We can be there. And if agreement cant be made, you know, thats fine. I think this project is really great and happy to support it. Did you have any further questions or comments . Do you want to add . Nope. That i am supportive. So as long as we include the conditions that planning staff help facilitate a meeting with the project sponsor in the community and hopefully that a Good Neighbor agreement can be established. Did you want to add something . Yeah. Thank you, Monica Department staff. Somebody mentioned earlier sort of tying a timeline to that condition. So i just before a motion is made, i thought perhaps we could revisit that. So if theres any sort of timing aspect you want to tie to that meeting, whether it would be some time before the end of 2023, that meeting would occur. So the next what is that, five months we got left . Okay great. Thanks, commissioner brown. Uh uh, im also a supporter of the project, but i also support adding the condition about the Planning Department, facilitating the meeting by the end of the year. And, you know, our, our approvals can be appealed. So i think it is in the, the interest of the project sponsor to continue to work very closely with the cultural district and other neighborhood organizations. But having said that, i will make a motion to approve the conditional use authorization in adding the condition that the Planning Department facilitates meeting between the project sponsor and the cultural district or the community and or and other Community Organizations means we can finesse that language and have a separate set up before the end of 2023. Does it also include the changes that staff read into the record today . Your motion . So that actually was included in your packet last week. So we need to read that into the record. Okay, great. I do want to check just point about staff. Have any concerns about that or any need for clarification . Okay. Nope. Sounds right. Thank you, commissioners. Im going to read this back and please let me know if i missed anything approved. Theres been a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions with the additional condition requiring the Planning Department to facilitate a meeting between the community and cultural and the cultural district with the project sponsor in hopes of a Good Neighbor policy to be made. This meeting shall be made prior to the end of 2023. Sorry monica. Again, just want to clarify, theres a cultural district, but then united to save the mission is not cultural district and theyre involved in this conversation as well. So oh, you did. I can specify ties between the Community Groups and the cultural district with the project sponsor. Okay. Yes okay. So on that motion, commissioner brown, commissioner damon has a comment or question. Could the project sponsor indicate if they have any concerns with that condition as read into the record . Do you have any concerns with the condition of meeting with the cultural district, with a meeting in this case will be facilitated by the planning. Maybe excuse my ignorance. If i dont know the timing of this could only worry that i have is we were hoping to Start Construction in january because for two reasons. We are also engaged with the builder. Thats why the Union Representatives are here. So theyre hoping to start. You still have your approval of our entitlements. So thats what the condition is that you would before the end of the year. The Planning Department would facilitate a meeting between yourself and then the Everything Else can go ahead because we can, as fast as the Building Department can get you your Building Permit. No, no , of course. So that was my only concern to make sure that, you know, the people that are expecting to work can work and that we dont run out of space for children. Absolutely. So yeah, my no concern otherwise. Thank you. This is just a condition to meet. There is no obligation for any result out of the meeting. Thats okay. And you could meet tomorrow if you wanted to. And satisfy the. We would. But i dont. You know, we come for the other party to come to the meeting. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Im going to read it one more time. Theres been a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions with the additional condition requiring the Planning Department to facilitate a meeting between the Community Groups, the cultural district and the project sponsor in hopes of a Good Neighbor policy to be made. This meeting shall be made prior to the end of 2023. Yes on that motion, commissioner ron i. Commissioner ruiz, i. Commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial i, commissioner coppell and Commission President tanner. I thank you. Commissioners that motion passes unanimously and will now take us to your discretionary review calendar. Thank you. Well. Well, folks are leaving and were getting to the 615. Sanchez i just want to say , i know we had heard kind of out of order request concern about continuance. I understand staff may have had a request for continuance from miss hester. Were not clear if she is or isnt representing somebody. And so my inclination will be to hear the item with the folks who are present here. There are two requesters, and then if at the end of that, the commission is inclined to continue it because one requester is not present or their attorneys and present, we could consider it. After hearing from those who are present, because i do see a number of people like one request, for example, is on the phone line. I know we have people in the chamber so unless theres any objections from the commission to that, thats how i like to proceed. May i update about ms. Hester . Sorry hold on. Were not ready. We will. Okay thank you. I will now call the item. Item number 18 for a Record Number 20. 22 hyphen 009006 grp hyphen zero two at 615. Sanchez street and staff. We will now hear from you. Good afternoon, president. Members of the commission. Trent green and staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretion to review of Building Permit application number. 2022 0908. 2052 to construct a 553 square foot third story vertical edition and a 204 square foot addition to an existing adu of a Single Family dwelling on the existing building as a category c with no Historic Resource presence built in 2002. There are two drt requesters. The first sammy, host of j. W. Sanchez, llc of 617 sanchez street, which is the adjacent property to the south, is concerned that the proposed project is not consistent with the neighborhood pattern of rear Building Heights, offsets and setbacks. His proposed alternatives are to look at the opportunity to expand within the existing building volume to eliminate the need for vertical expansion. The second hugo gantry of 619, sanchez street, the neighbor to the south, is concerned that the project represents Major Construction that would have noise, dust and congestion impacts to the neighborhood. To date, the department has received no letters in opposition and five letters in support of the project. Staff supports the proposed addition as it complies with the residential Design Guidelines and is within the buildable area of the lime. The additional massing of the proposal above the existing roof parapet is minimal and modulates the Building Height to step with the topography. D. R. Requests for number one at 617, sanchez has an approved permit to demolish the existing detached garage and the non complying two storey Single Family dwelling at the rear of the lot and its construct a new four story Single Family house with an adu. The size and scale of the subject building at 615. Sanchez with its addition is similar to the proposed new construction at 617 sanchez the brewery wall. The proposed addition aligns with the corresponding level of the approved plan for the four Story Building on the adjacent uphill neighbor. At 617, sanchez is the subject building also has a voluntary four foot side setback. Further buffering the property from its neighbor, a variance granted in 1998 to allow construction and front and rear setbacks stipulated through a notice of special restriction that any future additions to this property would need need to seek and justify variance. As the variance was heard on april 26, 2023, and a decision is pending. The determination from the zoning administrator. None of the issues related to construction rise to the threshold of exceptional or extraordinary, nor are they within the Planning Departments purview to monitor or regulate. Therefore staff deems there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving the project. Thank you. Im available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. We will now now hear from dr. Requester number. One hi, good afternoon, commissioners. Im my name is amy hose. Please speak into the microphone. Thank you. Just so we can all hear. Okay im sammy hose. Im directly jason neighbor at 617 sanchez i opposed this variance application on the basis that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Furthermore, the proposed project violates the intent of the original variance from 1999 and is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern of real Building Heights, offsets and setbacks. While im sympathetic to the project, sponsors need to increase the number of bedrooms for their family. I believe there are other ways that have not been explored that would be more consistent with the prevailing pattern of adjacent homes. For example, when developing my own home next door at 617 sanchez, i work very hard with the neighbors and the planning staff to incorporate a series of rear setbacks at the upper floors. The proposed project, before you completely ignores these established setbacks and the proposed vertical addition creates a hulking four storey mass at the expense of the neighborhood. When i approached the project sponsor to request a modest rear setback on the upper floor, my concerns were ignored and i was told that the resulting primary bedroom would be too small. I should note that the fourth floor primary bedroom as proposed, would be almost 20ft long. By 15ft wide, which is massive by established residential standards. I would suggest the projects sponsor consider a far less impactful approach, which would be to expand over their double height living room. This would be a far more economical, economical solution and would provide the additional bedroom they are seeking. It would also be completely contained within the existing envelope without need for the vertical addition of a variance or further impact to their neighborhood when granting references and approving projects. Its important that these buildings be considered for the next 5000 years, not just the next 5 to 10 years. Thank you for your time and hearing my concerns. Thank you. Dr. Requester number two. I see that you are on webex. We will unmute you now and you will have five minutes. Can you hear me . Well, yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is actually, im the resident at 619 sanchez where i live with my wife. First, let me also acknowledge that dave and gina, the owners of six, 615 sanchez, are Good Neighbors and we are glad they moved in last year. And we are genuinely happy. Their family is growing. Nevertheless, we have some Major Concerns about the extension project. We believe the vertical addition at the top of the existing structure will cause significant privacy concern. The new space will look directly down upon our living room, our bedroom downstairs, as well as in our backyard. This will considerably reduce the privacy of our own. We are also puzzled regarding the motivation of this extension as mentioned it, the Commission Brief states that the extension is necessary to accommodate their growing family. This house is already one of the largest homes on the block, if not the largest. The house stands at 4000ft s with lots of wasted space that could be repurposed. Rather than extending this giant gray bunker which already stands out in the neighborhood. And to conclude, after listening to these hearings today, its clear to me that the need for housing in San Francisco is critical. I believe this city needs more new multifamily constructions and more density. So everyone has a chance to live in the city and not just millionaires on site in our street and in the surrounding blocks. There have been about half a dozen house extensions and never ending construction disturbance since we moved in two years ago. Yet none of these new constructions have added any new housing to this neighborhood. And like the other ones, we dont understand how this extension to the already largest home on the block will help the city of San Francisco achieve its housing goals. Thank you for listening to me today, commissioners. Thank you. We will now hear from the project sponsor. Good afternoon, commissioners. Brett gladstone id like to introduce my clients. I hi commissioners, thanks for your time this evening. Its a long day. My name is dave. This is my wife, jenna. We are the homeowners. At 615. Sanchez and long time residents of the neighborhood. We have a growing family. We have a two year old and a six month old. And we are very excited about raising them in this amazing city today, were trying to expand our home to fit our family. So now ill hand it over to our attorney, brett, thank you. Thank you. Earlier during the continuance, i said i hadnt heard from ms. Hester and i hadnt. But later today, she did call me and she told me that she was out of the hospital and shes recovering at home. And shes feeling better. But she wont be representing either of the doctor requesters. Id like to introduce glenda fine. Fine. Excuse me. Whos also italian and is the architect of this project. First, i want to thank the neighbors for their support. I wanted to mention back in february 20th of 2020. Sorry yeah. 2022 your your projector, please. February 20th, 22. Your Commission Approved the request for next door for project of 4200. Excuse me. 4028ft s are or project. Top floor, by the way, is a little smaller than her top floor next door. The property is owned by an llc. And i know you heard that Derek Webster plans to live there a little confusing to me because shes told my clients and my clients have told me that she created an llc to develop it and sell it. The non adjacent owner, of course, has only stated a concern tonight and in the paperwork about construction noise. In an email dated september 22, the adjacent request asked my clients to quote, share the beautiful view with me, unquote, and you see that on the overhead, referring to the more than 200 degree view that future occupants of her place will have in the unbuilt four Story Building. Even if views were protected, which, as you know, theyre not the adjacent dr. Or its future occupants will have a great view of at least 180 degrees in many directions other than the north to preserve the view, the adjacent requester made two requests. First, ask my client to create a setback at the fourth floor. Youll see here. So that the views are improved. And when my clients didnt agree to that because it would shorten their bedrooms so much, she asked that the floor be eliminated and that an interior interstitial floor be created in the double height living room. My clients looked into that. They had their engineers write a letter, which is before you and in your exhibits talking about the difficult and expense of doing that. Also the five foot deck would introduce direct views from the adjacent or dr. Requesters, fourth floor into my clients bedroom and vice versa. Also the fourth floor of the request is approved. Building has a deck which would allow significant views back into project sponsors bedroom. Lastly, having an open deck would create noise that i think the requester or the occupants would not be comfortable with. Despite dr. Requesters statement that the project is not consistent with the existing pattern of rear building setbacks, this drawing overhead will show the proposed new fourth floor is allowed is aligned with the fourth floor setback that you approved next door for dr. Requester. It also shows that floors one through three of my clients existing building are also aligned with dr. Requesters for the floor and are three first floors are a full 11ft less deep in the lot then the requesters floors. One through three. The attached aerial photograph overhead shows that my clients building protrudes less deeply into its lot than all the neighborhood houses to the south protrude into their respective lots, including requesters, own approved building to minimize the proposed vertical addition, my clients proposed to place the addition of the existing roof deck, which already has tall parapet walls, some as tall as five feet, which youll see there. So the buildings profile for many angles already appears to have at least half of a fourth floor addition. Dr. Requester has stated that creating the infill floor would be less expensive than putting up a fourth floor. But she hasnt indicated that in any way. How that works to the contrary, the letter i showed you from our engineer indicates all the structural problems and how costly it would be. And of course, creating an interstitial floor would be so disruptive to the building. My clients would not be able to live there during construction in any portion of the building. My clients lot is 75 larger than the dr. Requesters lot, yet my clients proposed building has a Squa