>> mark macy. >> i have one speaker card. > we have lived on the block

for about six years for a number of reasons. there are some long-term neighbors that are committed to improving the homes on the block. we have looked at the plans extensively. it is unfortunate that it has to come to a review the cuts would follow if the support, it will add to the property and certainly to the block. >> i called a few names. whatever order you come in as fine.

>> think you for your service to our city. we have lived in san francisco for 20 years. it has been our conscious choice to be committed to families staying in san francisco and we want to stay at the block. we sponsor the block parties. wheat has been needed homes for our family and work spaces. we have been talking with our neighbors probably for longer than they ever want to hear about it. we have the specific plans actually before the requirements with the reviews and all of the process because we wanted to find out how we can best address it.

then we had the proper parties and got the proper meeting. they have all looked at the plants, they said it was great. the only thing that came out was the across the street neighbors said, hey. it was within code, it was appropriate, but we got rid of it. that was the only thing we heard about. our design is consistent with our neighborhood and consistent with the surroundings. many of these are 3 story homes, none of which have any setback. we are kind of confused. we will put a 6 foot setback. we did that before any of the review section. that was our idea. when we got the review back,

there were 8 comments, seven of which we addressed right away. if we cut 15 feet off the front and 8 foot off the bat, we lose our bedrooms. asking us to do these setbacks is not nearly a design modification but it prevents us from expanding our home to useless . for him think you for your consideration. -- thank you for your consideration. >> we are in support of the project. not only looking at the plants, we lived across the street and a little bit up the hill.

we are looking at the home and this is consistently fine. we don't see any issues with the project. >> thank you. >> i have lived on the streets for about 10 years. i am actually the neighbor to the east. there might be some issue. i am also a little confused way we are here when all the neighbors that we know, we have talked to them and we are happy

for the renovation. i am here to say i support it. there is no issue for me. this is totally fine. >> thank you, commissioners. >> you mentioned a local pattern, i watched it 63-story additions go up across the street. i have been there 29 years. this is ok with me. i am confused by that. there are at the third four editions. this actually overhangs the building.

i did object to the penthouse and the owners greatly diminished it. this morning, when i looked out my window, i thought it would block my view. i would like to look at the local pattern. >> are there any additional speakers in support of the project.

>> i was raised in the house. my mother's trust currently owns the house and i am the trusty and i think that they should be able to do whatever they want. it they submitted a letter and i heard tonight that it was 28 out of 32 submitted letters and this is kind of a majority. they should be able to do what they want. this is a nice block and there are nice people on the block. >> we're hoping to remodel this.

we continue to approach them. we got the read on the project and we immediately proceeded. we have worked really hard and we have dumped a lot of money into the process already. we are here before you, with support of the neighbors in front of us. we write to you in support of our project.

we have children and we have a home office. i hope that you consider that this is not an arbitrary choice in our decision. we're working with our neighbors and presenting a recent proposal that stays consistent with the other homes around us. this is much shorter than the homes behind us which are much taller. >> are there any additional speakers? >> i look closely at these plans and i don't know what the date of the construction of this house was. i would guess late 40's early 50's.

typically, what you're trying to do is limited somewhat by the footprint you have and i looked at the top floor. with the setbacks you're asking for the ones in the plans and this is a tight squeeze and you'll be able to get the two patterns and three bedrooms and there but you have to allow for stairways and everything else. you would squish the bedrooms in to almost nothing because right now i think that they are 10 by 16, maybe 11 by 16. this is a little smaller. it has an entry into the dressing room. you have done about all you can do i would be supportive of not taking dr and approving the

project. >> i want to take the opposite tack. they were hired to do the type of work they are doing. while we don't always agree, on a strong support the -- that the single-family home is a very large home. in two minutes ago, we had at home that was available for two families. this was quite large. i believe that the department's observation is correct. the challenges are very minimal.

i do not believe that you can justify a building because of its architecture. i don't think that as an argument that holds. you can produce this within the constraints that we all acknowledge with each other. i would like to make a motion to makedr -- to take dr and do this as proposed. >> i would disagree. if you look at all of those, this is matching this to the houses that are directly adjacent. it could change to the homes in the last few years. there will probably be more and there might be two more family sized homes if you look at the aerial shot of those these homes were not from the same time, some of them were older homes. you can see the third floor

additions or the existing third floors that permeate the entire neighborhood with the exception of this little group of houses here. i think this is putting a lot of constraints on the project sponsors that are unnecessary. the design changes will be a big improvement. >> i would like to suggest at the department is not singling out this, to be more responsive to the guidelines. the same challenges would be close to those. it would be an attempt to try to enlarge the challenges which are very good president.

different families have different needs. the relative modifications which the department is proposing are not making this a small home by a long shot. i would argue that we would support the department's. >> i appreciate the work that the department has done but of the code allows for a certain size and this is a code compliance and maybe we should change our code. we have to decide what really want test. >> we have always struggled with the dr and these are always

taking it is compliant projects. it is not the case that this building is not compliant with the code. every review that we look at, the product meets the code. we can go around and around and discuss whether this is a code issue or not a code issue. if you go across the street, it shows a lot of three-story buildings. there is a relatively tall school building. it is hard to tell what is going on. if you just take the five, i

would like to support a staff and a greater amount of setback. i don't necessarily care about the rear. is there a second for this motion? >> i would like to make a comment and the department please interact with me on this. a code compliant building is still a challenge by the residential design guidelines and a judgment on the appropriateness of -- which is creating the building that we approve. this is in the height district and it does not mean that these are not challenging tether. none of them support each other.

there is a reasonable balance between the two and this creates the kind of building we approve. that is the same situation. i see this differently than you do. >> yes, we reviewed things for consistency and we also take a look at individual blocks. there are certain anomalies that might apply in certain neighborhoods that in certain circumstances can accommodate reduced setbacks, such things as a more shallow lot, those types of things we factored in our evaluations and a similar request. of the things we have to consider is how families are using this. we have circumstances now where there are extended families, parents, adult children that might be sharing a household

which is some justification for the need for more square footage. we try to factor those things into our evaluation of the project so that we have a basis for a recommendation. we also tried to use the president on previous recommendations we have made and the directions we have made from the planning commission. >> i think that this really supports what you did hear so i made a motion. >> i have a question about the rear set back. i understand that the front set back. what was the rationale? most often we see a friend set back and not a reader setback. >> the rear set back is to fold. you saw the neighbor here today but there is the adjacent building to the east which is

about 7.5 feet shorter. generally, and when you are standing in a building past the building or enlarging a building, you start to articulate a that. right now, this is right at the edge of the block. >> i would be fine with not having this. this is complicated to having a setback in the front. oral vot>> it was a 4 foot setbt

an 8 foot setback. i am looking at the set back here and i think that this is with recommendation. i like that and i think that creates a good transition between the different building types. >> i feel there is not enough consistency to do this. >> the motion is here. >> on the motion, the -- >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes. the next item, we have a 5:00 calendar. >> we will be in recess for 20 minutes.