but that doesn't mean that the project in between them are exceptional and extraordinary because the buildings next door happen to be wonderful, i loved hearing about the stories next door and the restoration that has taken place and i don't understand how this project in between has anything to do with impacting those other buildings because it's already a modern context building that's been put into this place, so for me, i personally again, i'm sitting here not sure which hearing i was in, and i don't personally see any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and i move to not take the dr and improve the project. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'm going to argue against that motion. i think i agree that the buildings next door on both sides are historic and exceptional structures. it doesn't concern me that -- i guess it's the placement and

the forwardness of the addition that bothers me and to staff, in other cases where we've been looking at additions to existing buildings, there's a great deal of emphasis on setting that upper floor back. why wasn't that considered in this case? >> i'll address that. essentially, in those instances, we usually have a prevailing building plan that is usually two levels up on the street, you're adding a third storey, we required to be set back in this particular case, we don't really have that. the heights of the building, i mean, it's slightly set back for architectural character, but as far as requiring that it maintain like a 15 foot front setback, it was considered not appropriate by residents for

this particular situation. >> okay, i understand that but that's a strict interpretation. you have a turid on one side, you have this kind of architectural detailing and this is square and sticks out to the front, that's what bothers me about it. i don't mind having a third floor there, but i think it's the lack of some gesture to set that back, the first and second floors are below the roof lines of the other buildings and i think it would help to have a larger setback than what the architect currently is proposing. that particular space is identified as a study, yet it's shown as a bedroom. it doesn't have a bathroom attached to it, but there's a sink, there's other amenities,

i understand that, but you know, if you could lose some square footage on the top, that would satisfy me. >> commissioner wu? >> in listening to the arguments today, i think it's always hard for me to hear that you have to have a new addition to have a family in the city, i think that is not true. i think that there are families living in sro's, there's families living in really small homes, so the argument doesn't really hold with me. i just wanted to mention that, we've heard that in a lot of dr's, that said for this building though, seeing especially the front elevation of how far up the addition goes, the addition again -- or with some of the other commissioners, commissioners moore and borden, the addition doesn't bother me, it looks like it matches the buildings to either side of it. i could be supportive of some move to set back the top storey

that may give some gesture to making it more diminished but again the hiekt of it, the addition itself is not a concern for me. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, to argue that it's a code compliant project, of course every project that comes to us for dr is code compliant, but it's not that it's appropriate. i remember while i was first on the exhibition, we had a project that looked like some kind of a gas cylinder in the middle of i think -- i can't remember the neighborhood, and fortunately the commission disapproved it, it didn't fit at all. the other part of it, i agree with commissioner sugaya that while i don't think the additional floor is appropriate, it certainly, yes, it made an effort to not stick out and call attention to itself, it might be a little better if it was set back, you know, maybe 10 feet or 5 feet

and then the roof was pitched to try to honor the style of all the others maybe with the a door or a peak pitch, then it would certainly be a little less intrusive, i mean, that's one of the things, but i am voting against the motion and if it doesn't carry, i certainly will try to propose a continuance to go ahead and, you know, work on this to see if some things could be done to try to make it more acceptable, but i think probably i'm not in favor of just approving it in its present style. >> commissioner moore? >> listening to commissioner sugaya's comments, it is particularly this rendering where the rectangular third floor corner starts to really interfere with the strong

rounded form of the torte on the adjoining property. i would be comfortable for the architect to pass comment as to whether or not that particular corner could be further enlarged so that there was a full view of the corner of the adjacent building from the vantage point in which this particular rendering was taken and i was wondering if you could address that. >> do you want me to bring up that floor plan on that floor for assistance? >> without redesigning it, do you consider that to be a possibility? >> yeah, i do, yes. i would see it maybe as an angle rather than a notch, but diminish the corner off or something. >> does that address your concerns? >> what i'm thinking of is to bring the setback in line with the end of the stairway.

with the end of the interior stair? >> yeah, you would lose about five feet, six. >> you get about a 9 foot room, i think that's too much. i think you should go back about 2 and a half to three feet. i mean, you got to -- i mean, we're going from a one bedroom, one bathroom house to a cat and maybe one kid. >> back to my previous question which was at the end of the master bedroom where you lowered the ceiling, is that a master to scale? >> it was to break it up a little, yeah. i think, you know, if there were some compromises needed, that could be talked about as well. >> well, i don't know what the

commission feels, but -- >> i mean, i'm the maker of the motion and there's enough people that said they would like to see some things, so tell me what. >> 5, 6. i mean, commissioner moore? >> i would like to say it would have to be a realistic room, 9 feet is not -- >> i mean, to me, three feet seems to me more of a -- it gives you the setback visually what you're looking for, a total of five feet setback which we've done before on other projects. >> we're setting it back 2 and a half. >> this is being characterized as a study, not a bedroom. >> right, but the back part of the addition which is also a bedroom, the whole thing is one -- that room is one thing, the whole rest of the thing is the total addition. >> commissioner antonini. >> i think while we're trying to do the designing on the

spot, it's pretty difficult, the number of immediate neighbors who have come out and expressed concerns and the impact this will have on the block, i really think we should continue, and i believe i'm going to make a motion to continue for about a month and see what we could work on based on what has been said today instead of trying to chop a couple of feet off here and there. i think there is some serious design problems that need to be dealt with to be able to make this acceptable if it can be done. so, that's my motion which i think would take precedence if i have a second. >> a motion for continuance. is there a second? >> second. >> we have a motion for a continuance and a second which would be one month which would be october 4. >> mr. hillis? >> i was going to echo that. we didn't redesign a fourth floor addition, that was set back 15 feet on all sides today. i think this is a much -- you

know, this is obviously an extremely sensitive area, i think the design works that's there now, but i think we have to see what the design would be like and what another floor on this building would look like and how it would look like in the context instead of just loping off five feet here and there. >> yeah, that's what we're talking about, that's what's before us, so i would agree to continue it. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i guess i'll support a continuance, but i think that the commission is going to realize that the request for the dr is to deny the entire third floor, so that has to be understood to the neighbors that we're not considering loping off the entire floor at this point in any case, so i

think the direction to the architect is to try to do something with a setback and come back with some additional, you know, additional proposal of some kind and if that's, you know, -- rather than us saying it's going to be three feet or five feet or 4 foot 6 at this point or whatever it's going to be. >> commissioner borden. >> i personally don't support a continuance, i think we're pretty close here and i also believe that as we've stated, the neighbors are not interested in any addition whatsoever so it's not like giving more time will allow the neighbors to work with the projtd sponsor because they're clear they don't want a third floor, i think we've actually done more intensive redesign projects at this commission, i'm not saying it's my favorite thing to do but i think we're close because what we're talking about is a setback, and i think we have done that and we've reached a reasonable agreement on that and i think

we can do that. i mean, right now, we are making it -- we're looking at what makes an acceptable setback to make that difference for the impact of the turet next door and i think we can figure that out but i think that continuing it doesn't serve anyone really well because it's not like the public project with the people involved is going to improve and we're back to where we are debating whether what the architect suggests is what it should be so i think it's best for us to deal with it today and figure it out. >> commissioner hillis. >> i still support a continuance, i would support possibly, i'm not saying i'm in favor of a third floor, again, i think the building works as it is, i'm troubled by the third floor and i have concerns about the third floor, so -- >> can i make one process recommendation? i've been through a lot of this and if you could approve it

today with some reduction or increase in the setback where we are charged to work with staff which we've done pretty well i think for 16 months, i'm just saying that could be -- >> and again, i would not support that but maybe you would have the votes. >> commissioner antonini. >> no, i don't support that and i do not like the idea of the third floor, however, i don't believe there are enough vote tos deny the project today, but perhaps if it looks as though we're not going to be able to deny the third floor entirely, maybe the neighbors would have to work with the architect and with the project sponsor to design something that's more appropriate for the space, it's going to take at least a month to do that because just chopping a little off the front is not going to work for me and i hope we have four votes to deny it if it comes back that way, so if you're going to really make this into something

that's appropriate, maybe it will work. i still think the third floor is not appropriate, it's too narrow a lot, if i don't have three other commissioners that concur with my sentiments, then we can make it better. >> commissioner sugaya? >> well, as commissioner borden says we're close but we can't figure out what the distance will be, here's an arbitrary way to do it is to take the building to -- with the turet, not the turet itself but there's a corner to that house, if you extend that north or whatever direction it is to your house, that would be the setback. it's about three feet. >> i think you're right, i think that's about three feet, plus or minus, it's probably

not going to make any significant difference from the street, three feet, two, two foot 10, three foot 6, whatever it is. >> i would have to talk to martin and stephanie, from my perspective, that sounds like a resolution you guys could probably work with and i support it. let me say one thing, this building stepping back a little and being changed somewhat, i usually am in support of that, it usually does make a project better so i think that's a good idea but i think the material difference to the dr proponents is very small, so worrying about every little thing i appreciate as an architect, as far as the opposition goes, i don't think it's going to change their position whatsoever. >> i concur, i don't think the dr requests are amenable as commissioner borden says to renegotiating or talking about this. >> i think we understanding it's pleasing the commission at this point. >> commissioner moore? >> there's a fundamental

difference in opinion about the existing building, i think the best thing that can happen to this addition is the original architect continues to design the addition. i think the merit of how this moves forward is in that very fact, and i don't think it helps us to try to redesign the building based on making it more contextual between modern architecture and this architecture is no contextual differences, it wouldn't matter, it could make it worse, so to find side lao*ins which indeed give the other building because of its size and its age visual prominence i think will make in the general feeling of what this building delivers when the third floor is added and i support those commissioners who indeed are in favor with that idea. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, rather than

conjecturing of whether the neighbors will work with project sponsor or not, i think we're better off to give them a month, almost all of the neighbors that spoke in favor of the dr were here today, they heard this. i think they realize that it looks that despite my best efforts and of some of the commissioner, we're not going to loft that third floor off unless there's a change of heart on the commission in the next minute or so, but i think it's better than having something that's done quick and sloppy, get a month to get them to work on it and get a better result, so i will speak towards the continued wans, let's see what happens. >> back to you guys? >> no, you have to come back to us. >> i'm just clearing that up, okay. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor that you have to take action on first is for continuance for one month. i would assume that that motion

includes that when it comes back, it would be an open hearing? >> yes. >> on that motion, commissioner antimony. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> no. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> no. >> commissioner [inaudible]. er >> aye. >> that motion failed on a four to three vote. >> commissioner borden? >> so, i move to take dr per commissioner sugaya's suggestion, move the addition back three feet and ask that staff continue to work with the architect to sculpt the addition that we're trying to respect. >> second. >> any discussion? >> call the question, please. >> i'd like it to reflect that we're talking about the end of

the house, the turet house in that corner. >> closest to the turet. >> so, it's approximately three feet. >> can we get the overhead on. >> [inaudible]. >> yup. >> okay. >> commissioner, the motion on the floor is to -- >> just a point of information from project architecture and project sponsors, there's been all this talk about taking the stair house off but many of the rendering has it on there, is it there or not? >> it is, but it moved and went down, it went from the north side which was close to mr. gains dormer over to the side which is more than 20 feet away from 601 and we reshaped the roof there so there was fewer steps up there and we brought it down so it went through the 16 months, it went through --

>> another thing that makes this particularly unattractive in my opinion is the fact that we have this flat roof with this tent stair house rather than having a pitch that hides that. i don't know if that's hobble but there may be a way to do something on the top, take the green stuff off from there and put a pitch roof, that's my suggestion, whether it works or not, i don't know. >> i think it adds mass to the building, it's worse for the neighbors. >> there's a design question there too. >> yeah, i wouldn't do it. >> i wouldn't do it either. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to take dr, approve the project requiring that the project be set back on the side with the turet for approximately 3 feet, on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> no. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner wu?

>> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. that motion passed five to two with commissioners antonini and commissioner hillis voting against. thank you, commissioners, you are now on item number 16, case number 2012 .072 3-d, 1050 valencia street.

and who are you? >> the dr requester. >> and they're supporting your dr? the president's going to ask for the dr requester and then whoever wants to follow you can follow in the order you want. the president has said no, thank you. >> okay. >> i called the project. >> good evening, commissioners, rick sucre, the item before you is for a request for discretionary review associated with a new construction of a five storey debasement mixed use building at 1050, to 1058

valencia street, the proposed project would construct 12 dwelling units, one fraikt parking spot, 24 bike kl parking spaces and a ground floor restaurant measuring 1040 square feet, it would consist of 4 dwelling bedroom units of which two would be designated below market rent units, to date, the project has received many public comments, in detail, the department has received 15 comments including letters from four community groups in support of the proposed project as is and 18 comments including a petition signed by approximately 407 people and one other community group against the proposed project and in support of the discretionary review.

provide today you are copies of the public comments after the publication of the report, they have a number of issues with the proposed project including design, compatibility with neighborhood character, hiekt, scale and form, relationship tos the liberty hills district and surrounding historic resources, noise, dwelling unit mix and parking, since the proposed project is located in the valencia street, it is not subject to the residential design guidelines, the proposed project has been reviewed numerous times, the department finds the proposed project has been reduced in scope from the original proposal analyzed in the document, the overall mass, form and scale, we find to be appropriate given the zoning and height bulk limits, it is consistent with the mixed use character of valencia street and meets the open space

requirements offered in the planning code. the subject property is not a historic resource nor is it located in an eligible historic district, it is to comply with the san francisco noise ordinance which includes guidelines for construction noise and work, finally the proposed project is a fully code compliant project and is not seeking any variances or special entitlement from the planning code and is conformance with the eastern neighborhoods planning process, relative to the negative declaration, nothing of the proposed project or its surrounding circumstances have changed. as there appears to be no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the department finds that the proposal is consistent with the planning code and the mission area plan and recommends the commission not take discretionary review and review the project as proposed. i'm available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> dr requester?

>> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is risa title ba*m, i have lived at my home for 20 year, i have been president [inaudible] in 1984, much has changed in the neighborhood and a great sense of community has grown. in april, 2009, the architect presented his design at a liberty hill neighborhood association meeting, initial comments were at 55 feet, this building is way too tall, it is too dense and it has too many

units, the loading dock and all services shouldn't be on residential hill street, the design is incompatible with the historic district and the neighborhood and it lacks parking. in june, 2010, the historic preservation commission said in review that they took issue with the scale, the height and the bulk of the proposed building. they noted the lack of setback. they told the architect to work with the neighbors, the architect's response was, i guess you're stuck with me and my five storey building. at our last hearing in front of this commission on september 30, 2010, the commission told the architect not to come back with the same plans, to work with the neighbors, a

compromise of three storeys was suggested. a planning department meeting on december 21 on 2010 attracted so many from the community that a larger room was required, still, the project sponsors filed plans with no alterations based on the neighbor's objections, plan changes merely reflected the sponsor's economic interests, planning department comments and code. for over three and a half years, at every meeting, at every hearing, the community message has been the same. this building is too tall, too dense and incompatible with the neighborhood. there's great wisdom in san francisco's practices seeking neighborhood project support, those of us who work and live here know what will keep our community strong. we take pride in the character and the culture of our community. over 400 merchants and

neighbors have signed petitions opposing this project as configured, undermine -- undermining what has made this neighborhood strong, the density of this building increasing the disturbance which will impact neighbors, this threatens rights to peace and quiet, this is a very small lot, 35 by 85 feet, the 85 feet is on hill street. it's the same size as one residential lot and should not support so much density in a neighborhood of two, three and four storey buildings. fewer units would go a long way to reducing pending problems. unfortunately, parking is a real problem. we are all environmentally concerned but the