this is only a corner lot. we can have 1750 because this is how the planning code is established. we have been using this for many years. this was from 1986. before 1986, this is a way that some people would find a building and taken to damage of the front page. some of the lot areas would be beyond that 125 feet. we saw that many people have less than this. this is very simple.

we have been doing this for many years. we have a determination from the zoning administrator about this lot as it meets the planning code. thank you. >> are there additional speakers in favor of the project? >> good evening, commissioners. i am one of the reps' from the architect. this is the same graphic that has been shown. really trying to illustrate that several comments have been

made at but the suppose it overwhelming size of a lot within the development. this is to show in yellow, we are showing all of the lots nearby that are less than 2500 square feet. many of these are not within under 25 feet. those that are shown in red are those that are less square footage that -- than even our smallest lot. again, this shows a similar corner subdivision. miss taylor mentioned these lots. i know she got this from the database because that is where we saw it as a being something about 2500 square feet when in

fact they are 2100 square feet. that is it. thank you. >> are there additional speakers in favor of the project? if not, you can have rebuttal. >> we can quibble about inches, feet, square feet, indeed, in the first graphic that i showed, the bar graph shows that the predominant lot size is well in excess of 2400 square feet. many of the properties that were outlined in the previous graphic on not minimal, they are 22 square feet. these particular lots with their

minimal set back, while the development is within a larger addition, this is within 20 feet of my kitchen which they did not show you. this is very close proximity to my home. the issue is the density and garages that have openings not large enough to accommodate two cars. this is equivalent to staff parking. this will not be accommodated adequately for the neighbors. we have for bus service. cars are a necessity. this is a strong consideration with the predominant development pattern in the neighborhood, not the exceptions that can be pointed out. there are very few bonds that are under a 2000 square feet.

if you go to 2022, you get a larger number. this is the character of the neighborhood. the developers are providing no backyard. they are relying on the green space that exists elsewhere and this is part of the development that they provide, the initial proposal has these edge to edge, no green space at all. thank you. >> you have two minutes. >> we do not disagree that there are large faults and the neighborhood. there are definitely large lots. as we have shown you, there are also smaller lots and the

neighborhood. this is not an extraordinary circumstance to have an 1800 square foot lot in this neighborhood. we have pointed out that there are seven. there are several hundred 2500 square feet. this project will allow for the subdivision probably committed under the planning code and in complete compliance for the development of three modest family sized tomes. they have a living area of 2500 square feet. they are not large tom's. -- homes. you would end up with two large lots. you would end up with living space that is not affordable to families of moderate income. you would end up with very large homes. this is permitted under the

planning code. the lot area is permitted. this is not an exception under the code. >> thank-you. >> i was able to go out and his visit to thanks to the request there and i got a really good perspective of what was going on. the overhead is quite good. i familiar with the park. this is an interesting place. the homes that were built in the 30's were all the attached. as we got into the 50's when the next group for build, there were some detached but a lot more that were attached.

the pattern that was demonstrated was that they were fairly gracious relative to the size of the house. this shows a large green space. many of the houses are attached. things have changed. part of it is cost. we see one thing and this is larger bombs. if you have a lot of that is large enough to accommodate it, it is important to have a new home that is at least 2000 square feet, hopefully 2500, just for the uses that we have today which are a little bit more complicated. i think that the request your is correct in the fact that the predominant pattern is that the lot sizes are mostly larger and

i think that they said that they are 700 or 1900, that could be corrected in the general area. the question is, what should be done. the first thing that i noticed, 795, the existing home, as it will be partitioned to create these other lots. the house needs some work. i accidently went in there because they said to go where the signs are and of course this is on that house and no one knew what i was doing. when i noticed the house was in bad shape, this is a rental. the first thing that the project sponsor has to do is to get that place cleaned up.

hopefully, it will be sold to someone who would be able to own the home. i could see this being the key lots rather than three. the homes will have a little bit more space. their rear yard requirement, have they set aside this? >> all four lots are 100% code compliant. >> is in a 25%? >> that is amazing. >> to propose, there was the original proposal which was to concrete over because this was level.

i believe in the concern and the project sponsor has eliminated that component. in the yard is not level. >> they have to contribute to the (space. >> there are trees along that shared property line and they are being retained. >> the places are well designed. i think it is a little bit of a stretch but we will see what the commissioners have to say. >> it is interesting that this is before us tonight because earlier in the day we had a discussion about the housing

element itself. there was discussion concerning densities not only around transit but also within development. so, this is kind of a good test with respect to the commission's directions. mr. williams did raise the question of how much subdivision might be allowed on the lines that are larger like this one in the future. from my perspective, given the discussion on the housing element and the direction that will be taking in the future and the need for development in the city, i am quite comfortable with the way this particular development has been presented. that said, i think that others

will have comments morses sync on the design aspect. i would like to see a little bit more work between the front a sponsor and staff. perhaps, of the people have comments more direct. >> i will move to approve an include the incurred schmidt for staff to work with the architect. perhaps, the other commissioners will. >> i believe that the subdivision is quite appropriate. if he were to look across the street, the pattern is quite

similar. i think that the pronouncement is quite correct. the only variation is on the second-floor window. i would have flipped the second building so that the entry door is where it is. i would try to make this look different. the small lot size makes it look like a european roadhouse but in the architectural treatment, that goes beyond -- which is a minor detail. there are even minor modifications. i find this rather impressive.

i think that the stepping can carry into the rear yard with a very small upturn and a minimum retaining wall. you can keep drainage from running into the yard. this is done all over the city. i would encourage the department to support the building. this should be lifted up to a level that is appropriate and we have homes of stature. these homes have a little bit more design. >> i appreciate the comments because i was thinking exactly the same thing. they are code compliant.

first of all, the comment on construction is very standard and not before this commission. these are two bedroom homes and they fulfil the density concept that the city is supporting. but these remind me of the homes that had only a change in balconies design. there is no reason why the second code could not be in a totally different material to that house and if this goes through, i a with like the architect to work with the department on it and create a

visual impact is the neighborhood. >> i have a question. >> can you come up for a second? >> i should reveal but ms. davis and i work together. don't they have design guidelines in place? >> yes, and the architect made great strides to comply. i emphasize that the designs are good and this is not anything that we are in a position to -- lot sizes and open space. the improvement club has reviewed the design as they have come out over the past several years and we think they have done a very good job.

>> i think that staff should show continued to work and look at the surrounding buildings. i don't know the neighborhood that well, but the material seem to be somewhat simpler than the variety on the building. >> it is not quite have the quality of the paint. the similarities have quite a bit of distinctive looks. course we want to ask the request your. i have a question. >> from our conversation, there are the setbacks which are before us for approval.

is that your understanding or would you prefer to have further setbacks? >> there is an 18 inch set back on the upper level which i felt was a token measure. in the second round of negotiations, at that point i was in the neighborhood. are there two houses or three houses. what i have objected to are the masses at is this. this is a solid wall there was a wonderful change in the rear design and the most recent offer and that was the second level set back. this was an additional 3 feet. we might have been avoided some of this if we had a more generous compromise. it is very pleased with the 3

foot setback. this does not look like a wall. this looks like a canyon on that whole side of the property line. he offered up on all three properties and i thought that that was a very nice change. they did not change the height of the building. what they did change was a wing that was added. they did not lower them. the building has 10 ft stories and floors and we asked them to drop the height of the floors for the looming quality and they will reduce this. this has a 19 foot height. these are 21 or 22 in height and trying to bring it down to 19 would bring it down to some of the canyon creations. >> they have accommodated the setbacks and this is a little

confusing. >> there's nothing in the current plan that you were shown, this was in the negotiations in february. >> was this in the plans? >> they are not. this is part of the conditions. >> maybe i can talk to the project sponsor because i'm confused about what we have. the request years have said, i am trying to look at the pictures, there is a 3 foot setback. is this part of our plans? >> the current plans to not have 3 foot and this is my offer to miss taylor. for all the changes, we did not

initiate, mr. greene asked us to do this. the offer to do 16 inches, we give him every item he asks for. the reason that we go with this is that we could not stand it anymore because they keep on asking that is why we stopped at the 3 feet. the biggest problem is that we are looking in one area. this is only one parking. we go right through the car parking. we are reducing the length, this definitely reduces one car parking. >> you have your rear yard setback which makes it compliant

and that is where the building against, i think this is 6 feet, i'm not sure how far that is from the property line. when you get above the first to second floor, you. but to the third floor and that is where you have your said back. that is 42 inches, that might be the height as compared. >> that is the fate of the building. >> what i see was that there was a roof pattern that has been eliminated and now we have a more pitched roof instead of a roof that has a pitch. >> i have a sketch. i think i can see this. the one to make sure what i see is what will end up.

>> this was lowered to two feet. the folding building height was lowered two feet. >> thank you. >> this is an unusual pattern. you have the next floor and then the spaces on top. you only have so much space. i would rather see two homes. i think this is probably not enough for us to agree. >> the motion is to not approve the project as proposed. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. you are now a general public comment. >> is there any general public comment on items on the agenda? if not, the general public comment is closed and this hearing is finished.

>> i have 2 job titles. i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected mayor of san francisco in 1912. he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of 1913. in december 1915, the building was complete.

it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art. those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an enormous french population. therefore building a palace in the art tradition is not unusual. >> jimmie was an incredible individual he knew that san francisco had to regain it's place in the world. he decided to have the tallest

dome built in the united states. it's now stands 307 feet 6 inches from the ground 40 feet taller than the united states capital. >> you could spend days going around the building and finding something new. the embellishment, the carvings, it represents commerce, navigation, all of the things that san francisco is famous for. >> the wood you see in the board of supervisor's chambers is oak and all hand carved on site. interesting thing about the oak is there isn't anymore in the entire world.

the floors in china was cleard and never replanted. if you look up at the seceiling you would believe that's hand kof carved out of wood and it is a cast plaster sealing and the only spanish design in an arts building. there are no records about how many people worked on this building. the workman who worked on this building did not all speak the same language. and what happened was the person working next to the other person respected a skill a skill that was so wonderful that we have this masterpiece to show the this masterpiece to show the world today. [horns honking]