to start building that is currently forever 21. they were allowed to fill in some of the door openings. in that case, this is a commercial building and retail building. those openings don't define what that building was as much as this one. in order for the project, i disagree with see historic preservation consultants. some openings me to be retained all the way to the sidewalk. -- need to be open to the sidewalk. the character needs to be retained. i think if d.r. is taken at some point, i would like that to be a condition. >> this is a hard one for all

of us, obviously. for me, the reason it is difficult this because i respect -- this will sound off, i think but this is the reality. we have four russian hill association to oppose the project and will work closely with a lot of these organizations and we are sensitive to what the neighbors input because they lived there and they understand the conditions in ways that sometimes many of us don't. it is hard for me to dismiss frequently what the neighbors have to say. i am not entirely opposed to this project. i think a project of this type could work at this site. this was in 2008 which was the date when they started to use this as a commercial parking

space at a higher level. this has been about three or four years. >> it seems that there is a possibility that this will be coming back as it continued item unless we take the are -- unless we take dr. we don't know how many parking spaces have been used over the past hundred years or whatever. a specific number, i would like to understand. 48, ok.

>> nobody really knows. >> i am asking for clarification from staff. this is fine. >> great, perfect. it must be true, apparently. >> i will not debate that. anyway, there are some clarifications around that stuff. my explanation is towards transit first. i take the bus everywhere, etc.. at the same time, i share a lot of concerns that i was hearing. you have businesses that sort of neat to have some commercial parking available in order to remain viable in the city. at some point, we will not rethink the transit first policy

but we will look at parking in a more progressive way and maybe there is such a thing. we are usually on the opposite poles. i am wondering how we contend with this. my inclination is always stores transit first and how do we hold to those values. i like the idea of the adapted it reuse of this building. this is a beautiful building and it will be used at actively and not demolished. i agree with what the commissioner was saying in terms

of his recommendations and suggestions around the design. again, i would like to see this project or some iteration actually move ahead but i think that we have some questions to resolve. i would not at this point want to see this project go away completely. there is no way of mandating that the owner keeps this use should we deny this project. so, i think we have a lot of things to look at. also, the property, this is as commissioners a guy mentioned is something that's is still be considered and the impact on the renters at that building. i think that there are some

things, i would like to see a way that this project will work better with the concerns that we heard today and i think that this is a lot more complicated. parking and those issues have a lot more issues that are affecting it than just this one. there are still parking issues. if it goes away, there may be more. i don't know, this is more than this project also as far as parking is concerned. i would like to see some project with an adapted to use -- and adapted to use. >> it is the tendency to perhaps this project go back and think more about the challenges.

it is important that we actively support the local businesses including not increasing the car and foot print. historic preservation is important to me. concerns about the adjoining neighbor's life, i would take issue with russell street.

this building should not become overbearing parent of these units could probably pull in and little bit and not push the upper floor all the way to the perimeter of the building which i find objectionable in any stance. you hold back and create like a building which should be on top of a historic structure. there are lots of challenges including more submissions of drawings, size, information. i am prepared to make a motion that we continue this and ask for all of those comments to be considered including those in which the neighborhood associations must continue to really work and we want to hear that we work with each other to work this out. >> second. >> i was going to make a motion

to continue. >> no date before may 19th. >> that would be fine with me. >> there is a lot of work to be done. >> i was going to say the direction would be to address parking concerns on and off site even though we should not be balancing the whole parking problem on the backs of this one project. if it can be contributing to not making things worse, that would be good. how it can be done, and i am not sure. the design review is for commissioner sugaya's comments. this is a very good project. they are doing some very good things.

the design is tastefully done and it will add some new living units and a retail unit on that street. i think it does a lot of good things. >> yes, i have a question to staff for mr. sanchez. i'm not saying that this is the direction the project should go but i want to know what the possibility is. can there be additional parking in the building that serves commercial tenants at act as a public parking garage? >> if the current legal use is that of a public parking garage, they can retain that use even if they are converting the upper floors. we could look at this factoring into the project. >> they could entertain some portion of it. >> i would just say that we have

asked the community to work with the project sponsor, that means that the answer cannot be that we only want the garages. i want to point that out. we're working with the project sponsor and figuring out how your needs can be addressed through the parking situation and how can a new use the introduced. again, we have plenty of vacant buildings throughout san francisco. we cannot make people do something they don't want to do. there are many instances where people wait and the neighborhood gets frustrated before they do something. it is hard to have compromised if there is not a compromise position. this project could better meet your needs at the same time and

make this building continue to be an active use going forward. >> the motion on the floor is for continuance until may 19th. i am assuming that the public hearing will remain open. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> we also continue this until may 19th and directing the project sponsor to work with the neighbor further on the design. >> thank-you.

>> the planning commission is still in session. if you can take your discussions outside. thank-you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the case before you is a discretionary review of the proposed expansion of the single-family house at 184 edgewood ave. i have received three additional letters of support and three additional letters of opposition. during the break, i have passed out letters. we get a breakdown of the proposed square footage. there are also letters from dr requestors who could not attend the meeting.

edgewood is a short secluded street with cul-de-sacs on the other and which contain single- family residence is mostly constructed in the early 20th- century. the proposed project involves -- approximately one and a half feet. this can be put up on the screen for use in review. at the second and third floor, the building will be extended approximately 16 anthis was alse

single car garage to make it more functional for the honors but it would not increase the size. the modifications that the project sponsor has proposed and the department supports and false increase in the height of the one-story addition by two and a half feet so that this is consistent with the level of the interior to compensate for the increased type, this will be further set back from the north property line for a total setback to 5 feet. this option was suggested by the residential design team along the initial review in october and did better addresses the excess ability needs of the property owners by keeping the rear deck as the same level.

this project would require variances from the front setback and a noncompliant compliance from the planning code. this is not meet the side yard requirement and to construct a to many in this area. this zoning administrator will hear the case after the decision. they have outlined their issues in their applications and their primary focus is the size and articulation of the rear addition which they feel impacts the open space and the light air and privacy of the adjacent property. the department has reviewed the concerns but feel they do not rise to the level of extraordinary or acceptable.

the project sponsor has sculpted a project in a manner that will have minimal impact to the character of the streetscapes or to the enjoyment of the neighboring properties. for these reasons, the department recommends approval with proposed modifications and a setback to 5 feet to allow for an increase of tight in the rear addition. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. whatever order you choose to address the commission is fine. you each have five mi>> we haved avenue, next door to the location of the project for 41 years. we welcome -- as neighbors and

we support of their project. we only seek to make a few changes so the project is more respectful of our privacy, our light, and access to their rear yards. these will change the historic character of the neighborhood. this is a brick-covered cul-de- sac. the houses were built in the early 1900's. they are modest craftsman style homes. they are generally built in only 55% of the lots. they sit mythically increase in depth as a street rises from the north to the south. allowing a buildup of 70% would cause the longer a lot to the south to deprive the shorter lower lot to the north of light and visual access to the shared mid blocked open space. it is these unique factors that

provide the exceptional circumstances justifying discretionary review. this diagram of an aerial view of the mid to lock open space shows the building. these are only billed out about 55% of the lot. -- built out at about 55% of the lot. this law occupy about 70%. as the street rises, only one other house much further up builds out to that degree. however, this is on an extra wide lot. allowing these to build out to 70% would set an unacceptable precedent. now, this diagram shows the mid blocked open space as analysis.

this is an important amenity. this exhibit shows what would happen if everyone built out to 75%. there would be a dramatic increase in the space. this final photograph shows the story on the project and it shows how the project would tower over our house and lock our access to light and the mid blocked open space. i would like to introduce my architect to tell you what changes we are specifically requesting. >> hello. as a san francisco architect, i'm not against remodeling. respect for the established

building scale is crucial in designing a new home. this does not meet the residential design guidelines for the rear yard edition. the proposed addition is very large. there are many rooms. the kitchen area is 430 square feet. the ground for family room measures 18 feet. this home is currently designed with almost 3700 square feet plus a the garage which is generous for a family of four. the average ratio is 64.5%. the proposed addition would create 114%, which is much larger than the surrounding homes. there are larger homes but lots are much larger and wider and can accommodate larger homes. to mitigate the impact and

reduced light and privacy suggest the following -- 1, to bring the first four black to the average adjacent homes, approximately 7.5 feet. the family room would be over 220 feet in size and could be made larger by adjusting the placement of the rooms on the ground floor. it would be to move the spiral stair to the center of the first floor rear wall. 3, to reduce the height of the first floor by not raising the existing house 18 inches which would eliminate 5 external stairs. >> thank you.

>> we think that this could be improved. the building improvement will be good for the environment here and for the neighborhood. we think that this is excessive because it extends both beyond the rear of the adjacent neighbors. we are looking at a residential design checklist which is different than the one in the guideline. there is the section of a rear addition. i have it here.

this is the average of the two adjacent buildings. this one is not. then, it meets the minimum standard, this would be the next question. if this is greater than the average of the adjacent buildings, this is the minimum set back and the second floor and above for the entire length of the rear addition which contains the shorter building. this also does not meet that threshold. it goes on on the next page, which is page two or three. there is the side set back. the first question is if this is the setback of the adjacent building, this provided at a minimum of 5 feet. if the project about seven adjacent rear yard, this is

fully open to both sides. this provides at a minimum depth of 5 feet. that does not also meet those thresholds. i did stand that this is a suggestion and i do sympathize with the need for space. we did this ourselves six years ago. however, we feel this goes too far past our house. we are not asking that the renovation meets the threshold but we would like to see the project moved closer and this is possible. relatively small changes would mitigate the affect on the neighbors and we could think that they could be made without too much hardship. this depicts the full length facing the rear kitchen and

windows which directly faces the bathroom window. >> anyway, that refers to page 17 of the guidelines. mainly, this does come back significantly past the other houses and there is an indication that the intent of the residential design checklist is that the new buildings be sensitive to the rear walls of our existing -- that our existing. it is a reasonable request to have less extension. much has been made of our having a deck extending into the rear yard. this is on a lot and a half. this is less than 50% of the rear and there is over 15 feet of set back on the side. i think this makes a big

difference in mitigating the effect on the neighbors of the new edition. that is all. thank you. >> we will have a few speakers in support of the dr requestor.

>> i am james campbell. i am on the east side of the street. the sunlight is definitely at a premium. if you live on the east side of the street, this comes from the east. this is on to the next six months and it comes mainly from the south. this could go as many as 10 feet into the garden. this would directly affect the amount of sunlight that this garden gets and cause quite a climate change there. i have been very aware of this with my own property because i have been shaded to the south.

there are privacy issues but i think that it should be important to study the amount of shadows that this structure will project on to the back of the house. thank you. >> i have lived here since 1990. i grew up in this neighborhood. we enjoyed raising our family on this magical block. this is like living in the country but we are in the center of san francisco. the footprint is approximately 30%. this is located across the street on the west side of