was wondering, toby, if you have anything. thank you. thank you, commissioners. i guess i would address some of the concerns that have been raised so far. >> do you wish to state your name? sorry, toby morris of toby morris architects. parking in this neighborhood is an issue. we are proposing a curb cut that is adjacent to another curb cut so it will remove one half of a car space to provide parking for three. this is not a luxury condo project. mr. wren has kept these units -- the former owner occupied three of these units. so, when he purchased the building, it was delivered to him with three units unoccupied. he has no intent of displacing the existing tenants. in fact, he's keeping these

units open for the express intent as he can facilitate the construction and enable the tenants to move within the building during construction and then let out the units when he's done with the construction. the building as indicated in this drawing is setback on all of these four sides. the 15-foot plus in the front is substantial and impossible to make it see from across the street at a pedestrian view. there is the [speaker not understood] from the north that can be seen, but we set it off to the side to mitigate it. so, could i have a little more time? we didn't realize that the -- both mr. low and his attorney would each have time to speak. >> toby, you received 10 minutes. >> you've already had 10 minutes because it was two drs. thank you. >> there may be questions that may help clarify.

okay. dr requestor, you have rebuttal, two-minute rebuttal. i'm sorry, i got ahead of myself. it's a little bit late. speakers in favor of the project sponsor, if there are any. can the project architect use one of those? mr. morris, if you want, you can use this opportunity to speak in favor of the project. >> this is not your rebuttal. you'll just be speaking in favor of the project. i won't take a lot of your time. i'd just like to hit on a few of the issues that have been raised. again, it is not the intent here to do tic or luxury

housing. it is to bring back thea renters or keep them in place, actually during construction. the setbacks are more than are needed in order to keep the building largely invisible from the street, certainly. and the rear setback is essentially larger than our adjacent neighbor. we think it is sufficient to do the job. we do have another alternative we could show during rebuttal period that could open that up further for mr. low and views from the informal structure he has on the back of his property. i also want to emphasize the substantial benefit of the scope of work for all the tenants in terms of doing seismic work, sprinklers, insulation, new windows. i think i'll leave it at that. thank you. >> thank you.

now, dr requestor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. thank you, president fong, members of the commission. steve williams again. addressing the entire presentation of mr. low, this is not about mr. low. we have people here from across the street, from down the street, from behind, from in front. when you can't get a single supporter for your project, not one supporter for your project, something's wrong. he didn't put up story pole. your plans are not to scale. you wouldn't even supply a set of the plans to the neighbors. that's something that went wrong here. the graphics flashed on the screen. first time we've seen them. they're not to scale. they're not accurate. they're not submitted. they showed the same photos of what they claim is the neighborhood. the project site is not in any of the photos they showed. that is a block and a half north where the high-rises are. the lowe's penthouse is not an occupied space.

you heard that from his sister eva chan low. it is a 200 square foot laundry room and you can't compare that to a 1300 square foot fifth floor addition. it's a historic anomaly that was put on the building when it was built in 1910. yes, there are other buildings that also have stair and elevator penthouses that can't -- they're not comparable. the current floor to ceiling height on this fifth floor is more than 11 feet high. sensitive? on the first floor it's more than 10 feet high. that's not a sensitive rendition of an addition. they're not even providing the code required setbacks. you hear this talk about these setbacks are adequate. they're asking for a variance so that the setbacks they're providing aren't even meeting the code. the code minimum. what we're asking for is eliminate the variance, eliminate the garage, and

shrink this penthouse. if you're going to allow the penthouse, it has to be much smaller to come close to fitting in the neighborhood. thank you very much. >> second dr requestor. you have two minutes. thank you. john casey, [speaker not understood] property management again. the one point i wanted to bring up, the project sponsor's continued reference to the front of the property setback. but as we know, it's offset by the variance request to the rear of the subject property which severely impedes the open air space and privacy to the rear. so, again, i am strongly opposed and request -- based on all the facts, to reject the project. thank you. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

firstly, i'd like to address a couple of things mr. williams said. he makes mention of in his submission we are creating a fourth floor. we are creating a fifth floor to be clear. it's an existing three-story above basement building. we're creating a fourth floor addition. there are a number of inaccuracies. we've also got [speaker not understood] about not seeing the actual building in question. this image shows the white building is the subject property. the building up the hill from that is mr. low's property. the red dotted line you see depicts the proposed addition. and as you can see, even from the worst possible angle over the partially vacant lot, for the most part from public spaces, this petition just isn't visible. it is visible to other owners

and buildings and the issue as i mentioned earlier i genuinely believe is about views. i don't believe the concerns are about character. i believe it's about views. i'm not sure how relevant it is, but in the context of a petition created based on some information that wasn't even true, we also discovered that the hearing poster on the side of our building had an attachment stuck to it presumably by one of the dr requestorses. ~. [speaker not understood]. i would like to assume it's not okay to attach things to a hearing poster especially on the face of my building. one last image, i appreciate it's late. you guys have been here probably 55 hours longer than you need to be. this again is a view of the subject site.

you can see the white building is our building, the brown building is mr. low's. the red dotted line, the red dotted image is [speaker not understood]. the proposed addition and that it's not visible from these public ways. >> thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. ~ okay, the public hearing is closed. commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore. >> i think this particular project raises a large number of questions. i am bewildered by the large amount of people who are speaking against it and the complete absence of anybody supporting it. when you bring up a google image of the overall scale and kind of city scape from the neighborhood, i think the neighbors are very well and accurately presenting that all buildings are of similar height and sloping roof line which

basically actuates knob hill. [speaker not understood] created around it are all on top of the hill and the flat portion not affecting anybody. however, when you move into a stepping roof line and add an extra floor, i think it is going to be very difficult for everybody. i have to admit that mr. [speaker not understood] historic preservation on his building. wonderful story to listen to because it is hard to imagine in today's situation that people had to indeed use something which looks more like a little shed up there to draw their laundry, but that's not what we're discussing today. i believe that the alterations to the building itself, the ones which mr. moore described, do more harm to the residential units of the representers than anybody can really imagine. for three of the units, at

least, the laundry room where people have a washer, dryer and potentially refrigerator/freezer are being eliminated to get this elevator in. but what i find amazing is in a multi-story building of the elevator only serves the upper unit. it does not upgrade the residential building in which the people with disability might be able to live. i live actually 800 feet away from this building and i know the neighborhood very well. i've lived there for 30 years. so, i feel very comfortable weighing in on this particular discussion because some of the buildings have elevators. to say that the benefit for the tenants would be seismic upgrades and sprinklers is for me not a discussion item because the buildings have to perform to seismic and safety standards and improvements of that are voluntary or mandate by code and don't really -- cannot be considered a benefit

or an argument of why we should be more favorably looking at this expansion. but having said that, if one would entertain an expansion to this building, we need to remember that we are having a legal noncompliant lot, and that mean we are looking at a building which was built to the extent that it would not meet today's buildings that would be built today on that particular lot. it is a substandard lot by width. i don't know exactly what its exact length is. in any case it has other issues in terms of how it covers the lot which would not be allowed today. so, for starters, to suggest an addition which also requires a variance is for me unfathomable. i cannot imagine on a legally noncompliant lot to add a variance because that is exacerbating the problem of why

we cannot even pull this building back to be a code compliant building today any more. we have to live with a noncompliant building on that lot and it's legal to be noncompliant. however, to add more noncompliance is for me unfathomable partially because of impact, but also partially what it does to the rest of the building. so build an elevator which actually only allows the upper unit owner to go into the garage also raised the question for me because it seems to indicate this owner wants to have two or three cars for himself or rent a car for somebody else from someplace else, nobody else can access the basement by a stair which people clearly can do that stair would be cut off and only the person on the top unit will be able to go into the garage. that is the way i read it. if in these actually smaller older buildings and i have

lived in two of them in the area, i lived on jackson and hyde on the other side of the hill, the basement was at least one or two rooms in which renters have small cubicles to store suitcases and other things because the units are small enough. all of that is going to be eliminated because the access to the basement as far as i can read the drawings does not exist any more, nor is there any suggestion to provide another amenity such as a laundry room if the laundry room is now being taken away from at least three of the units with the elevator. i believe the ceiling heights are too tall. i believe the building cannot have a balcony in the east facing direction which it doesn't exist anywhere. i believe if any addition would be permitted or considered by this commission, it would have to be smaller and more in line

with some other considerations that were raised by the architect himself and by some of the adjoining neighbors. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i disagree with commissioner moore that this -- we're not a popularity contest. i mean, i don't think that somebody has a project that's i think beneficial and compliant does not have to drag a bunch of people down here to testify in his favor and it speaks for itself. there are some issues that were raised by commissioner moore, though, that i did want to address. perhaps project architect could give me some answers. okay. the question about the elevator. now, the building is four floors. this will be the fourth floor. correct. >> being added, okay. so, i believe you are not required to have an elevator if it's a three-story building, but you do if you have a fourth floor ; is that correct? no, this is an elective elevator.

~ to commissioner moore's point, to do an a-d-a compliant elevator, it would be quite a bit bigger. so, this is what's considered a convenience elevator. >> yeah. what i'm saying is, though, the code, as far as the building -- assuming there is no addition at all, the three floors are okay with stairs. if you add a fourth floor, then you have to put an elevator in for that fourth floor, i believe. no, no. >> okay. maybe mr. sanchez -- >> to my understanding there is no requirement under the building code to add an elevator if you have a four-story building. the architect can confirm that. this is a voluntary elevator. correct. >> there are certain additionses or heights above which you have to have elevators. >> this is not one of them. this is not a required elevator. >> so, the elevator does president really make too much difference. the other question i had for you is i think you had offered to remove part of your third --

some areas an extension over a lightwell for mr. low; is that correct? you were proposing to change your project -- that's incorporated into our design already. >> it's already in there. yes, currently there is a roof over the stair that's adjacent to mr. low's property and that roof would be removed. and then the new wall is set three feet back from that. so, it's opening up light. and, of course, this is a wall that faces south which would reflect sunlight. >> okay, thank you. well, i have a few other comments. i disagree with some of the statements commissioner moore made, and i'll need some direction from staff. a lot of these things are improvements that don't need to necessarily be done. for instance, foundations are important. there are many foundations in san francisco that are probably would not conform to today's code for sure. but they're there.

often masonry foundations, they're very dangerous. in case of an earthquake the whole building could fall down. i think they would not be required to do a new foundation at this particular time. am i right about that, mr. sanchez? >> i can't speak completely about that, but i understand what commissioner moore is saying. a lot of these things could be triggered and probably are triggered because they are adding the fourth story. the sprinklers would be required because of the foyerthtion story addition as well as the foundation, i would imagine that might be necessary in order to support the additional story. ~ fourth excuse me. certainly the benefits to the building and the improved safety of it, but they may also be required, it's not necessarily voluntary as the elevator in this case is voluntary. it is not a code requirement. >> but the windows, all-new windows for the building which i assume will be double payne and in the character of the existing windows are a big improvement for all the tenants and that would not be required

by this addition, i don't think. >> it may be required in order to satisfy title 24 requirements, but i would -- the architect is shaking his head no. so, it sounds like that's voluntary upgrade. ~ the other units are not being expanded so, [speaker not understood]. >> so, i see this as an addition for the owners of the building. they want to make a space that's big enough to accommodate their growing family. there is no way -- if they took out and merged units, then there would be outcry of five people to say they were combining units and taking away rent controlled units. they're not doing that. they're using one unit and adding a top to it. there could be some debate about whether this addition on the top is too large or too small, but it sounds like it's compliant with setbacks. am i right about that, staff members? >> it does require a rear yard variance which is why i'm here to hear the rear yard variance. >> that's correct, there is no front setback requirement under the coyed.

however residential design guidelines and the rdt review is suggesting a 15-foot setback. ~ code there would be no legislative required side setback requirement but their pinching it in at the sides and having a three foot setback on the sides on each of the sides. but they are extending into the rear by 6 feet 11 inches for a portion the building at the rear which is where the living room is. >> yeah. and then the commissioner was talking about a noncomplying building. what is noncomplying about the building? >> the building, portion of the building extends into the required rear yard. the building was built in 1907 before any planning code requirement. the lot itself conforms to the lot planning code. it exceeds the minimum lot size requirements. it is wider than typical. it's 30 feet wide. it's shallower than the typical 100-foot lot we would see. this is only 87-1/2 feet deep lot. this is one of the smaller -- not the smallest, but one of the smaller lots on the block.

and many of the other lots, mid-block 137-1/2 feet deep. so, some context about this lot, it is shallower. >> much like bernal heights lots where we have different requirements for them because of the fact their lots are so shallow. so, okay. well, i think that's the main thing. but i also hear that -- and i don't know if this was correct, but project sponsor represented that the neighbors wouldn't participate in meetings to try to mediate some of their concerns. views we know are not protected. apparently 50 -- 12 out of 15 buildings in the neighborhood have garages so this would not be extraordinary. it sounds like the addition is going to only take up about half a parking space because it's merged -- it's right next to existing curb cut. so, and we've heard nothing about -- other than the fact that this is going to continue to be -- the other units are rental units. all these other presumptions about what might come in the future is not before us.

so, i don't think that has anything to do with this discussion. i think this addition is fine. i could see a case being made. of course, this is more for the zoning administrator as far as whether the extension should go out there into the rear yard or not. but other than that, i think it's a good addition. >> commissioner hillis. >> so, i guess i have three issues. -- for the addition. ~ i think you've answered the tenants and what happens with the tenants. it's your intention to maintain the three existing rent controlled tenants during -- if you want to talk about that more, that's fine -- during construction? >> sure. so, we have no intention of losing tenants. ~ we need tenants. we can't afford to live. we also have no intention of -- i think mr. williams implied in

order to justify this cost, it must be a tic, it must be a condo conversion. we have no intention of that. the existing vacancies, we bought the building with three vacancies. we have kept those vacant. this is killing us and the lost rent, i mean it's been a year and a quarter. with no rent that's crushing us and we're doing it with the sole intent of being able to move tenants around to install sprinklers and sheer walls within the unit. >> it is your intention during construction to retain -- we are trying to. i mean, we'd love to do that. it would suit them. i know it's very expensive if we would try and move people out and fund all of that. we would love to keep them if we can. >> thank you. that is not something we can require as part of -- my second issue is design. if you were here for the last item, it's not that we oppose kind of a more modern design, but i think it somewhat over

shadows the existing building in the neighborhood. it is an addition that's not meant necessarily to be seen. you know, with the setbacks, but it's a little highly designed i think and could be more contextual, you know, without the overhang and a little less of a modern design. and this is from someone who appreciates things kind of designed well, but i think it's not meant to be kind of shown off on the upper floors. my other issue is the variance. i guess the question is if this project were not to require [speaker not understood], how far would it need to be setback from the rear yard? how much of the building they are currently proposing would need to be lopped off in the back? >> it's not significant. on the third floor at least in my mind, if not significant, on the fourth floor, pro poed fourth floor, you'll see the living room has about a 6-1/2

or so -- 6 foot 11 inch by 15 foot 7 inch extension and that is the portion that requires the variance. and, so, it's not as significant. i can provide my thoughts on the variance if you would like. may we jump in a bit there. so, i am a bit torn on the variance question itself. as i noted it's a shallower lot than typical 37-1/2 feet deep, but it is a little bit wider than typical. it has a significant front setback of more than 15 feet. the building was built in 1907. it's a potential resource. so, one of the factors that is pushing that fourth floor addition back. they are also pinching it in at the sides. these are all factors that justify a variance. however, one of the things that i do look at when reviewing the variance is the actual layout of the unit. so, seeing what they're doing

here in adding this additional -- having existing two-bedroom compact two-bedroom unit, that is only half of the width of the lot on the third story. and adding a very substantial fourth floor. the net result is only one additional bedroom. they are also adding an office. there is substantial pantry, the elevator that's been mentioned. there is the large living room and i was wondering if that floor plan can be reconfigured and made into a code complying alternative. you know, but again, we are hearing about a family who wants to have a unit that they can grow in, expand in, maybe have their parents living there as well. maybe that helps explain the elevator. i think as commissioner antonini noted, they could seek to do a dwelling unit merger or reduce the size of one or the other dwelling units. i don't think that is a good answer either.

so, it's a balance here. i mean, they're trying to maximize and having a family oriented unit and that's why i'm a bit torn on this. it has been -- i'm fine with the design, fine with the fourth story, i'm fine with the addition of the garage. and those are really things that are more before you than before me on the rear yard variance. but i guess i'm a bit torn about the functionality of that layout whether it can be made compact and code compliant and achieve the programmatic goals of having family housing. that's what tears me. >> i guess that cuts to the chase. i would support taking dr where we've kind of made that code compliant so we -- would you issue a variance or even ruminate about a variance? an aspect of the design be kind of made more -- make it more contemporary and not stand out so much in the neighborhood. so, that's where i would lean on this. >> commissioner sugaya.

>> yes. i guess to staff, when i first read this and i saw noncomplying, i thought, well, how can it be that they can expand a noncomplying -- what is the other term, nonconforming. >> nonconforming. >> so, but i still have a question in terms of -- i know under nonconforming you're not supposed to expand the building, but that's in a different kind of situation because it's actually a use question and this is actually a complying use. but if the building itself is too large for the lot -- >> exactly. >> to echo commissioner moore's concern, i think that compounding it by granting a variance for the rear yard just makes it worse, i think, in my mind. and i think that commissioner hillis's approach, which i also penciled in here to bring that portion of building back at least to the conforming line of

-- it's 20 whatever percent or feet, whatever it would end up being. >> 25%. >> it's indicated here on the first page of the drawing set. ~ as to where that complying line would be. so, that would be my preference if we're going to actually approve the project. >> commissioner wu. >> if i can ask the project sponsor. commissioner hillis touched on existing tenants. could you let us know how many units you intend to rent if the renovation goes through? sure. so, there would be five rental units. it's currently a six-unit building. we would be standing the top right unit into the town house. the remaining five units would all be rentals. >> okay, thank you. i would also agree i think with the sunset if we're going to allow the addition, that it definitely should be pulled back to where there