Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20200202

to have a great history of success, particularly newer projects in san francisco. one is the adaptive reuse of twitter. and that has been kind of turning itself into an eat place with some retail. i'm wondering are you in communication with the other developers who are trying to build market halls as a signature in their projects? and are you in dialogue and trying to parse out how you seem market hall? >> we're familiar with central soma, but should defer the question about the economic vitality of the use to sharon of one vassar, since it is not a design question as much as a planned use question. >> i am actually not quite familiar with the operation plan for the other market halls. i can only speak to what we're planning here. i think the difference here, we're assuming at this time it will be essentially more of a ferry building with individual vendors, as opposed to, as you cited, the twitter building market is actually a single, essentially like a supermarket with individual subtenants. the other unique thing about this particular site and building, we're integrating the market hall experience of the historic structure with the hotel above as well as the built-in new demand of the office, occupants as well as the residential occupants. we're anticipating that this market hall is critical to the synergyistic mix. my understanding, fire mart doesn't have a huge residential, we have 500 units of residential, as well as a child care center. as well as different jobs on the site as well, so we do feel very strongly that this model will work. >> commissioner moore: thank you for explaining that. it adds a lot of substance to my question. am >> commissioner melgar: so, first, i wanted to address to the request for a continuance, this is an informational item, so we don't need to continue it, but that being said, i really -- this is my last meeting, but i would request of the staff not to bring it back until it's cooked and folks are, you know, there is a time for the developer to sit with the community and labor and to come to agreement that people can, you know, love and be here to support your project when you come in front of the commission. but that being said, you know, we have not used that land dedication section of the eastern neighborhood plan so much. it's only been done, like there is one building that is almost built, right? >> yeah, the shotwell street one. and i think the 2000 bryant also carved out a land dedication. >> is it built? >> both -- >> both are under construction. neither one is up and running right? >> right. >> so i think it's great to do creative ways to do a little bit. and i hope it works. and i also think it's really imperative that you work with a community so that folks know how to use that provision, that there is a nonprofit developer that is ready to do it. that you know -- that there is buy-in from the community to get the units built. the other thing that was brought up that is really important, who will lease the child care center? i think that is something that should be cost neutral to you. it should be like an easy thing to come to greenhouse gas emission with the community d come to agreement with how the operator should be. there is funding streams for that that are not available to for-profit child care providers. and so it seems like a win-win. i hope that folks can come together. and this project is successful. and that when it comes back, everybody supports it and you have just like the project we saw two hours of testimony of people in favor. >> yeah, sure. >> great. thank you. so definitely appreciate the comment about public outreach. we have been actually reaching out to the community for a number of years now with open houses where all of the community are welcome to attend. >> i'm sorry, let me be clear. this is not about outreach. that's a one-way word. come and listen to me. it's about really including the community in the decisions and hearing what they want to say and be willing to make it happen. >> i understand that, thank you. and we are continuing conversations with all of the groups who have voiced their concerns today and we'll continue to do that. on the child care front, we are in conversations with all types of operators and at this current moment, including nonprofit operators from the communities such as so mack. the issue is that a lot of the child care operators -- the commitment is still too early to be made. but we have had timeline conversations with them. we are completely open to working with a variety of different operators. it does have to be about fit because we have genuinely wanted to create a rare and significant child care opportunity here given the child care desert we're in with the 5,000 student wait list. we understand that an extreme challenge for child care facilities, even if there is operational funding, finding an appropriate facility that wasn't designed as an office and now converting into a child care is rather challenging. it's really the safety requirements as well as the dedicated outdoor space that is the limiting factor. we have been intentional in working with basically child care design consultants to make sure we're right-sizing a facility that can work. however, it is a large commitment we're making because collective of the dedicated outdoor space as well as the indoor space is 18,000 square feet. so we can't just approach any small operator because the operation size and growth strategy of each of these centers is also part of the conversation. but, yes, to answer your question, we're very much interested in continuing discussions with all types of operators. thanks. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: question for staff and then subsequent questions related to the site design and then the building design. what is the schedule for this project? >> we are currently anticipating publication of the report to next week, so the planning commission should receive the packet two weeks prior to the scheduled action hearing which is february 20th. so we will have a completed community planning exemption publish published as well as all the approvals. conditional use authorization, the project is seeking some variances as well. >> commissioner fung: we'll receive that the week before the 20th? >> two weeks before. you will receive it february 6th. >> commissioner fung: okay. i'd be interested in hearing a little bit further -- and if he would be brief -- on the site design for these buildings. it appears on two of the buildings -- and we only received this material here -- the harrison street side are all backup house. there is no landscaping at all? >> no, no. i'll show you. >> commissioner fung: give us a brief description. >> all loading happens on perry, which is parallel to the freeway. and so that would be all backhouse functions, trash, pickups, delivery, all that happening on perry. we have retail on -- maybe this is easier to understand. there is ground floor retail on all other sides. and then -- activation such as the entrance to the residential building and the child care are off the corners of hawthorne plaza and harrison street. the part hall will be accessible from the historic entrance on harrison street as well as vassar place and the plaza at hawthorne street. and the residential lobby and retail -- the office lobby and residential component on 2nd and harrison will be accessible from harrison, 2nd and vassar place. perry is the service function. and all other sides will be permeable with entrances and ground floor activation. >> there is no softening along the street. >> we're widening the sidewalks, we'll be adding street trees and site furniture. >> commissioner fung: i believe your site plan doesn't show any of that. on the floor plan? am i incorrect? >> the site plan shows the additional -- harrison street, we're doubling the sidewalk -- >> i'm talking about perry. >> no, actually, we'll be extending perry through. and there are -- there isn't room by public works' code for street trees on perry. but we're adding sound walls underneath the freeway ramp and there will be screens. so there will be greening on the south side of perry street. a few trees where we can fit them. >> commissioner fung: all right. the other thing about the -- then the buildings is, you have one section longitudinally through all three buildings. you have no sections that demonstrate the relationship to either harrison street for the freeway. are the podiums, the height related to the height of the freeway? >> so, this packet is brief compared to what planning has. of course, there are sections cut in both directions. there is a consistent roughly 85-foot height for the podiums which comes both from central soma and the height of neighboring buildings. that is a couple floors above the freeway. so the upper floors of the podium do look out over the freeway. the freeway is obviously pretty high on the south side. which is why all of those uses below it are loading and so on. >> commissioner fung: i can see that on the next packet. the last question, it's interesting that you put your hotel against the freeway side. >> that decision is really driven by preservation and i'll turn it over to leo chow who is the lead architect for the hotel. >> yes. leo chow, i imagine your concern is related to the acoustics with the hotel related to the highway. it's done in deference to the historic structure. what we sought to do was push the new addition as far south away from the primary facade along harrison street in order to give the volume in that facade, historic form, as much privacy as possible. >> commissioner fung: so those rooms have a view of the cars? >> the existing building actually functions like a podium and the rooms start above the freeway. they actually have a view to the south. >> commissioner diamond: we're operating in an s p-330 environment now, correct? and we don't have much opportunity, if any, for continuances and need to use them judicially with respect to this project? >> not yet. this applicant has not filed sb330 application. for a project to invoke the sb330, they have to file. in short, no. >> it applies for new projects, but projects already in the pipeline, they have to submit a new application invoking. >> so we're not limited the five -- >> at this moment, no. >> i will still then mike make my point. i think the staff has to cautious about when they believe a project is prime for bringing to the commission. because i wouldn't want us to keep continuing because they haven't reached an appropriate level of readiness for the commission. and so if staff if february 20th is too soon and taking into account the comments that were made, please schedule appropriately. because you know, when we get housing projects, i want to be able to approve them as fast as possible, especially when they have this kind of affordability. so request staff to think about that. of all the projects, this is the one in front of us, even if it isn't subject to sb330 yet. >> commissioner moore: my particular preference after i heard the information presentation, it helps if there is a handout prior to the meeting, one which is slightly more annotated than what is in front of us. the site plan with street names, conceptual diagram, where is what and why. and including slightly more detailed explanation. this package is too thick to send ahead of time, but there are four or five drawings that are essential for us to step in and understand the project. i'm making that as a constructive suggestion more to staff than yourself, because i assume you have a level of interacting with each other. for us as new invitees to listen to you, it was harder to understand the project and does not give us the ability to fully appreciate what you have done. >> very good, commissioners. there is nothing further, we can move on item 18. item 17 has been continued to february 13th. commissioners, case number 2017-011. 1420 taraval street, this is conditional use authorization. note that on december 12, 2019 after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to today's vote by a vote of 6-0. commissioner richards was absent. this is the second hearing. we limit presentation to three minutes. >> let me tell you all, we're down to four of us. we need four for a quorum. so if need be, we're going to -- if need be, we're going to take a small break here and there, if needed. >> good evening, president koppel and members of the commission. linda hoagland, planning department staff. on december 12, 2019, the planning commission continualed the conditional use to january 20 with direction to provide additional information and update plans. the project includes the demolition of existing three-story, two-bedroom, two-bath, 2176 square foot single-family home and construction of a new four-story, 6219 square foot mixed use building with three, there-bedroom bath units, commercial on the ground floor. and usable open space. the property is located in the parkside neighborhood and constructed as a single-family home in the early 1900s. a historic resource evaluation was conducted and it concluded that the property was not historic. properties in the immediate vicinity consist of two and three-story single-family dwellings, single and two-story commercial buildings and two to four-story mixed used buildings of varied designs and construction dates. it's characterized by 2-4 story buildings. since the last hearing, the project sponsor has submitted revised plans, providing additional information as follows. the printing errors on the plans have been resolved and the proposed ale evacuations are now -- elevations are now available. so the living room now faces the street. the rear yard roof has been set back five feet from the eastern property line and planters have been added along the north and east sides. planters have been added on the north and south sides of the roof deck. the location of the elevator has been shifted further towards the rear of the building. the width of the store front display area has been increased. and six-foot high opaque screen has been added at north and east sides of the roof deck to address privacy concerns. the parapet has been eliminated. no changes were made to the total building area, residential growth square footage or number of units. to date, the department has received e-mails and 16-signature petition expressing opposition to the demolition of the early 1900 buildings due to the historic value in the neighborhood. staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization that the project is on balance with the objectives and policies of the general plan. while it does involve the demolition of an existing single-family structure, the proposed replacement building will provide three family-sized units and a new ground floor commercial space. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and do not -- not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available to answer the questions and the project sponsor is here as well. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening. my name is peter mandel. i just want to make this real short before i hand it over to my architect bill. my name is peter and i'm the owner of 1420 taraval. i've owned the building since 2004 and before then, my father owned it for about two decades. my father wanted do the same thing i'm kind of doing. he passed away a couple of years ago. i lived in the house for 28 years with two other high school roommates. we went to school together at san francisco state from 1980 to 2008 when i moved out into a more suitable house for my wife and three kids. i'm a native san franciscan who grew up in the sunset district and live near west portal. i'm not a developer. i do own an environmental remediation company for the last 16 years. presently, there is three professionals in the building. previous that it was three students. i look at the homes right now parked on whitten and i'm saying something has to be done. so i'd like to create this proposed structure to alleviate all these issues we're having in the city right now. i want to sum up that this house is not historical, which has been determined by professional organizations. and the proposed structure that i'd like to put there can only alleviate the housing shortage issue that san francisco is facing. thank you. >> anything more? >> hi, my name is bill. i'm the project architect. again, i think planning has done a good job in enumerating the commissioner's concerns. we did our best to address and i think we've been successful in increasing the window at the pedestrian level quite a bit to give it much more openness. moving the unit to the -- sorry, moving the bedroom to the back, put it into the quiet zone. and then the living room to the front and it allowed me to re-design the elevator position, pushing it back, giving it an open front when people are passing by. i have a rendering here. i notice the rendering colors seem to be a bit off. i thought i'd put it on display. i'll just leave that up there now. i thought the colors -- that orange was a bit much. it's really not. i do have a sample i can show you. it's actually toned down quite a bit. >> thank you. now open this up for public comment. would anyone like to comment on the item? >> i have several speaker cards. >> i'll be using the overhead. eileen, here on my behalf. i attended the pre-app meeting. the overhead is a summary of the meeting which states general discussion of plans. there are significant omissions to this report. the neighbors said there are concerns about the side windows on the second and third floor. and okay, there are windows that faced west on the 1440 taraval site. the neighbor was concerned that the current proposal would block those windows completely. the answer from the architect was, yes. the owner committed to follow up with the neighbors. those are -- none of those concerns are listed in the pre-app meeting report. and this is the plan as shown on the pre-app meeting which is changed. what you see now, the last permit is in 1983 -- [bell ringing] -- for $100. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, evan rosen, i have lived for 27 years about 200 feet from 1420 taraval. we're all ware of the -- aware of the affordable housing crisis in this city, but this is not the answer to it. the number of affordable units that this project would create is zero. there are several current tenants who have below market rent. they would be displaced. they don't know where they would go. and the idea here is to -- [bell ringing] -- replace this historic house with market rate units and commercial space and there are already lots of retail space -- there are already lots of vacant store fronts on taraval. this is a 1907 historic house integral to the look, character and feel of the parkside community. it was built by the same builder as the grateful dead house. [bell ringing] -- and to demolish the history of the neighborhood and demolish affordable housing -- >> sorry, your time is up. >> makes no sense. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> i hope you read my letter because one minute is quick. i'm woody. i'm the founder of the western neighborhoods project. 20-year-old nonprofit dedicated to the history of the city's west side and i'm coauthor of the city adopted parkside district historic contact statement. i have great respect for planning's preservation staff and i credit them with disagreeing with the opinion of the project consultants, project sponsor consultant in saying this house is rare example of 20th century residence in the neighborhood. the issue is about integrity. if you look at the house -- which i think was missing from the last hearing, you can get the integrity of this place. in the parkside, window frames are not exactly easy to keep up. and yes, there are windows changed, but the porch is original, the roof, the cladding, the shingling. this is a historic home and thinks the last chance to step in and save the building for the parkside. [bell ringing] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is kathy. i live on 25th avenue and i oppose this destruction demolition of this house. i hope you will, too. the most affordable housing we have in the city is single-family housing that allows roommates to live together. and i'm not sure about when you came to san francisco or what your first experiences were, but i know mine was in the single-family house with roommates. it was in 1986, the most affordable option and i believe today it still is. to tear this historic house down for market rate housing, it's going against what we're doing in the city to create affordable housing. we have affordable housing. please, do not destroy this house. this historic house. and this affordable housing. >> anyone else from the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. let me first just kind of start off by saying this is actually the type of project we're looking to see. besides really low ami housing, we're also in dire need of middle class, middle income housing and this is what we're looking at as of now the best solution towards this. this is under 40 feet. i live in the sunset. it's on transit. and these, when you take a building like this and divide it into three full flats, they're affordable by design because it's not a 5,000 square foot single-family home, it's a single flat. this is actually what i think we need to be doing more of in the sunset, especially on the transit corridors. >> commissioner fung: actually, this building is 45 feet. question for staff. the height limit? >> it is 45 feet. it was a little bit higher with the parapet previously which doesn't count toward height, but that has been eliminated. this is in the 65-foot height district, so it's below the max height. >> commissioner fung: and the planning code now requires commercial space to have 14 feet clear, is that correct? >> it varies by zoning district. >> how about here? here right now at 15 feet floor to floor? >> i don't remember off the top of my head, but they were code compliant. i don't remember what the limits were, if they were for this district, for the height. >> southwest team leader. the height for ground floor commercial, though we do encourage a higher ceiling height. >> commissioner fung: some zoning has a minimum, isn't that correct? >> correct. there are neighborhoods in the eastern neighborhood that have that. >> commissioner fung: how about here? is there a minimum? >> i don't believe there is. >> you originally had a 40-foot building, have a letter from planning to make it five feet higher, you do it. so we did it. i didn't understand we have an option. i'm happy to reduce it, but i thought 40-foot was just fine. the 50 foot was obligational. it was a code requirement. i originally designed a 40-foot and i was told i was required to raise it five feet because of the space, you know, the requirement for the commercial. >> okay. >> we typically encourage higher ground floor retail whenever feasible. >> commissioner fung: but it's not code required? >> i believe it is code. >> commissioner fung: it is. okay, just to clarify that. >> i would entertain a motion. >> commissioner diamond: does their design affect what the facade looks like -- >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the question? >> are there residential guidelines that provide criteria against which you judge the facades of these projects? >> our residential design team as we're evaluating a project, we're going to have standards in particular that may vary from neighborhood, commercial district to district. but typically, this particular structure was held to that criteria and looked at and evaluated and consistent with the neighborhood and with that block, but also with the other standards that we apply infill residential projects like this. >> it's hard to judge, because we just see the building to the left and the right. it feels like it's jarring looking at the three in the row, but i don't know what the rest of the block looks like. >> i don't know if the project sponsor has a panorama of the block or not. >> what page? it's on my computer. you just pulled it up on your computer? >> yeah. >> i think the best depiction we have is on sheet a3.01. which is showing the existing -- the proposed structure. unfortunately, there is no color rendering of the two adjacent structures. >> commissioner moore: the only question i had last time, but i think somebody answered it, i never quite understood the ground floor commercial use. it's a very narrow lot with a very deep space and i would have preferred to see a building that really has residential partially on the ground floor and perhaps does not extrude its height to the height in which is currently shown. the project reads very strongly in a context where both to the left and the right the older buildings create a context, but this building does not address what that is. if the developer wants a ground floor retail, there is nothing you can say to discourage that, correct? >> we're going to -- we're typically going to encourage an active ground floor use. whenever feasible. in this particular case, you can see there is the commercial building to the left. appears to have -- be more office oriented, which is probably typical of the era that structure was built. we're going to always encourage active uses on the ground floor. what was raised at the last meeting was that they have more window space and they have more of a potential usable ground floor for commercial, which the architect has attempted to do. it's an improvement. it's not the best example, but i would say it's an improvement from what was originally presented to the commission. >> and also this is on the street where taraval runs up and down. i'm always leaning towards ground floor commercial on those transit lanes. >> commissioner diamond: so i'm struggling with this a little bit because i really love the idea that they are putting three units here and getting a lot more housing on this particular site. i worry a little about ground floor commercial. as we've said, i think it's a city we need to understand. are we creating the opportunity for more vacancy space? i don't want to see vacant retail down there. in this particular location i don't feel strongly about the ground floor retail. i worry that the design doesn't fit on in based on what i'm looking at, but on the other hand, i like that we're producing more housing and that we're taking up a place that has got one unit and producing three units. so it feels like a tough case to me. >> commissioner fung: historically, there would have been a lot of pressure by various adjudicating agencies, including ours, to reduce the height of the building. and make it more contextual to those adjacent. but the mantra of creating more housing over so many things. but i -- you know on the one hand i would support the additional housing. i'm not necessarily supportive of the neighbor's issues on this is such a historical and representative example of architecture in the parkside. but i would like to see this building reduced by five feet to 40 feet. i'm wondering if that is a possibility with staff. you know, whether -- i understand usually some types of commercial spaces require a higher clear volume. not necessarily in this neighborhood. >> if i might, this part of taraval tends to have -- others can correct me if i'm wrong, have a mixture of retail and residential on the ground floor. it's not a continuous kind of retail environment like other streets. i believe it's within the commission's purview to say do all residential and lower the building by five feet. you'd be increasing the residential units if there is one on first floor. staff with work with the architect and the developer to make sure the guidelines we have for residential at ground floor meet the guidelines of being raised up slightly or moved back from the street so there is not a privacy issue. i believe that's within your purview to do that. all residential and no ground floor retail. it sounds like the concern, it's also the height concern that you just raised. >> commissioner fung: i'd be supportive of that approach. >> commissioner moore: i think it's a great opportunity to bring the building by doing exactly what the director suggests, more into context with the adjoining buildings. at this moment, floor heights, window patterns are all over the lot which gives it somewhat a non-contextual building impression, but by lowering it, i think we could see a facade adjustment which more respects the adjoining buildings on both sides in some form or another. and i would be in support and think it's a good idea. [please stand by] >> in the back there is already, if you look at the existing building in the back, that would mean digging out and doing retaining walls, you know, in the back. so that would be really difficult. i will say that we are not as concerned. the owner has his business and, you know, i had talks about that before and i'm not sure he wants to do it right now, but he talked about, if i can't rent it i will, you know, and i have lived in the city 43 years. i have watched the street changes go up and down and sideways when those four -- 40 -- for those 43 years. it is dangerous to take a snapshot. we don't know what the future holds. i do that on my way home every night. i watch -- i walked past the street every night of my life. i love seeing the lights in the store is in the vitality of the street. i understand terra bill doesn't have that, but that doesn't mean there will be a starting point. i do feel a well-designed store will have -- could, in the future, start something. >> if you are lowering it by 5 feet, which is what you're suggesting, what gets lowered? >> i don't know. we would have to approach planning. i don't see the need for 15-foot high on the retail space. >> i'm double checking the code as best as i can. >> it is not something i wanted to do in the first place. >> even if you've been lowered by a foot or two, where the other feet coming from? >> right now we would take 5 feet off to be able to have -- >> it would all come up? >> i see. >> i think that would make sense >> we don't have a commercial requirement on the ground floor here so it can be residential. it is 15 if it is commercial. >> commissioner moore? >> the conversation is resolving itself. >> commissioner fun? >> i will move to approve this permit on a condition that the ground floor be reduced by 5 feet in height. >> second. >> if the code requirement allows this, it would eliminate the commercial use. >> i thought staff indicated it was not a code requirement? >> i believe it is. >> it's a 5-foot bonus, but it is permitted, but it it's not clarified if it is required by code that you have to use that. >> it sounds like it was just a bonus if i recall correctly. >> commissioner moore? is there a compromise? we have a residential height of 10 feet if it would go to 9-foot five on the three residential floors and pick up another foot on the bottom. we could potentially just gain the additional lowering of the building. slightly higher. not 15 feet but perhaps 12. we would take half a foot out of every residential floor. >> there are other districts that i have seen that code section before. it requires 14 feet. >> so you were getting closer to that? >> you are not required to have -- you have a bonus of 5 feet. it's not a mandatory requirement >> commissioner diamond? >> question for the project sponsor. it looks like we're settling around taking for feet. i don't know what the vote will be, but it is headed in that direction. does that work for you? [simultaneous talking]. >> the original design was for 40 feet. i have no issue with making this , but i think the majority of the space really needs to come off the commercial space. i see no need on this street to see -- to have it that high. i just don't. this is not hayes valley. i don't see the point. >> the 5-foot bonus is in order to get to the the added height on the ground floor. that is our standard throughout the city which is 14 feet. we are encouraging that for all ground floor retail uses. it requires a 14-foot height at the ground floor throughout the city. the added height would be, if it is for nonresidential use, the added bonus would be to get above the height. we don't necessarily have that in this case because we have an overall height limit of 65 feet. most cases there may be a 45- foot height limit. >> you are saying you want 14- foot on the bottom? >> the code says you have to have 14 feet for nonresidential uses. this district is not required to have commercial on the ground floor. though it is in the district, they have -- they can have residential, residential, residential. >> commissioner moore? >> is her opposition to take half a foot off of every to -- every residential floor or does not not work for you? that would give us an overall height reduction of 4 feet rather than 5 feet. >> at 6 inches i think that is -- i think the 6 inches off the three floors would be okay, yes. >> let's do that. is that okay with you? >> i am leaning toward four units of residential at 10 feet each. >> there is an exception for another which is a pretty heavily trafficked corridor. the others are pretty much the two main transit veins going through the sunset. i would think other than this one, the best place for the commercial would be on the transit corridors, but i could be wrong. >> commissioner fun, do you withdraw your original motion? >> i will. >> okay. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to make a motion we retain ground-floor retail given the explanation that a.d.a. and other requirements was for the residential and this would make it a difficult building to reside and take 6 inches off every commercial floor by a total of -- residential floor by a total of two and a half feet off the total building height. >> second. >> commissioner diamond, did you have anything? >> commissioner his, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions including reducing the overall building height by two and half feet. i understand correctly that is 1 foot off of the commercial. is that correct? on that motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4 -0. that'll places on item 19, 2555 diamond street, -- >> excuse me. can i ask one additional question? the architect suggested that perhaps take the building into a lighter color in order to -- >> i would be happy to look at white and work with staff on the color. >> i think that would be good. we could add that, i would appreciate that. >> no problem. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> nineteen is 2555 diamond street. conditional use authorization. >> good evening, members of the commission. i am with planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization for the demolition of an existing single family home approximately 1,351 gross square feet with an approximately 302 square-foot detached storage structure in the rear yard and to construct a new three-story approximately 2,949 gross square foot single-family dwelling. for the record, i wanted to correct a typographical error that was in the executive summary. this was on page one, second bullet. it should state the proposed replacement building will provide one dwelling unit, not three as stated. i think i was writing the two reports at the same time and mix that up. >> i circled it. >> so did i. >> the subject property is located in the neighborhood. it was constructed originally as a single-family home in 1913. i historic resource evaluation was conducted and concluded the home is not a resource. properties in the immediate vicinity consist of residential two to three story single-family dwellings constructed between the early 19 hundreds and the early 1950s. the subject block face exhibits a variety of architectural styles, scales, and massing. the surrounding properties are located within the r.h. one zoning district. the existing dwelling includes three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and measures approximately 19 feet, measure to the top of the roof ridge. the proposed dwelling would provide four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms measuring approximately 33 feet and one half inch in height measured to the highest point of the roof, with a second and third floors of the building setback approximately 6 feet and 7 inches from the front building wall. to date, the department has received correspondence from several neighbors in opposition to the project expressing concerns with the size of the home and potential impacts on light, existing solar panels, and loss of use from the adjacent properties. additionally, it was stated the project sponsor did not conduct a preapplication meeting with the neighbors prior to the application submittal. however, staff confirmed to the project sponsor submitted all required documentation to support the preapplication meeting had been properly noticed and conducted in accordance with city policy and project application submittal requirements. staff recommends the approval of this conditional use authorization in that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the plan and while the project does involve the demolition of an existing residential structure, the proposed replacement structure would provide a single-family dwelling with a comparable number of bedrooms going from a three-bedroom to a four bedroom home. the department also finds a project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available to answer questions, as is the project sponsor. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> hello, i am the architect for this work. i'm here with andrew peters who is also the general contractor. >> closely into the microphone, please. >> he is my boss and we have -- i have been working with the san francisco planning department and single-family homes for over a decade. on this project in every project i strive to meet my clients' needs within the context of what is encouraged within the residential design guidelines and assure my projects work harmoniously with neighborhoods. we worked carefully through the normal plan review process including the preapplication meeting and one-on-one meeting with the neighbor who is immediately adjacent. we collaborated with david winslow, chris townes and linda whole and to implement a number of revisions to the original proposed design. the planning department has determined this project follows the residential design guidelines. although design was compact to start, through the review process we have rte reduced the proposed tightly 4 feet and by reducing floor to fly floor -- what a floor height and reducing the slope of the shed roof. we reduce the overall length by 3 feet. we request a conditional use authorization for demolition because it will be most economical to demolish the existing building. the building is also determined to be a class seat nonrestored -- and on historic resource. proposed building is designed to continue the pattern established on the uphill side of diamond street with minimal varying front setbacks. the shed roof is sloped facing south to improve access to light to the uphill neighbor. the position of the massing of the building forward on the lot was encouraged by the design advisory team to improve the neighbor's access to the midblock open straight -- space. we are aware that san francisco is in a public housing crisis. affordability and density are emphasized, was san francisco faces a lack of family -sized housing. the planning department published a report should -- report in 2017. it found san francisco has the lowest rate of households with children than any u.s. city. report found a lack of family sized housing units was a major contributing factor to this problem. this home is designed to support a family and their children and for a knee's mother to live with her grandchildren. and meets the goals stated in the 2017 report in terms of compactness and efficiency and family supportive housing, and supports four bedrooms and only 1,918 net square feet of space 230 net square feet for amy's mother's bedroom and bathroom. is a very compact home for three generations of a family. the project is compatible with the establishing neighborhood about scale and use as a single-family home improves the environment by replacing a dilapidated structure and has been designed thoughtfully and in collaboration with the design advisory team. it meets the need for family supportive housing and follows the guidance of the 2017 report. i am available -- i am available for any questions, but amy would like to address you as well. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for taking the time to listen to us. i am a neighbor. we have been living there for two years. [indiscernible] it is a dream come true for us. to be a homeowner in san francisco is a privilege that i will never take for granted. [indiscernible] amy and i met over 10 years ago. we wanted to establish our community and raised a family. we are very fortunate to have this opportunity today to support our family, our 7, our second child do this summer and our mother-in-law. our current house will not support our current family. [indiscernible] she sold her house in colorado so she is able to live with us. the only way she could live in seven cisco is by living with us we would love to support her in her older age and have her closer to her grandchildren. we love the park. it is perfect for families like ours. we like to go for a walk in the canning and many other activities that our child gets to do there on a daily basis. not a day goes by when we don't -- [indiscernible] -- it really feels like a family for us. we are volunteers and members of the glen park association and have made friends with numerous families in the neighborhood. >> your time is up. >> we will open this up to public comment. anyone from the public wish to comment on this item come on up. any other members can line up on the screen side of the room and come on up after this gentleman. >> my name is brett. i'm a homeowner a 2547 diamond street. two houses to the north. we just moved to the south because we appreciate the character of this block. the elevation of the proposed home from the front makes it look consistent with the pattern , but the mass in the rear is still quite large and the size and shape of the rear isn't characteristic of other homes on the block. the perspective views on page 50 of the current plans minimize the issue and they are inconsistent with each other. homes on surrounding same sized lots are 60 -- 1600, 2,000, 1800 , 800, 1,000 so on square feet. it is out of scale. it achieves this with the size and shape and it does mass in the rear, which overshadows the adjacent and more modest properties. we appreciate the height was revised down. it does induce an impact on immediate neighbors and we have not seen a study that qualifies any shadows on the neighbor's solar panels. we just moved into we did not have a chance to weigh in on this in 2018. we wish we could have worked more proactively. we're just appreciating these issues, which is why we are addressing this here. we want to be supportive of our neighbors' needs. we felt like we needed to get these concerns on the record lest we end up with an out of scale home. we feel it still does need to be addressed and we are open to communication with the owners an architect. thank you. >> thank you very much. anyone else for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i would like to jump in and talk with the commission briefly about the plan on the ground floor where the sweet off the garage has to be separated by a vestibule. at this moment there is a door directly leading into the bedroom. i don't think the court allows that. sometimes we talk about it, sometimes it slips by. it will change the ground floor a little bit. that is my first point. my second point is when you look at google or at the existing site, there is a rather substantial tree in front of the right side of the garage. the existing site plan shows the tree to the right side of the garage and the proposed elevation shows that tree would be gone. since this is a very substantial treat -- street, i would like that this is take into consideration and preserved. that tree has a neighborhood presence that i think is important in order to diminish scale, but also does help with the ambulance of the setting. i'm wondering if you could perhaps comment on that. here is the picture of the tree. this tree would be eliminated if you look at the proposed plan where the existing tree is on the right side of the garage of the proposed plan is on the left side, but i would encourage that this tree is maintained. >> if the project architect could maybe addressed that concern raised by our commissioner. >> yes, we are proposing to replace the street tree. we understand it is a significant feature of the streetscape. it was deleted from the perspective views for clarity as commissioner moore noted. the street tree blocks the view of the existing home almost entirely so we decided to not show that in the rendering so as to be clear. regarding the door directly from the sweet into the garage, we have worked carefully with marcel to make sure this complies with the rooms policy and compliance with the city's a.d.u. policy while allowing amy 's mother to have a dignified and connected private space to live. >> excuse me, the issue is not a.d.u. and accessibility, the issue is the bedroom needs to be separated from the garage for safety reasons why a vestibule as to whether or not you come directly through the a.d.u. accessible vestibule. it is no contradiction to what you are saying. >> we are happy to delete that. >> d.b. i will not let you get through with that and will require you to rethink the room a little bit, including how you get into this room. that is all it is. >> yes. we are happy to do that. >> i would like to hear stuff talk about the tree. >> as far as the removal of the tree? >> it is a street tree of substantial size. who has jurisdiction over protecting this tree, leaving it there or working with it? >> i believe the tree is under the purview of public works. >> that is correct. that tree would have to have an application for whatever. i would like that to remain an open discussion. i will strongly encouraged to keep the tree and not just replace it with a little, whatever. this is a major tree and i would look forward to you, together with public works,. >> we can reach out to the department of public works. >> okay. >> we are happy to work with public works to make sure that the tree that replaces it is appropriate. >> commissioner diamond? >> i just have a question for staff on page eight of the draft motion. >> i'm sorry, what page? >> page eight of the draft motion. you say the project, in italics, the project will replace the existing single-family dwelling with a single-family dwelling of a comparable size and it may be close in the number of rooms, more than twice as big so i don't think that -- >> correct. >> if we approve this project, that language needs to be revised. >> what i meant is comparable size in regards to number of bedrooms. i can clarify that in the final motion. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond? >> i would move to approve -- although, commissioner moore, do you want a condition attached to it about the tree or trying to preserve it if it is possible to do so in the view of d.p.w.? and then the thing about the vestibule, is that something that gets clarified will the building permit? we don't have to deal with it. >> the only thing is staff should look at it in terms of if it still creates good room, et cetera. we are responsible to take it as far as we can to put -- before we send it off to d.b.i. >> is there a second, commissioners? >> second. thank you on that motion to approve this matter with conditions... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4 -0. that will place us in item 20, 2255 judah street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. i am before you as a request for conditional use authorization to establish a formula retail use or instructional services in a vacant, 1,540 square foot commercial space located at 2255 judah street. we are seeking conditional use authorization from the planning code to establish retail use within a neighborhood commercial request or and c-1 zoning district. is located in the outer sunset neighborhood within the neighborhood district that extends from judah street on or from 207th avenue to 209th avenue. it is comprised of one, two, a three story commercial, residential and mixed-use buildings of mixed character. it is zoned r.h. one and r.h. three consisting of single-family and multifamily homes. it's developed with a one-story commercial structure. it has 35 feet of frontage and 80 feet on 20th avenue. it is subdivided into two commercial units both fronting on judah street. the unit is vacant and last occupied by limited restaurant. and the adjacent unit is occupied by a laundromat. it proposes to establish a formula retail within a vacant commercial space at the ground floor of the subject property. the project -- the project would include improvements to the interior of the commercial space but no alterations to the exterior. they currently operate 1,000 stores worldwide with over 150 locations in california. last year the commission approved two different locations fillmore street is actively in operation. i will clarify that in my motion the sponsor conducted a formula retail survey in november 2019. there was a 300-foot radius from the project site. the study found there is one existing formula retail establishment out of 13 active commercial fronts. the existing use -- [indiscernible] it contains two different commercial properties which include the subject unit. in regards to the use type of the 15 commercial businesses surveyed within the 300-foot radius of the project site, there's one other institutional use which is the kumon of san francisco. is located outside of the district. is located one third of a mile to the west. there is also an entity of s.f. san francisco upgrade learning centre and an academic afterschool which are located 1 mile from the project site. the project has a retail sales and services use and is not required troop -- complete childcare drop-off and pickup management plan, which is four institutional uses. the project sponsor submittal does include the project's proposed traffic mitigation and the pickup and drop-off guidelines. the department has received a fair amount of support from public comments regarding this project. and support, the project sponsor submitted a petition in support of the project with three signatures from businesses and merchants and nine signatures from residents within a block of the project and a petition in support with 30 signatures from residents of the surrounding neighborhood. the department received one letter of support from a resident of the vicinity as well two letters of opposition were received. this a metal package from them also included a position -- petition in opposition to the project with 125 signatures of residents of the outer sunset and surrounding neighborhoods. the concerns are related to the appropriateness of a formula retail use, the appropriateness of an additional seat -- service to the district and traffic impacts. eight additional letters were in opposition received by the department from residents of the surrounding neighborhood. and when was received by the independent service of out of box education. the project will establish a formula retail use during a vacant retail space. they find it necessary and desirable incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. staff recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any question. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of of the project sponsor for the meth gymnasium. thank you for planning department staff for your work on this. it's a franchise in the sunset -- and the sunset will be owned and operated by a family. we are here today after taking two continuances from our original december date. these delays impose huge burdens on them. we wanted to take the time to conduct further outreach and address concerns from individuals and businesses that expressed opposition. we have heard opponents' concerns regarding traffic. it takes those concerns to heart and proposes three measures to address potential traffic concerns that may arise. and to give this measure some teeth, we propose that they be included as conditions of approval. may i have the overhead? >> first, upon project approval, it will apply to the sfmta for a curb loading zone in front of the store. second, we will include a curbside traffic coordinator who will help ensure cars pull directly into and outside out of the curbside to avoid blockage of lanes, and third, it will adopt pickup and drop-off guidelines that will provide to each student's guardian at time of enrolment. we have supported over 40 neighborhood residents and merchants with and 12 within the immediate one block radius. folks are enthusiastic to see this long, dark space get activated and increase foot traffic to the neighborhood, which was noted by the landlord as a factor why the prior cafés were unsuccessful. the landlord was unable to attend in person but has admitted a letter in support that is included in your packet. it has been quite the grand opening for the last café which opened in 2015 but time has passed. the space set dark for two to three years. consequently, there is no displacement of its visit -- existing tenants. the project will activate the space with the neighborhood serving use and the neighborhood commercial cluster surrounded by residential. it is necessary and desirable, as well as compatible with the neighborhood. the district has a wide range of neighborhood serving retail uses and we are confident this can successfully coexist in the area given there are 14 schools within a 1 mile radius of the project sight with a combined enrolment of over 11,000 students, and the fact that the primary level meth tutoring services will be provided. whereas the other nearby tutoring facilities provide a range of services including reading, writing, the sciences, tex -- tech prep and college prep. the project will result in the removal of the corner projecting sign and long-standing great -- grand opening sign. we understand concerns have been raised about the categorical exemption issued for the project as mentioned, we received a class one categorical exemption and the project resulted in minor alterations and signage upgrades. it is clear this project has been the scope of a class one project. [indiscernible] >> very good afternoon. i am the one who is humbly requesting approval for this project. if you walk into a room in a new ask how many people of math, you will not see too many hands up. my sister and i are in a mission to change that for the future generation. this passion has not come overnight. it has been there on the back burner for years. i used to love math. it was easy for me. i understood the concept. my sister would be crying, and screaming because she cannot understand what you were talking about. one day when my mother stepped out of the room i used flashcards to explain it to her and she got it. that is when i realized that unless she visualized it, she was not understanding what we were talking about. i saw the same issue in some of my classmates. fifty% of my classmates had the same issue. they were not understanding the normal methods of education. that is why we created solutions for each child who is trying to understand math. [indiscernible] amongst stats, california ranks 44th among all the states of the u.s. i have never run a business before, my family has never run a business before. we knew we needed help, which is why we went with a franchise. we looked at multiple education institutions available, especially for math and zeroed in on this one. the reason being we thought they cared about their students. they run surveys among their own students and parents and we learned that 93% of students improved their math skills. >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> let's open this up to public comment. what anyone from the public wish to speak? >> i do have several speaker cards, but we did grant organized opposition. so if those members could approach. we need three speakers altogether. do we have three speakers? i will remind you that the intent is to reduce the overall number of speakers who share your concerns. where are your three speakers? >> good evening, commissioners. i am an attorney at hansen bridget and i'm here on behalf of christine chang and her son. they do own and operate the meth and reading centre -- the math and reading center on the same block as the proposed new building. they are also going to speak so i'll try to go very quickly through this. i wanted to -- i could go through the draft motion for approval. there are several inaccuracies in the findings that planning staff did correct, but i would suggest that taken together the inaccuracies on balance will show that this proposed use is not appropriate for this location. i would like to start with page six and that is the findings, sorry, regarding the existing formula retail uses that are there. the carpet cleaning business across the street fall squarely within the definition of a formula retail use and it has not been recognized as the existing formula retail use. it has over 3500 worldwide locations. it is trademarked and has standardized signage. under that criteria, the addition of this would increase the retail services uses to 20%, which we believe in this neighborhood is an over concentration. on page eight, these are the findings for general plan consistency. it was corrected. the statement said that the project will allow the establishment of a new formula retail use which currently has no operating locations in san francisco. and as jeff mentioned, their two operating locations. they were approved last summer. this will be the third location within eight months. and on page nine, under policies for encouraging diversity among districts, defining the use or mathematical instruction, it is currently not offered within a 300-foot radius and that is also untrue. our clients provided an identical service 125 feet away from the site. on page 10 is a finding that the project will not overburden transit streets or neighborhood parking. i wanted to point out these inaccuracies and we hope you will consider them and concluding them on balance. it's not appropriate for this location. i wanted to touch on the categorical exemption which this project does not fall into. categorical exemptions are classes of projects that have been determined not to be likely to cause a significant effect. there is an exception to the exemption for unusual circumstances. and hear the traffic and parking issues on this particular block give rise to unusual circumstances that take it out of the exemption. it is improper under ceqa prior to imposing mitigation measures. you have to first identify the impact and determine whether the mitigation measures will reduce to a less than significant level i would respectfully request that you signed the application and we will turn it over to christine. >> good evening. my name is christine. over 13 years, i have, i'm sorry i can't really see from this point. i have owned and operated the reading centre at the same block where they plan to open. i previously operated this center at 16th street for over 14 years before i relocated to my current location. we tutors to duden his from preschool through high school in reading and math. my son is my business partner. and also an instructor. we both share a passion for helping kids learn and we also have a passion for our community and have invested in the outer sunset neighborhood for 40 years we live here and we work here. we have spent endless hours and weeks, and months developing our business and creating a community of families. we work hard to be responsible and maintain strong relationships in our neighborhood and we are hopeful that we will -- you will take into consideration our concerns today. please consider our concerns today. one of my biggest concerns with this new area is added traffic congestion and the lack of available parking. we know what the traffic and parking situation will looks like on a daily basis. can i have the overhead? she has major parking. irving street has major parking so people park on judah and daily commuters take this and they also park on judah. so we spend -- i'm sorry. i have trouble seeing today. we spend a lot of time making sure our students are safe during pickup and drop-off and making sure that we aren't interfering with operations of nearby businesses and the traffic flow among judah during commute hours. like our students, the students at the proposed area will not get drop-off at one time and pick up at one time. the pickup and drop-off times are different. and since it is afterschool program, all the activity occurs in the late evening and afternoon. it runs past our center and it has a stop in the median right in front of this space. this is in the evening where people start getting busier. people start driving and getting busier on this street. this location will only make it harder for the space. this location will only make it harder for passengers getting off the end to avoid cars that aren't lined up and double parked among judah and along 208 th avenue. -- among 28 avenue. >> they claim most students will walk from nearby the schools, what most kids do not walk a mile from school to go to their tutoring class and then walk home, whatever that will be. most of the students will be picked up and dropped off by parents or caretakers. our center, we put a lot of effort into streamlining the pickup and drop-off process to increase safety and minimize traffic congestion. obtain approval from the city for a loading zone in front of our business. i employed a traffic coordinator and still, it is a tremendous challenge to prevent double parking and the lining up of cars. they do not know if they will get approval for another loading zone on our street. and even if they get this approval, their clients will almost certainly use the loading zone in front of our center. there is no capacity to add more students and cars during the same window of time that we already worked very hard to manage. we have spent a lot of time responding to complaints from neighbors about traffic, parking , and currently, we have a good solution in place. i am concerned that a new business will bring new complaints and all of the negative effects of a new building will directly impact our business. of course, this business would be a business competitor to us, but my opposition is not about preventing competition. we are a well-established business with incredible support from the family, clients throughout the past 27 years. >> thank you. your time is up. i do have several more speaker cards. [calling names]. >> come on up. if anyone is waiting in line, line up on the screen side of the room but first come first-come, first-served. >> good evening, commissioners. when i received the notice i looked up the website and found out that most of their service will be done on group study and one on one base and i am the tutoring place owner right now doing exactly that. so i'm located at 302nd -- at 32 and judah. i just started one year at that location. i am very concerned that this similarity of the services will make us have a very bad competition. i see this more as a lose lose situation then win-win. we allow them to work a little bit on themselves and go back and check their performance i believe also that the city has said regulations to help small businesses succeed by limiting change open in proximity to other small stories, so i am concerned that if this chain store has 1,000 stores around the nation set up close, then i will be -- it will be very hard to compete with a giant. that is my opinion. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i am representing -- i am a father of two teenage boys currently who are residents in san francisco for the last 29 years. my two sons have been at the school for six months -- six years and now they are not going there anymore on ocean avenue because of the overcrowded system. you can imagine -- we have to go because they all overlap. loss of kids getting dropped off in ocean avenue. they don't have traffic and we always constantly have to go and pick up at a different time. and right now one of my sons can walk to school and my oldest son goes so mark and he can -- so he can walk somewhere else. they have been complaining that we don't have enough afterschool programs that have support with the school system. i'm looking it up online and see math students. it might be helpful. maybe we could not center that -- help my son afterschool. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i operate a business on the same block. i am on the other side of the proposed project. we have been in business for 20 years at the same location and we offer a service center for computers and electronic products. over 20 years, our main challenge is client parking and traffic congestions. i am opposed -- i oppose this project to be established in the same block. we don't want to add more traffic congestions and more parking in the situation in the same block. we're just challenged to create more peaceful retail and serving the situation in the same blocks and the owner said, they already have their business in the same block and there is another child care center in the same block. so this is not a good fit for this commercial situation in this particular district. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is ricky and i grew up in sunset district all my life. i have stopped using my vehicle because it has gotten so crazy. i ride my bicycle around to do my errands and shopping and stuff. they are always double parked. i either have to ride my bike on the railroad to avoid getting hit by the car or have to drive on the sidewalk and i already feel like the whole street is too super crowded with the kids and everything and when i heard there was going to be more on the corner, and i just feel like it really is bad for everybody. especially riding a bike and there is no bike lane. i just wanted to make my comment >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is david and i reside in the inner sunset district where i grew up. as part of the community i would like to bring a few points of support. my fiancé is a teacher and we are expecting our first child. that is why i feel very strongly about the subject. education is important. we shouldn't make it so hard on business owners especially ones that are just trying to improve the community by opening a service that will improve the next generation. we should think about the unaffordability that makes being a teacher in the city being very difficult. we seem to be forgetting how hard it is for teachers and folks to survive in this place. and instead of letting business is still well so they can provide additional tutoring options and as well as more income to families. i want more options to tutor my future child, particularly in subjects. if you continue on this trend, there will be any teachers left in the area to teach our kids in a matter of a few short years. we will not have to complain about traffic because no one will be able to live here if there are no teachers to teach our kids. thank you. >> anyone else for public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner diamond? >> question for the city attorney? >> i view the three conditions that were proposed by the project sponsor, not as mitigation measures, per se,, but as safety and neighbourliness measures. is there a problem in up -- in imposing them? >> that is correct. the commission should evaluate the categorical exemption as the project without the proposed additional elements. however, if the commission feels that, as a matter of neighbourliness or otherwise, frankly manage the commercial corridor door, it would make sense to include those as a condition in the project sponsor is voluntarily doing so. the commission may do so. >> i would move to approve with those three conditions as characterized by the city attorney. >> second. [please stand by] >> clerk: 1500 mission street. this is a conditional use authorization. please note that on january 16, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to today by a vote of 5-0. >> david weissglass, planning department staff. the request before you is a request for conditional use authorization to allow massage use within a fitness club. the spa within the approved fitness club is to occupy approximately 550 square feet at the basement level of a 250,000 square foot gym. the department at this time has received seven letters of opposition from community members and organizations, mostly raising concerns about displacement and gentrification as well as the potential for human trafficking. the project sponsor, also a few days ago, submitting a brief with details on their community outreach, and they can go into a bit more detail on that. the project finds that the project is on target with boundaries on the general plan and recommended approval. i'm here to answer any questions you may have. >> clerk: as this is second hearing, project sponsor will have three minutes and comments will be limited to one minute. >> subsequent to the hearing two weeks ago, darryl and i did meet with united to save the mission. we had a couple of proposals we wanted to present to the community group. after those, we refined those proposals and sent those to united to save the mission. unfortunately, those were not approved and we were not able to reach agreement. i'm willing to go through our conditions of approval. a number of issues we tried to address. one was some discounted memberships. thi another was community employment, and community engage: engage. we would like to priority employment for the community for full and part-time employment. we'll provide full and part-time employees with a full-time membership at the gym and provide one friend or family member a discounted membership. we're willing to hold one or two yoga classes a year, and hold classes on community health, nutrition, and wellness. we've requested these be added as conditions of approval under community engagement. we believe this meets planning code section 303 n which ensures that massage establishments are well-lit, not environments for illicit activity. i think we've demonstrated that. the entrance to the spa is through the equinox lobby. i can hand these out, as well. >> president koppel: anything else from project sponsor or we're good? okay. we'll now open this up to public comment. those who wish to speak, please lineup on the screen side of the room and come on up when you're ready. >> okay. u.s.m. finally severed its relationship with equinox. from the meetings there were no adequate offers to benefits to have equal access to their gym without. they are principlely interested in offering the bare minimum community benefits. look, i understand that regardless with or without the massage use permit, they're still going to be there, but i highly encourage for you to consider due to the fact that we don't need to be giving more handouts and windfall profits if they're not really meeting with the community. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. lisa petrucelli with u.s.m. as you've heard, despite our discussions, the project sponsor offered us, our working families 15% off of their lowest regular membership, which is $245. that makes a membership $208 a month for our working families that make $47,000 a year. we also have learned that many of the available jobs require a certification, and that means very little opportunity for our community, which is the one benefit that they tout the most. we still believe this company should not be in business that partner with multinational corporations that don't want to partnership with our communities without lifting them up. that concludes my statement and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners, and director rahaim. i remain concerned about the precedent being set with this giant luxury retail exposure on a hub project. i feel the ripple effect this will have on the surrounding companies when the mitigation is absent. here, we see one directional capitalism, the single bottom line to keep the money and exclude who ever doesn't want into their economic strata. imagine going to a $300 a person pre-fixed restaurant and asking for a discounted sandwich to share with someone in the community only to be offered some bread crumbs off the bread board. approving this c.u. without engaging the community is giving equinox an additional benefit without engaging the community. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> one point of clarity that is a bit misleading, they have talked about the benefit of membership for employees and one additional person. that is not an additional benefit, that is an existing policy offered through all of their equinox existing stores. i would just say that he cequi is not committed to work with our community. granting this proposes use will only solidify its excluesivity. offering this conditional benefit without any such benefit to community will only be offering windfall profits and doing harm to our communities. thank you. >> president koppel: okay. thank you. anyone wishing to speak on this topic? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i have a question for staff. when this project was proposed, this was mostly an office for staff, d.b.i. to relocate toad joining residential tower and a project that underwent a lot of examination and scrutiny while it was approved. do you recall, by any chance, that at that time of approval there were any community benefits or any kind of community opposition to what basically is in front of us today, given the fact that the space is already occupied by the applicant who is using a small square footage to convert to a different use within the operation? i'm asking that not because i'm not interested in social justice and community benefits across the entire spectrum, but i would like to bring it into the discussion of the approval of the project at this time, and i think we need to recall what we discussed at that time whether it was discussed or not. >> commissioners, the project was approved three years ago, the central tower that the city would occupy. the gym is in the base tower. you approved the two buildings. the gym was a tenant in the tower. does not require a conditional use, but does require the conditional use only the massage use within the existing gym that is under construction. and as i recall, there was not major opposition to the project as a whole that came to you three years ago. >> vice president moore: so the gym is a use of rights. >> that's right. >> vice president moore: find a retail, find a gym-type tenant, you're in. >> that's right. >> just to piggyback avenue of that, a gym establishment requires a c.u., whether they're on the street and all they offer is massage or it's an addition to the main use. >> yeah. the massage, no matter how it functions, requires a c.u. >> vice president moore: yeah. thank you for bringing that to my attention. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: so the size of the gym, its size did not trigger a c.u.? >> at the time, no. i was not the principle planner for that project nor the introduction, the size of the gym. >> commissioner fung: a lot of certain type of uses have a size threshold. >> this is in a c-3 district, i don't believe, not to mention -- >> commissioner fung: okay. >> not to mention it's in its own s.u.d., the mission s.u.d., which would kind of guide the permissions at the location. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: while i'm pleased that the two sides got together, i'm disappointed that they did not reach agreement. i believe that the conditions that were offered by the project sponsor are a gesture towards neighborliness. i recognize they are of limited value to the community, but i would rather see the project approved with those conditions than without those conditions, so i would move for approval subject to these conditions. >> commissioner richards: second. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. seeing nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include those submitted by the project sponsor. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0, placing us on your discretionary review calendar case number 22, at 2643 31 avenue. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening, president koppel. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review to construct an 849-foot third story vertical addition to an existing two-story single-family house. it also includes a front deck, about 196 square feet, and a 29-square foot rear balcony. the d.r. requester of 2649 31 avenue, the adjacent neighbor to the south of the proposed project is concerned, one, the scale of the project. the project is out of character, scale, and street face of the block; and two, the addition will impact light and privacy. his proposed alternatives are to set back and to reduce the size of the addition and remove the front deck. to date, i have letters here to pass out that weren't included in your packet, but i believe were e-mailed to you, yesterday, but for jonas, for you for the record. to date, there were 17 letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. the department's residential design advisory team reviewed the project and found that one, the size and location of the front and rear decks were not seen as intrusive nor excessive to light and noise. the deck was set back 14 feet from the building front. though not within the purview of the planning department, windows on the front should not be aluminum-clad windows. we will ensure that change is made prior to approving the site permit. but with respect to the character of the neighborhood, the proposed third story addition is located within the set back at the sides and from the front, approximately 24 feet from the front building wall, and as such, the building scale at the street of 31 avenue is maintained. there are similar third story additions to other homes on this block where such additions maintain the character of the street. however, such addition runs almost to the rear of the yard. additional massing at the rear should therefore be minimized with a sensitivity towards maintaining the scale and light towards these adjoining rear yards. therefore, staff recommends taking discretionary review and reducing the massing of the third story addition to limit the ceiling height to no more than 9 feet from its current 10 feet ceiling height. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer questions. >> president koppel: thank you. can we hear from the d.r. requester? >> good evening. my name is paulson young, and i am the d.r. requester. i'm asking the commission today to deny this project as proposed because it is not compatible with the neighborhood character of the street. the 2600 block on 31 avenue is unique because it's a very small and narrow street, unlike the big, wide streets on vicente or taraval. a home with a large addition like this is very noticeable and completely ruins the street's characters. if you take a look at your package, on pages 30 through 37, you can see how narrow this street is and how all the homes are similar, and having a large footprint like what the proposer is suggesting would totally ruin the look of the street. unlike the other -- unlike the detached homes in other areas, the homes on this street are all connected, so it is noticeable and has direct impact to the immediate neighbors. as the planning department mentioned, there are three homes with a third story, but they are drastically set back, and they are not noticeable on the street. that's not the case with what is being proposed. as the planning staff noted, that there are a lot of people against this project, as well as we've submitted protest petitions to both the commission and as well as supervisor mar, who's in this neighborhood. i would like the project sponsor to scale back their project and make it so it's not so noticeable from the street. i am not opposed to building a third story, i'm just -- would like it to be consistent with other homes on this block. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. is there anyone here in support of the d.r. requester? you can just speak for four hours since you have a niners scarf on there. >> thank you. i actually need 90 seconds. i have timed myself. >> president koppel: okay. >> hi. my name is lorraine adams, and i purchased my home seven years ago. i've lived in san francisco 32 years. even though i was considered other homes that had lower asking prices, i chose to put an offer on my home based on the narrow street full of two story mission style homes build in the late 30s. there is no other street in our neighborhood that has this tiny, village-like feel. the project house is in the middle of the block, and the proposal to build a full, almost 1200 third story up to the front of the house is completely out of scale with the existing homes. this proposed addition alone is only about 300 square feet less than my entire two story house, this addition. the impact of this addition on this street is much greater than it would be on another street. i'm not opposed to any additions. as i mentioned, there are other homes that have additions set back far enough so as not to be noticeable from the street. we have reached out to the project sponsor and architect several times to try to reach an agreement but have been met with silence. we are only asking for some adjustments to be made to make the addition less of a monolith and better fit in with the character of our block. please put a hold on this permission process so we can meet and come up with an agreement that is more in line with the special homeowners on this block. thank you. >> president koppel: anyone in support of the requester? come on up. >> i own the home directly across from the proposed project. throughout the years, the city government has fought to maintain the original look of the sunset district. there are some wider streets that have no other side, 36 and 37 avenue are up against sunset avenue, and the lower grade highway has nothing across the street, only the ocean. they built three story full houses because there are no homes directly across from them. i purchased this house because of the quaint feel of the specific block and those neighboring it, as the others have said. a further recessed addition maintains the look and character of the area. we know that to be possible because there are three other houses constructed that way on this block. the project sponsor stated that the construction was to allow guests to stay in their house. a recessed addition would meet that requirement. it would also maintain the current atmosphere of the street and show consideration or all the other homeowners and san francisco residents in the neighborhood. i ask that you place the permit process on hold in an attempt to negotiate a revision that allows all parties to retain the character and value of their respective property. thank you and go niners. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is antonetta young. i am also a homeowner of 2649 31 avenue. i am speaking on behalf of our neighbor, mr. john johnson, who was unable to attend today's meeting, and i'll be reading his brief statement, so he's titling this to whom this may concern, i'm writing this note regarding the possible rooftop addition at 2643 31 avenue between vicente and esculta way in san francisco. this neighborhood is a short and curved street with not much width. please refer to the aerial shots in your packet in pages 9 through 11. a rooftop addition too close to the front of the street would diminish the appealingness of this block. there are three other houses on this block that built rooftop additions in the late 60s and early 70s. each of their additions were built back far enough from the front of the house that you cannot tell they are there. please reconsider the current requests of plans for the rooftop addition at 2643 31 avenue so all other residents can continue to enjoy the beauty and rareness of this block as it was originally planned. thank you for your cooperation and consideration. sincerely, john m. johnson, 2643 31 avenue, san francisco, california. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. is that it in support of the d.r. requester? okay. we'll hear from the project sponsor now. >> thank you. my name is way hun yao, and i am the project sponsor. the owner is out of the country, so i'm presenting on behalf of myself. so number one, i have been practicing engineering, doing addition in san francisco area for over 20 years. we do it all the time. a third-story addition in san francisco is not an uncommon job. also, we have a significant set back, and because the street is narrow, it's impossible to see the addition on the street. possible, across the street, from a second-story window, you can see the rooftop addition, so that's number one. another thing is regarding the size, you know, the typical width of a san francisco lot is 25 feet. so additional, 25 by 25, so the width of the houses on this street is not adjusted 200 or 300 square foot. it's at least 600, 500, some of them 700 square feet. and on top of that, the rooftop is standard. we don't have a whole lot of front yard and back yard, so rooftop is a very good feature. and other than that, regarding the privacy and the sunrise, you know, we don't have any window on the side, and the sunset is also -- is not a good block -- [inaudible] >> so this addition is not going to block any neighbor's sun light. so i'm not an architect. i do mostly engineering, but i think this is one of the jobs that i think -- neighbor should not feel nervous because this type of addition is going on in san francisco all the time, and just if you could consider the owner request and approve it. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in support of the project sponsor? okay. seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. as i said, that just because the addition can be done, it shouldn't be done because the way this block looks. it does not meet the way -- the character of the street. also, it's very noticeable, what is being proposed, and none of the existing third story homes, you can walk on the other side of the street and not notice there is a third story because it's adequately set back. that is not the case with this proposed project. also, they are proposing a front deck, which none of the homes on this street have front decks. so this stands out and should not be allowed, and again, i am just saying that i have no problems with them building a third floor, just not to the size that they're proposing so that it's not noticeable on this street. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you choose to use it. >> yeah. as i said, this building, we have more than enough set back, and it's not going to be visible on the street, the addition. so we have the section, we submitted all the documentation to the city, so i don't think, you know, this addition's going to change the look of the neighborhood street at all. it's just a -- you know, because the nature of the street is narrower than normal. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. okay. that does it for public comment and d.r. requesters. kathrin moore -- commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: thank you. the question why this project is hard to understand for me is that it really does not show itself in context. the lots perpendicular will be affected, and i think this project fails to disclose how it masses with the other buildings. it is not for me as much the front set back, but it is that i don't believe that the parapet of this building is as high so that you would not see the railing of the balcony. when you look at google, and you look very carefully at what's drawn, i think the building indicates something different than the drawing indicates it is. that said, i do not believe a front balcony is a good idea, any way, given the fact that the parapet is lower and the ability to see the balcony beyond, even if it's at the appropriate set back of 14 feet or 15. those would be my two comments in terms of feeling comfortable about the project. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: mr. winslow, the three adjacent structures do show a very small third floor addition. they look almost like, from the photos, single rooms, is that correct? >> are you referring to three adjacent to the subject property? >> commissioner fung: no, the three that are referenced as having the third floor. >> yeah. >> commissioner fung: are those third-floor additions very small? >> it's hard to tell, but they look like they're approximately set back the same -- roughly the same distance. in other words, greater than 15. >> commissioner fung: they look to be set back further from what i saw. >> it's hard to tell without measuring. in some cases, it looks like it's 20, 25 feet. >> commissioner fung: okay. so this addition on the third floor is set back, you said, 24 feet. the roof deck sticks out 14 feet, so there's a difference between that edge and the edge of the roof deck. i do believe that the roof deck needs to be set back from the rear property line. the thing that stands out in terms of scale for me is not so much the front set back, it's the fact that the rear is not set back and therefore shows a full floor higher than the adjacent buildings. if that addition was set back somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 feet, it probably would reduce its massing. >> so i want to address one thing about the guardrail to commissioner moore, and maybe i can ask guidance from the project sponsor here. it's not untypical where you have a joist, a space, and then feeling rafters, so when you take that joist or and put in joists for a floor, you'll have a para -- something that can conceal a parapet with the existing walls of the building, and i think that's what's going on here, if you understand what i mean. there's attic space being subtracted -- [inaudible] >> clerk: sir, just a second. >> -- if that's true, which was my assumption in reading the accuracy of these drawings with respect to the concealment of the front roof deck. yeah, my recommendation was some massing needs to change for the rear of the properties. the -- the rear yard's extremely constrained. those weren't parties of the d.r. requester that were still concerned once it was brought to our attention. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i don't have any problem -- i don't have any problem with the front deck, i don't have any problem with the addition. i do have a concern with the concern, and i don't know whether the appropriate solution is to bring the height down, as you suggested, or potentially a set back which may be better, less voluminous looking, but those are my thoughts. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i would suggest we continue, give instructions to the applicant relative to rear massing reduced, parapet height front clarified, and looking a little bit more into describing the context into which this addition goes. i would really like the d.r. applicants and neighbors to understand what it does and doesn't do because it's not clear. this project's proposed and existing side plan does not take any consideration of how it affects those lots which are perpendicular to the -- i cannot take comment at the moment when the commission's deliberating, but thank you. lost my train of thought. how those lots in perpendicular are affected by the additions. this doesn't take very long. i would say it takes about two or three weeks. i make a motion to continue with instructions to the applicant to work a little bit more on those questions. >> clerk: do i hear a second? is there an alternate motion? >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i would move we take d.r., and -- help me out here with staff, is that i feel like the back volume needs to be reduced, but i don't know whether it's the reduction in height or the increase in set back. is that something that staff works out in the process or can work out in the process or do we need to be more explicit? >> i think at this point, we need to be more specific. the reason commissioner moore was requesting the continuance was to understand, and i believe in sections in this case -- sectional information on the rear as well as the site plan. the width of the street was called out very clearly as an exceptional condition on the scale of this with respect to the adequacy of the set back. in addition, there's a particular condition at the rear that has very constrained yards, and i think you were asking for additional information that would probably inform what the right move, next move might be with respect to that. so in other words, it might show to the neighbors, if the dialogue were to continue, that the set back was okay, but it would show the set back and scoping at the rear. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: to respond to commissioner diamond, we can instruct staff to work with the applicant, but instructing the staff are just words. it takes a knowledgeable hand to guide it, and i'm prepared to approve the motion based on the context of transfer sections, including a better understanding how the project itself affects the surrounding properties which can be done in section. that includes further reduction in massing, as you already indicated, so those would probably be the three or four small hints to turn it over to you, then, to work with the applicant. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: so if i understand correctly, commissioners, the motion is to take d.r. and approve the project to be further amended for the proposed addition at the rear, reducing mass, under the guidance of staff. >> i'm sorry. was ait it to continue or take? >> clerk: it was to take and reduce it more at the rear. >> vice president moore: explain the building in relation to surrounding properties but to have transfer sections and clarify the height of the parapet so if we do approve the balcony in the front, that it is indeed not visible at this moment, that it is indeed lower than the top of the railing that is proposed. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 23 at 41 cronquist court, discretionary review. >> good evening, president koppel, commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. this is a discretionary review of building permit 19-618.3764 to construct decks at the first and second floor, along with exterior stairs and a fire wall at the rear of the building at 41 cronquist court. the d.r. requester, ann hedges of 47 cronquist court, adjacent neighbor to the south are concerned that the proposed decks are uncharacteristically deep and wide and will impair enjoyment of open space, block light and air, and create privacy and noise impacts. her proposal is to reduce the width of the first floor deck and the second floor deck and to eliminate the stair at the back property line. to date, the staff have received two letters in opposition and two letters in support of the project. staff's recommendation is to take d.r. a-- deny d.r. and approve the project. staff finds the deck on the first floor is set back 3'6" and extends 1'11'6'' from the back wall. the proposed upper deck at the second floor adjacent to the living room and dining room, public rooms, is modestly sized, is also set back 3.5 feet from the side property line and extends 5 feet back from its furthest rear wall and with this, staff finds the project meets the department's guidelines and recommends the commission not take d.r. and accept the project as proposed as it does not present any extraordinary or crucial circumstances. >> president koppel: thank you, mr. winslow. let's start with the d.r. requester. >> okay. i have a packet here. >> clerk: okay. once you start speaking, i'll hand them out. >> do i do -- >> clerk: you just start asking. sfgov will go to it. >> okay. good evening, commissioners. my name is ann hedges, and i'm obviously the d.r. requester. i wish i wasn't here. i have tried for months to communicate and have some dialogue with the olsons about this project, and there has been no willingness to compromise. i own 47 cronquist next door. i am an artist, i look at home, and i've owned this place for 40 years. we live in a particularly special neighborhood that is very convivial. we all know each other, we have events, and we get along very well. change is happening, change is a good thing. decks are, too. they're all over san francisco. i am not opposed to these decks, but i feel that these particular decks are not appropriate. the olsons are entitled to have decks. i feel that these are particularly too big, they're out of scale, they're out of context, and they're out of proportion, and i would like to specifically deal with the issue of privacy. projected here, you can see that this is my life. this shot has been taken from my kitchen and dining room in through the living room onto the deck. this next image was taken by the olsons' architect, and this will give you an idea of the scale and impact people would be looking into my life. this is the first-floor deck with the deck that i just referred to up top there on the second floor, and down below, you see that mass is the fire wall that is shoved up against my property line, going up almost 12 feet closest to my house. so clearly, the issue is big-time privacy for me. i'm an artist, i work at home. this is really going to affect my light and privacy considerably. i now would like to turn things over to my lawyer, michael mazzacone, who can deal with all the other issues that are at hand here. thank you very much. >> good evening, commissioners. thanks for staying with us so late. i'd like to deal with the inconsistency of the second-floor deck in this neighborhood. okay. you can see here, not very well, i might add -- >> vice president moore: speak in the microphone. >> this is exhibit e in your packet. the red deck is the proposed deck. the yellow deck is the -- really, the only other second floor deck on this block in this midblock open space. there is one other deck at the far side circled in orange, but that's not really in the midblock open space. the small yellow deck represents a deck that's about 18% of the width of that house. the proposed deck of the olsons is over 70% of the width of that house, so our position is that this second-floor deck is really not in conformity with what's existing there on the property. in addition, this is asloping midblock open space, so the deck would be built at a high point, and these are all the downhill neighbors, one of whom was here until 6:15 tonight, and someone will speak for him. i've prepared the slide here to demonstrate, really, just the mass of this project. where we respectfully disagree with planning is that this is not a modest deck. this deck here, that's a modest deck. this is very large, the mass is large. you can see from this picture just how imposing assist goiit to be with the line of ann hedges' property. she she's at the end of the block, and that's her view into the midblock open space. this is a drawing that is done from the yard to show you the context and scale and how much the fire wall will impact her property, her privacy, and deprive her of the midblock open space. this last one, which is exhibit k in your packet, this follows the residential design guidelines. this problem was actually anticipated by the authors of the residential design guidelines. they basically said when you want to build back into the rear yard, set stairways off of the property line. all they need to do -- this is simple. move the stairwell, then, we won't need this huge fire wall. >> clerk: thank you. >> president koppel: you're going to have a two-minute rebuttal. is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the d.r. requester? come on up. >> good evening, commissioners. thanks for staying so late. i'm representing rick larson, who had to leave, but was here from 1:00. rick, on the picture here, he is this house here, which is the downhill slope from the property. so he -- his concern was the decks, and from his persp perspective, it would be downhill here. he's lived here 20 years. in the past, there's been three major projects proposed on 27 streets, and on all of those projects, the neighborhoods compromised, and there had been no d.r.s as a result. on this project, he was never contacted, no 311, and he had no chance to challenge the project. he understands the residential design guidelines recommend smaller-scale designs for this area as compared to these designs and was hoping that a fair and equitable compromise could be reached based on this proposal. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. anyone else from the public want to speak on behalf of the d.r. requester? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is stephanie rose monday arosemond, and i'm a neighbor on 6225 27 street. i'm here to speak on behalf of a neighborhood on cronquist, april assai. i live with my husband and three boys at 29 cronquist court. we've lived here three years, and we have been fortunate enough to raise our family within our tightknit community. we have become very good friends with ann since we moved into the neighborhood 18 years ago. she is like an aunt to our boys who regularly go to her home to do jewelry projects. we have become friends with scott and page, as well since they moved to the court 11 years ago. recently, we were thrilled to learn their daughters had both transferred to the same school where our boys attend. as you can see, our worlds are intertwined. i feel personally torn and caught in the middle of two friends. this has also provided us with a unique vantage point in this situation. i'm here to say that both parties need to be involved in a rational moderation to reach common ground. from where i sit, this is possible. i wholeheartedly recommend mediated sessions to reach the point where both parties can walk away satisfied. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. anyone else on behalf of the d.r. requester? >> good evening. i'm everett rosemond. i live on 27 street facing the open spaces. my next-door neighbor asked me if i would read her statement since she's unable to be here, and her name is lani tonti. due to conflicting schedules, neither my husband nor i are able to attend the hearing. in brief, the proposed changes seem inappropriate and out of scale for the neighborhood midblock open space. the structures seem objetrusiv. how the open space looks concerns those on cronquist and 27 street. we all enjoy the view and character of our neighborhood and like not to see it altered negatively. we understand that ann hedges has offered compromise but obviously that was not successful, hence this discretionary review. our hope is that you can facilitate a plan that would take in all the concerns. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. anyone on behalf of d.r. requester? okay. seeing none, project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. a my name is scott olson. my wife, page, and i are the owners of 41 cronquist court and the parents of two daughters, who we hope are doing their homework tonight. we are keeping our fingers crossed. we believe the deck project is a modest project specifically designed to minimize any impact to our neighbors, which is consistent with and fully complies with any and all city rules, the residential design guidelines, and architectural standards. in fact, we chose to add in replaced decks rather than a more major buildout of our house primarily out of consideration to our immediate neighbors. this is certainly a small project given the recent history of major buildouts on our street and in our community in noe valley. addressing the upper deck specifically, this was designed to be 3'6" off the property line of the d.r. requester and extends only 5'10" from our house, and it was done with glass railings to minimize any obstruct of view and avoid blocking of light and air. with respect to privacy, we did offer the d.r. requester to put in a frosted glass privacy screen to address her privacy concerns. we also did meet several times for mediation. we had offered other things, such as reducing the lower deck and offering to build a new fence at our expense across the property line. unfortunately, we were not able to reach an accommodation. i'd like to use the projector here. we did not include a stairway from our top-floor deck so as not to block the d.r. requester's view. i also wanted to note that as seen in this exhibit, there are multiple upper decks on our block, including a massive combined home at 2329 cronquist court, a multiyear project, which the d.r. requester supported. the deck at 2329 cronquist court is bigger and also extends farther out than our proposed deck. we'd also like to note that our immediate adjacent property owners at 39 cronquist court have written a letter of support, which is included in the packet. our first-floor deck is smaller than that of our immediately adjacent neighbor at 39 cronquist court, and our stair deck is a common design feature consistent with our neighborhood. with that, i'm going to turn it over to our architect, mr. james savoie to address the project design. >> good evening, commissioners. james savoie, architect. just to follow up on scott's comment, there were essentially eight homes on their side of the street, four of which right now have decks at some time, either first or second-floor decks, so easily, it's not a new situation we're creating in terms of adding decks to their house -- this house, and scott actually just pointed out that they're both first and second-floor decks. also, the adjacent neighbor directly to the south -- or directly to the east at the rear property line also has a two-story deck on two levels, so that has been -- that is actually the downhill neighbor from our project and is even less impacted by any views. as you can see, there's numerous trees and foliage in between both properties. you have in your packet exhibit b, and as scott mentioned, the stop floor deck extends 5'10" from the building. it's offset 3'6" -- >> president koppel: okay. i'm going to have to stop you now because your time's up, but you'll get more time. >> okay. thank you. >> president koppel: is there anyone else here in support of the project sponsor? okay. seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. just a few points. first of all, i'd like to talk about the compromises that were offered. we have had discussions. mr. olson's a lawyer, i'm a lawyer. we speak the same talk. i asked him to reduce the decks. putting frosting on the deck is not going to help with privacy, and it's just going to help feel my client -- help my client feel boxed in. he did offer to reduce the deck, but none addressed the problem, which is the privacy problem. the other decks are first-floor decks, so they don't involve views into the upper floors of the houses. my client is not interested in the view out, she's interested in the view in. as far as the other decks, yes, there's two doors out, there's no stairways. the stairway should be moved. just to get the wall down, to get these decks moved over some. we look at exhibit a, it's a tasteful alternative. it's something we can all talk about. i would ask that you accept review and order the parties to go back and talk about this more. this is, by everyone's account, an extremely tight neighborhood. i would please encourage you to grant the review. >> president koppel: okay. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. we believe our proposed deck project is modest in scope, specifically designed to have minimal impact on our neighbors. complies with all city rules, residential design guidelines and architectural starts. we love our street, our neighborhood, our larger san francisco community, including miss hedges. we respectfully request that the commissioners do not take discretionary review and approve our deck project. we thank you for your consideration. our architect, mr. savoie, is going to address real quickly the privacy concern. >> commissioners, if you have the screen, please. so if you look at the arrow labelled arrow number 1 on my sketch here, you really have to be located at a real severe angle in ann's house to be impacted by any privacy issues. looking across, it's basically if you're in the living room space and look straight out, you do not see any of the deck, so it's just -- there's one slight small corner where a person would have to stand to impact the privacy, so we feel this project meets all of the requirements of the design guidelines and you should not take discretionary review. >> president koppel: okay. that closes all public comment. commissioners? commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i have a question for each side. first, in terms of the architect for the deck, the stairway that's generating the need for the fire wall actually could be shifted -- it could be shifted looks like several feet. aren't you the architect for the permit holder? yeah. >> the stair could be redesigned, yes. >> commissioner fung: therefore, eliminating the need for a fire wall and its cost for new foundation and everything else. >> it could be. it could be relocated. >> commissioner fung: okay. then i have a question for the other side. if privacy is the issue primarily from the upper level, what is wrong with the -- an opaque screen on the side of their deck where nobody could see back into miss hedges' windows? >> we're talking about the second-floor level. a couple of reasons. again, one of the problems we have with the second floor is it's not set off enough, and so they're right there, looking into our house, and you can see from the exhibit we showed, if she sits on her sofa -- >> commissioner fung: well, if there's an opaque screen, they can't see in. >> right, but if it's not that high, they can see over. >> commissioner fung: it's 6 feet high. >> but further, it boxes her in. it has the same effect as this fire wall, which is not n necessary. it takes out her open space and boxes her in. it takes out the problem on the ground floor by having this entire project so close to her and it can be set off. >> commissioner fung: okay. i'm not sure i agree with her. there's a building across both of these, so if you're looking at a midblock open space, you're looking at an angle. all right. if the issue is privacy, then a six-foot screen on that end of that deck will take care of that. if the issue is additional privacy on the ground floor, looking back into the ground floor window, well, the stair could be shifted over and a similar screen could be applied there. or if that's not an issue, moving the stair and eliminating the fire wall saves the permit holder a lot of money. i'm not sure exactly what the rationale -- what bothers them -- which issue bothers them more. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i would agree with shifting the stair to avoid the fire wall as one good idea. the second question i have, and it's my own personal thoughts. if you have a garden, why do you need decks of that size on every floor? i find it -- particularly if the decks come off a bedroom, you're mostly asleep, so why do you need a large deck off that floor? i believe the decks accumulatively are too large, not that the lower decks couldn't be what they are, but as you move up through the building, i think having three very large decks is very impacting to other neighbors, particularly the adjoining lot line homes. when we sit in our living room and have to look at things intruding at our view, and we're not just looking straight out, we're looking at a radius view, i personally find the three decks a little bit excessive. >> commissioner fung: what's staff think of the two ideas i broached? >> by the report, it is possible to do any of those things, however, project sponsor has a right to explore what they want, and as long as it fits our determination of guidelines, i have to call them as i see them. perhaps that question should be asked of the project sponsor. >> this is -- it is -- we do have a close-knit community. it is challenging to be here. i think as a show of good faith, we would be willing at this time to commit to relocate the stair across the mutual property line and put it at the end of the deck -- at the end of the first-floor deck and would request that the project -- all other project details be approved and that no d.r. be taken, and hopefully that's a solution that all sides can -- can be mutually unhappy with. thank you. >> commissioner fung: and no screen, you're saying, on the end of the upper deck? no visual screen so that nobody on your deck can look back through her windows. >> yeah. we don't believe a screen's required, but if it is something -- i believe that they might not want the screen. >> commissioner fung: okay. >> so i can't -- >> commissioner fung: we can ask that question. >> i would let you address that to them first and see how they respond. >> commissioner fung: okay. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i would like to ask the applicant if you would be comfortable having a green planter on the edge of your deck but have the planter outbound and the railing inbound, so when the d.r. requester looks out, she basically looks over green into the guaarden beyond. i think it doesn't take away from your deck space, but it's creating a softer -- it's far more softer for the adjoining property owner. >> if i understand, your comment is to include a planter on the deck. i think that -- i think mantha would be something we would certainly be willing to do. >> vice president moore: thank you. that is very much appreciated. >> thank you for your suggestion. appreciate it. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: do we have to take d.r. to accomplish this? it's a question for staff. >> depending on what we're accomplishing. asking the project sponsor to act in good faith to plant a planter is not a planning regulation that's enforced so no, i would say. it would be up to the good faith effort done here to that. >> president koppel: i would just suggest that it provide-- >> if you want the modification, you have to take d.r. >> commissioner fung: well, there's also an issue with respect to the validity of their permit. if you don't take d.r. and you disapprove it, then, they have to -- in order to implement that change, then they have to refile. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: there's a mutual understanding expressed to us as a commission that the terms of what we're asking for are acceptable, then we should take d.r., read that particular clause in the record, and basically, the drawings put forward will have a minor adjustment to that, but that's it, the d.r. is approved. >> commissioner fung: with one modification to the d.r. requester. opaque screen or not? no? planter or not? >> i think that's something that the olsons and i can discuss. >> vice president moore: you have to come to the microphone in order for us to hear you. >> sorry. i really don't feel that a tree sort of makes or breaks the situation. the issue is that the height of the deck -- people are going to be standing up, and they're going to be looking over, whether there's opaque or clear or there's a plant, and that's kind of the issue. that's why i put up that project of the person barbecuing there. >> vice president moore: the planter keeps the person away from the edge. >> that's a good point. it's a mitigating factor that's worth considering. >> clerk: is there a motion, commissioners? >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: there's a motion to approve the project, take d.r., with the request that the sponsor move the stair -- >> if we could iron that out now. >> vice president moore: the far end of the deck. >> they're going to move the stair to the rear of the property line, that's all. >> vice president moore: and the second is to place a planter at the edge of the balcony with a condition that the planter is outbound of the railing of the deck to create a green, fully maintained landscape screen against the adjoining property. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to take d.r., approve this matter, with moving the stairs to the rear and providing a planter outside the existing railing location for a privacy screen. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0. >> president koppel: and we're adjourned. excited. >> when we had that big rainstorm last year that was racing down this hill i went out and when there was a break in the weather to make sure that was clear and that was definitely debris that draws down i make sure i have any bathroom we me and sweep that away that makes a big difference sfwrts can fleet floated and every year we were coming home he it was rainey noticed it the water with hill high on the corner and she was in her rain boats so she had fun doing that. >> i saved our house. >> so adopt a drain 25 locations that you can good evening. welcome to the january 29, 2020 meet offing the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig is the presiding officer, joined by vice president ann lazarus, commissioner honda, tanner and santacana. to my left is the deputy city attorney that will provide the board with needed legal advice. at the controls is the process clerk and the board's intern. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we'll be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. up front, we have scott sanchez, acting zoning administrator, representing the planning

Related Keywords

California ,United States ,Glen Park ,Togo ,Hayes Valley ,San Francisco ,James Savoie ,Lorraine Adams ,Scott Olson ,Hun Yao ,Linda Hoagland ,Chris Townes ,Andrew Peters ,Everett Rosemond ,John M Johnson ,Julie Rosenberg ,Scott Sanchez ,Evan Rosen ,Christine Chang ,Peter Mandel ,Ann Lazarus ,John Johnson ,Rick Larson ,