removed. we're also seeking the building that the zoning designation allows. and lastly, the minor exemption in order to present the designs that are supported by staff. there have been many variations over a lengthy time. before we get to the design, i would like to acknowledge and thank them for the help and guidance they have given over the big part of this year. like i said, through countless design revisions, i think the project that you have today is definitely a product of that collaboration. we are certainly very pleased with the designs were presenting to you today, and we hope that you support the recommendation that the staff is also making. i will let him finish with the

overview of the project. >> with me is one of my associates. working closely with the staff over 18 months, it has been going because it took a while being a gas station. we had a lot of time looking at this building. the design is architecturally current, it will be compatible with the neighboring buildings in the area without being a historic building. the result is a high quality and well-suited project. our clients requested to create more than just boxes in the air, create a sense of the community with the generous lobby. and if you larger, family oriented views. our own private office space and open spaces on the roof of the building really gives the

ability for all of the tenants to have access to the great view. do we have to be up there? ok. these first couple of slides are just looking at some of the design iterations to give you an idea of the different types of things we have looked at. you can see some of the earlier ones, they talked about the penthouses on top of the -- the town homes to be on top of the building. excuse me, i'm sorry. we ended up putting the flats at the front of the building and i will talk about that in a minute. the next slide is some of the photographs -- sorry. reiteration.

the upper photograph you can see, it shows the scale of the buildings in the surrounding areas, some of the buildings that are being separated out. the rooftops are accessible, and those are the types of reviews that you'll be seeing. on the site plan, we're adding box trees to make it more welcome and pedestrian friendly. also pat friendly, i guess. it is to create more of a residential entrance. the next part of that slide, the demolition will be removing current curbs that were there for the gas station and having won for access. we will be bringing some street

parking back to the project as well as removing the large billboard sign that is on the site. with parking for 28 bicycles, twice what we need. half of those are and lockers and half of them are in bike racks. 27 spaces, and we have 4 extra lists that we are requesting for the owner, as business there. you can see the retail space is modest in size, the residential location as you can see this kind of a courtyard that you enter before you get into the building being to the north there, and the town home units with private gardens of to the rear of the building. there is a closed trash room as well. and that the next level? this is the mezzanine level.

these are the more kind of a family-size units with family rooms. they are larger units. the typical for where we have the three flats, you can see that they all have two bedrooms, and the corner unit has a corner. the living space is on the rear side with the town home units. this will just get you up to the fourth floor. the windows are oriented. you can see the bay windows. and all the private terraces. they stepped back for that top

expression. as you can see, except for the signature bay that remains out level, we have stepped up the building back from the street because we're not allowed to have the bay windows project out. we pulled of the building back to allow the bay windows to project out. you can see private terraces, a large terrace for the committee area that will be broken into the landscape areas for tenants to enjoy. we have done with the roof plan is minimize the penthouses that we would have up there as well. you can see the three-part retail. the units being clearly articulated. with the large bodies, opendoc knees, the setback is the

penthouse on the top. i will show you the materials we are using. this is where the town homes are. [chime] that was short. president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this project? none appearing, public comment is close. commissioner antonini: i did check with staff, it is beyond 500 feet from this building, but i am very familiar with the area as you might expect. i like the project a lot. it addresses a lot of the things that we are looking for, a minimum two-bedroom units and i think it will be a very popular and sought after thing. the only comments i have

architecturally, i saw all of the different iterations, and i liked the greenwich a block further up that was built in the last few years, and i think it is very respectful of the older building adjacent on the other side from the chateau, and this is a little more modern. i would just comment that i am not quite sure why the penthouse units are different from the other floors. some of your iterations, you had the same six floors in the iteration #3. there was more symmetry and they were more standardized. this has the component of having the penthouse being more

glass and being differentiated be from -- being differentiated from the rest of the building. i don't think it really blends well with the rest of the buildings there. the other things you have done that, i like. i would like to see more windows and glass glass to fit a little more with the pattern that we have. this is not south of market. it is an area where most of the buildings, even though some are definitely contemporary, there are things about them that are similar. i think it is a great project as far as the way it has laid out. the architecture is moving ahead, so i am very happy with it. president miguel: i would like to thank the projects bonds will -- project sponsor, working

with the neighborhood organizations. i like this better than the earlier iterations of the building architecturally. i see no problem whatsoever in having a differentiation along the major arterial. i think it is respectful of the corner as a major corner, and i appreciate the fact that the materials used will be of the highest quality. i really appreciate that. commissioner moore: there has been quite an extensive effort to help design the building, and i am not very happy about the building, but that is not why we are sitting here. the one thing that i hope we would be doing and i don't see that at all is to find a better

transition. it is a very strong street going both east and west. at all of the surrounding parallel streets fallen to the same thing. this building does not very comfortably transition. that is a thing i am very sad about. that is what i would say. we have worked hard on it and we are already over designing it. i would agree with commissioner antonini's observations on it. it will go its way, but i would like to see a better transition. commissioner borden: i support the project and i have lived in this neighborhood. it has been an eyesore for quite some time. i am excited to see this project

to move forward. it is not my favorite building either, but i hope that you continue to work with staff. i think it looks a little bit too much like an office building in my personal view. you guys can figure it out. i am supportive of the project otherwise, and i want you guys to continue to work with staff on refining and maybe look at the street. i moved your proof. >> second. commissioner olague: i would like to add conditions. i believed that commissioner borden stated that the project sponsor continue to work with staff to provide a better transition. i agree on the glass, it has sort of an office building feel, just to the rendering is due. it doesn't feel very residential

to me. i share the same concerns with commissioner moore, antonini, and borden. if we could add language to the motion, i would appreciate it. commissioner antonini: i'm not sure how you make that transition. i share the concerns about the street. you have more of a hill that would make it -- i think what they did, they were able to put some treatments that perhaps make it look like it is stepping down a little bit even though i am not sure that it is any lower in elevation. the also own the building next door which is an existing building and i don't think they changed the height of that. there might be some things that can be done on the street to make it a little bit more -- to make it appear to blend a little

bit more with filbert as you move towards franklin. commissioner moore: it is about taking the relentless penthouse affect the way and putting some of the more penthouse type units into the setbacks. there are plenty of buildings that show that that can be done. there are plenty of them around. i am sure he knows what we're talking about. the owner himself, i attended a couple of meetings in the department talking about the architecture, there were not insisting that the viability of the project depends on the account. there is flexibility in doing this. i am surprised that a much agreed upon comment was not even shown in this particular sense. commissioner olague: i would ask that it come back to us after

these revisions are completed to see how our recommendations -- i would like to see, you know, where people take our direction or instructions >> the motion on the floor is to approve this project with the modifications that you mentioned to the project's sponsors to continue working with the staff on design and to -- leave the door alone. it will close by itself. that is not part of the motion. to better transition the project to filbert street. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner olague: aye. president miguel: aye.

commissioner borden: aye. >> and it includes bringing the project back. >> i just want to see where people go with our emotions when we pass that supervision. >> i am acting as the zoning administrator for the purposes of this project. we will come back. >> and additional height? >> commissioners -- [inaudible] ok. we are now on item number 13.

>> i am presenting this discretionary review case number, filed against the permit application which proposes to construct a vertical addition, horizontal addition to the rear of the house between 27 and 28 avenues. the project would also add a second drilling unit to the property. the height district is 40 feet. the request is a single request filed adroitly by a couple of individuals. they reside in separate properties on 27 avenue east of the subject property. their concerns with the project include the following.

that the project is a defacto demolition of the existing building rather than an alteration. that the project is inappropriate in terms of scale and height. that the project provides the potential for an illegal to selling it to be installed on the ground floor, and that the project will have a negative impact on historic resources. the department staff has considered the concerns expressed in the application and have the following comments. the project has been reviewed against the planning code section which provides quantitative standards that determine if a project is an alteration or at a demolition. the review of the project to determine it to be a legitimate alteration and not a defacto demolition. we reviewed and determined that its scale and hype are appropriate. it was set back 15 feet, and it

w designed to emphasizeas -- it was designed to emphasize the three-story scale. given its zoning and quarter location, there is a potential for that site to be developed to three or four stories somewhere in the future. we reviewed the project against the guidelines revolving involvement of ground-floor rooms and determined that the project complies with the guidelines and therefore presents little potential for the installation of a new dwelling units. -- unit. and including the historic resources valuation, the department determined that the project would not have an adverse impact on the nearby historic district because the project matches the

administration pattern and it is consistent with what is found in the neighborhood and on the subject block. the project was determined to be categorically exempt under class 1e. it is the dept.'s position that none of the concerns are exceptional or extraordinary and the department recommends that the commission not take the dr and approve the project. president miguel: dr reque stor? >> i have a procedural question before i start. we will be talking a lot about the carrying company, hrer. i wanted to know whether commissioner sugaya -- president miguel: he is not here.

>> i am one of these dr requestors in this case. i have letters of support that these people wanted to be here, i have copies for everybody. unfortunately, they were not able to come. we strongly disagree with department's findings. we wanted to know if there is a sound this report in this matter -- soundness report on this matter? overhead, please. this one here was purchased for $675,000. as you can see, it is a cute little home, built by the myer brothers. it's also a demolition. it's not possible to build

three floors on top of that by keeping -- and i'll show what you they're keeping. this is what they proposed to keep in yellow. you can't build three floors on these pieces of wood left on a 1922 home. three floors and a deck on top of that. and i will call it a demolition. it's just not upon. i'd also like to show you -- it's just not possible. i'd also like to show you what they planned to build. it's completely out of character for our neighborhood and it is directly beside an e.e. young home which has established to be a historic district by the board of supervisors. this is one of the homes. i don't have the homes on our block. i didn't think it was relevant. this is what they plan to build, which makes the shotwell

property look like a cottage. completely out of scale here, as you can see. and completely out of scale with the other side of the block which looks like this. we have two stories or three story with a garage below and then single story homes and here again, over from there, single story homes and i must mention this is also a myer brother home. i have a better picture of this , three e.e. young homes, over from the project home in question. and these have all been deemed historic by the board of supervisors. i would like to specifically talk about the hrer that was done twice by the planning department. but i'm running out of time.

they did a blanket statement that said that we're part of a larger tract of home, all constructed by the myer brothers and designed by h.c. bowman. that possibly then it would be a contributing resource. well, because i have personally surveyed 650 homes in the richmond district, i happen to know that there are 37 h.c. bowman-myer brother homes in thesy sinity in the same year and style as the one listed. the home is also, i'd like to say, the planning department is and has taken d.r. on the following buildings in the last couple of years. this project at 2632, the probably was denied completely.

-- the project was denied completely. it was a two story building and it was deemed, let's see -- it was deemed out of character and the building was completely denied. here, across the street, directly across the street, this building here had wanted to add a fourth floor. this is directly across from the project we are talking about now. they banted to add a fourth floor -- they wanted to add a fourth floor. commissioner miguel was then president and he spoke about his concerns for the pent house on top. -- penthouse on top. commissioners antonini and olague also spoke out about their concerns about the fourth floor. consequently the fourth floor was removed. again on the same block we have 733 27th avenue and that --

avenue that added a third floor and the third floor was reduced. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the d.r. >> good evening. my name is jean. i'm the other d.r. requester. i live at 711 27th avenue. another historic e.e. young building which has been in my family for over 60 years. the home was built in 1912. it's almost 100 years old. in addition to the issues that were raised by the previous speaker, i'd like to point out a few others that are of concern to us. the first is a reiteration of the issue regarding whether or not this is a demolition -- a de facto demolition. if you look again at -- i'm

sorry, i don't have it. but if you consider the drawings that she showed you, it appears likely that this would be considered a de facto demolition, especially in view of the fact that if this building is four stories, some of the walls, the developers said, would be retained would probably have to be reinforced and therefore really aren't going to be retained in their original form. weem we'd like to request that the -- we'd like to request that the question of whether or not this is a de facto demolition be reconsidered. another issue that concerns us is related to the fact that this building is a two-family home. in the project developer architect's report in response to the d.r., he states that when the house is finished there will be three generations, including a pair of grandparents, mr. and mrs. wang, two grown sons, who will pool their resources to purchase that this property for a total of six adults. they intend to take -- to also have children and it appears as

though there may be three families, not two families, living in this project. there are plans for an in-law unit which does not -- is not supposed to have a kitchen or other cooking facilityless. we request that you very carefully monitor this to make sure that this remains an r.h.-2 and not an rh-3 property. finally and probably most important is according to planning code section 124, rh-2 houses are limited in terms of their floor area ratio. and i don't know if this will show up on the overhead but if it does it states that the rh-2 ratio that is acceptable cannot be greater than 1.8:1. because this house is so large, the floor area is going to be considerably greater than what the code allows.

we did the calculations and we did them in two different ways. because in the d.r. package there are two different floor areas or square footage of the new project. so i'd like to show you both of those. the first calculation is based on a gross square footage of 5,501 square feet which is what the architect stated there would be. according to our calculations, the floor area ratio would be 2.44:1 which far exceeds the limit. if you look at the square foot and in the d.r. that has been submitted in hrer, the square footage is reduced. according to that portion of the d.r. it's 4,785 square feet, but nevertheless, the floor area ratio still exceeds 1.8 and is 2.13:1 in either case, where you take the lar