? because at that time, the planning department had set in five criteria for which four of the five had to be met for granting admission of approval. i won't go into these five criteria, but none of them were met in this case. the planning commission should take discretion, given the exceptional and shortened nature of the misleading application, failure to meet the approval criteria when permit was approved, or, as they say, erroneously approved. there is no excavation permit in the foundation upgrade. the exercise room, the spa, and

the wine storage and access did not exist. please look at the hill area floor plans that indicate there is no subterranean space at that time. project sponsor requires excavation for stairs to access. does that make sense? the permits for foundation in that area were also only obtained in 2015, so that space could not have been preexisting because foundation upgraded at the same time. the space requires approximately 250 cubic yards to excavate. work was done without planning department or geotechnical report submission. only with the unpermitted excavation in the lower unit size is the lower unit conforming. that's tantamount to demolition because all the interior walls and all the floor plates were razed, and that should be recalculated by the planning

staff. the rear facade, the rear building, the rear decks were all demolished and never rebuilt. that cannot be considered as reexisting and all encroach upon the rear yard by 12 feet. i have more to state, but i'll do that in the next three minutes after this. just want to make sure that this is carefully scrutinized by this commission in light of the misleading details by the project sponsor and the inaccuracies and wrong details in the staff report. thank you. >> thank you. is anyone here to speak in support of the d.r. requester? come on up.

>> can i have an overhead, please? >> my name is jerry dratler. on tuesday, i sent a package to

this commission. i have handed out the same and before and after pictures. in my public comment, i hope to correct some of the factual errors in the d.r. package. the first error? the third unit was not illegal. rm-1 zoning allows for three units. plan check letter number one states the revised plans showed three units on the property with independent access kitchens, bedrooms, and baths. why is the planning department saying the third unit was illegal? error number two. removal of a third unit -- excuse me, removal of the legal third unit was not permitted under permit. you have a copy of the original permit. that's not the case. the permit application prepared by the original architect does not include removal of the unit

of housing. the planning department discretionary review analysis commenting that the permit allowed for the removal of the unauthorized dwelling unit is doubly inaccurate. the removal was illegal, and the unit of housing removed was totally illegal. the architect's claim that cfco allowed the removal is also false. you have a copy of the document. the demolition of the document at 2820 leavenworth meets the antment to demolition requirements. the planning analysis only addressed excavation. it does not address the interior removal of all the walls and changing all the floor plates. if the walls are removed and the floor plates are altered, it meets the tantamount to demolition, so we have a demolition. the plans show the first floor was raised 1 foot, the second

floor was raised 2 feet. the project contractor illegally converted three units of affordable housing into an $8.5 million single-family home. the planning commission has discussed holding licensed professionals accountable for unpermitted work. requiring restoration of the three units would require the architect and contractor to address their illegal acts and restore three units of affordable housing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. aussi rebell with neighborhood coalition. i want to raise another issue, and that is double standard. we deal with a lot of projects that come to noe valley, and

there are a lot of question that ask, why do we need to have 6,000 square foot buildings? why do we need to have 5,000 square foot buildings? and the answer is, we're adding density. we basically have to accept the fact that we're going to have these humongous buildings that mind you are not even going to be affordable. and a lot of times, they use our share units. in this case, it's even worse, so someone from the moneyed class has purchased this building for 2.7, $2.8 million in 2014, and then, they decided to merge units, so this is -- the optics are terrible. we're talking about densefication for common

people, and the unification for rich folks. that is why it's important for you as a body that is going to be upholding the laws and discouraging double standards to vote on restoring three units. now, these three units, they're not going to be affordable, they're going to be rich, but it's going to send a message that if you ary ri're rich, yo to follow the law. these units were there, but it's an rm-1 building. rm-1 building typically gets more than three units.

you had a case last week on delores. the organization that i work with and represent actually was supportive of this project. three units in an rh-3, and guess what? we were the ones who showed up on the preapplication meeting, and we forced the project sponsor to do three units instead of two, so we are prodensity, but density has to be done right and equitable. you can't just allow people who want to get a single-family home to do whatever they want, and common folks have to put up with 5,000, 6,000 square foot behemoth going up under the guise of density. thank you.

>> good afternoon, president koppel and members of the planning commission. -- the perpetrator was uninformed or inexperienced or unqualified. but sins of comission had no excuse. the perpetrator was knowledgeable, informed, aware of the ramifications of actions. this project is rife with sins of comission. for years, we've talked to you, we've talked to our supervisors, we've talked to the planning department about the need to have applications and drawings and plans signed

under penalty of perjury. i don't think it would have changed what happened here, but i think it would have emphasized the absolute seriousness and importance of what has happened. please listen to the d.r. requester, mr. dratler, miss rahm. for many of us over the last five, ten, 15, 20, 25 years, we've come before you because something happened in our community and in our neighborhood that was unjust, it was illegal. it was not according to protocol. you know, it was affecting our community. we need to draw the line, people. the planning commission can't keep legalizing illegal actions.

it is absolutely critical that you send a signal to the developer community that this type of egregious action will not be tolerated. this project is a sin. it is a sin of comission. draw the line, send a message that this commission will not continue legalizing illegal units. thank you. >> sue hester. after the last discussion of theology, i'm going to bring up medicine because there has to be some evaluation of where things go wrong after the screw ups. and the screw ups happen a

little bit too often. some of them come from planning department not reading plans. some of them come from the reading of plans or not reading of plans to the planning department. some of them happen by d.b.i. inspections. when a surgeon makes a mistake in a hospital, there's feedback over what happened and how they can do better next time because a life was at stake. we don't have lives at stake, we have housing at stake. we have people out of state that have an inability to come here. next week, you're going to have an opportunity to start going through things when you have the budget. the planning department and d.b.i. have joint responsibility for addressing a

lot of these follows. what is the checklist after this project from the department? mr. rahaim should be putting that together. someone from d.b.i. should be putting that together. i'm asking the planning department, planning commission to consider that a function of the planning department that really needs to be done. the value of illegal housing is too expensive for us. people, if they're rich enough, they have a pie-de-terre. people needing housing in the city really need to be your first consideration.

one of the things that is kind of overdue, in an evaluation of what are the penalties that people have to pay, and it's not just a developer who may go onto another thing, but design professionals, the architects, the people that deal with the plans have to have repercussions. so next week, where you have the opportunity to look at this -- how your department is functioning, that should be part of what you do. it's your responsibility, it's my responsibility. the supervisors have a role. zoning administrator has a big role. on feedback, what are the problems? it's in the planning code, it's in the charter. the zoning administrator, not the planning director, has that responsibility. i'm shocked by this case.

it only had been a year because you had a d.r. d.r.s have a good function. thank you. >> okay. is there anyone else wishing to speak on behalf of the d.r. requester? okay. seeing none, project sponsor?

>> hello, commissioners, mr. zoning administrator. i'm with e.a.g. studio. this uphill property remodelling started in 2014, and it included substantial upgrading and remodelling services. the previous owner sold the home in 2014. we are representing both the previous and the current owners to try and clear this up and reach an acceptable resolution. leading up to the variance request, we were following the strict path and steps proposed by planning to bring the property into conformance.

if we can get the slides to appear? thank you. a rear yard variance was sought to fill in a small part of space between two walls as suggested by jonathan purvis, the previous planner. i should note we received support from the neighbors on either side. as the staff report mentioned, the project started with two legal units and remains two units, and it was designed as such. the lower unit is 14% larger after the renovation than it was prior. it's never an excuse not to know the rules, but it's my understanding that the stair connection was proposed by the real estate agents to make the property more versatile. this project dates back some

time time. at this juncture, both owners are better informed and have every intention to conform. a permit was already filed to remove the connection permanently. the -- unless you have questions on those, i will leave addressing the other issues to the d.r. requester on the d.r. response. in their recommendation, staff listed some minor discrepancies between what was built in the permit facade alternations. the report mentioned that the current rating might be

erroneous, and it might still be age eligible. however, upon further digging in the permit archives, we found that two thirds of the facade was altered in the 1980s, which probably resulted in the c rating. nevertheless, there was an effort to retain the ifwindows and mensard roof being replaced, all being retained as well as the water tables. the gutter was added so as to not drip on pedestrians, and other efforts were to comply with strict pg&e and fire department rules, sprinklers and design.

there was also lighting added to the front of the tree lined street. it was pretty dark and has been known to attract mischief. the windows on the second level were also approved by preservation to be moved several feet from behind to the front, resulting in minor modifications to the facade, however minor. they received the support of the neighbors, however, we will work with planning on whatever is required. continuing along this path is already hard and disruptive. for this, i respectfully ask for you to not add to the already significant burdens for the current and previous owners, who are both beautiful and hard working people. thank you for your consideration.

>> thank you. anyone from the public wish to comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> commissioners, i think that part of the issue is whether or not the building was properly entitled when it removed the units, and it was not. i don't think there's any way you can escape from that truth no matter how staff may have been misled, may have erroneously approved a permit that if properly applied for, they would never have approved, even in 2014. so it begs the question, why are we trying to change the facts after the case? why are we trying to change the

position of what this department and this commission would have done in 2014 had that been the case? what that brings us to is the case of -- or the question, what is to be done? what the planning department is currently requesting is insufficient. the planning commission should require the project to be returned to its original condition. the planning commission should not approve any variances. and what's at the heart of the variance is do we reward them with what is essentially million-dollar views out the back on top of what they've done to remove housing and on top of having a misleading application? the reason why none of that can be done is because we are facing a bit of a moral hazard where if trangressions are caught early in the process,

early before construction is completed, there is the full punishment of this commission and this department. but when it's caught late, there's several changes rewarding variances and no other punishment. let bygones be bygones. what the department should do is request a thorough review of what has happened and how we got here today. we should call for a policy review, whether the down zoning of rh-2 or anything into a single-family residence is what the department wants to do. whether catch is release is the right thing to do when errors occur. please consider these things in your deliberations. thank you very much. >> project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. i'm a bit overwhelmed by the -- what i hear today.

it just seems so misleading, and maybe i feel that it has a larger agenda than this particular case. a statement that was made is that there was noloer level or basement to this space when it w was -- no lower level or basement to this space when it was acquired in 2014, which is misleading. the removal of the a.d.u., the dwelling unit, was the absolute first step we took in the planning process. we spent sometime on it, a planning report. it was thoroughly reviewed. there was also a thorough review by preservation. i remember, it took many months. and also, it was stated that

the designation did not exist. they were there, and they conformed, but i think i want to say more importantly that while there may have been mistakes that we are here to resolve, there's a path set by the department that we intend to follow. but there were no mistakes in the -- the unit removal, and the -- retaining the two units -- the two legal units that existed at the time to the two units as it is now. and we'll be available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. okay. commissioners?

commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: perhaps staff can tell us what was there because both the briefs are completely different as to what was there, what occurred. and there's not a lot of backup information for us to have judged one way or the other. >> i'd be glad to. david winslow, staff architect. so if you turn to a page in your staff report that shows the real estate existing conditions in 2014 of the lower, middle, and upper flats, two flats with the rear unauthorized dwelling unit. true, it does not show a basement condition. staff did procure plans that were provided from that 2014

permit through paper vision, which is our internal review of documents submitted by the architect that did confirm there was some existing sub -- basement space. >> commissioner fung: which page was that, again? >> well, it's not numbered. let me try and look for it. >> commissioner fung: that one, notice of violation? >> so it did pertain to the fact that there was extra basement space. the plans -- >> commissioner fung: before you leave that, though, the basement space was deemed to be

residential use that was not permitted -- or it had been permitted, is that correct? >> yeah, basically, on a down sloping lot such as this, it was presumably just foundational space that was below the first level, the ground floor level. >> commissioner fung: if staff agrees with that. >> to the best of your knowledge, based on the -- best of our knowledge, based on the plans that we had. they were not included in your packet because they're building permits, and they're restrained from public view, so... as far as the unauthorized dwelling unit, staff determined at the time in 2014 that that was an unauthorized dwelling unit, and at that time, it was allowed to remove it. that was also represented on that same permit at the time, 2014. it then stated in the permit application in words -- it didn't state it in the permit application in words, but it stated it in the plans.

>> which set of -- >> the set of drawings that i'm referring to were not -- you're not privy to. ju . >> just to clarify that, commissioners, corey teague, building commissioner. when the building inspection gets that, they hold that. their records. we have an internal program where we can review some of those permits. we are not allowed to make copies of that for the public. the building department has rules around who can get copies of their permit. so that's why we can't take issued permits from that system and put them in case packets. they can be provided by the property owner or others who are permitted to have access to those, just to be clear on that. i don't want to make the impression that no one has access to those, but there are

copy right issues and other issues regarding the property owners and their rights, and so issued building permits, those plans, they're administered and controlled by the department of building inspection, just to clarify that. >> okay. >> commissioner melgar? >> just to clarify, because i think you're using two different words that are confusing to the public. there's a different between plans and permits. my understanding is the plans are what cannot be shared because they're copyrighted from the architects who have produced that work, but the permits are on a website that anybody from the public can access. >> well, actually, you can get the information from the permit off of p.i.n. the copy of the permit itself, you can't get that off of p.i.n. you still have to go to d.b.i.

but we were able to view those plans within our internal system. we aren't allowed to produce copies of those in our case -- case packet. >> okay. okay. >> commissioner moore? >> are you finished. >> no, i was just mincing words with mr. teague. so i -- this -- this case really bothers me. i see a lot of similarities with 18 street, of course, because of the, you know, taking out of the illegal unit, which was then -- and if i may insert something, i'm looking at the pictures of the listing in 2014, and that unit -- judging from the architect, it had been there since at least the 1940s. and it's a nice unit. it doesn't look substandard or, you know, decayed. and part of me is greefieving

the building as it was because the building was beautiful. it had, you know, the box ceilings, and the beautiful -- and all of that is now gone and replaced by something that, you know -- whatever. there's different tastes. but you know, i'm going to let that go because that's irrelevant. but i -- can you, again, just, like, state in simpler words what you're asking us to do. and just, like, i want to be consistent in this commission. we have consistently asked if people are taking up more space -- and i got et it, it w just a little notch in the back. but if you're taking up more space, we want to add density, but this is going down. you're asking us to get rid of the stairwell and legalize it, and it doesn't sit well with me. it's not consistent with what we've done. >> i share your grieving. but to switch side to the

rational use of regulation, plan use, which is what we do. when we dig into this case, there is a notice of violation. they did some things wrong. the department has found out about those things and is pursuing that with the project sponsor to correct those things. the things they did wrong weren't the removal of the unauthorized dwelling unit. that was allowed in 2014. the things they did wrong weren't the demolition because it's not a demolition. if you look at 317, you can remove all the interior walls of that beautiful building, but the facade remains the same. they did that wrong. they didn't put that on the permits, but they didn't demolish the building. they could have altered all those floors, and it still would have been below the threshold of demolition per our code section.

what i'm asking is that you allow the enforcement to take its course. that they seal up the floor between the two units and restore it to two legal units, as well as the facade that was altered without the benefit of review or permit. that's basically the -- i think the staff's position is, this is what we could or should be doing on this. we have taken steps since 2014 to correct the removal of unauthorized dwelling units, and we see that's working. we have instituted the idea of the flats policy, which seeks parity when you merge two units -- taking what they've done in 2014 was legal, too.

that wouldn't be allowed today, but -- >> commissioner moore? >> this project puts us into a somewhat awkward position, and i would agree with commissioner melgar that there are so many uncertainties and so much undisclosed material here that i feel like i'm buying a cat in a bag. don't have a better word. what surprises me the most is that there seemed to be some contradictions between what members of the public seemed to know and what you are saying you know but are not allowed to show us. as an adult, i feel very comfortable just having a brief glimpse as those drawings and agree with you. at the same time, on the history of many other projects that have come through the commission, i feel an ever-increasing amount of

uncertainty that i'm sitting here for the wrong reasons to cleanup something that we really don't know what we're cleaning up. let me ask you one technical question. when did the legislation regarding the removal of dwelling units change? was that in 2014 or 2015? >> that legislation took place in april of 2016. >> 2016, because somebody mentioned the unit actually being -- you mentioned 2014. you mention 2016? >> the 2014 unit to do the unauthorized work and remove the unit at that time was issued approximately six months prior to that legislation. >> what still puzzles me and i've asked that question before because i don't think any of us feel we have a full deck of cards in front of us. why do we have to do that?

they're not here, they're not with you, either. they're somewhere here in neverland, and it leaves us in a very awkward position. and i keep asking mr. dratler for more questions, but i want to first hear from mr. winslow. >> sorry. your question is why d.b.i. doesn't resolve what issues in particular? >> the entire clarification of what's going on here? >> well, as far as d.b.i.s concerned, i think there's no -- i don't think there's anything they exceeded the scope of work from d.b.i.s perspective, except for maybe the facade, which was altered, and the stairs, which were probably done without a permit, so d.b.i. wasn't privy so that knowledge, so that didn't even exceed a scope of work. it just was done, and the variance was probably -- the issue of the in-fill on the

variance was probably as shown on the plans, subsequent, but maybe not routed to planning. but i'm not sure what the answer is on that. >> and i do think that the conditions that have led to where we are, you know, we try today lay those out clearly in the staff report, but in the sense that we looked at the basement issue, we looked at the demolition issue. it's clear that the 2014 permit removed the unauthorized dwelling unit, and that it shifted the two legal units in a way that was consistent with the code at this time. the permit planner noted that it was less than the 25% reduction and therefore not subject to the merger requirements. and so the 2014 permit was scrutinized and seems to be approved appropriately. that permit was also appealed, but then, that appeal was withdrawn. so that permit was issued and completed. and to that point, we feel that

we're pretty straightforward with what was there at that point. after that point, there was work done beyond what was approved in that 2014 permit or other permits, and that's the interior connection, the facade work, the infull work -- in-fi work at the rear. that's what's in the notice of violation, and that's what's in front of you now. they are proposing in front of you now to remove the interior connection, because obviously, if they want to propose to keep that, it would be a d.u. instead of a c.u. proposal. they would take the facade back to where it was, generally speaking. and then, the rear in-fill is a matter that's before you under the d.r. and also before me because it triggers a rear yard variance. >> so does a change in ownership, to really pin this on one person isn't existing. so it's the blind leading the

blind, and there isn't anything left, where anybody knows where we're going. i want to ask mr. drexler, you seem to have an answer to our questions. >> thank you very much. so yes, the plans are copyrighted, but anybody can go to the fourth floor of d.b.i., any citizen, and can see them on film. also, the property owner can release the plans. so i agree with commissioner moore. you're being asked to make a decision in the dark without information, so either the property owner can release the plans or unfortunately, the commission members can go over to d.b.i. and look at them. but there's so much information here that's compromised, i don't understand how you can --

my role was really to raise -- i'm a data person, and i'm saying hey, this data is conflicted, and that's as much as i can do. thank you. >> thank you. mr. winslow -- >> yeah. the alternative is we have them, and you can't view them. we can't distribute them as a matter of public -- >> commissioner melgar. >> so without the plans, you know, i went back and i'm looking at the listing from, you know, when it -- you know, they flipped it out after the renovations. is there a kitchen? is there a full kitchen in the second unit? >> yes. yes there is. >> -- yes. yes, there is. >> i can't read that from the full pictures. >> if you look to -- if you look to current lower level plan per approved permit 2016,

on, basically, right after the realtor's -- you see, the kitchen right adjacent to the stair that's proposed to be removed. >> i'm sorry. say that again. >> the kitchen is the lower drawing. current lower level one, drawing number three here? so it was a kitchen just to the right of the stair. >> okay. i'm sorry. you just confused -- it's the scare that's goi stair that's going to be removed. >> that's the lower unit. >> so then, we put it back to two units, remove the elevator, seal off the floor, they're in compliance. they can walk away with having done this, and $8 million. okay.

i get it. thank you. >> i just had a quick question just process wise. not singling out d.b.i. or planning or anyone in particular. i'm just still trying to grasp how this process works. let's say someone exceeds their permit, whatever their exceedance was, it gets found out. there was a notice of correction, and this is where i lose it? does correct mean put it back the way it is or what does correction mean? >> so notice of correction is one of the things of the department of building inspection, so i can't say too much on it. the building code is more about making sure that any work that's done is safe. from the planning department's perspective, if there's a determination that scope -- work was done beyond scope or work was done just without permit, you have to legalize that work, and then, that

process of legalization is -- it's part of a policy review. that doesn't mean you automatically get it, it means we look at it as if you were proposing it new. n now -- we did not want them to keep the work that was done, we wanted them to remove the stair and keep it two units. essentially, any time work is done beyond permit or without permits, we say you have to take that same scope of work that hasn't been permitted, apply for that as a permit, and we'll review that as if it was new. we may not change it. it may be fine and we support it, or propose some other work that's an alternative. but the bottom line is you have to legalize the work you've done or some alternate scope or remove the work you've done. it has to be corrected.

that's what's required to abate the violation. and that's what's happened here now. there's a notice of violation that basically says you have to fix this, and they're proposing to fix the unit merger issue by restoring the second unit by removing the interior connection. >> but we're not stopping anyone from exceeding or installing anything without a permit. >> obviously, if somebody wants to go in to a building and do work without permits, we don't really have a way to stop that in the moment. >> no, i understand that, but after it's completed, you could make them demoit and remove it. >> yeah -- no. if something like this -- yeah. if someone does illegal work without permits, and it's found out and it's a violation. they can be required to remove it like what's happening here. >> i don't like this one bit. i will say again, i'm grieving

a little bit. i don't see what else we can do, quite frankly, but legalize this and make them remove the stairs. i mean, they didn't -- there wasn't an egregious going beyond the envelope, there wasn't egregious anything, but they did illegally merge two units. they legally eliminated an unpermitted unit, and that's -- that was the law then. so i'm not really sure, you know, that despite my distaste for this particular project, there's anything that we can do but by bring them into compliance by forcing them to remove the stairs. so i mean, that's -- i think that's what i'll do. >> commissioner diamond. >> but if i understand correctly, even if we grant d.r., you're enforcing the action, correct? >> correct.

>> so you guys don't have to take d.r. for us to get that underway. you're telling us to take d.r. for them to put the facade back the way it was. >> yes. thankfully, once d.r. was filed, we did discover the facade was beyond the scope of work, and that was not in any way of the correction part of our scope, so we're saying yep, we're going to include that because that was done obviously beyond the scope, without a permit. it was done without review, and so we're going to have -- the consistency of this commission has been, in cases like these, to restore the building in the condition it was more or less legally, you know, restore the part that was legal in the way before it was done. >> okay. so i make a motion that we take d.r. and approve this project with the modifications as

stipulated by staff, that they put back the facade. >> second. >> you want to speak? >> yes, just quickly. before -- i want to just touch on the variance itself also that's in front of us today which is the -- kind of the in-fill of the middle portion at the rear at multiple levels. this is -- all the history and violation aside, just looking at the property objectively, it's the second smallest lot on the block. it's a substandard lot. it's quite small. it has kind of a disconnected nature from the main part of the midblock open space, and generally, when we have

regularizing rear walls where it's not making an expansion, it's just making things more regular, more minor, we're generally supportive of those, so i would be supportive of the proposed variance, as well. >> commissioner moore? >> mr. teague, that particular comment you just made, where i'd like a little empathy for us is particularly because that lot is a substandard lot, the impact of this sequence of events is far more painful than anything else. and at some point, i believe we need to find a middle ground because these types of projects are piling up, and it makes it harder and harder for us to stand here and have to find ways -- and i know you are honestly trying and put transgender ing -- putting it in the context of what was available. but there are no fines leveed.

the fact that you need to restore, a standard expectation, you better get your act together and do what you need to do, but there's still no penalty. this person can still -- regardless of who that person may be, that person can still continue to occupy that building without ever renting that second flat. it will still continue to exist as a very large luxurious into the back yard home for $8 million-plus. it's very hard to sit here and accept it using your process relative to how we practice, but it's still all wrong. along the way, all kinds of things happened where nobody ever put the hammer down and said guess what? you basically lost your standing, and here we go. >> i think part of the challenge there is we've

brought this up many times before. there's not a very big hammer in the planning code when it comes to enforcement, and we're limited there. and generally, we don't look at variance decisions or other decisions that have required findings and standard process as a form of, you know, penalty. so looking at the variance objectively, and looking at the five findings and other required findings have to do with kind of, you know, bad actions by prior owners. objectively looking at the variance, i think it meets the five findings. i agree, there's a lot that can be done in our enforcement provisions that could -- there are a lot of -- a wide range of things that could be done with that provision of the code to give us more of a hammer, so to speak, to use your terminology, in these types of situations, and unfortunately, still to this point, we don't have that yet. >> and i think it would be upon

the commission to sometimes seriously sit down. we're not like the criminal justice arm of what's wrong and whatever, but i think we need to talk about the reality of what these types of violations do. do they encourage other people to follow the very same path because we have plenty of them. and i think we need to all sit down, including yourself, that we need to change this. this isn't working. and i think that people find more and more tricky ways to basically deceive us. and i encourage all of us to stand in that discussion and figure out how we can change the tone of what we're doing here. >> commissioner diamond? >> yeah, just before we vote, can you respond to sue hester's comment about, you know, what has the planning department done to go back and look at what mistakes were made along

the way, to make sure it doesn't happen again? you said something about the historic stuff, that there was an oversight, and i don't know if it was building or planning, where it was clearly subject to if it's more than 50 years old, that the date was wrong. the story was confusing to me. >> yeah. i think that was just the quirk of our system. i think that was just manual data entry that affected the -- the way it showed up on our website. but in terms of how we review projects, yeah, we are continuously looking at how we apply projects and examples we learn from projects as they move forward. obviously, the city is, too. the u.d.u. removal of legislation was adopted and took effect in 2016. all of these examples, continue to try to learn from them, and new policies do get adopted from that. i'm not sure of any specific problems there were in terms of d.b.i. or plannings's review of

the permits in this case. i think this was a pretty direct review of the work down outside of this permit, but we continue to learn from projects and continue to get better. >> commissioner moore? >> just as a technical question, to satisfy my curiousity. the leavenworth zone was rm at that time. there's a slightly looser interpretation of how much can you where. >> actually, i don't love the term illegal dwelling unit. illegal has such a negative sound to it. i like unpermitted.

that's the crux of it. it's not that it was illegal, it never was permitted to be there. so in 2014, they got a permit that removed it. they could have chosen to try to legalize it. now in that configuration, it would have required an exposure variance and a parking variance and an open space variance to get that legalized. there was a path forward to legalize that unit, it was just that it had never been a dwelling unit -- it had never gotten the permit to be a dwelling unit. but this one is rm-1, so they could legally have a third unit. >> and at that time, there were no penalties for an illegal unit. you could basically just get rid of it, and that was it. >> correct. until the u.d.u. removal ordinance took effect in april 2016, that was commonplace. >> and that was not as pressing at it is today.

okay. that's a good explanation. thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion that's been seconded to take d.r. and approve the motion with modifications. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> i'll close the public hearing on the variance and intend to grant on standard conditions. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that'll place us on your final item today, number 18, at 166 parker avenue. >> jonas, before we get going, commissioner diamond needs to inform us. >> i live within 500 feet of 166 -- own property and live within 500 feet of 166 parker, so i would like permission from the commission to be recused. >> i make a motion that recuse

mission commissioner diamond. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to recuse commissioner diamond -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. >> david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review for building permit application 2018-04107064 to construct a new two story family dwelling unit on a vacant lot. the proposed building will be approximately 40 feet in height with two off street parking spaces. one dwelling unit would occupy the habitable space behind the garage and the entire second floor, and the second dwelling unit would occupy the entirety of the third floor and the fourth floor. the project proposes a 430

square foot roof deck that are set back from all property lines. there are two d.r. requesters, 164 a parker avenue, a resident of the adjacent property to the north of the project is concerned with one main issue, that the proposed addition or the proposed building extends 4'9" beyond the d.r. requester's rear wall. and they are requested alternative is to align that rear wall with their adjacent rear wall. second d.r. requester is rose hilton of 115 hilton, resident across the street to the property who is contained with three issues. one, the scale and massing is out of character with the surrounding buildings. the material and competition of the front and rear facades are modern and out of character are the west of the block, and the

walls and roof decks will create privacy and light support problems. we re-reviewed this project and confirmed that this meets the residential guidelines related to scale, character, and preservation of access to midblock open space. the project sponsor's designed a building that moderates the massing of the two adjacent buildings in a sensible manner, and as such, staff deems that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with respect to its massing or the sighting on the lot. it maintains its visual access to the midblock open space by its adjacent neighbors. it is typically allowed for a building to project up to 5 feet further than an adjacent neighbor and in still doing,

maintaining visual access to the midblock open space. this massing moderates the varying open depth to adjacent buildings. second, the angled bay window projection and sizes at the front are of similar scale, form, and character of neighboring buildings and respects that scale and character of buildings on the block. the primary building material is stucco, also consistent with other buildings on this block. the roof deck is modestly sides, set back 5 feet from property lines and edges so as to minimize impacts to noise and neighborhood impact to privacy. with this, staff finds that the project meets the standards and guidelines and recommends that the commission not take d.r. and accept the project as proposed as it does not present any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. this concludes my presentation

and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. can we hear from the d.r. requester? we have two, two d.r.s, correct? >> our main comment with mr. winslow summed up quite well that we were hoping to bring the building back the extra 4'9" so that the back of it was flush with our unit. and the one thing we wanted to bring up is that we understand from the way the code, the zoning code or whatever was written is that it's based upon the back of the unit. however, we have a back deck here, and that kind of says yes, we are sticking 5 feet

beyond our unit, however, it's going to be a ten-foot set back. however, we understand that it's following the letter of the law and the intent, and also where it would be best from an architectural standpoint to have the rooms laid out. however, the sight impact is more than shown to our unit and we feel this is a way to balance it out to still have less of an impact and not be taking away from the other uniuni unit's space. when we first had a chance to make a comment about this, there was a comment from the project architect that he would not be able to reclaim the space here. but in speaking with someone at planning, i was told that yes, they are able to reclaim the space, so they're not losing any overall square footage that they're developing. so we're trying to, again, not take away from the space, just have it balance things so that

both sides are represented well and aren't adversely affecting as much. and i think that just about sums up our opinion. thank you. >> okay. d.r. requester number two. >> good evening, commissioners.

it parker avenue is named after samuel parker. it's the cultural history of this unique homestead block of the jordan homestead association. [inaudible] >> the 1,000 foot long block displays the architectural designs late 19 century to early 20 century history. more use of bay windows and some stucco as modern do not make it fit in. continued to respect this existing culturally historic block, prevailing design

character as in the general plan urban design element key conservation objective, retain the sense of place. the bill dates and square foot data demonstrate oversized for a short lot of 6,709 square feet on a 2770 square foot lot. no variances have been issued for this block since the r.b.g.s and rules were in

place. -- should be removed as it will set a precedent for four top roof or not culturally existent on this block. privacy issues for tenants in 152 and 174 parker. decks on below and above roofs, you can adjust them by 30 feet. it disrupts existing historic duplex rhythm and cadence of the block. a set back 10-15 feet 45° angle for relief. it maximizes the mass and bulk

of the rear yard averaging and breaks the aesthetics. the noncomplying yard encroaches into the rear yard open space. it's an affront to the public welfare, which in a broad sense includes aesthetics which neighbors fought for in r.d.g.s and code. it's an everywhere anomaly lacking in detail for this culturally sensitive block.

[inaudible] >> please remove, lower the height of the building of reduction of top floor height. there's about six or seven other bullets, and we did agree to mr. winslow's request to discuss further alternatives, but we were told that the sponsors were not available. please uphold to make it more into the fabric of the architecture exhibited on this historic and exceptional block on the jordan street association. thank you, and i submit all of that. >> thank you. i got a couple speaker cards. is richard frisbee here to speak in favor of the d.r.? >> i am. good evening, commissioners. i'm richard frisbee. we do not oppose the development of the empty lot at 166 parker street. we are not opposed to the 40-foot height. we're not opposed to a

two-family dwelling solution. what we're opposed to is the lego block style building that's being proposed. we're opposing a building that belongs more in houston, texas than san francisco. all it took was one right angle triangle and one straight edge to design the proposed solution. we're opposed to a building that violates the character, ambiance, and nature of the block. we want, when one walks down the street, one notices a building that adds to its neighbors as opposed to a jarring disconnect. we support jordan park's position. we can, let's do it. thank you very much. >> okay. seeing there's no more people here, project sponsor, come on up.

>> president koppel sounds pretty good, doesn't it? congratulations, and vice president moore, and i just want to thank commissioner melgar for your commitment to san francisco planning over the years that you've been part of this. so we are proposing a two-unit building on parker in a vacant lot, a rare vacant lot. and we believe that both of these requests for d.r. are not exceptional in any particular

way. so in our original design, the drawing on the left, our original design, we just did a typical averaging between the two neighboring properties. and as david winslow suggested, we went that day, took the comments we get from the residential design team, was to use a different method of averaging, which we did, and the one on the right, the red line shows where the change in the set back -- of course it might work with the right image. the image on the left shows the massing as it were -- yeah, let me see. >> push it up. push it higher. yeah, there you go. >> that's the original massing that we had proposed.

and then, you can see the massing as we proposed -- as it is now in the project. it does extend 4'9" beyond the neighboring property, but we have pushed all of the mass up to the very large wall of the neighboring building at 172, the art-deco building there. we only have 25 feet. there's only so much we can do. we are to the south of 164, so we've reduced the amount of shadow that would be on their property, as well. but of course our property will be shadowed by the larger wall. but i think this is a very good compromise engineered by the residential design team. as to the other myriad of concerns about the massing, the height, the set backs, the

style, the color, virtually every single thing in the second d.r. would require a complete redesign, and i will just defer to mr. winslow where he has acknowledged that every single piece of this is designed to be in scale, to be compatible, that the massing is exactly consistent, the front of the building is set to the sidewalk as are most of the buildings on this block. there is a ground floor that has a garage door and an entrance to the units above that has a different material. all of the things that we typically do when we design a building to be compatible with its context. this is just a very long first draft that shows that it actually fits in.