that this isn't a big project. i think it is pretty easy to see that. anyway, thank you. president olague: project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> thank you. i would like to put of the same section elevation. you can see from the scale, comparing the scale of the existing wall, the addition at the property line is down here. this section is set back 5 feet. this dimension is equal to the d

r questors house. it is understandable that they would not be happy with the scale of the house next door, but the product we're proposing is not unusual in size. the property is 32 feet deep, slightly deeper than a garage. the existing wall is not going to be changed. it is not getting any taller, it is not moving back at all. this level is below the existing basement where there is currently a deck and a fence. this would not alter anybody's view or impact any trees or open space that would be visible from the immediate neighbors. the addition of here is 15 feet back from the front of the building and is set back from the rear building.

president olague: the public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini: i have a question, a couple of comments first. a number of issues have been raised. some of the issues concerned the second baseman that is being added and the concern about underground streams or shoring at the met, but these are generally felt to be -- i will ask is that the question. these are issues that will be taken up and have to be dealt with in the approval process for permitting and other things. there was also a privacy issue raised. given the setbacks, the distance between the structures, the

detached homes is fairly significant. the one thing that i am concerned about if i am judging from the map that was given, maybe i can ask the staff about the yard averaging situation. the comment was made that they don't have to average of the adjacent properties because it is within the area that is allowed and is compliant, it is not asking for a variance. >> that is correct. beyond that line is when the averaging is done to determine the allowable encroachment beyond that up to 25%. in this case, the proposed project is not exceeding that amount of the than the el al will bond that can be done on the lowest level.

the house is code compliance with the rear yard. i think what the filings are referring to is just an average of visual based on the overall death of the house. the logic of that is based on the existing footprint, and in this case, the residence is relatively shallow in comparison to the other residences on this block. and the overall death. >> i think this visual is accurate, but we are dealing with the second basement which is the part that is going down past the additional amount. but you are saying that it is not significant enough to be counted against the the rear yard? >> it was what they used when

they were in evaluating this house. they felt that because it is a down sloping parcel, there was such a differential that this is actually below the primary living space. >> i realize the open space, as you're saying, they are within compliance. this appears that it gets out a lot farther than anything else. >> i think there would be a stronger impact. if they were the same elevation because it is down sloping and is also a lateral slow on the block as well. >> theoretically, you could put something green above the top of that last lovell and it would look like the rear yard.

of a, i will see with the other commissioners have this day. commissioner moore: it is interesting because what he is addressing is hard to understand what the exact brady and his. it doesn't really fully reveal how the great falls away. what is missing is the materiality of this building. there was no suggestion of its color for its landscape on any of the (s, etc.. it is very difficult understand. i believe there is an omission, the exact kind of detailed openings create the facades that

are compatible. this project reminds me of the heated discussions we had where the only names -- you probably remember from a few weeks ago, we did not understand what was going on. i am not opposed to this project, but there is something in the presentation that is missing for me to be really fair to the thing. the disclosure that i would be more inclined, it is quite massive. i am kind of hedging what the other commissioners have to say. commissioner antonini: i have to

look at rendering of what the appearance of the building will be on the north elevation. i see a picture here. it is hard to understand what we are going to see. it looks as though there is an additional level, a tile roof that will match. it would be nice if we had a better image so we could really see. there are windows, i guess, up on top. i think the material should contain something that is a little bit better a rendering of what we are looking at. i had some misgivings about that. commissioner moore: this is really a discussion that is not commenting on the project, but looking at what we are expecting

as a commission to fully judge a building. these are some of the drawings, lines in black-and-white. it is probably a large sheet, 36 by 42, reduced to 8.5 by 11. a massive building becomes about 3 inches tall and 4 inches long. i think we need to tune our requirements to what is in front of us, understanding what is intended and exposing what you are trying to do with the building as an idea. a discussion of the idea falls flat because i do not understand the drawing. i am having a big understanding of the severity of the gradient in the backyard. this is a void by which i feel i

am not doing this project as much justice as i am interested. there is really a void in what you were asked to display for us. commissioner sugaya: i am reminded -- i cannot remember if it was on the planning commission or board of appeals. there was a case on a sloping lot somewhat similar to this. we had quite a bit more information on how it looked not immediately from the neighbors perspective, which we have photographs of, but from across, let's say, the mid blocked open space, and how the relationship was of the proposed design to the other buildings, from that perspective. i am just trying to reinforce what the other commissioners have already voiced in terms of

not being able to see. i understand what it is from the three the aerial, but an aerial is not helpful to me at all in terms of what it looks like from people's backyards. that is a concern of mine. we do not have that in front of us. commissioner moore: -- vice president miguel: i think what we have in front of us is probably sufficient for a code compliant submission with the department. but at such time as adr is filed and there is a question, -- a dr is filed, i agree that additional material should have been presented to us, and it was not. the additional material would make it easier for us to fully appreciate the project, even

though it is" compliant. i am not going to oppose this. it is a code compliant project. i think that understand it sufficiently for it to go ahead. but just as a general comment, even though it is a normal submission on a code compliant project, at such time as it is brought into question, perhaps additional information should be provided. commissioner antonini: maybe i could ask the project architect to clear this up for me. i found page a2.2. i assume if a passat on the street level remains the same and the only change will be the additional floor that is set back 15 feet -- that will look somewhat like -- in other words,

you are not changing the base, or anything, of the main floor. >> we are not. the existing house materials, colors, and openings stay the same at the street. commissioner antonini: with these sketches, it looks like there is a change, but i will take your word that it will appear the same from the street. so that addition is point to fit in with it. thank you. commissioner moore: as we are talking about elevations, i see a real shift in style from the existence of elevation to the proposed south elevation. but obviously the majority of impacts are being partially accommodated by the polling grade. they are trying to recreate a modern looking building with

glass elements in the baucus, if i understand that correctly. i am wondering. you are going from a horizontal sliding to what? >> cement. it is also stuck "in the front. -- it is also stucco in the front. to unify the buildings. we were thinking of steel windows. they are slightly heavier than industrial. but it is similar. commissioner moore: does that track from front to back? >> the front windows, we would keep as they are. we would not change the character. commissioner moore: what is the idea about the glass reeling?

is that because you want more transparency to make the building look less massive, or create more -- create more unobstructed views? >> both of those. the primary use our south-facing from this property. it is up on the hill and is a self-sloping property. to reduce the mass, we did not want to use stucco or other heavy materials where we did not have to. commissioner moore: we are very concerned for large glass railings facing public open spaces, because we are concerned that birds have a tendency to confuse glass as being an open space beyond. are you thinking of giving any kind of indication peck's --

indication? i am not sure where the code is, but i want to remind us that we are using quite a bit of glass over the five stories of your building. >> i have not thought about that, but we certainly can. commissioner moore: with the department discussed this, if we move ahead? >> i think one of the things the commission could do is ask the project sponsor to comply with the new code. the do not think it is in place yet, but they could treat the glass. commissioner moore: this is a lovely study to understand the study. this lets people take a different look at it. you might appreciate reading what they did to find a way of being creative. i would discourage you to move ahead. i think i am getting more

comfortable, even if i would like to see more drawings. that would be a department task to ask for more. president olague: would we have to take dr to include that? >> i can clarify the applicability of the guidelines. because the commission adopted the policy, we are implementing it. it has not gone to the board of supervisors, so changing to the planning code does not happen. it would apply to the glass railings. we can talk to the project sponsor. president olague: if we did one that considered and someone makes a motion, there would have to make a motion to take dr? or would it be automatic? great. commissioner sugaya: sorry. it was not important.

is it online? president olague: it should be. 40-x the project sponsor -- commissioner sugaya: the project sponsor might want to download. it is interesting. vice president miguel: i would move to not take dr and approve the project as submitted. commissioner antonini: i will second with a friendly amendment that project sponsor work with dr requestors wherever possible to address their concerns and see if we can ameliorate some of their concerns were they do with planning issues. commissioner moore: i would also like to ask that the department continues to work with the applicant about disclosure on

color, but this building falls within the general tonality of adjoining buildings and becomes a light building, because it is massive, and does something which reflects the collective feeling of the street is on. >> the motion before you is to approve the project as proposed with the project sponsor urged to continue dialogue with the dr reuqestors and to work with stuff on color -- staff on color. commissioner moore: and on the bird ordinance. >> staff already proposes that. >> stuff will make sure the project sponsor -- staff will

make sure the project sponsor is compliant with the policy on bird mitigation. president olague: it makes me wonder how it is being applied by staff. commissioner moore: but if the architect is unaware of it and it has not been brought up in any discussion, i think it needs to be put into the record in order to be accepted by the architect as part of the discussion. >> on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> you are not on an 1541456 -- you are now on item 1456 for

chestnut street. >> the subject property is located between franklin and gough. the proposal is to demolish an existing building and construction a three story building. there are concerns about the demolition of the building and proposed changes to open space. the department recognizes the proposed building is larger than what exists, but the scale is within character of the neighborhood and does not disrupt the mid blocked open space. further, the proposal fully utilized and underdeveloped lot

and adds more units to the city housing stock. the department supports the proposal, but has concerns about whether the project fully complies with residential design guidelines. this is not the same as when a project sponsor refuses to comply with requirements. the step is bringing the case to the commission as an example of a project for which staff is seeking commission guidance. the department acknowledges the value of larger than required light wells to the subject and adjacent buildings. however, they squeeze the floor plan and proposed units into a barbell shape, which concentrates living areas and bedrooms to the front and rear of the site. therefore, the request for sculpting the west side of the building has a larger than usual impact on the floor plan. if there is an impact to the western neighborhood rear of the

neighbors building, the residential design guidelines require it be addressed. we want to know whether requiring a larger than normal light well can substitute for or negate the need to address the impact of the new structure on the adjacent building to the west, or if the issues are separate and sculpting is required in order to be in compliance with the residential design guidelines. based on past practice, the department recommends the commission to modify the project, recognizing the department is asking for commission direction on the broader policy issue. that concludes the staff presentation. i am happy to answer your questions. president olague: dr requestor? >> good evening. i am a fifth generation san francisco. i only condo's behind the

building. i am not against the construction project. but you are taking a two-story structure into a four story structure when 86% of the buildings in the square block are three story structures. they are also utilizing a majority of the green space. we have unique backyards that encompass a majority of the area. they are pushing the building all the way up to almost the entire lot. i think that makes it too large a project. my solution would be to reduce the floor plan to a three story structure, like a majority of buildings in the area. speak president olague: in support of -- president olague: speakers in support of the dr req questor. >> it will come up.

start talking. just go ahead and start. >> my name is doug. i live on the francisco side. i have lived there since 1994. just a few comments. this is a unique neighborhood that has large, in closed court yard areas, no matter what side of the street. these courtyards are assured, whether you are on either street. the flat backyards are highly conducive to raising kids. i have two kids with my wife. we live right next to bill. it is a very quiet neighborhood. most of these are to unit buildings, so i disagree with the staff.

-- two-unit buildings, so i disagree with staff. the staff comments said a three unit building is not atypical. but typical in that area is two units with a garage. there are some exceptions. if you really study what i put in there, it is two flat units. the other thing is this project will have three bedrooms per unit. i have lived in this neighborhood for a long time. most buildings in the marina have two bedrooms. this will have three bedrooms. it is extending deep in our backyard and it is going up. the result is that they are using the building next to them to say for stories, and then there will have a back on top.

that is fine, but that is not typical of the neighborhood. the way i calculate, because normally a building in the marina has two flats with two bedrooms. this will have three flats with three units. you could have 18 people living in this building. it is not typical. i disagree with the staff. so i recommend having a shallow -- something that is more in line with this right here, three stories, not for -- four. and it would have a deeper backyard as well, which is conducive to having kids. president olague: are there

additional speakers in support of the dr requestor? >> my name is stella. we represent the building to the east, a 21 unit apartment building. we have copies of several e-mail sent to staff stating our concerns. we have multiple units that will completely lose what in closet windows, which some people use as their office. our concerns are light, air, sunshine, and privacy. our tenants also brought up the issue of parking in an already dense area. we understand the light will proposed between our buildings is more than what is required. however, multiple units are affected. the proposed project has a significant impact, compared to the existing building today. thank you.

president olague: are there any additional speakers in support of the dr requestor? >> good evening. i am rose mary doomer. i am in department 101. this will impact me the most of the other tenants. i have been in this apartment since february of 73. i am most concerned about the loss of light to my bedroom. i have lots of plants. that is one of the problems. i am going to lose the openness of what i can see outside my building, in joining the garden next door. there is probably