i could go on. you heard the community benefits or we could bulldoze overnight tur, build stuff to get flooded in 10 years, and do that the easy way. there is no neighborhood opposition. i am excited to see so many people in support. i ask you to approve and think about more projects like this faster. it is great to have great plans for 2000 units of housing in 10 years. we need more now. get this approved and get everything else on the docket approved. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. i am beverly, executive director of c5 children's school serving 150 children in the state of california building and the sfpuc across the street. i am also share currently of the

child care planning and advisory council. i am here to speak in favor of the child care facilities because there is a huge requirement in the city. we have currently just on the city's low income list 3,000 children who we have no space for. we have no facilities for. it is one of the biggest challenges that the city is facing in terms of being able to provide adequate child care. one of the things that is especially desirable about this facility that it is on the ground floor. that means we would be our people would be able to serve infants and young toddlers who would be about three months probably to 18 months. currently in two of our facilities and we are opening up another one in the fall, but we cannot serve infants and toddlers because they are not on the ground floor. there is a very big need just

within our program. we have 110 children on the wait list for infants and young toddlers. you can see that there is a great need and kind of one of my mottos we can never do enough for children. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners, mr. president and staff. thank you for considering this item. i am proud to be a 24 year member of the laborer's unit and i am maggie campbell. this project on behalf of my labor sister in the city of san francisco, we ask that you support this project. it is this project that allows us to or this kind of project that allows us to pay for homes for our families and to have a quality of life with benefits. with this kind of project here we will have many of my labor sisters with an opportunity to work in the city they live in. thank you for that and thank you

for your service to the community. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, good evening. i am emily abraham. public policy manager in support of the one vassar project. it is unique in the benefits to the local community for employment opportunities, housing and benefits for the surrounding area. the $120 million investment will support much needed infrastructure improvements and support small businesses that rely on the foot traffic. the 3,000 square foot market hall will support potential businesses by providing 150 hospitality jobs. it is the only psy committed to 110% of did inclusionary requirements to achievable affordable housing. for these reasons the san

francisco city chamber of commerce advocates you vote yes. . [please stand by]

lease stand by] >> commissioner imperia . >> we just got the transportation impact reports and want to review that and understand how traffic is going to impact perry. but generally, this is going to benefit the neighborhood, so we want you to approve it. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm david baker, a condo owner

across the street. i've been there since 1989. i support this. i have nothing to do with the project professionally. it's a great team. i'm going home to eat dinner. thank you. >> president koppel: next speaker, please. don't rub it in. >> good evening, president koppel and commissioners. my name is dante richards, and i am a carpenter in local 22, and i am speaking on behalf of the one vassar project. this will help me to continue to live in the city, and i am a native of the city. it will help me as a carpenter moving to retirement. it will help me support my family and bring much needed housing to the area in this housing crisis, and i am in full support of this project

and ask that you support this project. i'm ready to go to work. this project has been delayed long enough, and i just want to say thank you for hearing me today. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president koppell, and thank you for allowing me to speak. i'm with local 22 in san francisco. i represent about 4,000 residents that live here in the city plus about 40,000 in northern california. this project, 35-story residential unit, that's a lot. it doesn't matter who you are or your income, we all need a place to live. the hotels, bars, restaurants, unwind -- god, i could use one

now. 24 stories, mixed open space, but millions of dollars community benefit, i don't see how we can say no to this. the carpenter's union is here today to fully support one vassar project. not only would this bring housing to san francisco, but the use of a union general contractor. it means living wages for the individuals building this project. it means health care and retirement benefits. this project will provide hundreds of union construction jobs, create opportunities for women, minorities, and veterans to advance their careers. carpenters union supports this, and we ask you to do so, as

well. thank you for your time. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, president koppel, congratulations, teresa, on your position. i am with the labor council and i represent a small organization called c.l.o.u.t., community and labor organizing unifying together. we're going to give people in the surrounding communities some entry level job opportunities to take advantage of this development. i work at a coalition called good jobs for all. we are labor and community, and we work with local 2. so we have these entry level jobs that we have been working with the developer to guarantee that if you're trained and you want these jobs, that they will be available for you. so i'm here to say that we all

support this project, to thank sharon and her staff and all of the other good work that you've done, and let's move this project forward. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> todd david on behalf of the housing coalition project. we often talk about how housing is a good community benefit, and it is, but we also like to think about what is the additional things that come along with new housing, and this project is one of these benefits that come along with new housing. impact fees and infrastructure investment valued at $20

million. -- by splitting it between a fee and a land dedication. i always think it's really interesting when development teams are able to do things in a creative manner. just add our voice and names to the chorus to approve this. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, john elbing. commissioners, this has been a long time coming. it's the last major project of the central soma plan. my company has reached an agreement with the developer. the project will cast a very small shadow on yerba buena gardens open spaces very early in the morning some times of the year, so to mitigate that,

the developer has agreed to contribute $53,000 for the yerba buena conservancy to maintain the gardens, so that's good. of course, there'll be more projects and more shadows, so this is an important precedent for the gardens and its future. second, if it's technically possible, with a motion denied evidence change to the planning code, the developer has committed to provide 8,000 square feet of p.d.r. for 30 years beyond low market rents, which is important for businesses that cannot afford $50, $60 a square foot for businesses. we are pleased to be able to

join with our colleagues and the community to support this project. it really is another example of how the central soma projects aren't just putting up buildings, but they're also building the community. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. anyone else want to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i'm delighted to see the last big project in san francisco come to approval, and i couldn't be more proud to support it. i move to approve it.

>> president koppel: commissioner melgar? >> commissioner melgar: i'm so excited to see this, and the sense of humor. to talk about below market rate child care, p.d.r. open space, hotel space, and housing space, both affordable and market rate, exciting. so excited to support this project. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm also excited to support the system. congratulations to everybody. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: subsequent to the informational presentation, some of the questions that came up there have been answered. there were discussions related to the overall sight development plan. some of the issues related to their attempts to soften the

freeway edge in their discussions with caltrans on their side, discussions related to the historical resource, what has been done to that, and some further monthdulation on these three towers, i'm happy to support the project. >> commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes. i'm very happy that you put land ded indication plus, inclusionary on-site fees. usually, we would see one thing or the other. as you know, we have affordability crisis, and so for me, that is very

acceptable. so kudos to you all, and to see different groups, different groups sometimes on the different sides, but to see them all together speaks about the type of community that you want to build. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> i want to give a shoutout to sharon in the planning committee. her skills are prevalent in this, so thank you, sharon. >> president koppel: we had many, many hearings on this area, many large project hearings, i just want to thank all the staff, all the departments, all the people, all the time, all the people sitting down for hours and hours and hours to get us to where we are today. i'm personally thrilled. i like this project, it's in the right area of town, it's

right near moscone in downtown. it's going to solidify that whole area with no missing teeth, and thrilled to see it today. director rahaim? >> director rahaim: there's one person i want to give a shoutout to, and that's rich ducray. he and his staff have stream lined the process in a thoughtful way, so i want to thank rich and his team for making this up. very much appreciated. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> i wanted to thank the project team for going the extra mile and putting on the

web an extra consolidated summary that many people in the public read on-line and called me and felt that that little package was very in line to help understand the project, so thank you for that. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the large project authorization, conditional use and conditional use authorization as has been corrected and submitted into record by staff. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6-0. >> i'll close the hearing and move to grant the standard variance. >> clerk: commissioners, that will place us back now to item 11 for case number 2009-3461

cwp. informational presentation. . >> include -- thank you, commissioners.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, matt snyder of department staff. i'm here with our annual staff to the interagency plan implementation committee. my -- my presentations seemed to have disappeared from the

laptop. i will use the overhead if i can. we do this every year, so i will try -- and i know you have a long calendar still in front of you, so i will try and be as very brief as i can. i will give you an idea of what the implementation planning committee is, what they do, and what our process is and give you some general overviews of our revenue and some highlights of each of the plan areas. very quickly, the implementation team of the planning department was created about ten years ago in the citywide division, and our task was to look over the implementation of the -- of the area plans that had been created since the mid2000s. before that, when we ever did an area plan, we always had the zoning that we would then implement and we were looking

at other aspects of the area plan, and the tool that helped us do this morning was the creation of geographically based impact fees, so planning takes a leadership role in making sure that those impact fees a fe fees are spent according to the plan, and they are essentially an extension of the planning team that does this. they are our agency partners.

so the two major products that we do are the annual ipic report which i forwarded to you as part of your packets and are now on-line, which gives you a report around each of the area plans around infrastructure spending, and this is focused on how the revenue from the impact fees are spent. the other impact fee we do every other year with the city's ten-year capital plan, and then we look at the ten-year capital plan for each of these areas. it's a little more expanded, not only from impact from revenue fees, but we take a look at what the gap is to help solve projects that don't yet have all the full funding. and commissioner fung had asked me to give a context of what these plan areas are relative

to some other planning activities, so i provided you with the maps in these packets. these aren't part of the actual report. i'm going to skip ahead. this slide -- or in your packets shows you what these plan areas subject to the impact fees are relative to some other large scale intense development endeavors, including those from redevelopments, from the development agreement projects, including the three hope s.f. that we heard about today. so ipic is charged with programming revenues from impact fees, and this just indicates our process is not like other budgeting processes. i should mention that each other plans before you, as central soma was recently before you, we include packets that outline what those

projects are going to be so we're not starting every year coming up with new projects, what we're looking to do is think strategically with what project goes first. every year, we start where we left off the previous year, we look at our fee projections and adjust accordingly. we work with the c.a.c., we work with other agencies. it's an iterative process. we ask the c.a.c.s for endorsement, we ask for the ipic for endorsement. we ask that the projects in the next two years get loaded into the city's capital plan, and then, we move forward to implement. and the five categories that we generally look to fund projects include transit, complete streets, recreation and open space, child care, and then, there's a 5% set aside for

administration. i should mention that these, of course, are all justified or backed up by nexus studies that we do every five years to assure that we are raising money according to state law, and that we are essentially programming the money to essentially address the creation of this -- of this new development. some of issues that we looked at that were specific to this year that i heard -- i think i heard in one of your other conversations is that construction has somewhat slowed down. we have sort of a formula of when we think we can expect impact fees relative to where they are in the pipeline. this year, we found that our revenue came in slower than what we had anticipated because projects weren't moving from, for an example, getting site permits and construction documents so where they actually pay their fees. so you'll see in some of charts

that i have next, you'll see negative numbers, which i wouldn't interpret them as deficits, cash deficits. what it means is that in previous years, we've appropriated projects, but projects don't yet have the cash. what we need to do is prioritize projects that are afforded, but developers are working to catch up. we're working on some relatively new plan areas. central soma is going to be a large effort this year. also, one of the things that are before you this winter -- or excuse me, this winter and possibly spring is the amendments to the market octavia plan, or commonly referred to as the hub. for central soma, as you may recall, to help implement that

and do it in a more cohesive way, we had implementation to create a new plan largely around central soma. one of the things that we're going to have to do is think about the revenue stream that comes from the eastern neighborhoods actual fee, the splitting it apart to make sure that each neighborhood is being funded relative to the information that's coming in geographically. and then, we've separated the c.a.c. that included to include soma. that c.a.c. is looking to help us with the mission, shore place, potrero, and central waterfront. i'll try to get through these ones real quickly. so through f.y. 20, which is the end of this fiscal year, in june, we anticipate we will have collected about $286

million, most of that coming -- the larger amount coming from eastern neighborhoods, which is the larger plan areas, and some of the most intensive developments, including transit center. in the next two years, we anticipate collecting $242 million. i should point out a big chunk of that is actually going to come from twcentral soma, sinc the key sites, we anticipate generating a lot of revenue, and part of our work with the new c.a.c. and ipic is figuring out which of those projects are identified, but how do you spend them on a year to year basis? we anticipate collecting roughly $418 million. i'm going to just give you some

super high level highlights of each of the six plan areas. balboa park, this is a plan area in which there is a lot happening in terms of transit, in terms of development, but it's actually outside of the context of impact fees. we don't anticipate collecting a lot of money from balboa, only about 300 -- i'm sorry, $270 million over the next five years. eastern neighborhoods had been six plan areas, now six plan areas. the largest impact fee area we're looking to fund roughly about 30 infrastructure projects. some highlights include recreation -- recreation -- rec and park has about eight -- eight projects in the works using our -- the funds from

impact fees. some that had been included this year include franklin square, park core improvements. under construction is the complete rehabilitation of the aquatic center at garfield, and then slotted for construction to begin this year is a small rehabilitation at jury commons in the mission. one of the -- we are also looking to participate in the funding of a lot of major transit and complete streets projects, one of which is second street, of which we've provided a little over 10% of those funding. some of the smaller projects that the c.a.c. has advocated for includes potrero gate way. we previously referred to this as the loop. it's a smauj project that public works is completing conceptual designs. about 1.5 years ago, you

approved a plan for central waterfront, and we set aside $10 million over the next few years to fund those projects. the first coming out of the gate are a series of road improvement projects, minnesota at 25 street. market octavia, again, we're funding about 30 projects. so one of the things that we do in the various area plans is that we provide funding for community-based efforts. one of the things that are very popular in market octavia is a street walk and greening program, for which we provide about 100,000 a year. another thing that is popular for the c.a.c. is the living trees project, to essentially create public realm projects

out of the city alleys. one of the projects in market octavia is the complete rehabilitation of margaret hayward playground for which we're funding roughly a quarter to a third. another project is the upper market pedestrian improvements and bike improvements. you've seen sort of temporary improvements in the form of paint along upper market. this looks to make those more permanent. and then looking forward, we have a lot of projects set aside, not specific projects coming out of the hub project for which we'll work with the agencies and the community to further prioritize. rincon hill was one of our first area plans with impact fees. and one of the projects that are going to be in construction right now is a small pocket park on guy place. it's a small loop road off of first street. that's under construction, and

we look to fund most of that, actually. the other quarter of that money came from transit center. transit center impact fees largely go to various -- i think it goes to tjpa for the large scale regional transportation projects, but then, a lot of it also goes to the streetscape projects. they also participated in funding guy place park, again, under construction. visitacion valley is not an area per se. it was created by then supervisor maxwell and created by the community to help leverage funds out of expects intense development and executive park. revenue has not been coming in on that project area. essentially, it includes the hope s.f. sunnyvale site.

development has not happened as quickly as we had anticipated in viz valley, so what we've been doing is going out in the community every year, kind of chewing up projects when the income does come in. we're still waiting for it, and there are a series of improvements on visitacion valley, leading up from tthe p. we're creating a new c.a.c. specifically for soma. that has not yet been seated. we anticipate seeing that seated in april, and we'll start working with them. also, as i noted, all of our fees have to be justified by nexus studies. we're currently underway in

reuping our nexus study, and so we look to be completing that also in the spring and the summer. after that, this whole process starts again where we look at our projections. we'll work with the agencies and the c.a.c.s where adjustments need to be made. one of the documents that created the eastern neighborhoods was an m.o.u. and the split of eastern soma neighborhoods. and that concludes my presentation, and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> president koppel: thank you very much, mr. snyder. now we'll open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would wish to comment on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i just wanted to commend staff on the thoroughness of this report.

it connects the dots for me. i see improvements in the projects, and improvements on the streets, and this is how it gets from a to z, the sausage making it of. understanding how you prioritize with community action groups and how you set the priorities helps me very much. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: your presentation was very convincing, and i'm excited to see where we're moving in the next year. >> president koppel: and thanks for bearing with us on the agenda. >> sure. >> clerk: commissioners, that places you on item 15, at 1300 columbus avenue, a planned unit development. >> good evening, president koppel and commissioners. the item before you is a

conditional use authorization and planned unit development requesting a four story, 88,000 square foot, 39 foot tall and a 170 room hotel room addition. the project includes 166 existing below grade off street parking spaces. improvements to the garage includes the conversion of three spaces to bus parking spaces. the project includes 11,000 square feet of open space and maintaining two existing internal courtyards. a conditional use authorization is required to expand the existing hotel use, and a planning development is utilized. originally established in 1975, the existing hotel use is

conditionally permitted in the c-2 zone district and today seeks to expand its location. it requires conditional use authorization pursuant to planning codes 178 and 210.2. additionally, a minor deviation from the method of height is requested to take measurement from the hide mitt point of the subject site. the proposed hotel expansion would update an under utilized parking. included in the proposed scope of work is increased hotel room capacity, one of the city's most visited areas, the introduction of street-level retail tenant spaces, and bringing the block up to grade and design standards. staff finds this meets the standard of the northeastern

waterfront plan. the project sponsor is here today and will speak to the public dialogue conducted as part of their outreach effort. staff finds that the introduction of active street level uses in combination with the additional hotel capacity and level of service is a higher and better use of the site, supports the area's tourist economy, supports the economic tiff diversity and supports employment diversity through -- by creating new service and retail jobs and all of these aspects are consistent with the objectives and policies of the northeastern waterfront area and general position. for this reason, staff recommends approval with conditions. i'm available for questions that you may have, and the project sponsor is here to give their statement. >> president koppel: thanks very much. project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. jodi knight of reuben, junius,

and rose on behalf of the project southern. as you heard today, we're here for conditional use approval -- we're also seeking a p.u.d. for minor modification of the measurement of height. it's created some confusion, but it allows us to make a flat roof addition between the addition and the existing hotel. it's a planning code interpretation of height. i know there's been some confusion over whether we're going to create something taller, and it's just to create a flat roof. we're excited about the project. it's been a long time in the works. we're partnering with the fisherman's wharf c.b.d. to improve the safety and experience of the area. one of the things that we're doing is contributing to a lighting project for the

adjacent joseph conway mini park, installation of cameras and start a good partnership with the c.b.d. we're excited they're here in our support this evening. and we'll get right to the design. we're here for any questions. the ownership is here, and thank you for your time this evening. >> president koppel: thanks very much. >> good evening, commissioners. matt slyson, the architect here in the city. i'll briefly explain the conditions of the site and the proposed addition. the existing massing is mostly set to the north site of the lot, the rear. this is looking south, towards the bay. there's a five-story wing of hotel guest rooms along the rear side part of the site, and

the entrance and public space is at the middle of the site with a large surface parking lot at the south length of the site. it's currently a very car dominated nonpedestrian friendly site with the building set off of the street. the proposed addition builds over the surface lot and fills out the south edge of the site. the new wing has hotel, public space, and retail on the ground floor, and there are three floors of guest rooms above that. the addition intends to complete the doughnut of the building, if you will, with the spine connecting the circulation back to its existing self-. the addition matches the roof life of the existing building and it's similar height to the

surrounding buildings, as well. the connection of building to street front results in a dramatic improvement in the pedestrian environment along north point, columbus, and leavenworth. the project is below 40 feet in height and therefore it does not need to be reviewed and approved by rec and park commission, however, we did look at the minimal new shadow on the adjacent joseph conrad mini park, which is just to the west of our site on this triangle, and we found that on days that there's new shadow between september 28 and march 14, in the winter months, all new shadow is gone no later than 9:30 in the morning. observation of the park's use shows in the early morning, the few people in the park are walking through, whereas

lunchtime, people tends to sit on the park's benches, and there's no impact on shadow during that time. so this is the ground floor plan. everything in blue is existing, and everything in red is proposed addition. the vehicular circulation is unchanged. the off street drop off and pick up is still in this one-way portico chere. and as -- we're also adding a bulb out on the corner of

columbus and leavenworth, for pedestrian safety at that intersection. the project is adding 10 class 1 bike parking spaces and a bike parking room on the site, and 22 bike parking spaces on the sidewalk as well as a. >> commissioner dejesus: -- a decorative space. the retail wraps the corner, with glazing to the south and west to maintain the presence from north point columbus as well as leavenworth. we have a materials board here

that i'm happy to pass around if you'd like to -- the predominant materials used on the side are brick and some plaster. the areas with brick are recessed a little bit in the facade and kept shorter than the areas with cement plaster in order to help modulate the site down north point. in summary, this project provides an addition of high quality design and materials. it fills out the block, providing active uses in place of surface parking and provides retail spaces on north point and on columbus, wrapping onto

leavenworth. thanks very much for your time. >> president koppel: thank you very much. anyone from the public to comment on this item? we do have a couple of speaker cards. anyone else who would like to speak, please lineup on this side of the room. we have david carl and randall scott. whoever's ready, come on up. >> good evening, president koppel and commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is dr. david carl. i'm president of the homeowners association, and i'm here to express the opposition of the homeowners to the granting of the variance and the height restriction for the roof of the

proposed project at 1300 columbus. the problem is that the visibility is rather restricted at the current point, and any variation, whatever so-called "minor variation" is going to significantly adversely affect the views of the residents along that side facing north, so we respectfully request that you not grant the variance for the height. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is randall scott. i'm the executive director for the fisherman's wharf community benefit district. it's kind of a mouthful, especially at this time of night. any way, the hotel came to us about six, eight months ago to

share the project with us, their hotel plans. at that time, they were seeking the shadow study from rec and park. we discussed partnering on the conrad park improvements. we have since replanted conrad park in partnership with rec and park, and so far, everything that we have looked for, expansion of jobs, increased foot traffic -- the hotel has committed to continuing to be open during this expansion, so it will not harm the district in any way. so the fisherman's wharf c.b.d. has no objections to this project and looks forward to continued relationship with hotel caza. >> president koppel: okay. anyone else wish to comment on this item? okay.

seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner more? >> vice president moore: i am very happy to see that this particular project is starting to close and finish the street wall. it was always kind of very difficult to understand why a suburban looking hotel was filling this block because coming from north beach, which is a very urban place and wanting to explore fisherman's wharf, which many people do, you turn right, and you're entering somewhat of a different feel of the city. this particular project as it's designed, seems to be just exactly filling the gap and adds a street facade that translates efficiently over into fisherman's wharf. i talked with commissioner fung and chamber of commerce, just brainstorming what kind of retail could be there.

while we're not talking about it at the moment, it would be good for the developer to continue that conversation with commissioner fung. i am generally in support of the project. i do understand the variation on height, and this project needing a p.u.d., and i myself support it, looking for what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: question for either the counselor or the developer. this project was continued at the request of the district supervisor. is there anything from that

meeting that we should be aware of? >> yeah, the project team did meet with the supervisor's office, gave supervisor peskin an overview of the project, and he was -- >> commissioner fung: that was it -- >> he was happy with the project and thought it was appropriate for the area. thank you. >> commissioner fung: i would note in the discussion by one of the public, that this is matching the existing roof line and height. i don't see how it impacts their view, whether it's from a lower level or a higher level, you know? it's going to be the same line, so -- >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm supportive of the project. i'm pleased you discussed the minor impact on the park with the business improvement district. even though it's minor impact,

it's still a park, and even though it's not subject to 295, i wanted to make sure that the way you impact it is not negative on the people who use the park. i support the project, and i so move. >> commissioner moore: second. >> clerk: commissioners, there's a motion and second to approve. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. and places you on item 15, report number 2019-014039 c.u.a., conditional use

authorization. >> okay. good evening, commissioners. bridget hicks, planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization for a change of use from a restaurant to a cannabis retail and personal service use at 1735 polk street in the polk street c.b.d. as a reminder, i'm not going to go into the description again, but it's not located within 600 feet of any schools, the sponsors of a part of the city's equity program, and the sponsors are not proposing consumption on-site at this time. the proposal was to work with the neighbor and the neighborhood groups who spoke in opposition and the polk street c.b.d. to meet with d.b.i. and fire to ensure that the shared use would be compatible. since the path hearing, the sponsors have met with the

neighborhood who spoke out in opposition. the neighbors have stated that the polk street c.b.d. does not have a policy of supporting or opposing projects in the city. the project sponsor and i went over to d.b.i. and fire, and they confirmed that the share use is achievable, and that the progress and occupancy loads seem accurate. i will allow the sponsors to expand on how the uses will inact. since the previous hearing, the department has received 19 letters of support from surrounding merchants and neighbors, noting it'll improve foot traffic, and safety, and we did receive one letter of

opposition, location close to a daycare. and that's my presentation. i'm here to answer any questions. >> all right. good evening, commissioners. thank you for having us back here to give us time to fine-tune or commitment to the polk -- fine-tune our commitment to the polk street neighborhood. i did have a handout that i wanted to pass out to you guys so you can have them when we go over those. just a brief little synopsis, we've heard five meetings with the neighborhoods, and introduced ourselves to neighboring businesses, all who we've met and are excited to have business coming into the -- sorry -- come that could bring more foot traffic to polk street. for the interior, we want to

bring in lush plants, natural light, so that you feel uplifted right when you walk into the front door. we want to maintain clean space and keeping the sidewalks and adjacent street clean. we care about our community's safety and well-being. but most importantly, we aim to support our employees through continued education. we'll provide funds to help them acquire proper certification in the cannabis industry. we strive to be a steady fixture that provides excellent service and products to our ever evolving people and iconic polk street neighborhood. we have met with the discovery polk community benefits district on february 11, which we toured the location and how the business would be conducted and how it would benefit the

area. the board appreciated the meeting and wished us luck on our venture. we also met with building and fire inspectors on that same day and confirmed that our loads are in line with our space and plan. if you look over here onto the front entrances where the a.d.a. accessibility here, we have our entrance here, and a second form of egress where our deliveries will be coming in. and also, i know you were concerned about the size of the dispensary. the actual -- only the -- the size of the dispensary comes in around 1700 square feet, which is this area here. as you can see, you walk in,

there's a check in area off to the left here. there's a natural delineation of center posts that actually go down the center of the building so it leads you into the entrance of the wellness center, and then, it'll also draw people into a waiting area where there's self-help stations and also our bartenders, as well. if we go to the next page, you can get an idea of exactly where the wellness center is. it's shaded in gray in the back, so you will check in here, and it will be followed through. so the whole area back here, is -- there's a waiting area, meditation rooms. the whole back area is a yoga studio and educational seminar, and also includes the bathrooms and sauna, as well. also, you're wondering where the safe was, as well. through the office, this is a nonpublic area in the back. it's a few hundred square feet,

and then, we will also have a double door going into the safe and security area. it is 100% secure and only accessed by owners of the business. that is all i have for you guys, and hopefully, i have answered all of your questions successfully. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. we're now going to open this up to public comment. would anyone like to comment on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. is the equity applicant here? okay. could you tell us what kind of experience you have in the industry? >> i've been in the industry for about six, seven years. i used to work for a distribution company. worked in san francisco as an account executive, managing accounts and educating people on the medicinal qualities of

cannabis, so giving them the resources to combat their ailments with that. >> president koppel: okay. question for either project sponsors. how many employees do you plan on having? >> right now, that's something we're going to have to figure out because it is -- because it's a dual use. i only consider a couple people in the wellness center for now because it is such an open space for people to use, but probably three to four people on the floor during the day, plus myself, and we'll be working there 100%. i know that there is over ten employees. we would be subject to a peace agreement with the unions, which we're obviously down for, so we just need to fine-tune or employment and find out how the space is really going to flow. >> president koppel: right. if you're going to have a cannabis dispensary and a wellness center, doesn't the

dispensary need to have 70% employment from the pool? >> yes, and the dispensary, it'll all be one with the wellness center. >> president koppel: okay. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i just want to confirm with the project sponsor that at this point, you are not prohibiting in the future consumption on-site? >> we are only looking for the a and b for now, but we would possibly go for a c down the road if possible. >> sure. with this project, we did that condition where if they would like to add type c, they would have to get the neighborhood notification. >> president koppel: okay. and then one more question just for staff. how does this work with the two different uses? i'm just confused -- >> yeah, it is a different -- planning doesn't look into the

ownership of the uses, but yeah, for planning, they can be both of these uses. the personal use is permitted as right in this district, but the cannabis has got the c.u., but yeah, they can both be here. [please stand by]

we are not looking to do massage as of now. the idea with the space and consulting is to get certified nurses in there that are certified in cannabis and giving proper advice to people to combat whatever their issues are that they are dealing with, medical issues. we are working with a couple nurses that are looking at getting their certifications. there is a program through pacific college out of san diego where licensed nurses can get certification, and it's something that we are looking to get in this space. i think with this, like my wife said last time when we were up here, we are not looking to do just another dispensary. we look at the future of the dispensary as bringing these new

studies coming forward and making sure that we are bringing something new to the arena that's not just a place to go and get your cannabis, but it is a place that you can get help, you can meditate, you can have educational seminars weekly, bring specialists in to talk to people and get them educated about it. because it is hard for people to go into dispensaries. it is nerve wrecking, they don't know what to look for. we are hoping to have a wellness center so people feel more comfortable and hopefully we can help them with what ails them, hopefully. >> i appreciate you explaining that. the only thing i want to make sure of is that you understand adding massage falls under a different kind of approval. >> yes, we know that. >> since we have this in front of us frequently, many people want extra insurances it is regulated by a different group of people. i want to make sure it is not an

invitation for other people to misinterpret what you are allowed to do. >> yes, i agree >> that's the most important thing because trust among your neighbors and business community including residents who live upstairs i think is the most important thing for us to ensure. so that's why i'm asking the question. >> absolutely. >> that's the reason. thank you. >> you're welcome >> commissioner fung. >> there is residential above this store. and if in the future, even though there's notice given to the neighbors, if he chooses to go for the type c consumption, any mechanical system is going to have to go through the residential floors. and on that basis, they're not airtight, i can't support this. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks.

so as i said last time, i think this is a really interesting concept. i know that many -- a lot of yoga studios and wellness spaces are offering a combination of cannabis and yoga, and yoga and wellness and seeing it deal in community health. and so i think the idea of bringing these two together and being something unique is really interesting. i think what i'm -- i would also agree with commissioner fung that i feel like type c actually isn't consistent with the goals of having a wellness space, if i'm going for yoga or meditation, having vaporizing and smoking at the same site doesn't feel consistent to me so i would not support that use. and then also i know that kind of you are just getting started with a concept and thinking about it, but there are lots of yoga teachers that are doing

this, wellness practitioners that are doing this. so i'm curious when you said there would be four staff, that raised my eyebrow. so can you tell us more about, like, what your plan is for programming specifically, and then also related to this, i know your equity applicants are also going to be supporting folks who are equity applicants and employing them. but what is your plan for wellness for community service, meaning access to this beyond making it kind of a high-end luxury offering, education and so on and so forth? >> right. you know, i think as for employees go, it's something we are going to have the work out, after opening five restaurants it's fine-tuning and figuring out what is, we'll overstaff in the beginning but not four total for the day. we have two rotations. we are going to be open for ten hours a day so we will have two rounds of staff. so probably when you are looking

at it maybe a total of 20 employees for the entire business which will be rotating in and out, three a day, we'll have a person at the wellness center that's helping manage the wellness centers and yoga teachers that we'll contract out and we'll set up classes here and there. the biggest part is that space is not just a yoga studio, either. it is really meant for guided meditation, it's really meant for educational purposes as well and getting people in free seminars. i think that's the educational part that we need in this industry right now. and i think it's just something that we strongly feel about. obviously because we are trying to do something different, i know there are going to be some complications to really fine-tuning it, but i feel that we have such a great team with us in order to make this happen. we have a history of business background, and it's going to go through some trials and tribulations in order to get it

right, so i'm hoping that we can do it right. i just know that this is something that we've been working on for a couple years now, and it's something we are truly passionate about. >> thank you. i would just -- i'll end by saying if you do get approval i would encourage you to work with lots of community, specifically communities of color, teachers of color who are doing a lot of this kind of work already. >> absolutely. >> in different spaces and making sure there are classes that are accessible. >> absolutely. >> commissioner diamond. >> i see you have a sauna here but i'm not seeing showers or changing rooms. am i missing something? >> that is in the next plan. we lost our interior designer a couple weeks ago so we are engaging with a new designer right now. there's a room on the back of the sauna to make that attached to the sauna to be a private

changing room into the sauna so it's more of a private area. but the bathrooms are beautiful as well. >> and showers or no showers? >> i would like to put a shower in there and do a small shower, handicap shower and everything. there is enough space. we are talking with them right now. so actually right here there's enough space off to the top part that we can add and make this into a single use sauna. >> i also just want to echo the concern that was raised by commissioner fung, and i think i heard commissioner johnson say the same thing, which is it seems maybe mutually exclusive to have type c consumption next to a yoga studio. >> totally understand. i wanted to make sure we left that open just in case down the road but i understand where you are coming from.

>> so condition 11 was placed there so if the commission chose to take a direction to limit type c and prohibit that, we can just have it as a modification for staff to alter the motion to say limited. >> commissioner imperial. >> my question is the wellness area, is that for the sauna, meditation room and yoga? >> yes. >> so you are saying the programming of the wellness area, i'm just trying to figure out -- >> yeah. so when you walk in here, this is not a door right here. this is just like a zigzag private entranceway so people can go in and out. it's a free-flowing space. we want to make it somewhat private so when people come in they are not looking right down to the yoga studio.

but people will have access to use the restrooms if they need to. when they do check into the wellness center, they can come back and wait for their class or meditation, wait for whichever room they are trying to access. >> so there will be schedules of programs? >> yes. we will make a schedule for this. yeah. >> i think for me, it's like the educational purposes that you would like to highlight on this, again, we all want, i mean, there are different kinds of when it comes to wellness and making sure that it's -- it's accessible to the community. i would like to echo with everyone on the commission, we want to make sure it is equitable. >> absolutely. that is that is the main thing we are trying to deliver. there's an institute based in denver. there's obviously the pacific college, there are colleges

coming up that are helping increase knowledge with the equity partners, especially because they are giving them information on how to be a bud tender, really come into their own and develop their own business as well. it's something we do at the restaurants with our employees. we pay for them to go through school so they can get the license to serve beer and get their level one and two. they can take that wherever they would like and expand their business. so it's definitely something we would like to partake in with our employees. we want to make sure we are providing the best possible service for our staff. >> okay. >> the equity applicant, they are engaging with other equity applicants in the equity communities. i'm working with the special police officers association in helping the curriculum for underprivileged minorities in the bayview and educating them on what cannabis is.

so it's important that we honor the equity program, we give the opportunity for people to come in and learn how to responsibly operate in this space. we will be doing that with employees. i'm also personally doing that with that group and helping people understand that this is an amazing opportunity through the equity program to take advantage of that. so it's very important that because of my six-year history and because i'm an equity applicant, to connect and help them along this path and help them get to this amazing industry that we can hopefully get everyone involved in. from another standpoint, this isn't made for a boutique cannabis experience. we hope to invite people of all different ages, races and just to come in, learn about it. and they don't have to -- with the wellness center, they don't necessarily have to spend money at the cannabis dispensary, but they can come into a space where it's not just come and buy cannabis and leave, it's come in, let's learn, and let's do seminars and teach people about

how to use this as a form of medicine. so i'm sorry to interrupt you, chris. but i just wanted to say that. >> commissioners, i just wanted to, i guess throw it out there that if you are looking at adding a conditional approval to prohibit type c consumption, just to make sure you direct staff as to some findings such as citing the dual uses on the site or the residential use above and mixed-use nature of the building as a rationale for why the type c would be prohibited. >> one more question for staff. just help me clear this up in my head. i know there's two uses here. are the employees going to cross over and work in both or one? or one not the other? >> we are trying to look into -- >> just in reference to -- i have no problem with this equity applicant, i just want to make sure there's not 40 employees and not the 30 percent equity applicants. >> in this case the dual use is

something the office of cannabis is managing and figuring out as they are getting new cannabis retailers that have the mix. it will be something the office of cannabis manages as part of their equity program to make sure the cannabis portions of the business are appropriately staffed with the equity applicants. >> the office of cannabis has a business plan and goes through that process and is involved with every step of their business, so i think this is something that will be covered by the office of cannabis as opposed to planning. >> okay. thanks. >> commissioner diamond >> i would move to approve with a condition prohibiting type c based upon the joint use. >> second. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second to approve with conditions prohibiting type c use. on that motion, [roll call vote]

so moved, that motion passes 5-1 with moore voting against. commissioners, that places you on your discretionary review calendar. item 16, 21 of 9 26th avenue. >> good evening. staff architect. the item is a public-initiated review, request for discretionary review of the application 2018-07033738 for an addition to an existing house at 2169 26th avenue and a division of that existing house into two single-family houses. the lot would then be subdivided

into two equally sized 25' wide parcels. this is continued from december hearing to determine if it was in fact demolition per planning code section 317, which it is. it's an rh-1 district, if the house exceeds evaluation of $2.2 million, it is demonstrably unaffordable and a demolition may be approved administratively by staff. the project sponsor has provided an apray sal that exceeds that value -- an appraisal that exceeds that value. so while it is a demolition, is the something we could approve internally by staff. there are three dr requesters. the first, anna and steve of 2159. twenty-sixth avenue, owners of the property to the north of the proposed project are concerned the project does not comply with residential design guidelines.

the second alex wong of 2166, owner of the property across the street, to the east, is concerned that the project is breaking the uniformity of the block and is inappropriate, extends too far into the rear yard and blocks light to houses to the north including solar panels at 2159 26th avenue. new construction permit which we have ascertained and will set a precedent that will change the block. third dr requester of 2163 26th avenue, the adjacent owner to the north is concerned by the following issues: one, that the proposed addition raises concerns about excavation and impacts to the neighbors' foundation, that the project intrudes into the rear yard and disrupts the open space and deprives the dr's requester backyard of light and privacy.

the department has received an astounding 60 letters in opposition and i'm sure you have been cced on those, and 17 letters in support of the project. the department's residential design advisory team had reviewed this and confirmed some additional modifications would be required to reduce the mass and scale and preserve access to mid-block open space. specifically those are recommendations are setting the third floor back 14 feet from the front facade, eliminateing that roof at the third floor, eliminating the third floor part, aligning and proportioning the entry door and windows more in keeping with surrounding buildings, reviseing bay windows be compliant over the garage doors and reducing the rear popout to extend no more than

five feet to preserve the scale and access of open space. this concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. okay. we have three dr requesters. we are going to hear from the d.r. requesters first. you each get five minutes. first come, first serve. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is anna landy. i want you to know there are a lot of people here with us and a lot of people that couldn't attend. many wanted to speak today but in the interest of time we asked them to send you an e-mail to voice their concerns instead of addressing you here. we hope that you have had time to read them and can appreciate that we have tried to consolidate our discussions so that this is not repetitive. my husband and i steve who have

two daughters up the block from the subject -- live two-doors up block from the subject property. can i use the overhead? we are natives san franciscans and we are both born on north beach. we are raising our family, we wanted a neighborhood that was family-oriented and contained single-family homes as opposed to the multiple dwelling units that are found in san francisco. the sunset district fits our needs perfectly, and we moved to 26th avenue in 1997. the best part was the parking was so much easier in the sunset than anywhere else in the city. we attended a preplanning meeting where neighbors heard that mr. chan was proposing two three-story 3300 square feet homes with six bedrooms each.

neighbors were really angry and they shouted objections about the size of the homes and the fact that he was already airbnbing rooms. mr. chang gave up sharing this powerpoint presentation, and the meeting ended abruptly. shortly after the meeting a petition was circulated among neighbors, and we collected 31 signatures opposing the project. we included these sheets with our d.r. application. rather than being sensitive to the concern of neighbors raised at the meeting, and trying to address them, the project has continued to grow in size and square footage, and homes are now almost 4,000 square feet each, with many rooms of questionable utilizeation. the residential design guidelines say that buildings should respect the mid-block open space, these towering rear additions with multiple decks and balconies clearly do not

respect the space. these vertical and horizontal extensions produce a scene that is in-hospitalable to the amenity that our well-established open space provides. there is no precedence. can i use that now? there is no precedence on this side of 26th avenue for rear additions that extend living space beyond the common rear walls of the adjoining neighbors. as you can tell, all our backyards, the back of our houses end the same line. we have nicely-maintained and well-utilized yards where we garden, play and entertain. buildings of this size negatively live impact everyone's ability to enjoy their personal yard space. we ask that the commissioners

use their powers of discretionary review to eliminate or greatly modify the rear additions and decks and not to allow the third story addition and balconies which are excessive and disrespectful to neighbor's privacy. we also request that the recommendation of the design team be implemented and that the project sponsor be required to honor his proposal to fix the front of his building to not block light to the neighboring balconies. thank you very much. >> thank you. d.r. requester number two, you have five minutes. >> can i use the overhead also, please? >> yeah. place it down there. >> good evening. my name is ilene rode, and our family has lived in this house next door to the subject

property for almost 30 years. i'm a san francisco and sunset district native, having moved only 12 blocks in my entire life. we want the commission to know that we are not obtaining to mr. chan's building two houses next door. it makes sense to put two houses where there is now only one. we want the commissioners to know that we have worked diligently to negotiate with kai. it is not lack of effort that brings us here today. i'm sure mr. winslow can attest to that. the house next door was built 12 years after ours. and you can see from this photo how the double-wide house respected the consistent stepped-back pattern on our block. the plans that you are considering indicate that the new building next to ours would stick out beyond our house and

block the end of our balcony. since the sun coming from the south as shown in the bottom photo, which is taken from our balcony, this would greatly affect the light to our window beyond that balcony. you can see from the top photo that the window is already recessed underrened our roof line, blocking the south end of the building would have a negative impact. i've operated a small accounting business out of my home for all the years we have lived there had and my desk and home office are just beyond that window. and we tried to demonstrate what it would look like if our balcony was blocked. the top photo shows the balcony open. we put some cardboard up and showed the balcony blocked. and then the bottom photo hopefully shows that the light coming in from the southern

side. the good news is that we negotiated a remedy with kai. this photo demonstrates that he agreed to push his building back two feet to allow light to our balcony and to flip the bay to the southern side of the building. we were really excited about this development. then as happened multiple times with these negotiations, kai changed his mind. he decided the proposal would only be valid if we were able to get the other d.r. filers to withdraw their appeals. the resolution to our balcony and our light issue did nothing to address the concerns of our neighbors. and it it felt disingenuous to ask them to revoke their d.r.s, nor did we think it was our responsibility. the current home next to ours

has only one bathroom and bedroom on the third story. it doesn't extend toward the street nor does it take up the entire area of that floor. it has little impact on our home. it's just one bedroom that's up there. it makes sense to us that expansion would be allowed on the third story, even though as the building moves forward, light to our skylights, windows and stairwells would be negatively impacted. but the residential design guidelines state that some reasonable and expected impacts are part of construction. the plans that you are looking at also show considerable extensions at the rear of the houses. while very large ground floor expansions will take up much of the existing garden area, it is the second and third floor additions with multiple decks and balconies that cause us the most concern.

we spent a great deal of time in our garden, growing fruits and vegetables, herbs and flowers. we are committed to the environment, believe it or not. we dry all our laundry on clotheslines in our backyard. as you know, the sunset is not known for its abundance of sunshine, so this is a challenging endeavor. and we are always trying to maximize exposure to the sun. these side by side three-story buildings and the mass they create will be overwhelming and will negatively influence our environmental pursuits and outdoor activities that we love. the extensions with decks and balconies are allowed at these levels, we will notice an impact, and it will not be positive. we hope the commission will pursue discretionary review, implement the recommendations,

eliminate or modify the rear extensions, decks and balconies and require that the project sponsor honor his proposal to push back his building and flip the bay so that it provides light for our balcony. thank you. >> thank you. d.r. requester number three. you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is amy wong. i live across the street of the building. >> can you please speak closer to the microphone? >> how is that? >> good. thanks. >> thanks. i've lived in the house more than 30 years now. i first stepped into my house, i wanted to buy the house because i see the sunset from my window. i live in the house from 30 something years. every day i see the sunset.

and now they are building a big house, and i do not see that anymore. i feel so sad. and also since we bought the house, they used the house for airbnb. they have more than ten people or 15 people outside that building, rolling the luggage, cars parking in our area. it's already hard to find parking because two blocks away is the lincoln high school. they create all these kinds of problems for us. and when i live on my side, i moved there, they already been there. and now they are in the old age, and they cannot come here and have it. but before i can see them, always there's an open door, in the afternoon sitting in a big chair and enjoy the sunlight.

now cannot do it. in her home at 6:00 a.m. in the morning. it will not be good for the city. they are just reaching the money for themselves and making other problems for us. i don't know what to say.

and also downstairs, the foundation, there's all sand. there's no soil over there. and when the cars drive by, you can hear the noise. it's so scary. and now they want to tear down the whole house and build two houses. since they bought the house, their house is already so big. they said they bought the house for 2 something million. my next door neighbor bought the house at the same time. i know they bought it for 1.6 or 1.7. only a single-family home. less than half the size of their home. and they are still not satisfied. because day they do not want to buy the house and live. they want to make a business over there. that's a residential area. we are not a business area.

15 people in a home. there will be 20 to 40 people every day outside our door. you don't know where the people come from. they are strangers to me. we lived there for so long. i don't know the people's names, but i know which person lives in which home and which house belongs to who. it's safe over there. that's why most the people over there are owner-occupied. we do not want to rent out our homes. everybody is owner. that's what makes the place so safe. and now everything's changed. we have no voice, and nobody can help. i really hope somebody can hear that and help something, do something. years ago, i want to mention another thing, is that they do

the airbnb. my family saw something that is not right. he called the police. the police came so quick, so good. and they got some of them. each car, they have a driver and several people sit in the back and in the car one by one. they cannot do that. they get caught. and one guy, he ran away, he escaped and they come back the next morning and came to mash my car. there was somebody inside the house car. the airbnb is really a big problem for us. >> your time is up now. you will get some more time later. right now we are going to hear from the project sponsor. oh, yeah, i'm sorry, i jumped

the gun. my mistake. we first have to hear from public comment in favor of the d.r. requesters. so public comment in opposition to the project. come on up. >> good evening. thank you for your time and attention. i know it's been a long day for you guys. i'm a third generation san franciscan and lifelong resident of the sunset district. the demolition and new construction proposed at 2169 is an excuse for a developer from l.a. to come in and adversely affect our block. all in the name of profit. the proposed project is inconsistent with the other properties in the block and negatively impacts neighbors. two side by side three-story homes present an intrusive mass. these homes are not located in the transit corridor or in a corner where larger buildings normally reside.

they contain rooms that demonstrate the sponsor try to compromise on size. a few doors down from the subject property is another three-story home that contains four bedrooms and two bathrooms but is only 2300 square feet. it is possible to have homes that will accommodate a family, but they don't have to be 3700 and 3900 square feet. mid-block open space and we want to preserve it. our block was designed in the 1930s, providing in amenity for its residents. it is wonderful to look out our windows and to see greenery, gardens, nature, and not walls and structures looming overhead. i would ask the commissioners consider the letters the neighbors wrote to you. we love our city and neighborhood, and we want to

preserve its character in the face of purely profit-motivated development. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> the president of speak, central parkside education and action committee. we are in support of the d.r. requesters. i was present at the meeting for this project. the project sponsor stated that the property was purchased with the goal of subdividing its double lot. once subdivided the other goal was to get each of his two sons their own business and that business was short term rentals. at the meeting, neighbors stated they believe short term rental activity was already taking place at the property. the office of short term rentals confirmed the address is currently on its registry. the original project design had a six-bedroom house for each of the two lots.

at the meeting, the proposed design was a five-bedroom house on each of the lots. each lot would have multiple short term rental listings. although the design has been further modified, the intent seems to be the same. the intent of the project seems to be primarily based on a business plan rather than a residential plan. this begs the question, is this an intensification of use and commercialization of the property. if so, would this project be consistent with the site's rh-1 zoning? and despite these subdivisions, the project would do nothing to address the city's affordable housing needs. at the meeting, the neighbors brought up the geotechnical issues that the project could probably create. this is noted in the meeting report. in this report, the project sponsor's response was that he would hire a licensed

contractor. this response doesn't address the specific concerns of the neighbors. these concerns are based on the fact that the neighborhood is build on sand and the block has a steep gradient. in conclusion, we urge the commission to deny the project as currently stated. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else in opposition to the project, in support of the d.r. requesters? come on up. >> good afternoon and thanks for your time. >> [off mic] >> do you live in the same home? >> yes. >> your time to speak was the first time around. you are going to get another chance. you are all going to get two minutes of rebuttal later on. you can come back up then. anyone else in support of the d.r. requesters, in opposition of the project? seeing none, project sponsor, you're up. >> good evening, president

koppel. pardon me, vice president koppel moore and commissioners. k ai chan, i'm the project sponsor. i'm very impressed and i'm actually feel a little bit emotional, because i didn't realize that my little project for my sons would cause such a response. to be fair, when i heard that i was coming in here to break one house to build two houses to give my sons two businesses, it kind of made me want to throw up, because i told everybody. this was the place where i wanted my children and their families to live. one of my sons is in hong kong, he wants to come back to the u.s. he is getting married.

another son works in the city. he works for airbnb. he does have one room that he does airbnb out. there's no mystery in this. i believe this is legal. but also when i hear that there's 40 people sitting out in front and parking and all this stuff, the word i heard earlier is disingenuous. this is a project to build homes for a -- for family. and you are taking one property, turning it into two housing unit, and there's potential to rent, not just for airbnb but to rent and have additional units. i'm not going to tell you it's going to happen right away. if my children have kids, i would rather use those rooms for my grandchildren. but i think the

characterization, i understand why it's happening, but i think it's very unfair. i understand why they are doing it, i don't hold it against them, but i think emotions sort to take over. i was not born in san francisco. i was born in hong kong. in '73 i moved here and i lived in chinatown with my great uncle and my family. my father at that point decided fremont was a better place, so i grew up in fremont. i went to school in berkeley. i lived in oakland. i came to san francisco, i had relatives in the richland and marina and sunset. so i've been in san francisco my whole life, at least from the age of ten. so i feel part part san francisco. my wife urged me to move up here. now that my son is here, we decided to look for property for them. the story is very simple.

i'm trying to build a house for my kids. so i feel sad that they feel this way, and, again, i understand why they are doing this, but i feel a little bit overwhelmed. i don't want to bore you with any more detail, but i respect the planning department for all the direction it's given us, and i'm not going to tell you that i like every recommendation david or chris gave us, but i'm happy to abide by those recommendations, because i think they are being very fair with us, and the house was larger, that is true. we have reduced it. one is five bedrooms, one is four bedrooms. and i think the reason that everybody says it's 33, 36, most of these houses, including the one that you saw recently that

had the 2300 square feet, it's basically going to be the same envelope. i think there's different ways to calculate square footages. if your garage is larger, then your house is going to be smaller. if you have a bedroom down there versus a garage, your envelope may be 3500 but you are going to claim it's only 2200 because maybe it is illegal. i can't speak for their house, i can only speak for mine. i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. you have 30 more seconds. >> i am cindy chan, kai's wife, so part of the project sponsor if i can just clarify a few points. first to one of the neighbors. >> is she co-sponsor? >> yeah. >> that's fine. >> speak to the mic, miss. >> i'm sorry one of the points

the neighbor said she would lose the sunett, i wanted to point out, this is where she is looking at, and currently there's already a third floor right here. and we are just building over the same area on the other side of the house. so as you can tell, there's no ocean that you can see. so i don't know how it's going to impact the sunset. secondly, for the other neighbors that they have a balcony here, and they did discuss with us and they have -- we have actually like she suggested, we have given consideration, even the fact that many designs out there, they are back-to-back to the balcony and the front, but we respect them. so we were willing to change

from originally the bay right here, which is -- we give them two-feet setback. , okay. sorry. so only two-feet setback to get the balcony clear. >> excuse me, your time is up. >> i'm sorry? >> your time is up. you'll get a two-minute rebuttal. >> okay. so i tried to clarify. >> you'll get more time later. are there any members of the public that want to speak in favor of the project sponsor, in favor of the project? okay. seeing none. come on up, sir. >> hi. my name is alex wong. i'm living across the project house. when we look at the sunset, we don't look into the sun. >> [off mic] >> it's not my turn yet, right? >> who are you again?

>> i am one of the d.r. >> d.r. requesters? >> yeah. >> we are not up yet. so now the d.r. requesters each get a two-minute rebuttal. >> good afternoon. thank you for hearing us. >> please speak into the microphone. >> good afternoon and thank you for hearing our case. i'm jim rode, we live at 2163 26th avenue. we raised our three kids on that block. ilene and i are real active members of our block and our neighborhood. it's not our intent to block mr. chan from developing his property. our goal is to protect our home and investment, including a

much-needed and well-used natural sunlight and our homes' structural integrity. our goal is to preserve the cohesive character of our homes on our block in regards to their side in relation to adjacent building. my home is to maintain open communication with mr. chan during this process. over the past couple months, we have attempted to work with mr. chan to discuss and resolve our concerns. however, multiple times he has gone back on what was previously agreed upon. in mid-january, he offered a very attractive compromise and asked we share it with the neighbors, which we did. his offer of concession was all based on ilene and i being able to convince the other d.r. applicants to drop their appeals. before we could do this, he sent two more sets of revisions, both of which disregarded the previous compromise and was never referred to again.

this does not make us feel confident that we can trust his word and work with him in good faith as neighbors. am i up? the. >> yeah, 15 more seconds. >> okay. well. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> now the other two d.r. requesters also get two more minutes each. you can send anyone up for those two minutes. >> so we want to emphasize that we do not oppose building two homes on this site. we do oppose the enormity of the structures and the fact that they are not compatible with nearby buildings or the neighborhood in general. these homes are built for the owner's son, so they will not add to san francisco available housing supply, and they

certainly do not represent affordable or moderately-priced housing. where additions are unprecedented on the west side of 26th avenue, no home has living space square footage that extends beyond the common walls into the mid-block's open space. third story decks and balconies are unnecessary, unprecedented and unfriendly to neighbors who value their privacy and ability to use their open space without these imposing structures. we want to thank kai for his efforts. the fact is we have very different motivating factors. we are trying to protect our home and our neighborhood, and he is focused on square footage. we believe that he can have two homes with plenty of room for families and it doesn't have to affect neighbors. thank you to the commissioners for hearing us and for facilitating this process, and a big thank you to david for his time and patience answering our many questions.

we hope the commission will pursue a discretionary review upon the recommendations, eliminate or greatly modify the rear extensions and require that the project sponsor honor his proposal to push back the building and flip the bay so as to provide for light to the balconies. thank you, everyone. >> thank you. and then last d.r. requester, you get a two-minute rebuttal. >> thanks. my name is alex wong. i live across from the house. there are three things i want to bring up. number one, when you watch the sunset, you don't just watch the sun, you watch the clouds, the colorful clouds. so it doesn't say the sun is blocking, but you also watch the clouds. number two, i understand that the city planning allowed the house to build additional third floor. a lot of times because they have

more children, and the children grow up, you allow them to have the floor. but in this case, they just bought a new house, and they are already planning to add another floor. i think it's just for commercial. they want to make money out of it. maybe i'm wrong, but that's my feeling. number three, i forgot. i'm getting old. okay. that's all i wanted to say. thank you for listening. >> thank you. >> now project sponsor, you get a rebuttal as well. >> if i may make one point about the neighbors thinking that we are making money. from the bottom of our heart, we really think our children will move in together. the neighbor who was very unfriendly to us, i seriously don't know what is going to happen. all the neighbors, they hated them. my son who is currently living

for over two years and a half now, and fears the neighbors are giving an ugly look. and has nothing to do with this. but he is afraid. okay? and my son airbnb for one room. but the criteria, no more than two people, and that's his criteria. we did that because we collect rents from him so he has to pay rent to us so he is trying to supplement his spending. i think this is fair. and regards to the house, was so kind to give us some recommendation, and we accept every single one of them. we propose to the neighbors, but they find multiple objection that we didn't provide enough. so we tried to move the square footage and the length and the depth of the balcony and the pop-up extensions, but we still

feel that we don't do enough. i just don't know at what point we can do this project. >> is that it? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i have a question, mr. winslow. the drawings that are in front of us, you are appreciated for the guidance you gave to the project. does it reflect what it has been asking for? >> no. so the project sponsor has been, when guidance was given, they were very responsive to incorporating drawings that reflected those requested changes. they did fall short of some of the requests that the d.r. requesters were asking for.

but the ultimate decision the project sponsor made prior to going to hearing was that if the d.r. wasn't going to be withdrawn, they would revert to the set that was part of the original 311 notification, so no, they don't incorporate the recommendations that i have made and have also seen as have the d.r. requesters. but they aren't them. if that answers the question. >> it just says that the drawings we have are the proposal in response to which we have received the d.r.s, correct? okay. i want to point out that there are a couple of other questions i would have. i support the department's modification of the project, because it seems to be in principle addressing some of the neighbors' concerns. but the drawings themselves show a degree of unattention to detail that i'm concerned about, and that deals particularly with

showing, for example, with the subtle detail, it says here when unoccupied roof, and then you are showing sliding doors by which out of sight, out of mind, those roofs can be used for balcony. further to that, on the third floor, i see a life well that does not meet the minimum of 75% matching light well. so these are subtleties by which i'm concerned that if i support the project, i would like to see the drawings adjusted so that everybody can see what is this we are approving? and perhaps the compromise that is suggested here with the department leading, we basically have a feeling that people are on the same page. do you see the drawing of the light well on page 9, the third floor of the property to the

north? >> to the north, yes. >> there's a requirement that you need to meet the adjoining light well at least 75% unless you match, but these are little subtleties that i'm concerned about. so i am supportive of the department's recommendation. but i would like to see those fully incorporated, and again, briefly presented to this commission before i can support it. >> commissioner diamond. >> i would be in favor of taking d.r. with the modifications that you proposed, and if any of the commissioners, like commissioner moore, have additional changes, i would just suggest to staff that they list the changes and the staff work with the project sponsor to incorporate them. i don't feel like it needs to come back to the commission a third time. >> commissioner fung.

>> we do see a lot of very emotional responses to these housing projects in the sunset, more so than anywhere else in the city. the interesting thing here is that neighbors have brought up major concern, elements which actually are not that extensive. i would have thought that the concern would have been to greater extent the third floor which changes the context of these two-story area. and one of the solutions to that, and it probably is not an acceptable solution to some, but is you take the third floor, and you set it back from the face. >> that's what -- >> he is saying that the popouts are set back to maximum.

>> i was saying two things in the recommendations. one of which is reflected in this plan set, the front setback is 14 feet from the front building wall. >> i'm talking about the rear. >> the rear, yeah. >> the front, i know you have it set back, and perhaps you can apply the policy positions this commission has taken before, set back on each side. and actually the request by one neighbor in terms of saving her skylight, her light on her deck is probably -- makes sense in the following way, because it may create an additional street space, parking space in front. i think we've seen much more

egregious additions than this. and i'm prepared to accept the staff's recommendations. similar to what commissioner diamond said, we should put closure to this and let the staff deal with it based upon their direction. >> commissioner moore's request with respect -- did you have a point of intention with respect to the unoccupied roof deck with the sliding doors? should that not be allowed to be a deck? or would that be okay if it were shown to be a deck that respected the guidelines that we have in place for the deck policy? >> i'm a little bit hesitant about front balconies. i don't quite think that that is the signature of what i see in this neighborhood. so i would prefer not to do that. and wherever we have that kind

of a contradiction i would basically always question that it be submitted with more attention to detail. >> commissioner moore. >> i was going to maybe address the front of the building. so i mean this is late in the evening. this room is never this full this late. this room is half full. that's a very considerable amount of opposition. and we are looking at little tiny details regarding a two-foot recess on the external corner and just flipping a bay that completely satisfies the neighbors. and it seems like little tiny tweaks could completely satisfy all your neighbors, and you could skate right through here. just because of the sheer number of people here, i would still want to see this either come back, whether it's on consent calendar or whatnot, but i would want to see these people not be in opposition to the project.

i mean, this is a very tight-nit neighborhood, and we are up here deciding what's going to happen, but you guys can also take things in your own hands and be neighborly, because the houses, you are not going anywhere, you are going to be living next to each other, and we don't want to set the tone for your livelihood and your neighborhood, if you can do it yourselves. >> i think there's a success story to be had here, even if it means an additional trip to the commission for a short informational. >> i believe that president koppel very well summarized resonance with as many people as have shown up here, i have not heard anybody who said i don't want these buildings. but what became clear to me, that there were innuendos of compromise that were ultimately not met, and for that reason, i

would like us to be the public forum, even on consent, that this project does come back. there's a motion to take it. >> commissioners, there's beena couple comments that have referenced an issue not in my recommendation, and that is the notching or setting back of the building with respect to the front balcony of the adjacent neighbor. do you want to make a specific addition to your motion to include that? >> i would suggest we do, and that includes a light well that was not part of your consideration either. >> there we go. >> so i would take your advisory with the two additional -- three additional conditions that were outlined by commissioners. >> very good.

>> i think -- didn't we say that we are not continuing it, you will be working with the applicant but bring it back on consent so that we see the drawings and the public has the ability to witness? >> i think commissioner diamond's motion was different than that. commissioner johnson? >> yeah, i would just agree out of respect to -- i mean, in some ways i think out of respect to the community who has been here twice and a very emotional process, that i think, i personally actually think that we can have staff work with the community. i really hesitate to ask folks who have been here for hours and hours and hours to come out again to present to us and to have another conversation on this, when i think we are all

aligned with the fact that this project needs to work with the neighbors. there are specific things that have been asked for by the neighbors, that have been recommended by rdat that we're all in alignment about that are not so complex that the staff can't make sure there is follow through and that they do happen. so i think personally that we should move to take d.r. >> commissioner fung. >> similarly, i would agree with that, and we would add to what the staff has recommended by flipping the northern most building plan so that the bay window there does not -- is not situated against the neighbor. >> commissioner diamond. >> i have to -- i'm going to reiterate my great faith in

staff to take it from this point in time and work to finalize this. and i really don't feel like it needs to come back to the commission for a third time or for the project applicant or the neighbors to have to come back a third time. >> commissioner imperial. >> well, i thank you for the committee and project sponsor coming here. i know that in the community, there are concerns about the usage of the housing, whether it will be for the family or for the commercial. and i've seen all those comments, and i want to let you know i've read all of them. and also in terms of the design, i would also refer to the staff or the guidelines. but i am also -- i actually live close to that area, and it

does -- it should be in accordance of the neighborhood. but i would like to take -- for the staff to take the design guidelines that's actually taken on that. >> if the concern is that the neighbors, the d.r. requesters, will continue to be informed of the refinements that were presubscribed, we can assure that happens at staff level, and if staff wants to see it as an informational, we can do that as well. if you want to be done with it, we can also do that. >> i didn't hear a second for that motion. was there a second? >> second. >> second. >> commissioners, there's a motion and a second to take d.r. with modifications to continue to work with staff -- to work with staff on their recommendations. that motion -- [roll call vote]

>> can i ask and verify you are saying because of what mr. winslow repeated, those are the conditionses. so normally secretary ronen reads them into the record. i want to make sure it is understood that what mr. winslow summarized are the conditions. >> yes. >> and i second. thank you. >> so moved. that motion passes 5. one with president koppel voting against. that places you on item 17, record number 2019-000650drp-02 at 617 sanchez street, discretionary review. >> thank you very much.

>> thanks. >> good evening, president koppel, vice president moore, commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. this is a request for a discretionary review of building permit applications 2019- 2019-01150390 and 201901150391 to demolish an existing two-story, 1,000 square foot single family house. it's located in the rear yard and a freestanding garage at the front and construct a new four-story dwelling at 617 sanchez street. there are two d.r. requesters. an adjacent neighbor who claims the project will block her view and a neighbor to the west that says the project doesn't conform to the residential guidelines. it is worth noting the guidelines were never adopted by the planning commission. to date, the department has received one letter in opposition, which i am going to

hand to secretary to distribute and zero letters in support of the project. the residential design advisory team reviewed this and affirmed this meets the residential design guidelines and planning code. staff's recommendation is not to take the d.r. as the project meets the code and does not present any extraordinary or exceptional conditions. this concludes my presentation. >> okay. we will now hear from the d.r. requester number one. you got five minutes. >> i want to put the overhead together.

sue, i'm the attorney for the d.r. requester. she lives at the house right next door right next to the house on sanchez street. the map shows the context of this project. this is 617, which is the project before you. this is her house, 619. this is a project that 282 cumberland. her house is surrounded by building walls because as you can see from the map in your packet, their house is built behind her at 617, the one that is going to be demolished is built to her rear lot line, and the house sits on cumberland street is also to the rear wall line. so you have a house that is

totally surrounded, which is very unusual in the city. walls to the west of her -- pardon me, to the east of her and walls proposed to the north of her. when they built -- when she took over this -- bought this house in 1999, she involved a lot of time talking to a neighbor which was proposed to be demolished. there needs to be more information than was provided in the staff report. we have been involved in discussions with the developer. what we have is a house that is surrounded, as you can see, by the map which was never provided to anything in the staff report. and so no one paid any attention to the fact that this was a

surrounded house that has limited light. she will talk about that as well. you have in your staff packet, two documents that i provided. one is a sworn declaration that before they bought this house, the developer's attorney, real estate agent, tried to buy her house as well. that is page 78 of the staff report. the report is page 14, and it provides an illustration of the house that is very different from what you see today. and she will talk now. >> thank you. good evening, everybody. i'm a little bit nervous. i'm the owner of 619 sanchez street. and i will say that it's worse standing here than being at the

dentist. so. okay. [laughter] my house is the yellow house that you see there, and 617, the house is at the back. and both those houses, the house you can see right at the corner, both those houses were built in 1907. one was built in the year, mine was in the front, and that's how it stayed for over a hundred years. when i got the house, as you can see here, the front of the house still looked from what it was in 1907. you can see straight through the house. it's a small house. i have two little bedrooms in the front. and i have kept the character and the fabric of the neighborhood. when i moved in, there was an illegal part of my house which we didn't know about, which was undisclosed to us, which was

built in 1970 illegally. and this is the part where you see the windows. and we worked tirelessly with the planning department, you guys told us to do this, and we built our house with our money. and basically this is the only window that gives light in the house. so the rest of the house basically is dark. those windows are taken away. this is the view from my house. and as you can see, we worked tirelessly to make sure that we didn't impose on his house. we kept his privacy. yet we made sure we meet that part of it. now, here's the only window in my house that has light coming in. the rest of the house is dark.

and you see the cement house there, that's already built. now they want to have another four-story house building built by an llc that is going to go there. we have no information, nothing given to us. and the project was being forced. now you see the back of my house, i built 600 square feet. that was what i was allowed. the planning department and the dolores heights committee told us that we cannot build up, so we had to build down. i had my daughter while i was doing this, and my master bedroom was forced to be down there. there's two little rooms up there was my daughter's bedroom. to add the bed down there, we had to put the door in. >> your time is up. you are going to get another chance for two marlins later. d.r. requester number two -- two

more minutes later. d.r. requester number two. >> good evening. my name is brian. i live directly across from 617 at 614 sanchez street. and i've been in the neighborhood about over 30 years now. ever since this project was proposed, i still have concerns about the steepness of the area on sanchez street and how many of the buildings seem to be outside of the character of the neighborhood. the middle class neighborhood that i remember when i first moved in. there's four, five major construction projects going on already. i think you can see from this picture. do we have it on here? just how the character of the neighborhood's changing due to the construction projects that

are just -- there's four or five going on at any one time. this sort of thing is what the neighbors are facing each day now. i just wanted to show you that everyone is fully apprised of what's going to be handling in this neighborhood in terms of the construction projects going on and the steepness of the hill, engineering reports. and also i've noticed over the years the character of the neighborhood, it seems like most of the houses now if you drive by at night, it's dark, it's like no one is living there. they are second and third homes that are going in, 5,000 square feet, which seems to violate some of the neighborhood, middle-income neighborhood. and one more question about the dolores heights improvement said something about an appraisal report for the $2.5 million. i'm wondering if that's available. i haven't seen that in any of the documentation.

>> can we see this? >> you have to speak into the microphone, sir. >> i'm sorry. i just wanted to give you aa feeling for the neighborhood. this is the front. you can see it's very steep. the people who live on the street all depend strongly on each other for light. >> can you speak into the microphone? >> i'm sorry. i wanted to show the street level. you can see the steep grade. so the people who live in this neighborhood depend very much on each other for light and for space and for kind of respecting each other's space. and so let me see. so here you can see the view out of the window that you can see across the street here, and you can see three sets of is it fair to say that are going down.

it goes -- sets of stairs that are going down. and this is the view in the opposite, basically looking up the hill right now. so the reason we wanted to show you that is to make sure that you understand this is like, this is an unusual neighborhood, and people, like i said, depend on each other. so when people -- when the owners -- so when the owners of 615 sanchez, which is the cement one, when they built their house, it took them over four years to build the house. there was an amazing amount of traffic. so every day there was traffic blocks. everything was full of trucks all the time. there is another building going on right now. the whole street is chaos all the time. and this is going to actually make that even worse, and what we heard was oh, yeah, it might take a year to build. that we don't believe. we don't think you can build such a project in one year, and it's already bad enough.

so we are upset about the fact that the developers of 617 va no interest in working with us and looking to issues that we have. and we have to live with this. and that's just terrible, quite frankly. >> hello, ladies and gentlemen. my name is ralph higgs. i'm the owner for the last 41 years of the house next door to the house. >> are you one of the d.r. requesters, sir? okay. so we haven't got there yet. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> yeah, no, actually the d.r. requester had more time. so now that has been thrown out. and now, sir, you can speak now. now that his time ran out, now

you can speak because we are going to take public comment in support of the d.r. requesters in opposition of the project. >> i don't hear well. you say to proceed? >> yeah. >> my name is ralph, i'm the owner of 621 sanchez, that would be one house over from the project house, the second house from the proposed construction. and my house is a 2400 square foot house. it was in some of the pictures that were just shown. what concerns me is the foundation for this new house, proposed house, is just 25 feet from my foundation, that is the width of her lot. they are supposedly shoring up construction to strengthen the foundation when they go down

deeper on proposed house. the proposed house, the lower level is going to have major, involve major excavation, because it's almost entirely underground, the lower level. and it's all going to have to be excavated. and i'm concerned about what that will do to the strength of the foundation of not only her house but my house next to her. i've also -- i'm also concerned about the congestion in the neighborhood of construction. you might say everybody has congested traffic during construction. but this has been the worst, i think it's because of the terrain and the one-way, the one street that leads in and out. here's a letter from the contractor at a house just four houses from mine that's been

under construction for two and a half years. he wrote, dear neighbors, effective immediately, pete construction will be taking over the project at 660 sanchez. we understand this project has been going on for some time and that the progress has been slow thus far. our goal along with the owners is to continue in the orderly and courteous manner until we can complete the home. we estimate an additional two years will be required. and this is after two and a half years already. so we are dealing with a five-year construction, and these trucks like the gentleman before me showed in the street is constantly full of trucks. and it's just almost unlivable. the excavation that i'm concerned about, i'm wondering

if -- i'm assuming they must have soil testing and so forth. at a later date, things start happening through the foundatio- >> sir, your time is up. >> okay. thank you. >> any more members of the public that would like to speak in favor of the d.r. requesters? >> i have a final closing comment that's kind of important to me. but okay. >> can you come back? >> i just wanted to mention that i have a terminal illness, and i don't want to spend the rest of my life, which i don't know how long it's going to be, listening to construction, and that's all i have to say. >> okay, sir. thank you. anyone else from the public wish to comment in favor of the d.r. requesters? okay. seeing none, project sponsor. >> good evening again

commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor. we are here today for a project to build a code-compliant family home on a lot that contains a non-conforming building at the rear and a garage at the front. the current configuration creates an unfriendly break of the homes that sit on the front of the lots on sanchez street. on the other hand, the project provides a compatible, well-designed family home. you'll hear more in a moment from robert, architect. just to address the outreach issue, because that's always really important on these projects. the project sponsor conducted significant outreach with the neighbors before the meeting she proactively introduced herself to 18 of her new neighbors, dropped off letters, had conversations. she's had nine one on one meetings with individual neighbors including two meetings with the d.r. requesters and many, many e-mails with the d.r. requesters and their team. she has two support letters from neighbors on cumberland. she worked with the down slope

neighbor at 621 to address his privacy concerns. there was no d.r. requested from that neighbor. and so we really have done a lot of legwork on this and had a lot of conversations. the two d.r.s before you are the across the street neighbor whose house is 85 feet away and the up slope neighbor who has few concerns. given that these are not protected and the designs are appropriate for the site and provides a well-designed family home, we ask that you not take d.r. in terms of construction, slope, all of those issues, we have, we have been seeing it, it d.r. requesters about that. we will continue to have the conversations throughout construction. we will be available at all times to address concerns. and that conversation will not stop regardless of the outcome tonight. so a little bit more on design, and then we are here for questions.

thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm the architect for the project at 617. i want to give you an overview on the arcture. -- architecture. i want to bring your attention to the one-story carport that's at the front of the building. and then of course in the back of the building, in the back of the parcel, you'll see the existing cottage which is a non-conforming building that sits at the rear of the lot. in this illustration, you'll see more. the feature i would like to point out is the existing non-conforming building in the back. when we started the project, we evaluated the existing house to see if there was a way that we

could modify it, alter it, add on, whether horizontally or vertically. we quickly came to the conclusion that this wasn't feasible, and the best path forward was to demolish the cottage and proposing a conforming four-bedroom house that would sit at the front of the lot. you can see the building. we think it has a benefit to the neighbors that it restores the mid-block open space back to the neighbors. the other thing i should mention is we do a lot of work in san francisco, so we are very aware of the residential guidelines. whenever we are designing a building, we are designing to the setbacks, but we are also going above and beyond and addressing the residential design guidelines. in this case we have taken care to set the building back terrace the floors, respect the topography of the site, and also include matching light wells.

here's an image of the building from the back. the other thing i should mention is we have taken great care to lower the building as much as possible, so the building is actually eight feet below the height limit, minimizing the impact to the neighbors as well. and this is a view of the front of the building. again, we think it actually restores the urban face of the street block. we think this is a sensitively-designed project and has actually benefits by restoring the mid--block open space and providing high-quality housing to the area. thank you. >> is there any members of the public here in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. requester number one, you get a two-minute

rebuttal. >> sue hester. they have 25-foot lots. this is the building that is built on a land-locked site. there is a solid wall to the south, pardon me, to the east. this is a key lot that we don't have a lot of in the city. there is surrounding -- these are the only sources of light for the entire building. this is the below grade. this is the street level. this building will be facing -- this is the building that faces in the rear of 619. that is the building on cumberland street. it's surrounding their house.

the only source of light is from the northwest. and this was the meeting that we had with the developer on 213. we were trying to understand the site lines. and so we asked them, this is the only windows that provide light into the top floor of 619. because this is a solid wall over here. and this is solid wall on the other side of this building. and so we asked them to cut back this just to figure out how the design would work. and this is the proposal we got from them on monday. we got this at 5:00 on monday. so the architect and i went through this. this building is a building to the rear of 619.

literally 619 has walls here, here, and they are soon going to have a wall right here. so we asked for story polls. story polls help a layperson understand the building. >> thank you. d.r. requester number two, you get a two-minute rebuttal. >> no, the other d.r. requester. >> the other d.r. requester getting two minutes also. >> i will speak on his behalf as well. this isen extremely steep site. if you only get light in the rear corner, and you can't understand, because they haven't provided the information, how are you going to evaluate whether you have any light in your house at all.

there was no contact at all between the proposed owners and 619, ever. not before the meeting or after. the contact we had is very recent. so one of the big issues is that planning department didn't really understand the context of landlocked site that has only windows here and the lower floor, the bedroom floor, it is even darker. so asking for story polls so people can literally see where the building is proposed to come is not too much to ask. and we would ask the planning commission to continue this to require story polls.

because this is a condemnation of a 1907 building to be demolished because they don't have any light. that's an issue that never has been discussed by the planning department or by the developer. thank you very much. oh, i have another minute? so i would ask you please, make conditions on this. have more information, to have this project come back to you with information on the light with a building that is surrounded by walls. that's not too much to ask. sunset has 25-foot lots, but they have a common rear yard. they don't have a common rear yard at all. none. no common -- >> your time is up. >> no common rear yard. >> again, as far as we know we cannot request story polls, correct? >> planning department does not require story polls.

>> okay. so my house is surrounded by walls. >> is it the project sponsor? >> project sponsor, you are up. two-minute rebuttal. been a long day. >> jody on behalf of project sponsor. if i can get the overhead. one comment, you probably saw this on the requester's photo but this is a wall of windows at the rear of their property. they were saying there were no other windows but there's a wall of windows so i wanted to point that out. that was in the photo they showed, but i wanted to make sure that was highlighted. other than that, we are here for questions. thank you. >> okay. commissioner fung. >> question for staff. the d.r. requester directly

adjacent to this building is south, isn't it? >> i believe it's -- >> the project is north of the appellant. that means that window they are saying has -- is -- has light is facing north. >> well, we can -- let's look at aerial photo. >> was it a site plan? >> yeah, it is south. d.r. requester's property is south. >> use the microphone. >> the adjacent neighbor is to the south of the project sponsor.

>> commissioner johnson. >> project sponsor. can you speak to any conversations that you have had with d.r. requester number one, specifically from a neighborly perspective thinking about those windows? can you please come up and talk about that? >> yeah. i mean, we have had several conversations with the d.r. requesters about the windows. obviously we've come back with the fact that these are not protected. and what we have gotten from them is that they want to see a project that pulls the mapping

to behind that set of windows, which is basically creates no project. and there hasn't been any middle ground. they haven't been interested in my middle ground there. and -- and we are happy to have the conversation, we are in a difficult conversation because it is about views which are not protected. we are happy to have the conversation with neighbors but where the conversations end up is they didn't want any view impact. so that's where we are. >> if i could add from a residential design standpoint, just from a mapping perspective, d.r. requester's windows have a three-foot side setback which is matched by project sponsors. >> negotiated with -- >> sorry. that's the 311 package we are looking at, not any negotiation. this was a response sent out in the 3111 notification with

planning staff's review. >> commissioner fung. >> question for permit holder. appellant's representative has indicated a sketch that showed a notch out at that corner. is that agreed upon by the permit holder or not? >> [off mic] >> excuse me, i'm not asking the question of you. i raise my question to the permit holder. >> okay. sorry. >> we did have settlement discussions with them, which were obviously in an effort to not be here tonight. and they rejected those, and -- >> that was not on the table from your perspective? >> i mean, we did have a discussion with them about adding a notch, which was part of the settlement discussion, which we do, again, views

protected but trying to settle this, but they wanted to come here today. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i have a hard time talking about a project being not -- i have a hard time talking about a project being non-compliant when this project has been around for 114 years. at that time the rules didn't exist. so for 114 years, i don't think anybody in this room was 114 years, there wasn't an amount of civility how people lived with each other, like the italian hill town communities where you accommodate each other for livability. and i believe there's something happening here where it's a small project, and i'm not opposed for the project to move forward in the lot, but a project that was originally thousand square feet all of a sudden turned into 4,000 square feet. that is a little bit hard to understand with all logic for a

single-family home, a harder time for me personally speaking is when the owner's really not here. the owner is like -- the owner is just not here. and i'm a little bit disturbed about the fact that we have a situation where we have indeed a landlocked lot which we have had others in the past, basically a key lot where you are more boxed in than under normal circumstances, and we are considering the building that will have an effect on the adjoining neighbor. to what extent is to be discussed, but there is something which scale-wise and historically is off for me. so just to sit here and hear that it's a non-compliant building and the application is code compliant is not convincing enough for me to just say okay let's go to town and approve this project. i believe that there is i

believe deed a neighbor to neighbor discussion that's missing, and i'm not sure when a neighbor is represented by an attorney, if that's enough of a discussion. i believe the other neighbors who have expressed their concern about the building, there should be a discussion which is more three dimensional than what i see. there are some diagrams in here that offer their well-done on corners so you can see into the situation that actually explain very well to me the livability is affected by those people who are speaking against this project. i have not heard anybody say that they don't want the project, that they don't want to give the applicant an opportunity to build a slightly larger building, but this is more than a slightly larger building. this looks to me like a speculative home. i couldn't be more clear about that. i've seen quite a few of those. and i want to take some time out and hear what other

commissioners have to say. this project is not doing it for me. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. so i think the challenge with this project from my perspective is that any house expansion that is built, which i think is warranted, given the non-complying house on the project, makes sense to move up to the front as was said by the project sponsor, open shared kind of back office space. but that means by moving it closer to the street frontage that there is -- it's hard for me to imagine a project that will not have some impact on the adjacent neighbor at 619. it's not possible, actually, not to have some sort of impact. so i think the question of whether or not there is something, and i think matching light walls or other things, to lessen the impact, is important. i also see skylights above that

room in the back, and so i think the question of lessening the impact is a conversation that i'm interested in having, but suggesting that there is a project that will not have impact, i don't personally see it. >> commissioner fung. >> i'm in agreement with that comment that there's going to be some impact. and the question is to what extent. right now, what's being proposed wipes out a very dramatic view, because a view from the neighbor is diagonally-oriented from her house out toward the city, fairly dramatic city view. the other house on cumberland provides some blockage. i don't quite agree of the

description that this is totally landlocked, because it's not. she maintains some view, the question is whether we feel it's problematic enough to warrant a change to what the permit holder has done to increase her view but not necessarily maintain all of the existing view. >> commissioner johnson. >> can i just build on that? i'm not hearing a suggestion from d.r. requester number one of what compromise they would suggest. and i would like to hear this idea of -- >> okay. i'm not going into details, but we had one meeting with them that was recent, and they were supposed to come back with a plan on saturday, and they came back, and their attorney calls it a notch. right? and the -- so they are going to

have four stories, four bedrooms, four baths, owned by an l.l.c. and i'm not going to go into those details. but the windows i have on the side, the fourth floor will hang on my window. the fourth floor will hang in between. so it seems like they are going to give me a notch tunnel view, but i don't even know what i'm getting. and the architect in the one meeting we had said oh, i make mistakes in the drawings. so that even tells us that even if they agree to something, they would kind of go back on it. >> okay. sorry. and we asked, because an architect has been helping us. we ask that, okay, at least where we have the windows come in the middle, right? we actually drew a line that is in the middle of the windows or at least that's what we know.

so the bedroom downstairs, they are going to block off completely with a wall. there's no compromise. the bedroom downstairs, they are like there's no compromise. and then the upstairs, they are going to give us a notch. and the house even goes, because the lot is larger, it even goes beyond our deck. so it's like -- and then they are like, it's like we are like at least -- it should be a half point. >> so you are saying that so a notch was proposed, and you feel like like it should be at least at half of the height? >> i don't know yet. i don't even know what they are building. where their floor is. >> thank you. >> sorry. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> i would like to see more information as to -- because it

sounds like that the requesters are asking for information, how is the light going to impact them. and i wonder if the sponsor or the project sponsor can provide more information. i don't know if you are going to do that today or if you could come back with more detailed plans that we can also see, where i can also see at the same time. yeah. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. winslow, are you aware of the compromise? has there been a drawing or anything? it's very difficult for us to understand it. i do believe that a compromise needs to be submitted in drawings. so you have seen that drawing? >> there was a request for mediation from the supervisor mandelman's office. i walked away from that. i was not going to add any value to that. i have seen the drawings that

included a notch a few days before this hearing. but my packet was done, it was in your hands before that agreement was proposed or even could be accepted. to me it's immaterial. staff stands behind this project. it's code-complying. it does the right things with respect to guidelines, with respect to views, which are not protected, with respect to conditions to this lot which is not an atypical lot. there are plenty of conditions where there are key lots and we apply the same rules in the same consistent manner. >> [off mic] >> we are not -- we are talking to ourselves here. ms. hester, you are not allowed to speak right now.

commissioner moore. >> it puts us in an awkward position. normally these types of negotiations are handled by the department. the department reports to the commission, and i find it highly unusual to have the supervisor weigh in. and while i appreciate him weighing in as guiding the community, ultimately you are the deliverer of the physical results which come out of those particular things. it is for that very reason, that i will ask for a continuance so that the process can be properly executed in the manner this commission needs advice from you as the key holder for what the compromise is that we can properly be informed about that. and i understand we have always supported you in things being submitted to you in a timely manner so that everything is on the table.

but i believe that nothing is on the table that helps us mediate a difficult situation. >> commissioner fung. >> i guess i'm of a slightly different opinion. and that is does this case, in terms of what the project sponsor is proposing, does propose extra ordinary circumstances, and i don't think it does. it's not built all the way out out to what they could have done, yes. unfortunately the appellant has a home that a portion of her views were on the property line, even though it's set back a little bit. and that's imposing her desires for her building on the adjacent property. and i don't think that's fair to either -- to the other side.

>> commissioner johnson. >> thanks. i'm hearing, yes, it is true that we look to staff to advise us. and i'm hearing staff advise us that -- and i think staff has a record of being very sensitive to adjacent neighbors and to figuring out what could be possible among neighbors to try to work together to come to a resolution and that that has not happened despite the interventions. and so, you know, something that i -- so i struggle, and i actually share commissioner fung's perspective about these particular windows, and just again, the limitation on where these are. and we have seen other projects

actually that have been in this situation. and both noticing that these windows are not protected and also noticing that it would be impossible for development to happen and not have an impact but no agreement was reached. >> i'm trying to take staff's recommendation. they have spent the most time looking at this. and i'm not seeing anything extraordinary or exceptional, because the view from the side windows is not protected. so i would agree with commissioner fung. >> commissioner moore. >> i unfortunately cannot support a project that is currently being delivered here. i find the enlargement too excessive relative to the age in which this original development has occurred. and for that reason, i believe

that the compromise that may have been discussed to be physically manifested in the drawings by which we, including mr. winslow can take a stand that mediates and solve the conflict. mr. winslow is known for really understanding compromise, and i don't think a compromise has been reached here. for me it's not about view, it's more about light and visibility. the d.r. requester is being squeezed in. they only had so much allowed and they are being squeezed in by a 4,000-foot building. >> perhaps we can ask the question, did i see the drawings. i did see the drawings. does the project sponsor or d.r. requester have the draw of the proposal and can you show them to the commission?

>> i want to say one more thing that mr. winslow got my e-mail address wrong all along. i want to make that statement. >> let me respond to that. actually, i got your e-mail address wrong the first day i sent the notice, i noticed it the second day. you've had it for three months. >> this was the compromise that came out from -- >> this drawing needs to be pushed up because the lighting is right over what you are showing us. thank you. that's good. thank you. >> this was what they proposed

on monday, three days ago. this was what we discussed a week ago. and we asked that there be some acknowledgement that -- and this was a source of light for the building. there's a building right here. >> show the first drawing, please. >> and we wanted some information. and so they came back with this instead. and we are trying to understand, there's nothing on the other side right now. there's no way of just building against the building right there and saying it goes here. there's nothing. and so our architect couldn't figure out, because we have no north/south elevations to speak of. we need story polls just to

indicate where this notch is visible. what light is going to come in past these places. we have no idea. i can't figure out what it is. i've done this a bunch of times. but it's hard when you don't -- when it's a very, very steep site. drop off from the street is immense here. it's hard to figure out where it's going to impact the light. i want to stress, it's really the light. it's really the light. you have the pictures about how dark it is in this building already. and this building behind it is a complication. and this is from the second level, the ground level looks straight out on a wall. there are only two levees in this house. >> ms. hester.

>> and it has a wall in front of it. >> thank you. commissioner fung. >> i'm sorry, but since it's the focus on light, then we need to define it. there is no direct light going into that window. it's south of this project. the permit. so there is no direct light. is there ability to have some reflected light there perhaps? you know? it's going to be relatively dark on that window anyway. >> we cannot keep having comment from the crowd, please. >> i'm prepared to make a motion. i accept staff's recommendation

and will not take d.r. and approve the permit as provided. >> second. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to not take d.r. and approve as proposed. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that places you on item 18, record number 2018-007763drp-05. at 66 mountain spring avenue, request for discretionary review. >> good evening, president koppel, vice president moore, and commissioners, david winslow, staff architect.

i'm going to wait a few minutes, because i think there's a large contingent that needs to be seated.

good afternoon, president koppel, vice president moore, david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public-initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 201805179469 to demolish an existing two-story existing house and construct a new three-story single-family house. there are six d.r. requesters, adjacent neighbors, two across the street and down the street to the east of the proposed project on 66 mountain spring who claim that the project does not conform to numerous residential design guidelines and is generally too large and out of scale with the

neighborhood. to date the department received ten letters in opposition, i'm sorry, zero letter in opposition and zero letters in support. the advisory team confirmed this meetses residential design guidelines and the planning code. this is in a hr-1d zoning district. the d stands for detached dwelling. they are characterized by lots of greater width than other parts of the city, by single-family houses with side yards. the structures rarely exceed 35 feet in height. landscaping at the front and rear are usually abundant. forest hill are other examples of where this zoning district exists. staff's recommendation is not to take the d.r. and approval the project as it meets the code and residential design guidelines. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. so seeing as though we have this large amount of d.r.s, and i

have been limiting comment periods throughout the entire day, the d.r. requesters are going to get 15 minutes, all of them get 15 minutes, then the project sponsor is going to get 10 minutes and then everyone will get their two-minute rebuttal each. each d.r. requester will get their two-minute rebuttal and project sponsor gets their two-minute rebuttal. so d.r. requester number one. do you understand what i'm saying? 15 minutes for all the d.r.s. okay. great. >> good evening. we very much appreciate -- >> would you please? >> can you hear me now? thank you. my name is margaret. my husband ron and our two daughters live at 65 mountain spring across the separate from

66 mountain street. we are here today because developer cassidy proposed plans to build a house that is two stories at street level, far larger than any other house on the north side of mountain spring and three times as large as the house that is currently there. this proposed house is grossly inconsistent with both the residential design team's recommendations, san francisco's residential design guidelines and the special character of our historic neighborhood. the r.d.g.s state a single building out of context with it's surroundings would be disruptive to the neighborhood character. that is exactly what the effect would be if the developer is allowed to build this massive house that is the subject of today's hearing. we agree with what the residential design team decide, say, about the design, the mass of the project is out of scale with the adjacent homes. these homes reduce their scale for accommodation of the sloping down of the entry.

recommending the slope, lowering the ceiling height, developing and breaking up massings and reforming to reduce scale. in response to this the developer made only modest changes. now, there was discussion in the last couple of d.r.s about communications from neighbors. and the developer's attorney asserted in their letter to the commission that, quote, the project team has spent a considerable amount of time and effort meeting and following up with the neighbors including the t.r. requesters to listen to any concerns and modify the project based on their concerns. well, we desperately wish that were true. it is not. the developer never responded to the detailed letter that 29 neighbors, and this is a small street, there are only about 15 houses on the street, but 29 neighbors signed the letter in december of 2018. the letter raised a number of questions, concerns and asked for information. there was no response at all.

the developer did not, as entitled by his attorney's letter reach out to all the d.r. requesters. he didn't reach out to my or my husband, the oakleys or donovans. he did meet with two neighbors. in meeting with dan he instructed him not to share the plans with any of the other neighbors. and in meeting with the other, he bragged the approval of his proposed project was quote a done deal and that he had done it many times. at the meeting we attended with mr. winslow, neither mr. cassidy nor his architect offered any modifications. mr. cassidy didn't say a word or shake anybody's hands and basically played on his phone while we were all there at the meeting. after the meeting, i spoke to mr. winslow and said does this always happen? it is our first time. we are not opposed to development in general, we have

never done this before and he said we needed to be more specific. so we took his advice and because we haven't heard anything from the project sponsor, we hired an architect, mark english to prepare drawings. but we said, mark, will you please try to do what the residential design team said should be done. so he did that, and i brought with me today, and i can put them on the overside. overhead what he prepared are a series of views that show first what the r.b.t. proposed, and i can read you what mr. english wrote, and then a comparison. so that would be great. and we need to give one to the project sponsor.

can we get the overhead? thank you. we asked mr. english to incorporate the recommendations. and this is what his words are. the changes reflect to the attached drawings show an increase in thest side setback from eight feet to five feet as well as retaining the setback for the second and third stories. the roof terrace and railing has been removed and the overall height of the home has been reduced to better fit with the neighborhood. and the revised images, the upper two floors of the residence are aligned with the existing back wall approximately 30 feet rear yard setback and the setback to the east was

increased to eight feet. it would also lower the revised height down by the proposed 5.5 feet by reduceing main level ceiling height and lowering the main level relative to the street. the roof deck has been removed and the height has been reduced. the gross area for the revised building would be about 500 square feet. now, again, this is a 2100 square foot house now. as we mentioned in our request for discretionary review and other correspondence, that amount has been misrepresented consistently more and more but the new proposed house is almost 6,000 square feet, which is about double the largest house on that side of the north side of mountain spring. in our view, the drawings prepared by architect mark english, and i can show you, so this shows the top with the proposal from the developer is and on the bottom, it shows what

the changes are that would reduce the height, reduce the second and third floor ceilings, and there's lowering of the overall view. if you look at the individual -- >> please speak into the microphone. >> thank you. the slide marked 1a is the front view of the revised house as drawn by architect english as compared to 1b, which is what would be the developer's proposed project. so 2a is the back view as proposed and revised by architect mark english.

and 2b shows the back view of the developer's proposed project. so i don't want to take up everybody's time on the other d.r. side. but i want to say that these drawings show that it's really not difficult to make this not so big. this is a neighborhood with many historic homes. it was oakley, which is one of the d.r. requesters wrote a letter which we can read which talked about her grandfather who was the first one who named it mountain spring who dragged the bricks up to build the house that still stands at 32 mountain spring. so the idea of destroying this, what we believe is an historic house designed by oliver russo and replacing it with a house that is discordant and will affect forever what the north side of mountain spring looks

like because right now the houses are complementary but consistent in their size and the way they are. so we respectfully request the commission grant discretionary review and order the planning to work with the developer to create a design that meets the r.d.t. recommendations and the design guidelines. thank you. >> you guys have six minutes and 20 seconds left. i know it's late. and i hate to use the little time. i live at 50 mountain spring which is on the north side a couple houses down. and i filed a d.r., because this project is just, it's really out of scale to everything else on the north side of the street. the north side of mountain spring has a really wonderful

open feel to it. and it's one of the things that makes it really a wonderful neighborhood. the north side is a side that slopes down towards the bay, and this house will have a two-story facade that is right at street level. it will be very different than all the other houses along the street. and as was indicated, it will be nearly 6,000 square feet, which is far bigger than any of the other houses. i'm concerned both because it's going to change the basic character of our street, and the character that we really like about living on that street. and it will set a precedent, because we don't really want to live on a street that has a row of 6,000 square foot houses, turning it into basically a tunnel. and so i feel that the proposal

is a good one and that the commissioners should consider, should take up the -- our request and have the developer come up with a plan that is more consistent with that line of houses that they are putting a new house in. thank you. >> how much time? >> you have 4 minutes and 20 seconds. >> this is quite loud. wake up everybody. i live directly to the west of the developer, and essentially what i've put together is a backside view of my home at 74 mountain spring, which is to the west of the developer.

and the first picture that you can see is the existing house versus my home. very, very modest small house. my house is on the right-hand side. the next figure that you can see in the middle is the proposed development. you can see it's quite a bit larger than my home. and this has major impact to my sunlight in the mornings. basically blocking my sunrise view and sunlight view to my master bedroom and to my master bathroom. and here last is the proposal that we put together as neighbors, a group of six d.r. requesters that essentially just lowers the ceiling height of a couple of the floors. and likewise, it sets back part of their rear of their home to

the existing setback and likewise removes the roof deck and the larger parapets so fundamentally what we are asking for is to go from a cross section like this with rather high ceilings in the middle likewise high ceilings on top to a structure that looks like this that has more modestly-sized ceiling heights on the order of ten feet and likewise having the setback to the existing building of the second and the third floor. so those are basically our agreed-upon with the d.r. requesters, what we would like to see from this building. thank you. you have about two

more minutes left if you want to use it. >> good evening. i am on the west -- the east side, i'm on the east side. one of the few points. my neighbors have aptly described the size. i would like to add that i always wondered why my upstairs, i had four kids, i always wondered why my upstairs only had two bedrooms, and i realized that's why. because we are staggering the house and making the upper levels smaller. and this is suburban tract home. it's to maximize the square footage, protect the environment, the wildlife. even in your technical report is

inaccurate. it says that it is -- they support an existing home rather than the demolition of a home. and finally i would like to say i do believe he does want to make changes. i don't know why it hasn't happened through the course. but as i say, i do believe that he wants to make revisions. thank you. >> that's going to wrap up the d.r. requesters' time. now we are going to take public comment. i made the same mistake myself already tonight. we are going to take public comment in support of the d.r. -- i'm sorry, d.r. requesters. so anyone in opposition of the project, now is your time to speak, not in relation to any of the d.r. requesters. okay. seeing none. project sponsor, you are up.

you get ten minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor. we are here tonight to present a project that would expand and modernize a single family home in a neighborhood of single family homes to be occupied by the project sponsor's family. there has been a lot thrown the awe in the briefs, so i wanted to really focus tonight on specifically what's at issue here, which is the residential design guidelines and whether or not this is a fit for the neighborhood. the good daylines articulate expectations regarding the character of the built environment and imply an overlay of local context. so in essence, we have the planning code that sets the rules for residential development citywide and the design guidelines ask us to take a second look and make sure that what is actually proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. and i think when you look at this, you see that physical.

you see that it will. what you are going to find is that's what you find in the neighborhood. these are just two angle views of the project. it's two stories next to two buildings, two stories at mountain view -- i'm sorry, mountain spring. at the rear side, three stories at the rear because of the sloping lot, just like the adjacent two buildings. the project is sensitive to the proposal. just to take a step back, you'll see this is looking up the hill. here is the existing building which you'll find these. this is consistent with the neighborhood. project is sensitive to minimizing the height. the building is 21 feet at all at mountain springs. that's a one-footstep. and then two ten-foot floor to

floors. very modest or typical for homes, nine feet is not very at all. if you look at it from the front, we've got a 21-foot tall building with a two-foot parapet on top. the 21 feet, it's one foot taller than its west neighbor, two feet taller than its east neighbor and only one foot taller than the existing peaks plus the two-foot parapet which is necessary to incorporate the architectural modifications we have been working with staff on. so again, very modest, not hugely out of scale in any way with the neighbors here. the rear of the project also

pretty appropriate and consistent. we have a 25% rear yard, and as you will see, it steps between the two houses on either side, the house to the east a little deeper on the lot, house to the west, a little shallower, the project mis in the middle, exactly what the planning code calls for and the residential design guidelines call for. in addition we provided relief at both corners to give additional respect to light, privacy and air to those two adjacent neighbors. the project is appropriately spaced from its neighbors. in fact right now there's a three and a half foot setback on either side of the home. the project will increase that to five feet on both sides of the home. when you take a look at the west neighbor, this structure is a one-story garage. so this is really the home to the west. the distance between the new wall of the project and their home is over 20 feet at the

shortest and it extends well beyond that as you move to the back of the house. so pretty significant separation. very appropriate and urban-built environment, does not affect that at all. the east building is about eight feet away, but it's further separated than it is today, but then in addition, take a look at this image, that east building has one small window on its property line there, and that window is already shorter than where the home is tay. so the project is not making it significantly different than that. as you look up the hill at the property, here is the property, here is the west neighbor and east neighbor. you'll see the project is going to take it to just about where the west neighbor is. so residential guidelines don't protect private views but to the extent that folks have sympathy for it, there's going to be

significant views across the street and just as much as they are getting from next door as well. so one really important point i want to make, because the d.r. requesters have emphasized it a lot is that nowhere in the residential design guidelines does it say anything about floor area ratio when considering these projects. the floor area ratio has to relevance or connection to whether or not a building fits in with the existing character of the neighborhood. there's a lot of situations like this where a project is built into a hill so you have a lot of gross floor area, stuck in an area that does not create new massing that's apparent to the neighborhood and relevant to whether or not the building fits into the context of the neighborhood. then you've got the lot size as well which duffers from lot to lot. differs from lot to lot. it's easy to pick out a handful of houses in the neighborhood that have less f.a.r. or greater f.a.r. we have added a brief of buildings with a greater f.a.r.

but you can pull buildings on either side. so not a relevant consideration with respect to the residential design guidelines. we prepared a shadow study that's in your packets. there's not much difference between what's there today and what's proposed. to make significant changes have been made based on neighbor and staff input just to quickly go through, incorporated a varied front setback, increased side setbacks, reducing roof height, the height of entry, sculpting rear corners, reducing the size of the roof deck, modified the architectural style. as you can imagine with six d.r. requesters, this is a challenging project. i appreciate the work of mr. winslow on this project. for these reasons, we feel the project is very clearly consistent with neighborhood character, which is the goal of the residential design guidelines. i would like brad to come up and speak to the architecture for

the project. >> good evening. we were hired by mr. cassidy about two years ago to consider a home for he and his family. mr. cassidy has been forthright with us in terms of his intentions to live there and his efforts to communicate to his neighbors and to staff with us. we've had a number of fair conversations with mr. winslow, jeff horn, planning staff and the like. and i want to, without getting too deep into the minutia, i think john covered most of it, and that's documented in terms of our narrative in the packets you have been provided but to go through some views that spell out our rationale about how the building is oriented and arranged to the existing context

on the hillside for introduction is it's quite varied. there are houses that are very large and squeezed into a site sometimes oriented into hillside conditions that contest privacy and present a wide variety of different aesthetic styles. this is the existing street view with neighbors on both side. the topdown view for your benefit, this is looking from above. scenario view from across the street -- an aerial view so you get a context. this is not a one-shot deal. we have been working on this for

two years, and i have several packets, milestone project records for the benefit of when we submitted for a pre-app, a round of revisions that were made and addressed the comments and subsequent revisions made in specific response to some of the conversation that mr. cassidy was having with his neighbors all the while. this is where we started. our staff prepared a synopsis of the program mr. cassidy came to us with. somewhat differentiated with, and that's where we began to take over and arrest some of the development of the project and go through some of the changes we have done in response to the comments that were delivered to our attorney. this is the first stab at reducing the forward portion of the garage. the entry volume was subtracted and reduced as well.

further reductions were requested and were made. we have just those three volumes. >> okay. thanks. your time is up. now we are going to take public comment from any member of the public in support of the project sponsor, in support of the project. >> my name is deidre cassidy, i'm at 66 mountain springs. >> hold on one second. if you are a member of the project sponsor's family, you are a member of the project sponsor team. >> oh. so i can't speak. is that what you're saying? okay.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is josh and i'm here as a long-time friend of the project sponsor. i'm also a ten-year san francisco resident living in noe valley not too far from the project. i'm here obviously to support the project. the project sponsor has resided in san francisco for over 30 years, raising their children in the community. this is their ultimate dream home, and after having carefully reviewed the plans, i commend its thoughtful design and careful revisions in light of the neighbors' concerns. i find it to be very reasonably designed, and a very modest home with a nicely-designed family room, living room, three bedrooms on one level, plus a guest room off the family room which opens to a nicely-sized backyard, all fairly modest from what i can tell. although i understand the

neighbors would be concerned about any changes on their street, i find the project to be reasonably compatible with existing surrounding homes as i view the models presented by the architect and by the d.r. requesters. i urge you to support the approval of this project as designed by the architect and supported by the planning department as well. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is james. also a friend of the project sponsor. and i'm just amazed when i see that all the work that's gone into the project, all the planning department's work and all the revisions that the planning department has done, has suggested and incorporated into the plans with the developer or with the sponsor. all the work and their ultimate support of the project, it's interesting to me that that

doesn't override the need to have continual effort to scale back and scale back and scale back and scale back and scale back in a time and place in history when in fact housing has we know it is so difficult to get built, this is just making it more difficult. just the same, this family could have gone to san mateo or san mateo county to build a larger house they needed but they chose to stay in the city, and i think we should celebrate that and certainly support the project as it's now planned. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i know it's a long day. i spoke on the first item today, and this is the last item. i actually live or will live at 21 mountain spring. i'm building what everybody tells me is my dream home at the start of mountain spring, and i know those neighbors have been putting up with me the last

three years during construction. i have known leo and his wife for 30 years. his kids have gone to school with my kids. they are good friends of ours. i was delighted when he was moving on to the same street. i think it's a great neighborhood and a great place to live. the house he has designed when you put it in context is one level over garage. that's what we talk about all the time. it's one level over garage. and i think it meets all the design requirements and meets the requirements of the neighborhood. so i hope you support the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm a friend of leo and deidre cassidy family. i have known them for many years. i have lived in san francisco for 30 years.

i think we should support families staying in san francisco. this is a code-compliant project. i'm going to read exact exactly from the department's review. it says that the department's residential design team confirm this project has incorporated recommendations made through several reviews and as such, staff deems it doesn't present any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and meets residential design guidelines, so i urge you to accept staff recommendations and support this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> [off mic] >> drop them off there. >> my name is kevin. i'm a resident, and i'm here to support this project. i want to reiterate the topics we discussed before that it is

two levels above the street, which is identical to the neighboring properties on either side, and with regards to the scale and the mass, i'm going to list 20 properties that are all within a quarter mile of this property that are over 5,000 square feet, 21 mountain springs which is new construction just approved, 7,000 square feet, 75 mountain springs is 5700 square feet. so i think this is within compatible of the neighborhood scale and mass, and i encourage you to support it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. good evening, commissioners. it's been a while since i've been here with a project. my name is mike, i'm the brother of leo cassidy. i'm also a builder and identify a brother named joel who is a builder. typically we don't end up in front of the commission because we usually work to get a project gets approved, doesn't have a

d.r. but in this case, when you deal with people who say they wouldn't like to live on the street with four-story buildings, it's kind of amazing, you can have two stories and maybe for a seven-foot ceilings but we across the street from four stories, we can look down at you, and you need two with you it's okay for us to have four. typically i want my view, how dare you step up maybe one more foot above what i think. even hired their own architect to say you should build what i think, not what you'd like. or your family would like that would suit you. it's incredible. that's what you deal with. you can't negotiate with people like that. this will go on to the final, they will come back again and again until it's done.

maybe they file a lawsuit. i feel sorry for you. two years in a project that's two stories over a garage. it's unbelievable. i hope you support it as it's gone forward. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is michael stack, i'm a long-time friend of leo and deidre cassidy. i'm here to support the project. it's a modest project with two stories at street level and three at the rear. ceiling height is only nine feet. i'm 6' 6" and it's only two and a half feet taller than me. i urge you to support this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is clint. i'm a resident. i live at the current house, i rent through the owner. i've been there for i want to say six to eight months. i can say also as a background,

as an architect that i've become acquainted with the area. i've seen the plans, and i've reviewed that and my perm feeling, not having any ties with the feeling other than living in a home that would no longer be my own, i feel that it fits in with that surrounding area, i don't feel like it would be imposing. and i just want to state my support. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is joe cassidy. i immigrated to this country 44 years ago. i have built over a thousand units in san francisco. i feel like what mike said. we are being attacked as immigrants. some of the comments that have gone on are incredible by some of these neighbors. so what if it's a 5500-foot square house? it's like a sunset house.

and that is reasonable. it's a beautiful design. for someone to come here and say that it doesn't blend in with the neighborhood, i mean, they need their eye sight examined. that design is absolutely spectacular. i hope thaw approve the project the way it is -- i hope that you approve the project the way it is. >> does wish to speak on behalf of the sponsor? >> to simplify this, i break this into two categories. the four d.r.s from across the street, and let's cut to the chase, their issues are views, views and more views. it was implied to the owner that if they lowered this, if they removed the parapets and lowered the front of the house, which

they did, they would have a deal. that has not worked its way to the surface here. i would like to reiterate the fact there is minimal view impact, and you'll see a video later on, minimal view impact to those four neighbors across the street. the other two d.r.s, the house on the right and the left, the house on the right, i read that d.r. package, i talked around the hall, i don't know what you want. i'm really confused by it. the house on the left was specific. they gave four items. i think many of those could be addressed. it's important to note the proposed house is less than 12 inches taller than the house on the left. and when you factor in those trees, there is no issue here. i am not -- i'm here fairly regularly. many times, i don't get to speak. we work it out in the hallways. i approached every d.r. here in the room tonight. i spoke to every one of them. nobody wanted to engage with me. not that i'm someone special.

but there's nothing wrong with discussing an issue. there might be a solution. i've done it a lot. because of that, i'm tempted to urge you to approve this house the way it is. yes, it's a big house. it's a big house surrounded by bigger houses. but there's one little issue. that family has lived to live with these families. and at some point it's not about getting the house approved. there's reasonable things that can be done here. and while i'm tempted to ask you to urge -- or urge you to approve it as is, for the sake of peace, for the sake of these neighbors living together, maybe you could ask the project sponsor to create a five by five or a five by six or some kind of

setback to preserve the downtown views. maybe you can ask him to remove the windows on the westside to create privacy. maybe you can ask them to move the deck in or to the north or to the south or to the west to make it smaller. he's very reasonable. but the past wrong here of nobody talking and nobody doing anything is not going to get anybody anywhere. thank you. >> thank you. now it's time for the rebuttals. so d.r. requester, you each get a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. it's hard to know where to start. we have been asking since december of 2018 to talk, and so yes, somebody who was not the project sponsor approached me in the hall today in this room and

said want to talk? you know, we are here. we are trying to explain why this house will stick out like a sore thumb, yes there was a litany of friends and family and other contractors who want to say it's the greatest house ever but it will stick out like a sore thumb in this historic neighborhood. no other house on that side is nearly that big. no other house on the north side. that's the way the houses are, terraced up the hill. the houses on the north side are of uniform size at street level. none of them has a rooftop deck, not one. so this is going to be a very jarring look to the neighborhood. i'm not aware of a single neighbor, 29 neighbors signed the letter saying please, we have concerns about this, not a single neighbor that i'm aware of supported it. it's not consistent with the neighborhood. it does block views. there are only two houses that

are d.r. requesters on the other side of the street. four houses on the same side of the street, so it's not a view as far as they're concerned, it's the light, it's the air, it's the privacy. and we had mark english prepare drawings to show this same footprint of the house could be lowered and could be less obtrusive, less invasive on the neighbors and more consistent with this historic neighborhood. so, again, we urge the commission to grant d.r. and to require that the project sponsor work with planning to make something that we think does conform with the guidelines. thank you. >> thank you. d.r. requester number two. >> thank you. i didn't realize you could bring all your friends and business partners from around the city to come and talk or we could have been here probably till midnight. what i would like to do is read a letter if i could from glen oakley who was one of the d.r.

sponsors, couldn't be here today because of the health of her husband. lynn oakley is the granddaughter of the first person to build on mountain spring in 1920, edwin moffet. she says dear president and commissioners. i have asked my letter be read for me as i'm unable to attend this meeting because my husband has been in the hospital and i'm caring for him. i'm opposed to the demolition of 66 mountain spring avenue and the proposed construction of a new loft-like building in its place. this project is out of scale with existing neighborhood, and will negatively affect the light and the air of the neighboring homes and will be an eyesore in our beautiful neighborhood because of its overwhelming boxlike mass. a project of this height and mass, nearly 6,000 square feet, will not be compatible with our neighborhood of beautiful homes and doesn't maintain the existing setback as requested by the planning department and r.d.t. the surrounding homes are each

uniquely beautiful but do not stand out as obviously defiant of planning commission guidelines which this one will. sincerely, lynn oakley. thank you. >> next d.r. requester. >> speak into the microphone, miss. >> essentially i moved to mountain spring in 1991. and when i moved into the house, i also built my dream house. but i built my dream house within the existing envelope of the house and built a very small garage, single story that

wouldn't impact anybody's views or anybody's lights. i went to each and every neighbor to see if they were okay with the design, and indeed they were. what we were requesting here is very small or what i'm requesting is very small, reducing the height of the ceilings which are actually quite large, to bring down the lower the house, also increase the setback to the existing building and ultimately removing the parapets, not removing, lowering the parapets and removing the roof deck, the roof deck is inconsistent with anything on our side of the street and will have a huge impact on the privacy of my home. thank you. >> next d.r. requester. >> i would like to -- i have

lots of comments about how there were mainly revisions to the plans and that the implication was that they worked with the neighbors. i want to make it clear that we submitted the letter in december of 2018. the matrix came out in march. we didn't get anything until september, just a few days before we got a notice that we have 30 days to file a d.r. so we had nothing to work on. so i don't know what the project sponsor is and supporters are talking about all this back and forth we had. and i do appreciate the fellow's comments, i forget his name, but it is true that these folks are planning to live there. i'm irish, when they first came to my door with a bottle of

wine, i was delighted to have irish neighbors. now, not so much. as i mentioned earlier, i believe mr. cassidy is willing to make some changes, and i hope you will grant a continuance or however this works in order to allow that to happen. thank you. >> thank you. any more of the d.r. requesters here? seeing none, project sponsor, you get a rebuttal as well. >> thank you commissioners. i think at this point you have heard enough out there. so we are here if you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you.

commissioner fung. >> question for mr. devlin. a number of potential modifications was proposed by one of the speakers. is that still on the table? >> when you say one of the speakers, just to clarify. >> shawn >> yeah. we are here wanting to get a project approved, so we would like to -- we would entertain any thoughts you had, commissioner fung. >> he brought forth three points. >> oh, those specific. >> are those on the table? >> yes. >> okay.

thank you. >> from what you've heard during the course of discussion, mr. winslow, do those three items do more except for the one adjacent neighbor? >> to be quite honest, this is the first i've heard of those items. i'm not sure where they are or what they are. i haven't had a chance to review it, but i think they sound like they are in response to the neighbor to the west. is that correct? >> that's what it sounds like. >> [off mic] >> we can't have you commenting from the crowd. >> redact windows and i don't know which decks. it sounded like an act extract. >> commissioner moore. >> perhaps somebody could restate that so we can figure

out what they mean. >> i believe privacy is a concern for the neighborhood to the west, and i believe in order to address that, it would be reasonable to eliminate the property line windows on the western wall. the second item, the project sponsor has been in her house, and was shown a certain desk that she likes to sit at that's important to her. and the other thing that's important to her is she has the panoramic view, not just the view straight out. so to facilitate, to open up that corner, he's going to take a notch out of the top two floors which would be the back left hand side of his buildings to facilitate the downtown view for her while she's sitting at that chair. >> would that -- you have a

sloped wall there. is that the one you are talking about? >> correct. >> so the two floors below would match that? >> the top two floors. >> excuse me, the top two floors. was that a -- in other words, from a directional point of view, the west corner of that building toward the rear property line, the top two floors would have a slope to it similar to half of a bay kind of thing. >> i'm looking at current curres that currently have that on 2.8 and 2.4, further notching of that area. >> yes, that is five by five, five by six, five by seven. the idea is to protect that special space that she has

looking out that window. >> okay. what was the third item? >> the third item is the roof deck is set back considerably from curve it's ten feet back. if you want to move it to the north, to the south, to the east, the west, make it smaller. >> which roof deck? >> the deck on top of the roof. >> that's why i ask. >> a big deck. >> it's a big deck, yeah. there's room to do something there. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i don't have anything. >> commissioner diamond. >> i didn't hear any of the d.r. requesters articulate an issue that met the standard for d.r., which is something exceptional or extraordinary, but if the project applicant is willing to make changes that help move this along, then i would be fine

taking d.r. and imposing those three conditions or having staff work with the project applicant to implement those three conditions. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. kegan. i'm sure it's in the interest of the visual appearance of the building to not create too extreme an an asymmetry on the notching. is there a way of mediating those two notches? the building should not look as if -- i am talking about the front of the building where you are drawing on the north side. >> that's the rear. >> one second.