built by the myer brothers. it's also a demolition. it's not possible to build three floors on top of that by keeping -- and i'll show what you they're keeping. this is what they proposed to keep in yellow. you can't build three floors on these pieces of wood left on a 1922 home. three floors and a deck on top of that. and i will call it a demolition. it's just not upon. i'd also like to show you -- it's just not possible. i'd also like to show you what they planned to build. it's completely out of character for our neighborhood and it is directly beside an e.e. young home which has established to be a historic district by the board of supervisors. this is one of the homes.

i don't have the homes on our block. i didn't think it was relevant. this is what they plan to build, which makes the shotwell property look like a cottage. completely out of scale here, as you can see. and completely out of scale with the other side of the block which looks like this. we have two stories or three story with a garage below and then single story homes and here again, over from there, single story homes and i must mention this is also a myer brother home. i have a better picture of this , three e.e. young homes, over from the project home in question. and these have all been deemed historic by the board of supervisors. i would like to specifically

talk about the hrer that was done twice by the planning department. but i'm running out of time. they did a blanket statement that said that we're part of a larger tract of home, all constructed by the myer brothers and designed by h.c. bowman. that possibly then it would be a contributing resource. well, because i have personally surveyed 650 homes in the richmond district, i happen to know that there are 37 h.c. bowman-myer brother homes in thesy sinity in the same year and style as the one listed. the home is also, i'd like to say, the planning department is and has taken d.r. on the

following buildings in the last couple of years. this project at 2632, the probably was denied completely. -- the project was denied completely. it was a two story building and it was deemed, let's see -- it was deemed out of character and the building was completely denied. here, across the street, directly across the street, this building here had wanted to add a fourth floor. this is directly across from the project we are talking about now. they banted to add a fourth floor -- they wanted to add a fourth floor. commissioner miguel was then president and he spoke about his concerns for the pent house on top. -- penthouse on top. commissioners antonini and olague also spoke out about their concerns about the fourth

floor. consequently the fourth floor was removed. again on the same block we have 733 27th avenue and that -- avenue that added a third floor and the third floor was reduced. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the d.r. >> good evening. my name is jean. i'm the other d.r. requester. i live at 711 27th avenue. another historic e.e. young building which has been in my family for over 60 years. the home was built in 1912. it's almost 100 years old. in addition to the issues that were raised by the previous speaker, i'd like to point out a few others that are of concern to us.

the first is a reiteration of the issue regarding whether or not this is a demolition -- a de facto demolition. if you look again at -- i'm sorry, i don't have it. but if you consider the drawings that she showed you, it appears likely that this would be considered a de facto demolition, especially in view of the fact that if this building is four stories, some of the walls, the developers said, would be retained would probably have to be reinforced and therefore really aren't going to be retained in their original form. weem we'd like to request that the -- we'd like to request that the question of whether or not this is a de facto demolition be reconsidered. another issue that concerns us is related to the fact that this building is a two-family home. in the project developer architect's report in response to the d.r., he states that when the house is finished there will be three generations, including a pair

of grandparents, mr. and mrs. wang, two grown sons, who will pool their resources to purchase that this property for a total of six adults. they intend to take -- to also have children and it appears as though there may be three families, not two families, living in this project. there are plans for an in-law unit which does not -- is not supposed to have a kitchen or other cooking facilityless. we request that you very carefully monitor this to make sure that this remains an r.h.-2 and not an rh-3 property. finally and probably most important is according to planning code section 124, rh-2 houses are limited in terms of their floor area ratio. and i don't know if this will show up on the overhead but if it does it states that the rh-2 ratio that is acceptable cannot be greater than 1.8:1.

because this house is so large, the floor area is going to be considerably greater than what the code allows. we did the calculations and we did them in two different ways. because in the d.r. package there are two different floor areas or square footage of the new project. so i'd like to show you both of those. the first calculation is based on a gross square footage of 5,501 square feet which is what the architect stated there would be. according to our calculations, the floor area ratio would be 2.44:1 which far exceeds the limit. if you look at the square foot and in the d.r. that has been submitted in hrer, the square footage is reduced. according to that portion of the d.r. it's 4,785 square

feet, but nevertheless, the floor area ratio still exceeds 1.8 and is 2.13:1 in either case, where you take the larger or smaller, it appears as though this project exceeds what the code allows. and as a result we request that you take d.r. and deny the project and request that it be scaled back in order to be code-compliant as well as compliant with the residential guidelines in the neighborhood. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. additional speakers in favor of the d.r.?

>> with this -- [inaudible] three years ago it was four story and balboa and -- [inaudible] everybody against it. and then finally they united the project. [inaudible] you can look at the picture. 2630rks three years ago. four building. fourth building. [inaudible] only allowed him to build --

[inaudible] thank you. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? if not, project sponsor. >> good evening, president miguel. and commissioners. my name is john. i am the project engineer representing the project sponsor over there. he want me to make sure i thank the planning department for all the help they have had. we were working very close with people and they all helped on this project. they have made numerous suggestions and we have incorporated them all. nobody seems to thank them. i want to take this opportunity to thank them for what they've done. what i want to do is bring you a little background about the project sponsor. the story goes back to 1986 when the grand ask pa wanted to

come -- grandpa wanted to come to this country to seek a better life for his family. he work hard for 10 years. in 1995 he brought the project sponsor, the wife and two kids, to to come to this country and to seek a better life for themselves. they work hard, they work hard, both kids went to college. one has an engineering degree, the other has a business degree, working with the father in the construction trade. and they pool all their resources together, four people working together. to buy this property. this property is perfect for them because the grandfather doesn't drive, the mother doesn't drive. balboa street is a major artery with buses all over the place, two streets away they have buses. and also this is the perfect property for a chinese family because it's within chinese

restaurants and chinese medicine shop store and accessory -- etc., etc. and basically what they have done for the last 15 years, they work hard, they work six days a week and they pool all this money together to buy this property. and they are going to use their own labor to build this property, to help them cut down the costs. when the building is finished, there will be six adults living there. the grandparents, the parents and two sons. but they are getting married in the next two years. so they are building a family. chinese culture, you know? oriental culture, family culture lives together. it seems to be an expensive home, that's the way to keep the family together. they may have two kitchens but i have a feeling they may use the one kitchen because they will eat together and later on the grandparents pick up the grandchildren, etc., etc. that's why they need a big house like that. i think that's what they need a

house for. so i will entertain any questions. i'd like you to support the planner because he did such a good job and they have the right to achieve the american dream. thank you. president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the project. if not, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> hi, again, commissioners. we all want the american dream. i'm canadian. i've been here 28 years. i worked hard here, too. but i don't need a four-story home. and you can approve this project but we'd like to you take off the fourth floor. i think it's reasonable. it would be more fitting with the neighborhood character.

it's happened three or four times on our very own block and across the street. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> there was only one d.r. they did it jointly. there's only one d.r. >> only one two minutes. ok. president miguel: thank you. commissioner moore: i have a technical question. and it only pertains to the d.r. requester's interpretation . to my knowledge and the practice, residential design is not governed by f.a.r. it's office buildings. and why we have allowed coverage, most of what dictates residential design is zoning. so if we are in rh-2 which i think we are, those would be the only rules governing what we're looking at. i appreciate the attempt on talking about the building as

being large, which i think we all see. i appreciate mr. lao's explanation about the family and the cultural needs. however, what we are really looking at goes beyond family and cultural needs. it goes looking at the code and looking at reasonable interpretation of the rules with respect to this particular building. so i appreciated that -- i appreciate mr. lao giving us a background but what we really need to look at is more narrowly defined. i'm curious what have the other commissioners are saying. commissioner antonini: i share a lot of concerns that the d.r. requester brought up. i will assume that staff dish read the report and it was not considered to be a de facto demolition, although, you know, it's i think very close. but there are -- there is a line and i think in that regard it probably was ok. but i am a little bit concerned about a couple of things. the lower unit looks as though

there isn't a separate access to that. but i would hope that that's not the case. there is a full bath down there and that part's ok. there is not a kitchen that's in there. but i think we normally make sure that there are no access so it doesn't become a third living unit. and then the other thing that's really curious is if you look at the plans on the fourth floor, the pent floor, i guess would you call it, which is supposed to be part of the third floor, it's a two-floor unit, it has a master bedroom, as does the third floor. so i'm not sure why you have a unit with two master bedrooms. that doesn't make a lot of sense the way it's designed. i just don't quite understand how that is laid out and most importantly i think i share some of the feeling that while the code would allow that height, i think it's kind of pushing the nfl a little bit based upon -- envelope a little bit based upon what is in the

neighborhood. i would be more happy with a project where we approve the project but took d.r. and made it three floors. i think it would be more appropriate for the neighborhood. it would still meet the needs of the family. commissioner moore: i am kind of supporting commissioner antonini's observation. what really struck me as being somewhat an inappropriate interpretation of the existing labor is to put a balcony on the fourth floor toward the residential street which is really not the way of the neighborhood, nor those streets or buildings. and that would be the first thing for me to ask, that that would be eliminated. it just isn't a about acal -- balcony facing the street kind of neighborhood. i talked about that. it's nothing new to him. i would like to take a look at potentially getting that building down to three floors.

>> commission moore con vade her thoughts to the architect. they are willing to remove or reduce that deck if that is what the commission pleases. president miguel: thank you. commissioner borden: yeah, while i might sympathize with the d.r. requesters, it is an rh-2. the building is a single-family home and we're going to rh-2 which is actually the zoning in this district and then also the height is 40 feet and it's just below that. so it does seem consistent that way. i don't know if the five-foot setback on the fourth floor is -- i mean, how does that -- how would that, i guess -- how would that affect the view from the street? the issue is more the visual presence from the street and maybe there's way to push back the fourth floor a couple more feet, to make it less of a visual impact, because that's really the impact that we've been hearing?

>> currently what you're seeing is a 14 -- 15-foot setback to the fourth floor. i believe what you're seeing in the five-foot setback is an additional setback at the railing at the top of the fourth floor. that railing is actually needed for the roof hatch. in this case, they opted -- they elected to do a roof hatch instead of putting in a roof penthouse which would actually make the building taller. create more mass. so that was one way of alleviating the mass of the building. it is 15 feet. the five-foot setback at the railing is the further reduction of the height of the fourth floor. the roof of the fourth floor. commissioner borden: i'm kind of inclined to support the project. i feel that it is rh-2 and that's one of the reasons they have to go up to four. for the needs that they have.

15 feet, you're not really going to see from the street frontage, which is the visual impact on the historic district that people are concerned about, i mean, i just don't -- i'm not sure how they achieve the space that they need, you know, in another configuration. and i don't think it's appropriate to redesign their project, nor do i think it's appropriate to specify what they do inside the walls of their buildings. commissioner antonini: i would agree with that. but i don't think that we need the fourth floor. i'm looking at the proposed third floor and the proposed second floor plans which are almost identical. and my understanding is that there are going to be two separate living units. i'm not really sure why the third floor has to be -- have that additional penthouse floor above it. if these are supposed to be units for the two members to have and it looks like, though, they have two bedrooms. conceivably it could be as many as four bedrooms, depends on if

the windows can be provided in what's called the computer room and the study-library. i don't believe they have windows at this time. they might have to redesign that. and two bathrooms. in any case, i think it's quite conceivable that each of these unit could be three bedroom, two bath, which would be identical units. i don't really see the need to have the additional floor. so i would make a motion that we take the d.r., approve the project with the three floors. president miguel: is there a second? no is there a second? >> ok, the motion dies. president miguel: commissioners. commissioner moore: is the architect here to talk about that?

>> yes. the reason for the second master bedroom on the top is for the project sponsor. he and his wife will live on the top floor. and the family of the two sons will live in the middle floor and the ground floor, the grandparents can live there. but they're living together, so one big family, ok? there is a separation of the children. that's the reason. commissioner antonini: my concern is less how the family fits into. it we have to make the house an appropriate size and the family has to fit into the house. we can't make the house bigger to fit the family. if it doesn't fit into the neighborhood. so that's why i'm not in favor of this. but it doesn't look like we have the ability. commissioner moore: i wanted to stay with that observation. i'm looking at fourth floor.

if another family, and aassume that is a description, then i don't quite see why this family has a master bedroom, steam shower, an extensive bathroom, then the rest of the floor has an office-library room. another extensive bathroom with a tub and then a family room but it doesn't have any kitchen. doesn't have anything. so the kitchen season on the floor below, at which we again see a computer room and the study library room, a master bedroom, a large living room, a small bedroom. so the sequence of rooms and support for an additional family living is not really justified on the fourth floor. there is a lot of space but it doesn't quite add up to the descriptions i hear about who's supposed to live there and why. there's something amiss for me and perhaps we need to spend a little bit more time trying to hear the architect describe to

us how this is going to work. but i see a lot of square footage without it coming together. >> the only thing i can explain, i know a lot of big families. my wife's family has 13 brothers and sisterses. and then another one i learned, 13 brothers and sisters. so there's a lot of big chinese families. i don't mind to reduce the size. but hopefully the middle one can have some privacy. otherwise reduce the size to the fourth floor so they have the lifestyle they want to live. commissioner moore: i'm starting to gravitate more to support commissioner antonini's request for rethinking the existing spaces in the way they would semi make sense to me and

be more within the spirit of the rest of the neighborhood. this might just not be really for as many families as this project is proposed -- has proposed. commissioner antonini: can i make that motion again? let me make the motion to approve the project without the top floor on it. commissioner moore: second, yes. >> commissioners, you have a motion on the floor to take discretionary review and approve the project, eliminating the fourth floor. on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: no. commissioner moore: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passed, 4-21, with commissioner borden -- 4-1works commissioner borden voting against -- 4-1, with commissioner borden voting against. thank you, commissioners.

president miguel: we are going to take a half-hour break. >> thank you. commission is taking a half-hour recess. thank you.