present that. we tried to work with the dull the first to come up with a design. when that was not possible, we develop something to show what was possible. we're not asking that you take that as the only building that could be built on the lot, but just what is possible. finally, the building will be built one way or another, and we agree. we don't want to stop development. we ask that you make sure that it is the right building. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor, two minutes for rebuttal? >> good evening, i am the

project owner. i would like to respond to the d.r. requestor's initial statement, which is that nobody likes the design of the current building. that is not true. the residential design team likes the design, the historic resources evaluation team likes the design. planning staff recommended that you not take the are -- that not take d.r. we responded to the concerns by lowering the building by 30 feet. but we are supporting the design. we think this will work well, and so does the planning department's staff. job other's 3 story design is not feasible, is not buildable, and he said he spoke what the department inspector who said it is possible, but there are no stems or drawings from that person. sue hastert tried to tell you the plants and from a few cannot be approved, but we followed

plan department guidelines that if approved tonight. it she said we need a variance to get approval, and that is not true. it is helpful to accomplish family sized housing. this is not a particularly narrow street. it is walkable. many have you -- many of you have done that already. it is financially possible that the building that joe butler suggested is not financially possible to be built. it is not code compliant or sellable. last, don't try to split the difference between the 25 foot building they are suggesting and are 36-foot tall building. we already responded to the height concerns by making a $200,000 investment in the new design to respond to the concerns on a number of levels, including design-related, to make the building conform to the neighborhood and the church does not stick out like a sore thumb.

we have been very considerate to the neighborhood. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. for many years we have gone over the fights over the number of floors, and my contention is the envelope and the height of the envelope and its effect on the adjacent properties is what matters. if the project sponsor prefers to put in floor. for floors rather than at 3, it is their prerogative as long as it is done it in a way that is structurally sound and does not increase the impact. i like to ask some questions. the project sponsor has said that the measurement of the out facade to the front most part of the building is 26.2. i don't know if you have the

measurements to substantiate that or not. >> that is the dimension on the drawing. commissioner antonini: okay. and as you go further back, the setback, and then it is stepped up, and they're coming up with 36 feet, which is lowered from the original 40 feet, and 4 feet below what is permitted. it also presented other numbers. i don't expect you to substantiate these, but they say using the same measures of the adjacent properties, it shows 40 feet 3 inches, and the other property, northside, bridget rather, the west side, -- rather, the west side, 32 feet. it would seem as though this particular property is pretty much in the context of the height of the adjacent buildings. >> the only clarification i

would make is they're doing it to the top of a pitched roof, so the volume is not quite the same. commissioner antonini: i get you. to the top of the pitch, the highest point. i understand that if it is not a pitch and i have filled in the two sides, the volume is great, but if you're just measuring the height at the highest point, that is probably what they are saying. i appreciate that. the project sponsor has done a lot of things i have asked them for, and that was adding cornices that had a pitch to them. it is not an unusual or unheard of concept. he say a lot of houses throughout san francisco that will have facades with small pitched roofs and tiles on them to keep them with the other homes in the area, even though the risk behind it may be flat. this is done all the time. what they're trying to do here brings in more conformity,

design-wise. these i think make the structure fit in more with the neighborhood. as most of you know, i am not a fan of modern architecture, but i think it can be done in a tasteful way that is contextual with this very historic block. i am generally in favor of this revised plan, and i will sit with the other commissioners have to say, but my feeling would be to take d.r. and approve the project as currently designed. and i will make that a motion. president miguel: do i hear a second? no second. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i will start off with a few things. i think throughout the process,

generally i had hoped there would be a more collaborative design effort and this. i believe based on tonight's testimony, there is not a lot of back-and-forth, he said, she said things about what process was. it seems to me if there were more collaborative efforts, mr. butler would not have had to produce his own unilateral designed to challenge the other design that the project sponsors have brought forth. when we continued with the idea that the building height would be lowered, in my mind, i thought it was going to be three stories. i kind of agree with commissioner antonini, it does not really matter whether you could squeeze 4 into three or

five into 4, but i thought it would be substantially lower than it is. the language that said, well, i don't have that in front of me, but the staff at think took the language from the minutes or the tape. they said, well, three stories, or maybe fourth story if it is going to be four stories, i forget the language, but more compatible or whatever language was used. i also thought that we said we would like to see something that did not require a variance. at least in my mind. for me, those things have not materialized and therefore i cannot support the present project. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i understand that people wanted to express their opinions, but it was overkill if you ask me.

what is frustrating it is i don't know what has been going on, but clearly people are not talking to each other in this process and it is extraordinarily frustrating. there are complications. this what, for whatever reason, is known that rh-3, which in my view is the totally wrong resigning. i-- totally wrong the zoning. i don't know how you would do three units on this lot. these are mostly single-family homes, and you try to put two units into a building where a lot of homes are single-family homes or small secondary units. the challenge for us, this whole thing -- i mean, first off, i don't want to navigate who said what. i cannot even begin to say how you cut this or cutback. it has got to the point where it

is overly confusing and just not clear. the truth is the street is 30 feet. these people, they have to deal with this. the building, the matter how you slice it, is a big building for that lot, on a narrow street. it really is. that is the unfortunate reality of that lot size. to me, the solution i would propose that would be the best based on everything i have heard is to make the height 31 feet, move the elevation to the east, and maybe reduce some of the windows and the back. that is what i would suggest. i cannot redesign the project, nor is it my role. i also feel -- i hate when opponents have products redesigned because i don't think it is my business what people do on the inside of their building, i just deal with a foot. . that is what i put forth, my motion to take the are, no more than 31 feet, and ship the

elevation to the east. president miguel: is there a second? commissioner moore: second. commissioner antonini: the other issue that was raised, and maybe mr. starke can help with this, we're talking about the variance, which seems to be a stumbling block. and the light will issue. my understanding is some of this white well is open above the first floor, but there is part of the property that takes that light well on the first floor, but it is below the greed of the adjacent window. am i correct about this? >> i am not sure i and a stand the question. i-- i am not sure i understand the question. commissioner antonini: part of where the light well would exist to the end is including the

bottommost floor. although it does not seem like the bottommost floor has any impact on anybody anyway. and then there is the whole business about flipping the sides to move the light well from one side to another side. maybe you can give me an idea about that, because i don't quite see what the advantages and maybe could tell me a little about that. >> we generally do not require light wells to be matched on the ground floor. what i understand that he wants is to have his light well matched exactly for the depth of it, plus an extra -- i don't have the dimension, but it looks like 8 feet or something, on all floors, so there is a passageway

all the way to the backyard so that some might gets directly into the windows -- so that sunlight gets directly into the windows. that is not something the department is ever required, but the idea is that could take the volume they are losing their and then put it on the other side of the building where the residential design team has asks them to put a 5 foot setback on the upper floors, because he does not see the necessity for having that set back. commissioner antonini: okay, i think i get that, but we're not talking about bring it all the way to the ground floor but the second-floor up? >> i am not exactly sure what the d.r. requestor 1 at. that is not something the department usually requires. commissioner antonini: maybe i could speak with someone who is project sponsor. that seems to me to be a compromise. but i know that you have made a

lot of compromises already, but it would seem to me that if we could shift that a little bet and open up a bigger light well on the other side and gain some space on the other side, i realize that you move these rooms around a lot already, but that would be something i might suggest as an alternative, consistent with having -- i see no issue with the site, whether it is 32 or 36 feet. i don't think that is the impact. the impact i have heard is about the light will issue, and that could be addressed, we might have something that to be addressed. >> regarding the light well, the reason that the planning apartment originally asked us to put that where we did, which responds to the building to the east, because his building is shorter. the way to respond to it and the mid block open space was to not have that location because it opens up the mid block of the space correctly.

by placing it on the other side of the building, creating a solid wall is actually closing off the mid block open space more. in addition, by moving that not to the other side of the building, what the d.r. requestor and joe butler is suggesting is we make that baker said that it extends well into and connects with the other light well. so it is bigger than the notch that we already have on the east side. it would be enlarging it. that is a stumbling block. i agree with you, however, on the difference in height. he said a 36 foot tall building compared with 31 feet is incremental, and the objective is to be able to fit to fittwo -- is to be up to fit two three- bedroom family size houses. commissioner antonini: thank

you. i would suggest this to the maker of the motion, and basically i think they make a good point of trying to create two family size to three-bedroom units, which i think is good to do their and adds to the housing stock. but what i would do is require them to match the light well, as was suggested by one of the d.r. requestor is, but in return they get their 36 feet as designed. commissioner borden: the neighbors said they actually would walk away, that this would not be appealed or anything else. my point to the neighbors is that if the light well changed enough for you, is that good enough? for me, i am just trying to get this project done today so everybody can go home and never have to think about it again, you guys start building next week or whenever. but i don't know that the incremental suggested that

commissioner antonini put forward its us to that place. commissioner antonini: maybe we should ask somebody. mr. butler, if you want to speak for the d.r. requestors, i am not sure they've acquiesced to that, but if so, that is fine. a>> the 31 feet, is that measurd from the rear yard or the front yard? it is very important. commissioner borden: just tell me what your preference is. just tell me what your thinking is. >> if this building measured 31 feet at the rear of the property, 9 foot ceilings, but 10 foot floor to floor -- commissioner borden: just talk about the height. >> the light will start at the ground and it goes through the roof, ok? so we took the 14 feet 3 inches of his light well and we put it

next to the five-foot side yard setback on the pop out. that is what the code requires. when you put a matching white well by shifting it back to match the pop out, that is what we want. but measured at the street, our proposal is 25 feet. we could go to 27 feet, that would be fine. at the back of the lot, are envelope is measured by the planning code at the street, 31 feet in the back. each of the stories could be more than 10 feet, measured floor to floor, if a light well and the heights or 27 and 31 at the back. we would all go away. commissioner borden: so your position is that changing the light will is not enough? >> the question is what the would be ok with just 36 feet with just the light well change. >> no, because it --

>> then the answer is no. commissioner antonini: anyway, that was my suggestion as a compromise measure. commissioner borden: does not sound like it is a compromise. commissioner sugaya: could i ask a question? i still don't understand the light well. there is a light well on the adjacent property we're trying to match, correct? >> there is a light well that is a little over 14 feet. commissioner sugaya: in addition to that, according to mr. butler, there is an additional set back under the residential design guidelines? >> there is the light well. maybe if we look at the plants, it be easier.

darrius 814-foot light well, and then there is -- there is a 14- foot light well, and then there is 5 feet. after that, you could do to store a pop out if you have 5 feet on each side. if they did not have the variantce, then there is another -- i am just guessing, another 5 feet to go that would have to be set back, and then you would match the light well another 14 feet. commissioner sugaya: what would it take to increase the square footage if you did not have the setbacks but matched the light well? would have to get a variance? >> the compromise, i don't know what it would be apples for apples, but the compromise would

be to get rid of the 5 feet on the other side of the residential design team on the third and fourth floors. it might be second and third, i don't know. there is a space trade off. whether it equals exactly, i don't know, have not done the calculation. commissioner sugaya: okay, i still don't have it in my brain, but -- president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner sugaya: let me give it one more try. we're trying to provide as much square footage as we can get, not just by moving the setback to the east, is it, -- >> yes, we're taking it away from the east. commissioner sugaya: and can they also gave variance if they do not have to provide the

setback on the west side? >> they can get a variance for that. that is not with the d.r. requestors has wanted. bucommissioner sugaya: i am just trying to get to what we can preserve, and matching the light well on the other side from the ground up. basically, filling in the back. >> you would need a significant variation from the planning code to get the square footage from the fourth floor. commissioner sugaya: ok, thanks. commissioner moore: i am tired and confused, and i don't believe this discussion should be held by us negotiating what we have asked these people to do with each other. i believe that two architects

not being able to understand the code is not wanted here. both of them are registered architects in the state of california at they should both know what is required to code and fire requirements. i don't want to listen to that. we had a huge hearing, 6:00 time certain, and we're still sitting here with additional complications to come. i am frustrated, irritated, and at what was into this project and i don't want to listen to this anymore because we have been given clear instructions what they should do with each other. he didn't show up and she didn't say, whatever, i could not care less. that is your responsibility. we are here to help you. we did not deny the building last time you were sitting in front of us. we tried to mediate the differences. as far as the windows on the side and polite -- and the

light, i remind the commission about three months ago a project on shock well. you remember what we did? we basically required that the light well pass all the way from the ground floor in order for the livability of the older building to be retained. the windows on the side on the west side are not arbitrary windows which somebody has put in there and ask for a variance or did it illegally. that is the way the building was designed way back when. nor buildings which, the block have to respond to that in one form or another, and i did not want to believe that either. i went to that building and i realized it was the recommendation of the department at that time would have stood, the entire building would have been un-little ball. it our way to intervene last time, asking the parties to talk to each other, was only based on

the fact we wanted to create the abilities, support labor, support buildings, we wanted to support a viable building in the context of older buildings. and that has not been done, so i am not sure what to do. i still want these guys to succeed, i still want them to have their building, but the way it is in front of us, i cannot. as to whether or not this is the only way to do that, that is all i have left at this moment. iis up to you. if this does not work for you, nobody engaged each other in a way that there was a constructive solution which we could support. ii leave it up to you. but if you don't get what you want, i will partially have to assume you did not do your homework.

>> on the motion to take d.r. and limit the height to 31 feet, shifting the volume to the east -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes, six-one. >> was that 31 feet in the front or the back? president miguel: the back. at that up, thank you. -- >> ok, thank you. commissioner sugaya: i think as measured by the planning code. we don't measure height from the

back of the buildings. we measure height from the front curb. >> on the matter of the variants, the public hearing is closed. at to make sure i understand commission's wishes, the mass that requires the variants that is located on the east side -- the west side of the property will be shifted over to the west side of the property -- the east side of the property and will require a variance in that location? ok. so with that, we would be amending the variance application and allowing the mass to be moved over to the east side, as per the commission's condition that we would be granting that very subject to the commission's conditions as well. president miguel: thank you.

we are taking 15 minutes. no, let's go through the rest of this first. let's go through the next two. >> commissioners, that places us on item 16, case number 2009. 1152dd, 456 urbano drive, request for a conditionald.r. if everybody leaving the chambers could do so quiet that, we would appreciate that, thank you.

>> good evening, president miguel and commissioners. the case before you is a request for discretionary review of the building permit to legalize construction exceeding the scope of work that was previously approved in 2007. the previously approved d.r. included a staff d.r. as well as two public d.r.'s. the subject property is located at 456 urbano drive, between alviso and moncada way. the previously approved permit included a one story a vertical addition, one storefront addition, and one story rear addition.