Experience, i live off king street. People coming off of 280. Its the potential setup, and the front enter rabs to my building and all the other ones are on king street, and its a good thing because it puts people on the street. I want to see this then reorganized to have at least one entrance it doesnt have to be the main entrance things, but it has to be some entrance on vanness, and so i would say those are the things that i would like to see different about this project other than do the state density bonus. Commissioner moore. Director, my understanding is if you have an understand on vanness, your front door has to be on vanness. That is a requirement that is a requirement. The post office will not accept a building that has a vanness address and they have to deliver to some other obscure whatever there is a big fight on buildings nc 3, who for whatever reason didnt want to be off Market Street, but chose to have their address one off whatever. I very vividly remember the post office does not allow an entrance to be other than on the street to which a building is named. Im not aware of that requirement, commissioner. There may well be. Im not aware of it. You can ive mentioned that on other projects and people kind of thought about it, but i think its maybe time to investigate that. My understanding is that you cannot have a a building entrance your minute entrance other than on the street to which the address is given, and this is a vanness property. Youre speaking about a Postal Service requirement as opposed to a city requirement. I think its a city requirement support the postal requirement. You cannot just reorient your building other than what its basically saying on the property map is my understanding. Im not familiar with that, but we can you can change this street to a union street address. You cannot just change it like that. Yeah, you can. If your mail comes to 2465 vanness, the entrance to your building has to be on that property. I think you can change this to a you can change this to a union street address. You can definitely change the address to union street. Theres no question about that, what im not familiar with is the entrance beyond the address street. Thats something we might need to ask the city attorney. Its interesting because these things come with a pretty high price tag. Just call back the unit size. I think i like them, too. We dont see a lot of larger two and three unit bedrooms like these. We often complain that were jamming two bedrooms into a 750 square foot unit, so im so im glad to see kind of larger two and three bedrooms here. I dont know if thats signed the way you wanted or just kind of a design of the density rules. You know, that kind of question about a vanness entry or union street, there is the two retail entries on on vanness with, you know, retail glazing through throughout that side. Commissioner koppel. Yeah, echoing commissioner richards comments, id feel better if the enter rabs was on vanness, and id at least like to see another option explored with a density bonus that would give you a couple of extra floors which would allow you to have the affordable onsite, and also some type of earl change on the external of the building to differentiate it from the building. Can i say a few things . Sure. Okay. So ill start with the material because i am also the architect for the other building so i know the buildings pretty well. The buildings are pretty. The other billion, were using a masonry. This is a precast system that were using on this building. The one element is similar is the coloration of the metal that were using on this building is similar but not identical. I also want to say that as an a architect, we see a lot of buildings that look exactly the same. This building does not lookt exactly the same from the other building. It is different. If youll go up and down vanness, youll see some of the buildings that were built in the 30s that look all the same. Cant tell one from the other. With respect to the entries on vanness, the problem with that is we, from an ada standpoint, union street is flat. It works extremely well. People come off the bus, they can go shopping, they can go right in. Its all level. One of the things we would like to recommend, we had two units on the far end of union street on vanness that we could actually add stoops to and create two entrances into those units, then, well have two units that enter off of vanness, well have retail that enters off of vanness, and the main entrance off of union street where we have the ability to have the appropriate sized lobby. Its all level. Its so much more accessible than the 5. 5 that we have on vanness. Its a very difficult percentage to work with from a level standpoint. Also, one of the requirements that we have is that we need 14 feet clear for that area for those lobbies. Thats a requirement, so weve almost created like a 16 foot high lobby space on union street in order to work with the grade, so i do really feel that union street is the appropriate place to have the front door, the main front door. But we could add those stoops along vanness street. Thanks. Commissioner richards. Mr. Mcdonald, just i heard every commissioner up here mention density. If you could please just give us some comments, maybe answer the questions. So to do a state density bonus or home sf, what would it entail to do the existing all over . Right. You have stuff you have a lot already here. You know, im a layperson, and commissioner moores going to which h wince when i say this. Just put a couple of floors on top. Really simple. What would additional floors entail in terms of timeline cost . So it would be a tremendous expense. It would also be tremendous in terms of time expense, because we have unlike a lot of developers who will right lane a schematic plan, get approvals and just potentially sell the site. Thats not our intention. Our intention is to build these development. We have almost 100 construction drawings, and so we are intending on building the project, so weve spent literally millions of dollars on this design process, and so if we were to even just add a floor, thats going to mean redrawing, you know, a very significant portion of the building because weve taken it so far, and so theres a tremendous expense, even if its just adding a floor. In terms of the community, again, when we talked with supervisor farrells office, it seemed like adding height in this location was going to be very problematic, so Community Outreach kind of getting the support that we need, it was very difficult just getting support for a six Story Building at this location, so getting a higher building at this location, we were viezed was going to be very difficult. Over the course of a year what weve seen is Construction Costs have gone up 25 over the last year, and so Construction Costs could escalate making the project that much more uneconomical and unviable, so we want to move forward with that project because were almost finished with the drawings. We could, upon entitlement move right into building permits, and we wouldnt have to be concerned about Construction Cost escalation whereas if we, you know, have additional year, there would be a lot of uncertainty, so theres a lot of issues around doing that. And if i may, just so you know, wed have to restart the ceqa classes. Yes. There would be a whole new ceqa analysis. I think one of the questions that we should be asking in terms of getting buildings built, is do you have schematics. Commissioner johnson. Thank you. Sorry. I turned my mic off. Thank you. Commissioner richards sort of had you address i wanted some more details on density is the question we had, again. Its a choice for you to make as a developer. Its your choice and youre okay. Its okay. You can sit down, thank you. I think the only thing i would say is the suggestion to have stoops opening onto vanness is definitely acceptable to me. I think we may have made it sound unclear if there is an exit, its more like a fire exit for the building onto vanness, so its not like there are no doors into the building. Its just that you want to create some activity where its you know, at least the appearance, even if not at 2 00 in the morning, its not happening, that people are coming and going. The retail spaces are there. Theyre probably going to be empty for some time. Its going to take some time to get that up and going, and you want pedestrians traffic coming in from both streets. And i would also add the loading zone are on union street, so thats where people are going to be taking their packages or getting picked up. I think that main entrance should be there, but you also need to create the need for that pedestrian on vanness so you have people coming and going not just for the retail but also into and out of the building, and i think the stoops helps with that. Commissioner moore . Could you briefly talk about what ideas you have about retail . You heard us earlier that were very concerned about too many good spaces in approximate well designed buildings staying empty, and this particular corner would be rather deplorable if it could not delivery tail, particularly going south. Retail on that side of the street has always been problematic for the last 30 years. Its east facing side. Its mostly in shadow in the afternoon, and theres things that are going in and out, but it never really fully takes off. What are your thoughts here. Yeah. Thank you for the question. Retail is very important for us. We see it as an amenity for us. Our buildings arent 100 floor highrises with gyms and movie rooms and stuff like that. We treat the retail as our amenity. At our other buildings, it was a way for us to create community, and so we were very, very careful about selecting the right restaurants and the right retailers, and those retail spaces filled up long before our buildings were completed because people were clamorring to get into them because we were doing retail and marketing of the retail spaces. It really has served well. We have local, unique, and its additive. I think, however, there are a variety of different retail sources, neighborhood serving bank, for example, might be very workable here, and in fact we have been approached by a neighbor of retailers like this already, so we could literally sign a lease today, so theres really no concern of mine that were going to go kind of empty in that space. Its really a question of who will it be . Will it be a restaurant, will it be a retailer, will it be a bampg, will it be neighborhood serving, and were excited for this fit not only for the project but for the neighborhood. Your success in hayes valley is undisputed, your buildings greatly contribute to the neighborhood and a variety of other eclectic things. However, this is a very, very different setting. Youre right. And since this commission is in no position to dictate what you put in there, i would actually think as a first reaction that a bank, a Real Estate Office or a smaller medical thing would be exactly the opposite of what we would want here. Okay. Because it would have just the same deadening and dead effect, the unsuccessful retail spaces which are on that side of the street werent able to deliver, so im not quite sure if this wouldnt be the time for the Planning Commission, with the help of planning, to start really look at how insistence of our ground floor retail really is rather than extending a couple of walk uptown house units into these spaces. I would rather prefer to see residential in this part of vanness, because its gravitating towards that section. But i would rather see additional ground floor units in some of the retail space and only something which would stand empty or let only banks or Real Estate Office come in as next use. Commissioner, i think one of the things to consider and i dont disagree that we have to look carefully at all our retail. There actually isnt a requirement here for retail. The one particular difference on this project was this was on the corner of union street, and this is kind of the beginning of the retail on union, so that does suggest there would be more pedestrian activity than there would be on another section of vanness that doesnt have a strong connection to a strong retail street. Thats the difference from other sites on vanness. Well, one thing, its a corner space itself the vanness corner with union is definitely kind of the lantern where you want retails, animated retails, not a bench bank, but if you go further up on vanness, there is additional retail space which could perhaps become drawing units, additional ground floor units with a stoop, which may be, from our perspective, mor more animating and more residential than a retail space which would never succeed. Are you making that a requirement . No. I mean, i agree with your requirement. I think a bank tends to deaden the space on vanness. We cant require a bank i mean, a nonbank use. I think retail on both sides of this building is important, because youve got vanness which has larger scale retail and needs more activation. In those two spots you do have housing, i think retails more active than a stoop, and it is although it gets spotty on union street, theres that black horse bar, youre starting to get an intro into the union Street Retail corridor, so i think its a its the right mix here, and i would take the addition of the stoops on vanness. Commissioner richards . So seeing nobody else on the role and trying to get mr. Mcdonald to increase density, but we understand where youre at on this project, and you want to get something built, ill make a motion to approve this project with stoops on vanness with with the additional parking however, id like three spaces to be car share for their units that dont have any parking, and im open to other amendments. Ill second that. Commissioner moore. Id like to ask, do you see the possibility of adding additional ground floor united on the upper part of vanness . No, i dont. I think when you look at the plan, its 2900 square feet of retail, so were its a great restaurant size, and if you look at the plan itself, its 165 feet long, and i believe about onethird of that is the two apartments and the egress, so its only two thirds of that entire length that were talking about. Plus, with that slope of 5 , it becomes very difficult. So we have to go down into the space, so it would be very difficult to get that Additional Units in there. And i think once you make the retail space too small, then, youre going to limit yourself to the capacity that these guys have done in the past where theyve been able to bring on some great restaurants, so i think 2900 is exactly what we need for the kitchen, for some seating areas, and so on. Theres been a motion and a second. Just for the record, they are at their maximum density with the 41 units. They could do the density bonus. Correct. Commissioners but theyd need to start from scratch. Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this motion with conditions as amended to include stoops on vanness and three car share spaces. [ roll call. ] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes 42 with commissioners koppel and moore voting against. Close the public hearing on the vanness and im inclined to grant the variance. Well take it under advisement. Press hillis. Yeah. I have a question. I made a very important comment. Would the applicants stay in the room for a moment . I made a very important comment about the building facade being held back on the roof deck. I think it was a very unfortunate building expression, and nobody ever responded to that. You mean that the glass i am generally supportive of those, but i think where it is, it adds some interest to the frant facade. I thi front facade. I just think it the height here is not a problem. Were actually taking it asking them to increase the height, so i dont think that gives you to me, i didnt think i was fine. I was just asking. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, itll place us on items 28 a, b, and c, for ite 799 cost re, and 3 80 through 38781st street, a conditional use authorization variances, and a discretionary review, commissioners, this is an odd situation where weve actually accepted a discretionary review on a project that includes a conditional use authorization because their conditional use request is for the building or structure at the front of the property, and the discretionary review is for on a building at the back of the property. And so because this is a rare occurrence, i should have run this by you prior to the hearing, and i apologize, but how would you like that to occur because generally, it would be staffed, project sponsor, and then Public Comment for the conditional use authorization, but theres also a discretionary review associated with this project. And how many theres one discretionary review filer . Yes. All right. So lets do lets do staff, project sponsor ten minutes, the discretionary review filer, five minutes, and then, well just take Public Comment for and against the project. Very good. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. Nancy tran. Planning department staff. The items before you are a conditional use authorization and request for 7 9 castro street. In addition the project requests variances from the Zoning Administrator to construct additions from the required front and rear yards. The subject property is nonconforming with respect to density as it is located with the rh2 district and prept be presently contains two units. Theres no existing off street parking. The proposal is to demolish the mixed use structure presently used as an office. The project will maintain three units and introduce an accessory dwelling unit and existing two unit on the property under a separate building permit. The subject property is located on the Northeast Corner of castro and 21st street, in a neighborhood that consists of residential singlefamily, dwrelgs. [ inaudible ] the department received one letter in support and five letters opposing the project. Copies are available for the commission. The Department Recommends not taking dr and approving the conditional use authorization for the following reasons the project will provide a three bedroom family sized unit that is of compatible mass and scale with the neighborhood and consistent with the residential Design Guidelines. The project will result in a net gain of one unit through the proposed accessory dwelling unit in the building adjacent onsite. This edu would add to the Housing Demand throughout the city. No additional tenants will be displaced as a result of this project. Given the scale of the project, there will be no Significant Impact on existing capacitor local street system or meaning. This concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. All right. Thank you. Project sponsor. Good evening, tom tenny, on behalf of junius and rose. Id like to start by explaining a little bit of the history and how we got to the project thats before you this evening, in particular, the proposed edu. The project started as a proposed singlefamily home for hassafs family. He has made many many changes to the project, all to address his neighborhood and staff concern did see. Well describe those in our presentation. The project was ready to come to the Commission Two years ago. At the last minute, the dr requester somehow produced a 3r report for the 799 castro building, even though a 3r report can only be obtained by a property owner, and the report concluded that a dwelling existed at the 799 castro building. Prior to that no 3r report had been issued for the building because it had no residential use. Dbi investigated and concluded that while a dwelling unit existed at the property many decades prior, the unit had been removed in the 1980s pursuant to a building permit. We ended up in a dispute headed to the board of appeals rather than a Planning Commission hearing. In an attempt to reach a resolution with the dr requester, and knowing the citys pressing need for rent controls residential units, hudsef came up with the idea of replacing it with an adu in the existing unit at the rear of the property. It comes to you as a singlefamily home, replacing office use at 799 castro, and a rent controlled adu added to the building. As for the singlefamily home, we suggest that it is reasonably sized at 3150 square feet. There are at least 13 homes that side within two blocks of the property. Concerns have been raised about the over yaul lot coverage, but this kind of lot komplg as proposed, with a 10 foot gap between the two buildings is the norm for corner lots in this neighborhood. Were increasing the distance between the buildings from 8. 5 feet to 10 feet. Finally, over 25 neighbors have supported the project in writing, signing a petition we submitted to you. Hadsaf and his team made the effort to knock on over 90 doors in the neighborhood, an additional 40 or so neighbors said they were not opposed to the project. The question before this commission is whether this project is necessary and desirable for the neighborhood. This is an under utilized opportunity site with a noncomplying office use in a one Story Building in a neighborhood of multiStory Buildings. We submit that the replacement of the noncomplying office use with two residential units, one family sized, and one a rent controlled adu is indeed necessary and desirable for the neighborhood. I understand the dr requester may be concerned about Property Values as he should. His values might belower in the shortterm with construction, but in the longterm, everyones Property Values in the neighborhood will be enhanced by this significant property improvement. Thats just common sense. With that, i will turn to our architect who will discuss project size in more detail. Commissioners, my name is ahmad mohazed, and weve been the project architect in the last seven years. To put this in context, my daughter and amhatefs daughter were in middle school together, and my daughter is now in graduate school. When i received this project to work on, i got the previous architects design. One with a peaked roof and one with a flat roof, and mimicking the peaked roof, one was mimicking the houses on the street. There were issues with the Planning Department accepting the design and the nextdoor neighbor who had a series of needs. I thought it would be an easy matter of enhancing the designs with the neighbor and meeting with the city and moving on. Well, its taken seven years to get to this point. To protection of the Property Line window, to construction noise and the desire not to have construction next door at all. Apart from the last, we worked hard to give them something that would please. We removed the penthouse, we removed the elevator from the Property Line. We moved and configured the house that the window was cleared. We worked so hard that the Planning Department director sent us a letter thanking us indicating that we met all of their requirements. We came up with a plan that the Planning Team could approve. Our final plan was achieved in the komps room in the Planning Department where we made the fine tweaks on the design. Youll see on the screen the existing building. Its no architectural gem. It ignores the prominence of the corner and subdues it with an unfenestrated cheaply clad building. Why is the facade of our new building modern, you might ask . Because the residential guidelines call for a following of todays material. The buildings articulated quite well because it should be because the rdg calls for well articulated facades to tie in with its neighbors. Originally we had planned to subdivide the rather property, and that request has been removed, leading to the variance request for the rear yard. I have one more photo here that shows the line of the 40 foot height limit, and it shows that it goes down the hill and it ties back to the to the row the houses that go down the hill. Id like to, with that, turn this over to my client, and im available to answer any questions. Hi. My name is hadsef maogami, and im the owner of the project. Were finally getting to a point where were coming to the solution of the proposal of building a house on this it was supposed to be for me eight years ago, but here we are. So weve worked hard during this eight years to meet with the neighbors, work with the Planning Department, work with dbi to get this project that has a chance of approval. So i thank you for your time, and aida, who was helping me with the neighborhood reach out, shes going to speak shortly here. Hi. My name is aida jones, and i helped with neighborhood outreach. 200 fliers were distributed, and we spoke with 55 neighbors, 25 whom signed in support of the project. The outreach was cut short when one canvasser encountered a woman standing in the middle of the sidewalk, angrily saying, i am going to report you to the authorities for falsifying information. I will follow you everywhere and tell them about your lies. In his words, he felt intimidated and concerned for his safety, so he is very generous and stopped all the canvassing. Then, just a few days ago, a neighbor who is supposed to be here in support of the project sent a note that said these people seem intense, and i have to live with them. We see each other all the time, and im really nervous to speak in the room with them. I think i want to let my signature on your form be enough as not to foster any more ill will than necessary. We feel this project has been has had significant support and has been the subject of a lot of miss information. Thank you for your time. We appreciate it. Since we have 35 more seconds, i wanted to say that the adu that we that we that we have planned was planned to echo what what i consider the imaginary unit that was in the Grocery Store. The Grocery Store was the original tenant in the small building that were planning on altering. We measured the portion that that appeared to be that appeared to fit the bill, and we have relocated it to the building adjacent, and given it the real start us tus of a residential unit. Thank you. Thank you. So well hear next from the dr requester. Before we start the clock, can i just ask procedurally, since these are two separate matters, is it all right if we let the dr and variance and our time, and well speak as members of the public on the cus, since were not involved in that. Yes. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is denise ledbetter, and im the immediate neighbor at 21 castro street. We have 3 people would have signed petitions against this. I have to tell you the neighborhood is very upset about this for three particular reasons. The code does not allow the development, and theyve had to twist the rules to get here. Its way out of character with the historical neighborhood, and the variance is so scale that its going to affect the neighbors, and im going to turn it over to the architect. The developments bulky volume intensified by the variances create serious impacts on 789 castro street. The and theyre significantly out of character with Neighborhood Development patterns regarding light and air. The master bedroom suite for 789 benefits from air flow and day long sunshine streaming through south facing windows which are located above the adjacent buildings. Heres a picture of the views. The proposed project will severely block all but Early Morning light, especially dark in the winter months. The variance intensifies these effect. These same windows afford outlooks across 21st street, and this is up castro street. Due to the boxiness and overall sides of the variances being considered, only a small portion of the desired view will remain. The views of castro street will be completely blocked. Heres the views, currently, the view angles. The window were talking about, by the way, is right here, and you can see that the development is pretty well blocking that window entirely. Regarding privacy, you can also see how close the decks are to the to the bedroom window and the master suite. Currently, theyre isolated, and the bed in the master suite have a fair amount of privacy. The decks are going to be located less than 5 feet away from a bedroom window, so theyre going to be really close, and i dont think a planter box is going to increase the privacy. We looked at the size of the development, analyzing 97 surrounding lots, including eight corner lots for f. A. R. The proposed project f. A. R. Contains 2. 6 times the average of the neighborhood, and its very intense. The average building air is 2300 square freet, the total for this project is 5600 square feet. Thats 2. 4 times the average, so regarding the roof decks, wed analyzed and look at how many gable structures are in this image. Over 200 lots, and couldnt find one roof deck. In conclusion, the project is out of place, over developed, way too much building area for the lot, and directly impacts light, area, views, and privacy of the Family Living at 789 castro and the surrounding homes. The variances only serve to intensify this intrusion. Thank you. The dr was on the unit, right . I mean, so you want to talk about i thought you wanted to talk about the unit. Were doing our best with cut time. Okay. You know, wed love to have more time, but were trying to do our best. Right, right. We have some packets as welling for you, jonas is not here. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Larry Mansbach chl ive been asked by the dr to determine real estate impact on the real estate value actually, decline in value on 789 castro street in the event that 799 castro street proposed residence is constructed along with the requested variances. By way of background ive spent decades in the real estate profession, Real Estate Appraisal profession in San Francisco. Before then, i worked for the San FranciscoPlanning Department, so im a former employee. I prepared a written document here. I conducted Real Estate Market research in noe. I looked at the subject property, taking into account the loss of privacy, views, air, and light, and the conclusion of my analysis is that this proposed project will have a negative impact on the Property Value of the dr requester, 350,000. Thank you, sir. Your time is up. All right. So well open it up for Public Comment on this matter. So it would be helpful if folks just lineup on the screen side of the room, and youre welcome to speak in any order. You know, its all together. Both. [ inaudible ] yes, were taking them together. Good evening, commissioners. My name is peter overstreet. I am a coowner of the residence of 783 and 781 castro street. Ive been living there for about 12 years. My wife has been living there since the 1980s, and it has been in her family since the 1930s, so we are longstanding residents. Although my wife and i as owners are not wholly opposed to the development of 78 castro street, i sympathize with the desire to achieve a return on their investment, but not at the expense or lack of concern for neighboring properties. As the currently planned project still shows the potential for, even after numerous revisions as has been previously stated by the owner. The main concerns include an impact in Property Value, a design that is in extreme contrast to surrounding structures and character. Increase population by the addition of this units and also the Square Footage of this. Including an addition possibly to necessary machinery to accommodate the proposed elevator within the structure. We feel that the proposed development, my wife and i feel that the proposed development currently poses a detriment to Property Value, and should be revised heavily before being approved. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is ben fong torres. So this year marked the 50th anniversary of the summer of love here in San Francisco. Also, the 50th anniversary of Rolling Stone magazine, which started in this city, and i was an editor. Now i d i love this city, and i diane and i, we both attended sf state in the 1960s. On our trips around town, we take note of the condos and apartment buildings sprouting all along Market Street, and the unending construction including down the block from where diane, a career Civil Servant in the department now marks on vanness. A change is a part of life, but we cant help from have mixed feelings when we see this. Its come to our neighborhood, noe valley, and its kittycorner from our home. We have attended meetings with neighbors, and i was asked to write a note to the Planning Commission. I did, and it goes Something Like this. Along with many neighbors, we are upset about the developers disregard for our historic neighborhood, the proposed project at 7 9 is massive. Out of character with our neighborhood in size and style, and it will have detrimental impacts on nearby properties. This intersection of castro and 21st is seen by everyone who travels along castro, and it will serve to show visitors, as well as residents, what is happening to our neighborhoods, and not in a good way. The developer has acknowledged that the project is not code compliant but still seeks variances to turn a two Story Building no a four story behemoth with a party deck on the top. It will tower over neighboring homes, blocking light and air. The developers also seek conditional use authorization to demolish an existing rent controlled unit in favor of the large singlefamily house and replace it with an adu in another building. We accept that a new property may be built, but we hope that it is with no variances, that its sies and design are reconsidered, and that we be included in the process. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, commissioners. My name is peter subert, and i live at 801 castro, so directly kroot from this proposal. Across the street from this proposal. I attempted to sent copies of this on tuesday. My comments are in those. So theres just a few points i want to make. We do feel that this is grossly oversized. My numbers just niggling around was that it was ae just a 60 average of a noe Valley Family house, and its being put into a space that has a lot of challenges on its own that make it move forward and then its this rectangular behemoth structure. Its like sitting behind a refrigerator. It is block a lot of the views. From our house in particular, we can see out to Roosevelt Hill in our version of the painted ladies down castro street, and those would be completely blocked. And then, i dont know what the rationale for granting variances is. I was reading something that says theres a practical and unnecessary hardship, and it seems like all this is just to make a larger unit to the advantage of a single developer, and thats going to be to the detriment of the appearance of the neighborhood and everybody else whos going to have to live with this structure long after its flipped, so i thank you for your attention. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Zm good evening. My name is kimberly higgins. I live at 801 castro. The structure i want to say, first of all, when they proposed to building this plan nine years ago, we were for it, and i personally feel that everybody should be able to develop im not proposing that they dont. But when they came back to us with this new structure, it was very overwhelming to the neighborhood, and one of the issues that i have, the structure is inconsistent with the neighborhood, and in our opinion, oversized for the lot. Well, the roof line was presented as being consistent with the pitch of the street, which is true for only the center point of the top level. The proposal is not consistent with the pitch roof downhill for several reasons. A, the building would be rectangular flat roofed structure, blocking more of our view than a pitch. B, the footprint encroaches further out towards the street than pushing in to the view. C, the proposed roof top deck would add further to the height of the neighborhood view, obstructing of the building. After living in the neighborhood for 20 years, we can assure you that the deck would be would need substantial wind screening to be practical, and its unclear what sort of thing would be installed on top on the roof. But that height would easily add another 8 feet to the sight Line Construction closer to a five story rectangular building set far excuse me set more forward in the street, a building of 40 feet at a peak in line with the set back of the other structure on castro. My other concern is the recoshet of the noises privacy into our home. We would lose all privacy into our home. Three, the sponsor developer told us at our last gathering that the City Planners wouldnt let them make any changes to the proposed roof line, which i thought was kind of peculiar. And then lastly, this project is not about affordable housing, but its the case of a hit and run which benefits a single developer to the detrimental of this neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is galenleyoung. I object to this proposal because for one thing, it is in violation of the rh2 zoning district. Its already in violation, and to add insult to injury, to add more density, instead of just having two units or even the existing three units, to go up to four would harm our Property Values and create a denser corner and neighborhood. Not only is 21st street a traffic hazard, it is a pedestrian hazard. There is no four way stop sign at castro street. It is already a a considered shortcut for uber and lyft and other Network Transportation company drivers, in addition to taxi cab drivers, so this will add to the density and take away from the nature of the neighborhood. So that is why im objecting to the proposal as it is currently laid out. Thank you. Thank you. If it may please the commission, my name is philip ledbetter. I am the father of denise ledbetter. Im a widower. I first came to San Francisco as a young soldier at the age of 17, having grownup in cape cod, massachusetts. I see what is coming up now is a rather box house out of place with the other houses in the community. Thats the one of the charms of San Francisco is tourists and theres not a day go by that im on my afternoon walk that i see tourists coming out to take pictures of the houses and making maps of them or graphic designs. And it would be a shame to see this lost in a town like our city like San Francisco, and i think under the circumstances, San Francisco does not need another box house and i thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi. First of all, thank you for being here. I wouldnt want your job. I live at 768 castro street. My name is andrew should warch. Ive lived there for 45 years. Ive seen that building on that property as a commercial site for 45 years, which means they go home at night. They go home and theres no parking problem or anything like that at night. And now, you want to turn it into a residential building with three units in it, and you are only allowing for one parking space, so that bothers me. It also bothers me that it seems like from all those pictures that theyre going to take the tree out thats on the corner. It also bothers me that theres 3,000 feet there, approximately, and therefore should be 750 feet of green space, if im not mistaken, by the Planning Departments laws, and i dont see that there. All i see is a big structure thats taking up space and creating congestion and parking problems on the street. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Can i have the overhead, please. Hi. I come as a friend of a neighbor, and she couldnt be here today. Good afternoon, commissioners or good evening at this point in time. Thank you for being here. Speaking on behalf of janet fowler. First of all, i want to thank you for the action i took when i was a dr presenter, also for your endeavors to make this plan work right. This project caught my attention because im a friend to the nextdoor neighbor, and also i enjoy the drive from Market Street to castro on the 24. I took a video of that ride and thats what i put on the overhead. You cant see it all, but i think you can see that the proposed project is out of sync with the neighborhood and out of character with the castro street residents. Theres nothing like it on the entire side. It also juts out into the sidewalk pedestrian path rkts located on the uphill side of the dr requester, it will be on the side of a tall wall, and will cast a shadow on our house all day long. I want to remind you the effect of a similar wall on rusty mccalls house on wallfman avenue. Almost every home on this street of castro street as as well as all the others on the three corners. Developers should be required to remove one story and construct a peaked roof. Please deny the conditional use authorization. Please instruct the developer to redesign the structure with a peaked roof, more open space, backed off the sidewalk, and incorporating Design Elements from the surrounding homes. The proposed project at 7 castro is offensive in its location, and i was told that someone said the roof deck in support of the open space requirements would be a roof deck as opposed to having a bare yard, so thats it. Thank you very much. Good evening, commissioners. My name is paul micah. I live at 28326th street, and im speaking in support of the project. I think its a great project. Fitting with the urban Design Guidelines and San Francisco, as i understand it. I think that the owner has bent over backwards to try and work with the Planning Department to and the neighbors to come up with a project that is responsive. I think that it is in scale with the with the neighborhood. There are a number of houses in my in our neighborhood that are undergoing reconstruction, redevelopment. Some of them are more traditional, some of them are more modern. It gives a vibrancy to the city, and i really think this project should go forward. Good evening. Jennifer fever with the San Francisco tenants unit. I also want to speak in support of the project and against the dr. This strikes me as classic nimbyism. As long as no tenants were displaced, it seem dos totally reasonable. We have a severe eviction crisis as the dr knows, so were desperately in need of housing which is affordable. Thanks. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you. My name is pat buskovitch. Im a neighbor. I live at diamond and 23rd. I speak here on behalf of my family who lives at 22nd eureka and jersey and diamond. We live all around this. My family has been in this neighborhood for 30 years. This project is truly a creative request to develop four units on one lot with a second unit building in the back. Theyre going to take that two unit building and eadd an adu n an illegal office thats been there for years. Theyre going to take the front building and demolish it and building a mansion resulting in 6,000 square feet on one lot. I worry about allowing demolition of rental housing, that they refuse to acknowledge. Housing that i looked at. This mcmansion will have negative impacted on the neighborhood, way out of the neighborhood scale. I drive down castro driving to my favorite place. You all know where that is, and im really concerned about the facade of this street. There is a three quarter of a Million Dollar variance, a three quarter Million Dollar top floor penthouse chlts theres 2 million of greed in this house. The front building was built in 1909 as a Grocery Store with a unit in back. My unit lived in this one. She was the owner of the one around the corner on castro and 22nd, i believe. There was a permit in 1980 to enlarge the office. They didnt mention the unit there, so this units been there for a long time. In 2005, the project sponsor got a cu to remove the unit. I ask for a cu to demolish a building, how is that in the best interests of my community or anywhere in the city, to demolish real affordable