testimony. i respectfully ask the commission to approve garden creamery discretionary review. they're a small business that have a track record of supporting other small businesses, and what they're simply asking for is for a finer review of -- [no audio] >> clerk: looks like we lost that caller. let's go to the next one. >> my name is tom, and i've lived in the mission since 2005. i'm calling to support garden creamery. matcha n' more and a small business as much as shake shack or the lakers are a small business. they are a franchise business coming from new york city, trying to further gentrify the mission with gold leaf ice

cream. this is not about competition or small business but rather what we should allow a community to be misled by opportunistic young men. you should do the right thing and have them submit honest paperwork so the city can actually understand what's going into our small area. >> operator: you have 16 questions remaining. >> good evening. i am amy lu. i was born and raised in san francisco and live in the portola district currently. i work for a company that supports small businesses. i support matcha n' more and request that the commissions deny discretionary review and approve the application. matcha n' more is unique and a delicious dessert store.

we should support small businesses in a pandemic like this and in a present time like this. thank you for your time. >> operator: you have 15 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is shane. i'm a business owner in san francisco. i'm calling in support of matcha n' more in support of having their application approved so they can dcontinue to open their business. if you deny their application, you will be setting a precedent in san francisco for future small businesses that if there's a mistake on their application, they might as well not even open up. blocking this business from moving forward is not how you operate a city. [inaudible] >> -- and do business in san francisco, this isn't how you

encourage businesses. thank you. >> operator: you have 16 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is albert, and i live in the sunset neighborhood, and i'm calling in support of garden creamery and approve of the discretionary review. i was once the general manager for a local boutique in hayes valley that was once owned by s.f. natives and the store closed due to the neighborhood completely changing its support for small neighborhoods and small retailers. i would hate to see garden creamery losing its businesses over the establishment of large businesses. thank you. >> operator: you have 15 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is ike. i'm from san francisco. i believe that the d.r. request from garden creamery is based on bullish claims. it doesn't have anything to do with the city or character of the mission. the d.r. requester, what

they're trying to do is just delay matcha n' more so they can take control of market shares and eliminate competition. li friendly competition is good for the consumer. it helps give a variety of goods to the consumers in the community. it also gives small business owners an opportunity to chase their dreams. approve matcha n' more. thank you. >> operator: you have 14 questions remaining. >> hello. hi. my name is joel, and i live in district 5, and i am in support of matcha n' more going into the mission district. i'm just really ashamed at garden -- whatever they are -- creamery for doing what they're doing. i think it's really shameful for them to do that. i think it's because they're scared of the competition. if they're very scared of the

competition, like, maybe sthey should up their game. matcha n' more and a fairly good company, i think, and when they say we're gentrifying the mission district, it's already been happening, and it is going to happen, so stop complaining and just push it through. thank you. >> operator: you have 13 questions remaining. hi. my name is lawrence lee, and i'm born and raised? san francisco. i highly support matcha n' more and i urge the commission to deny the d.r. and support matcha n' more. allowing new ice cream shops to open will create a more diverse menu, nard menu, in order to better serve the community. please allow matcha n' more and toep so its neighbors and residents may have a choice of what they would prefer to eat.

i respectfully urge you, the planning committee, to allow a new small business to end the community. thank you. >> operator: you have 13 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is kricristen, and i l in san francisco. i respectfully ask you to deny the d.r. and accept the application. it does not make sense if d.r. is approved. i love ice cream, so anymore ice cream in the area will just be better, and i don't believe this is -- -- this is in the mission district's plan. thank you. >> operator: you have ten questions remaining. >> hello. my name is helen yu, and i've

been a resident of san francisco for over ten years. i'm calling in support of garden creamery and the approval of the discretionary review. this is about a business, matcha n' more, that did not submit a proper application. i request the planning department deny the application of matcha n' more and grant discretionary review. thank you. >> operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> hi. my name's walter. i live in san francisco -- hello? >> clerk: go ahead. >> hi. my name is walter. i live in san francisco. i would like to support garden creamery and request that the commission approve the discretionary review and deny the application of matcha n' more. i think there's too many ice cream shops in that intersection. if you really want diversity in

that neighborhood, you can approve other businesses in the neighborhood other than ice cream. the only people that's benefiting is not the community, it's -- [inaudible] >> -- so that everybody has access to ice cream. it's not even about commission, it's providing something to the community. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> hello. i am against the discretionary review. i'm about ten minutes walking from oat -- is someone talking? >> clerk: no, you are, sir. you have the floor. >> okay. i guess the discretionary

review was about a ten-minute walk from both businesses. i feel the same as sharkey. it's a vacant unit that'll result in tenant improvements. if, indeed, there's too much ice cream in that area, one of the businesses will have to find a better location. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> hi. i'm renee florez, born and raised in san francisco, and i'm a small business owner in the mission. i respectfully request that you approve garden creamery's discretionary request and that matcha n' more should submit the correct paperwork with the correct information. you need to support home grown businesses of san francisco. the slander and racial epithets that garden creamery is receiving is concerning to me, especially where the mission is mostly latin based.

the defamation of garden creamery seems unethical. like spike lee says, do the right thing. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> hi. cal here. i live in the dogpatch. i can't believe that during a global pandemic and protest against police brutality, san francisco is wasting its time on an ice cream fight between two businesses. deny the d.r., let matcha n' more open. this is absolutely ridiculous. i yield my time. >> clerk: members of the public, if you're not speaking -- >> operator: you have five questions remaining. [inaudible] >> -- i'm a resident of hayes valley. i'm calling in support of

matcha n' more as san francisco supports the entrepreneurial spirit and they support that, instead of blocking businesses that thwarts locals' choice. thank you so much. i yield my time. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> hi. my name is cane and i'm a frequent walker past the site. i support matcha n' more and request the d.r. be denied. my understanding is this site has been vacant and dead for a decade, and frankly, we are very fortunate that we have businesses wanting to open given everything that's happening right now, and i think the community benefits from increased foot traffic, from families gathering there, and from improvements to the

local business world, so i thank you for taking the time. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> good evening. my name is gina. i am from san francisco. i respectfully ask you to approve garden creamery's discretionary review and deny matcha n' more's application. i believe that aaron and donnie have helped small businesses in san francisco. i truly believe that matcha n' more will -- [inaudible] >> -- diversity in the mission. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> good evening. my name is ana, and i reside in san francisco. i'm calling in to support matcha n' more. garden creamery is already a staple in the mission community, and they should share its passion with those who want to spread their love for ice cream. i believe that matcha n' more

will be beneficial to the community and provide more diversity to the community. therefore, i urge the commission to deny d.r. and approve the application. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> hello. my name is bob, and i live five blocks. i'm calling to oppose discretionary review. t [please stand by]

>> he deserves to be a entrepreneur in san francisco and deny the cres ar the discrey review. >> you have three questions remaining? >> hi, everybody, my name is

chris and i used to live in the if i want to express my report and deny an application and is after a few years of patron age, i've gotten to know the owners of garden creameries and i know they scare deeply for the community and valuable business practice and honest business practice and instagram page and to shift the narrative and call them racist in this climate when that was not the intention at all, they have no ill intention and it's not about any sort of competition and it's straight forward and it's very about diversity in this space and

there's a lot of competition for ice cream and for macha in the city so i believe that with this vacant space, even if they were -- >> you have two questions remaining. >> hi, my name is sam and i am in the mission and i strongly oppose the and i should have to pay money and waste time and spend money on lawyers and the who thwhole process is ridiculo. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> i hi support the new business and i'll leave some bad yelp

reviews. thank you. i have one question remaining. you have zero questions remaining. >> very good commissioners, that will conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. i don't know about you, but at the end of this hearing i'm going to have some ice cream. the commissioners, the matter is before you. is the representative, were they able to get back on so they can finish their two minutes? >> you are fantastic and i apologize.

mr. williams, you do have about a minute and 50 seconds if you feel it necessary to speak at this time and we'll go into rebuttal. >> let's go straight to rebuttal. i don't think this is the purpose of the d.r. process and of which i'm very familiar, obviously. there's been no standard of the planning code and not met by the application identified and no impacts of any kind have been identified. the objects to the project made in the d.r. application as are disingenuous as filing it under a fake name and then claiming you didn't file it under a fake name. i've had the commissioners look at exhibit 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 and 21 where the d.r. applicant continued to use the fake name for three months and then filed a declaration with this

commission claiming they had done it in error so we can go straight to rebuttal as far as i'm concerned. that was the rebuttal. >> all right. >> d.r. requester, you have two minutes for your rebuttal. >> >> hello. >> yes. >> am i on? >> you are. your time is running. >> this is my rebuttal. this is not about anti-competition, this is about misrepresenttation on forms to the planning and to the public. the commission should not reward bad players who misrepresent sent their intentions to the city and community or use hate speech to forward their agenda. it's unclear why the project sponsor committed perjury twice. even if they represented a business they would likely qualify for a retailer. i can only speculate that the

will full misrepresenttation driven by the desire to expedite the application process as well as avoid public scrutiny. applicants are human and mistakes happen but given the evidence in this case, they committed perjury and their arguizations towards me are unfound and they're trying to throw all of us off their true intentions. review my submission and draw your own commission. they consider taking the d.r. and denying the application. they should not prosper by misleading the public and i take the d.r. and denying the application you are sending a clear message to bad players. if you are a bad player and do not follow the process, you have to start over and please accept this d.r. and deny the application. have the applicant start over with the new application and submit on the paperwork for the planning department and public. thank you. >> thank you. ok. commissioners, and again, i do

apologize for overlooking that thank you, commissioners diamond for reminding me. now the matter is before you, commissioners. i'm going to get some ice cream. >> while you get some ice cream, i'm supportive of staff's recommendation to not take d.r. and approve. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm in support and i make a motion to not take d.r. and approved. >> second. >> seeing no additional comments and deliberations from the commission, there is a motion

that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve ice cream. on that motion, commissioner chan -- >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> fung. >> he is getting on the screen. aye. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> and i do apologize, it is getting a little bit late. along those lines, commissioners, that will allow us to move to items 19, 18a and b have been continued. so item 19, case number 2017-013959drp170 are you

prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, president koppel and members of the commission. david winslow, staff architect. before you is a public initiated request for discretionarily view of building permit applications 2017 and 1023 -- >> can i interrupt. i need to make a disclosure before you continue with this item. >> sure. >> i'm sorry about that. i just wanted to disclose that the architect for this project, louis butler, is someone who i have retained to perform personal architecture services for my house. i do not believe that that relationship will have any impact on my ability to remain impartial as i hear this matter. >> very good. thank you. >> i do apologize. i had that note. >> i'm sorry about that. i want to disclose that the --

>> you need to mute someone's mic who is watching on a delayed broadcast, thank you. >> go ahead. >> thank you. >> the item before you is a public initiated request for a discretionary review of building permit application number 2017 and 2012.1990 to demolish an exiting three-storey single family residents with a detached garage and for the construction of a new three-storey over basement single family residents with a two-car garage at the basement level. the existing building is a resource as a contribute or to the eligibility historic district and it's removal was determined to not result in accumulative impact to the integrity of the district. i am joined my michelle taylor and anderson of our preservation staff to answer any follow-up questions regarding the analysis

of the the properties of 164 seacliff avenue a neighbor to the three main issues and the design is i am compatible with the design elements of the surrounding eligible seacliff district and it's out of scale with other buildings in the areas and three, impact light, privacy and views of the golden gate bridge and baker beach from adjacent properties. the proposed alternatives include respecting front set backs, respecting set backs for planning code section 133 for the sites at becks and 134 for the rear set backs. reduce expansion to the rear and incorporate traditional design competition and the elements. to date, the department has received one letter in

opposition to the project and six letters in support. considering the d.r. request this project was reviewed by the residential design advisory and the siding is consistent with the front, side and rear set backs and code comfy ploy ant witcode compliantand the three-f the street is consistent with other buildings on this block. the building massing and siding restains light and visual access to the common open space from adjacent properties and and the views are not protected by the department planning code and policies and lastly, the application sin intended to result in designs that are compatible with the patterns of the existing context not to imitator recreate previous

historical styles. as such, the massing composition materials preportion and details are modern and compatible fit with the family of other buildings in the surroundings. staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in and recommends not taking discretionary review and improving as proposed. i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> are you prepared to make your representation. >> d.r. requester. >> >> you may need to hit star 6. is the dr requesting for 178 seacliff on the call?

is the project sponsor for 178 seacliff on the call? >> yes. let's go ahead and go to the project sponsor's presentation and see if the discussion ary review can join us moment arly. i will let you know just as soon as your slides are pushed forward. and now it appears as they are, you will have five minutes, sir. >> i appreciate it. good evening, commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to address real time and i'm the owner of the to this discretionary review request. it's one of the most extraordinary sights in the world and it has been to be able to live in san francisco and when this lot became available it was clear. five years ago i worked and i want to create a home of modern

architecture for the same thing today modern. we have been through an extensive process and taking it from modern residential and we have always done an extensive mapping out of the residential community and looking into all the 300 houses. in relation to the historical aspect we identified four rooms out of 300 houses and it's during the after the period of the architect actual significance. and so why the neighborhood has historical value does have in the fact that the neighborhood has continued to involve and it is not static. the exhibits show.

>> if they fit well into the neighborhood and surrounding houses, the house design does not rival the historical houses on the street they live in a timely anesthetics and fading into the background. please show exhibit number 3. the major design print are proposed in die setback and they are achieved and it's a safe material that will be of the stone will be gray and it is with the neighborhood like colors. please show exhibit number four.

it's opportunity on sea cliff. this is why we have deliberately the side of the house to the property line creating a new unique public pedestrian view portal to the bay and to the marin. it is my hope that the public vow will become perhaps the first and most notably aspects of the architecture. continuing on the theme on transparency with the community that will be no fencing, no gates, no cars on the lot. part of the lot. i think it will be an unassaulted view in this corridor. i'm creating a opportunity in the basement with no formal garage in the hope that in the future, cars will be obsolete. in summary, we are very mindful that the seacliff community represents a important part of san francisco and we are committed to work hard with

refining the investment necessary resources to bring the execution and thank you. >> does that conclude the project sponsors presentation? >> sounds like it does. dr requester, are you on the line? >> dr requester, are you prepared to make your presentation? let's go ahead and go to public comment. you will be limited to two minutes. >> your conference is in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press one then zero.

you have five questions remaining. >> hi, think that rich people in seacliff do not deserve to knockdown perfectly good, service able homes so they can have a view corridor. this is the height of the the elitism. projects, whoever wants to build this home, i want to let you personally know i want to up zone your home so that we can build affordable housing instead. you don't need a new fancy home what you need is more equality, and to give equity to people who deserve it. i don't think you di deserve to have this exciting new architecture, modern architecture and i this is 100% ridiculous. if we're talking about racial

equity and social equity in one day and we're talking about knocking down an existing useable home and building a new one and the swerve is clear, that is dealing with and i rarely say this, this is view should be taken and leave the home as it is. come on. thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hello, this is mike chan i'm speaking as a board member of northern neighbors, district 2 housing and advocacy organization for livable, walkable neighborhoods. i think i'm speaking on this instance because of processing and i don't think the planning commission should get involved in disagreements between wealthy neighbors about whether a house is appropriate or not appropriate even though this is client for client and if we did

not allow these views we would not be out here talking at 9:40p.m. so i urge you to please disapprove me discretionary view you have four questions remaining. >> hi, commissioners. good evening. this is dale gordon. i am a resident of district 5 and a renter in the city and i can't decide whether to say i support or oppose this project. it's just stupid. why are we -- why do we have these arguments, just like last week whether one rich person and one mansion could have his roof deck that looked over one other rich person and their mansion. i don't get it. we spent hours at the beginning of this conversation and it was like yeah, back when it was light outside, talking about equity. the fact that planning commission spends their time makinmaking sure a rich neighbor

doesn't have to look at another rich neighbor because it's a slightly big house. maybe the planning commission should focus not building a a ma mansion but a 10-storey building that has seven-storeys with a view of the ocean but that would be apartment building and renting more people living in seacliff. they say i'm process gres i have, i'm part of liberal san francisco but i don't want poor people, i don't want apartment dwellers in my neighborhood. that's not equity. it's one thing when we hear from neighbors in soma like we did earlier today with their concerns about height limits, they're concerned about access to open space but it's another thing we have rich exclusive red line neighborhoods saying i don't want any housing in my neighborhood. that is not san francisco charter and it's not what we're doing here and we should up zone

the west side and up zone ceqa. thank you. >> you have three questions remaining. >> hi, my name is joel and i live in district 5 and i'm very sickened about these rich people that want to restore their house. they should not be allowed to knockdown an existing home to build another one. work with what you've got. it's funny how the rich people are all about making their houses look fancy and bigger but when it comes to affordable housing, they do wan don't wantn their neighborhood. how about we knock your house down and have affordable housing or market rate housing. it's stupid and i think it's dumb that these rich ass holes wants to review the house and i yield my time. >> you have two questions

remaining. i will ask members of the public please not use that kind of language, thank you, very much. >> go ahead, sir. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you. question commissioners. i request that the person who is supposed to be making the presentation is having technical difficulties getting into to speak. the dr requester, i want to make sure we don't default on this and if we could refer to the papers and we can review because they tried to call in but it's not successful thank you, very much. >> you have two questions remaining. >> commissioner and this is a

prime example and and and it's just really disheartening to me and where clearly and justice that now we're talking about and wealthy neighborhood have complex and it doesn't have any affordable housing in we're going to allow for this bigger home to be built and and preserve their privilege in this neighborhood and i just spoken about zoning and a lot of other people and this is like a prime example of where we really need to discuss what is going on and exclusionary zoning. just look at this project with the same level of equity and justice and what you are looking at large projects and soma and large projects in the mission

and in hub and look at with the same lens of equity when you lock at this project is going to reinforce the norm and we have been upholding as a city for decades and this is what causes this placement and this causes extreme economic inequity and please and applying the same lens with all projects with this one and apartment complex in the seacliff and not all of and thank you. >> you have two questions remaining. >> hello. >> your time is running, sir. >> >> can i speak now. >> your time is running.

>> ok, 275 seacliff. i experienced the 255 sea cliff tear down here which was the first demo three years ago and by the butler design and again, reviewing this design the commission could take a look at the plans because they showed this corridor and this is a huge highway going back to where the pool area is. it doesn't show anything with the driveway dropping into the third floor, basement floor for the cars so again, i don't like to see plans that are well designed and this is flawed and that's a change and also, there is elevation, things that should be looked at and they have a class rail up on top of the roof and it doesn't state where it's going to have a penthouse entry or an interior entry.

so, you know, there's details that are not there as they went through all the of the briefs on this listening in my computer so, let the real information on this house because you know, my experience with the butler design was he was terrible person to work with and i don't know about this architect that's taking it over from him.

>> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hello. i'm theodore randolph.

i'm a residence of the excelsior, and i'm noticing that folks have a particularly good reason to take discretionary review of this thing, but while we're looking at this property, it shows how our values, the zoning doesn't really reflect our values very well because we can only take zone -- rh-1 d can only take a single-family house to a.d.u.s. and it's good that it can take a.d.u.s, but with the demographic of the area, it's a lot better use to have duplexes, triplexes or quad plexes or even more. this lot is almost three times

as big as a typical lot out in the excelsior. if we had equal ownership or some sort of condo arrangement, then i think that type of ownership would be more attract tiattract -- attractive to people that could afford ceqa. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. we will try one more time to go to the d.r. requester. are you on-line, d.r. requester? we have been communicating with her via e-mail, trying to provide the appropriate access, and i'm not sure why she's having technical difficulties in joining us. d.r. requester, you've been

provided a link and the phone call. are you prepared to submit your testimony? okay. apparently not. alicia, i'm sorry. we have been communicating with you via e-mail. why don't we take -- >> jonas, can she call the public line? >> clerk: absolutely. any way she can get into the public hearing, we'll accept her testimony. >> can you provide her with that number in case she's watching. >> clerk: it will be streaming on sfgtv. >> okay. thanks. >> clerk: and if it's not, i'll give it to you right now. the number, alicia, i believe it is, is 888-273-3658.

enter access code 3107452, hit pound, then pound again, and then enter one, and then zero, and if chan -- >> hi, this is frederick knapp. can you hear me? >> clerk: oh, very good. you are part of the d.r. team. you have five minutes. >> okay. can you please put our third slide up? i'm a preservation architect here in san francisco, and i did the review for the d.r. requester, looking at the ceqa potential district under the national registerer criteria, california register criteria, secretary of the interior

standards, and ceqa. i can't speak to the legalities, but if you would go to the third slide, i'd like to point out some physical characteristics of the existing house on the subject property and compare them with the proposed design. the intent here is to give you specific physical qualities that contrast between existing building and the proposed building. first of all, there's an existing side set back on the west side that is lost in the proposed design. secondly, the front landscape existing is continuous with the district whereas the proposed has a retaining wall around a sunken front courtyard, which is kind of a private landscape. thirdly, the existing house is based in grade whereas before, the proposed one floats above

grade, according to the architect. like the other houses in ceqa, the existing has a complex form with a roof provide meeting the sky. the proposed is a pure geometric form. the existing front facade has a regular composition that is reads from floor to floor, where the new is a complex competition. the existing floor windows are punched openings in the wall plane, wood windows. the proposed are large aluminum frame windows, most of them set back from the wall frame. on the facade, you see water work bell courses, whereas the

proposed has sheer unarticulated wall planes. the present has a tripartite competition, and last, but not least, the existing is characterized by ornament even in this relatively simple house, and the proposed, being a modern design, is all about minimalism without ornament, and it makes it incompatible with the revival styles that complement the district. it makes it very much incompatible. thank you very much for your attention. >> clerk: thank you. does that conclude the d.r. requester's presentation? >> yes. if you could advance to the second slide and just read it, again, miss guera presents

legal issues which are beyond my expertise. >> clerk: okay. very good. i will assume, then, that concludes the d.r. requester's presentation. we will go to the project sponsor for rebuttal. you'll have two minutes. project sponsor? project sponsor, are you forfeiting your rebuttal? >> yes. no further comments for now. i think we have defined all necessary information. >> clerk: excellent. thank you. d.r. requester, you have a two

minute rebuttal. >> hello, can you hear me? >> this is kristina daikus. i'm here to speak in rebuttal on behalf of the project sponsor. page and turnbull prepared the report for this project. the impact under ceqa is that a project would render the entire historic district inform longer eligible for listing in the california register. the boundaries of the ceqa historic district are a visible layer on the planning department's historic resource map. we identified that there are approximately 300 individual properties within the boundary. based on an identified period of significance of 1913 to 1935, there are approximately 230 properties within the boundaries that were built during that time period and are

considered potential district contributors. visual inspection of the residences throughout the district suggest that the majority of age eligible buildings as well as the district's design landscape retain good overall integrity and continue to convey the district's significance. thus, the loss of one contributing building will not meet the threshold of cumulative impact which would render the historic district ineligible for listing in the register. the loss of one home also does not meet the threshold for impact. so to conclude, page and turnbull wholly supports the planning department in their evaluation response. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes your time. is the d.r. requester prepared to submit a rebuttal? okay, commissioners, that's it. the matter is now before you.

>> president koppel: thanks again for everyone and their patience. again, i'm going with staff's recommendation and would entertain a motion. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: thank you to staff. it's a very thorough analysis. very much appreciate also getting a better overview of the history of the district. i agree with staff's findings. i would suggest that we do not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> clerk: is that a motion, commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: yes, it is. >> clerk: thank you. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: seeing no further comment, commissioners, there's a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion --

[roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and we have approached the final item on your agenda today, commissioners. case -- item number 20, case 2020-001090 drp at 3726 ortega street. this is a discretionary review. staff, are you prepared to present? >> i am, thank you. good evening, president koppel, commissioners. david winslow again, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building application

2018.1220.0144 to legalize a rear horizontal expansion completed without the benefit of a building permission. the expansion was a horizontal expansion at the rear. the building will extend further than any other further on the block. a proposed alternative is to have a site set back. to date, this project has received six letters in opposition and no letters in support. the proposed work to expansion the addition does not expand the building foot print or massing. the legalization of the dwelling unit improves the safety and quality of the existing accessory dwelling unit.

the d.r. requester has an existing sun shade that extends to virtually the same depth as the subject property, and the rear yards all face south, enabling ample sun access through most of the day. there are, staff finds that there are no extraordinary circumstances in this proposal and recommend denying d.r. that's my presentation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is the d.r. ready to make their presentation. you may need to hit star-six to unmute your telephone. >> am i on. >> clerk: you are on, and it does appear that your presentation -- although it looks like your presentation, although it's just an e-mail, will have four minutes. >> and i believe that the slide presentation has been set up for me. >> jonas, i have the most

up-to-date presentation for the d.r. requester, if you'd like me to share it. >> clerk: well, that would have been good to have been known in advance, mr. winslow, but yes, why don't you go ahead and share that, and mr. d.r. requester, if you could hold on until mr. winslow shares his screen, we will start your time. >> okay. it's up. can you see it? >> can i start it with slide 2? >> sure. >> clerk: let's see if mr. winslow -- there you go, sir. your time is running, you have four minutes. >> good evening, commissioner, and thank you for your time. my name is jordan kwan. i'm here to oppose the rear extension portion of the project. as you can see, without the extension, there's plenty of light, and it's open to my yard. if the extension is to be

allowed, it will severely affect the amount of light and the usage on our yard. can you please go to slide 1. with the simulated extension shown, the amount of light to my planning area will be very limited. in addition, the extension bedroom is very close by. it's a privacy concern. i believe this extension is not in line with the design guidelines which normally have a set back, and it's not compatible with the neighborhood because there is no legal living extension structure on this side. i do have a porch, but the porch is just very open, as you can see. can you go to slide three, please. all the neighbor -- attending neighbors during the

neighborhood meeting, they have opposed and signed an extension letter. i also want to point out, in the past 25-plus years, the owner has built this illegal structure extension without consulting us, hiding the fact that it is not legal and suggests everything was done right. the fact is it is not. can you go to slide 4? this construction was inferior and cheap material. as a result, there were health and safety issues, with water damage on the siding, water leak with wood rot and mildews. also, secondhand smoke from the window next to us. we have suffered with this for 25 years. to make matters worse, the contractor they hired has

seriously damaged my foundation without informing us. they dug a bunch of holes underneath our home just to make it easier for them, and this is unacceptable to me. luckily, it was discovered by city inspector carl weaver. go to slide 7. you can see the violation. and also slide 8, you can see the damage they've done to my house. i tried to compromise. i proposed a three-foot set back, which is reasonable and is common of this kind of extension. it will address many of my concerns, and it is a win-win for both of us. and i'd also like to point out that the owner didn't live there, so he he doesn't really need the extension. his intention was to sell the house afterward. now my wife is a stroke eight

years ago. she is disabled with limited mobility. she can't travel far. her few hobbies, one of them is gardening and enjoying a book in the yard. the proposed extension will affect the liveability of our yard. please propose a set back so we can all live comfortably. thank you. hello? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you sir. you've got ten seconds. that's your time, sir. is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation?

project sponsor? >> yes, good evening. commissioners. my name is veronica welch. i'm with romano welch architects. i'm here to ask you to not take d.r. and approve the project. clerk clai>> clerk: veronica, to ask you to delay your presentation until your slides are up. there is a 30-second delay, and i would ask you to speak to the slides and direct staff. your time is running. you have four minutes. i'm just looking at the presentation -- >> clerk: don't wait. i just told you there's a 30-second delay. the time is running. >> i see. so as i -- the whole -- how

this project started was because the existing -- [inaudible] >> -- has these two units. one unit is the upper unit, and the bottom unit, an illegal unit. the whole motion started by a complaint by the resident with regards to mildew. when the building inspector came to the site, he discovered an illegal unit, and a violation was issued to the owner. if we can go to slide number 2, and this is the review and a letter of response. so i think it's clear that we've been communicating with the d.p.r. request, which mr. kwan -- and we clarified with him that the project was in response to a citation that was issued to legalize the existing

unit that has been in place for over 35 years, and this thing will now have a program in which we'll use the legalization ordinance for 4314. we are not changing the envelope. we're allowing it existing to remain. we're just upgrading finishes -- [inaudible] >> if we go to slide number 3, please, one of the -- [inaudible] >> -- that we had on this from the assigned planner was there was an over sight to where he forgot to issue notice to all the neighbors, and so this created a lot of confusion because there was a -- he

started construction without knowing that the notice had not been properly addressed, and so that's when all the complaints came, and the construction site was shutdown. if we go to slide number 5, please -- and i know it's too big, but i just wanted to point out we got our permit, and i highlighted all the signatures where we can clearly show it was approved by the planning department and also building and fire. we can move to slide number 6. i would want to address the comments of mr. kwan where he mentioned that we underminded his foundation. this is the sanborn's map, and i highlighted against 3627.

mr. kwan's is 3621. this is the existing shape of the envelope. most of these units have been in-filled. that -- [inaudible] >> -- and if we can just go to the last image, you can clearly see our property and the property of mr. kwan and how the garden that he's mentioning is almost at the same distance of the existing extension. >> clerk: thank you. does that conclude your presentation? >> yes, because i believe my time -- i could hear a bell. >> clerk: you have -- >> is that correct? >> clerk: yes, your time is up. i appreciate that.

>> clerk okay. that was the -- sorry. i'm a little lost. are we supposed to go to public comment now? >> commissioner fung: public comment. >> clerk: very good. thank you. i appreciate that. members of the public -- >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one and then zero. >> clerk: okay. now is your opportunity to get into the queue. members of the public, you will have two minutes. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: fantastic, commissioners. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. d.r. requester, are you prepared to submit your rebuttal? >> hello? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. okay. they say this is the same footprint as before for 25

years. i say i have suffered this for 25 years already. let's not do another 25 years. i'm willing to compromise. this three-foot set back, which will address a lot of my concerns, including light privacy, health and safety issues. most construction of these nature, they have three-foot set back. the owner doesn't live there, and he don't need the extra space. the only person affected by this will be us. we're living here for 25 years, and we will continue to live there another 25 years. commissioners, please recommend a three-foot set back. the decision you make will affect us for the next 25 years and to come. thank you.

>> clerk: d.r. requester, are you done? you've got some time. >> i'm done. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. project sponsor? [inaudible] >> -- because i do want to address mr. kwan's comments. >> clerk: project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. your clock is running. >> right. i was just asking if we could show the last slide that i had. my comment was in regards to light, the lot faced almost south, so there's actually no impact from the extension. if regards to privacy, we already have a --

[inaudible] >> -- that is actually already 7 feet high. mr. kwan's property is 3 feet over the existing property of mr. yu, meaning that their top of lot is 3 feet higher than our site. and in regards to safety, we're also doing a full remodel, which is makes us -- [inaudible] >> -- and the whole bottom unit is going to be fire rated, and it's going to have fire sprinklers, so this will improve the safety of that area. in addition, we will be adding another unit to housing area which is -- [inaudible] >> -- so we will be adding an affordable unit to be placed in the market. and i just wanted to show the

last slide because it shows that our top of roofage is in line -- [inaudible] >> and i end my rebuttal. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, that ends the public comment portion of this hearing. >> president koppel: jonas, tonight, you have won a special place in my heart, and i personally want to thank you for all the talking and time keeping that you've had to do today. i'm personally leaning toward staff's recommendation on this one. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i'm in support of staff's recommendations. i do not see anything exceptional or extraordinary

except gaining an a.d.u., and i'm in full support. >> second. >> clerk: seeing no further deliberations, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve with staff's modifications. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. i would like to congratulate you on our marathon hearing for 2020 in these remote settings. i appreciate your patience. i'm going to go get some ice cream. >> vice president moore: let's go, please. >> me, too.

>> clerk: and we're adjourned.

>> the hon. london breed: good morning, everyone, and thank you so much for joining us. as civic demonstrations continue around the world, we are emboldened by the protests and the calls for action to address the racial injustices and inequities in policing and law enforcement. these protests come at a time when our communities have been struggling even more because of the coronavirus. for too long, black people have been subjected to abuse