the popout in the back for the -- for the -- for the top floor. other neighbors prefer that not to happen. we leave it in your hands, we hope you'll take discretionry review. thank you so much. >> sue hester. i want to draw your attention to the outline in the final plans where finally the staff said, you have to show the stuff on the roof. this is the only drawing. i'm astonished that coming into this hearing what you're hearing from sponsor is is totally misleading information on heights. don't they learn the height of

this building which is 25 by 25-foot print is 4 feet. not the height they say. there is only going to be four feet 3 1/2 inches. this is mr. vol kerr's building, his building is 21 feet high under the planning code. they still have as 32 feet seven inches and they talk about it as though this doesn't exist and they have the correct heights. you need to look at in terms of how it blows through the residential design guidelines. what i like to offer on the variances, as mr. butler said, the most residents is willing to take a two-story pop-up that goes lot line to lot line. how often have you heard that? people make those offers. he doesn't want to husband

privacy. he said they could have the volume. we're saying that one of the alternatives is to increase the variance to allow them to do two stories of 12-foot popout in exchange for no fourth floor and a submerged -- submerged entrance stair way to the roof. he's 15euing, it is okay to have a roof deck. that's pretty generous. you pitched battles on that all the time. we're say, they could have the square feet and go lotline to lot line. as along as they get rid of the story and do not infringe on their neighbor's privacy. thank you. just a couple of points. the -- the sponsor is -- presentations tonight basically repeated everything they said before. we have clearly shown -- as sue said, you don't measure heights

at the peek. trying to compare a building they want to build on lloyd street to something on cass strow or scott, streets twice as wide as ours and many of them are -- are flat as well, it is just not appropriate. i think in regards to their strong neighborhood support that they're trying to claim, i think our -- our output tonight as well as the letters and -- if you see the map of where our support is, i think it is cheer that the -- that the neighborhood is behind the d.r. requesters. finally, they -- they said that they think our renderings are stwreak, i tried to show it from -- strategic -- i tried to show you from every vantage point. i show you a different drawing. this was done by the developer's architect. it is kind of -- which clearly shows how much taller it is than the other buildings. so, if -- if we are doing a

strategic rendersion, i don't think they could say the same about this one. if there are other rendersion they like to see, could generate them. thank you for your time and -- please support the d.r. request. thank you. >> sponsor. >> commissioners, i like to remind you that the neighbors, the d.r. requesters have not proven or shown any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that warrant taking d.r. these also point out that elizabeth street which you heard tonight is a far steeper street than lloyd street. lloyd street is a walkable street. some of you have walked it. i also like to point out that the neighbors have never disputed the fact that we met the various priority and planning and housing element that is are important to san francisco. and also the importance of providing family sized housing with three bedrooms in each

unit. they never deny the fact it is impossible to achieve that goal. with a three-story structure. i also like to point out there are penthouses in a -- one-block radius of the project. there's nine within a one block radius. this image is in your packet. again, regarding the overall scope and size of buildings, compared to others within the neighborhood, as well as -- as the architect mr. butler, for the -- the neighbors tried to claim the alleys of the neighborhood are so unique, they prove they're three-story structures here. this is not true, on lloyd street, there's a four-story -- it doesn't show up on the overhead. this is a four-story 40-foot tall building on lloyd street. there's another one. at the corner of lloyd street and scott street. 40 feet tall. there's another one on the other corner of lloyd street and scott street.

40 feet tall. and finally, on the allyways that they refer to. there are two new buildings that were recently approved on gar mania street and pond street, four-story buildings with a fourth story setback. there are numerous others to point to near the park, many others. and in fact, i think the architect hired by the neighbors actually approved the point that this building is in character with the neighborhood. and we appreciate your support. >> commissioners, i usually don't do this but please, when your -- your comments we still have to get the cars out of the garage. >> commissioner? >> i want to be brief saying i've been sitting here for almost two hours in the room where everybody speaks english but they're -- there had are two large groups of people that don't speak to each other and don't understand each other. for that purpose, i like the architect to please come to the

podium, i have a couple of questions for you. >> are you the person that designed the building? >> yes. >> would you describe to the commission what your task was, what is the objective, the client has given you to design the building? >> the residential units to fit in the neighborhood. >> what else? >> family sized units. >> how do you describe that? >> three bedroom units. >> would you give us the philosophy by which you understand the site, the circumstances and, et cetera. would you dri that to us, that we fully appreciate why you designed what you did? >> -- the intent is not to duplicate the victorian architecture and create a ginger bread style and design in a modern language with the current building materials and tech followings that ev with today, so -- designing a -- a modern residential building, with energy efficient -- >> could you be a less -- a

little less generic, can you kind of see what you saw next door to the left, to the right across the street. let's -- >> typical, typical -- on our side of the street, there's typically residential entries. garage doors on the left-hand side. we matched that pattern on the garage door on the downhill portion. a raised entry with steps up -- sort of similar to either neighbor on both sides. and -- sort of, you -- using the same design language as the existing historic buildings but in a -- in a modern design context, for the duplicating the same sort of victorian style. >> i'm not trying to put you on the spot. i'm trying to have you explain in a convincing way of why this -- this -- why this is a building which we should be approving. perhaps one or two more sentences. i personally do not see -- do not see a response to -- to the

circumstances in can you're designing. >> i want to reiterate what i said. i'm not sure more specifically what you're getting to. mask the context of the neighbors and the design guidelines of how the pattern of the residents are by in a modern language and contemporary style, contemporary materials and two residential unit that is are family sized. >> i'll let the other commissioners ask questions before i respond, so more opportunity for you to make your point. thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: so long as you're up, i have questions. the lower unit, these are three bedroom younts, then why have you labeled one bedroom as an office? >> there is an office on the lower unit because it is -- it is windows are on the property line. >> there's a bedroom on the

bottom floor. >> two on the main floor i think. commissioner sugaya: then the second floor there are one bed something labeled aboffice -- an office. >> you're correct. commissioner sugaya: so we have one two and one three. >> correct. commissioner sugaya: in your concept of family housing, the upper floor includes a family room. i'm just trying to get if we're going to play elizabeth street here. there seems to be -- some compromises that can be made spacewise to accommodate a two or three bedroom unit. depending on whether or not we bite even suggest to the -- to the z.a. -- further encroachment. which -- which i'm not too happy about in the first place. but you know, who knows.

i'm playing with ideas that. that's all. >> you don't have to answer that. >> commissioner antonini. >> i may have questions for you, but i also have ideas. my ideas is this. number one, i think it is important-to-the two, what i thought to be three bedroom younts, it hooks like one is a two. i like to see them. we said you needed to do two threes, so you got to do two threes. that can be done. i do think that it is probably a -- essential to have some what of a fourth floor to make that happen because -- because of the way you're doing it. but i think what you would have to do to make it fit in with the neighborhood is -- if i were designing it, i would put the gables on the top where the fourth floor is similar to what denuncio has. you got a gable that runs north south and one that runs east

west. on the east west gable two bedrooms and one bath. on the north south gable, you put your master bedroom and your other master bath. i think that would work and what that does is even though you would be higher than the other structures on either side, it would make it appear to be lows of a box, it would appear to be more in keeping with the rest of the naked, because you would have gables that are similar to what almost all of the other -- all the other houses have, they're all edwardian or victorian in style. i understand the need for space. i don't want you to necessarily create something that is a copy of the other houses, i think in matching what you need to do is to mass in a way that it doesn't tick up -- stick up like a sore thumb in the milled because it is too tall. you also have to get rid of the deck on the top. so what you end up with is two three bedroom units with the two

car packing with -- parking with maybe the deck could be on the third floor. or off the third floor perhaps. perhaps you could do you could do two three bedroom units. i think you need a partial third floor. >> commissioner borden bored bore i don't know if he wants to react to that. many victorian buildings is floot roofs. on the street there's many. >> in this instance given the fact that it is sticking up beyond -- beyond it, it is somewhat ameal rate that is by having the pitch.

>> i think you need to have the gabled roof. the problem with the building, it is big and boxy. it just really stands out on a very near row street, 29 feet which is a very, very -- you know, small street by its standards. we policies about -- about heights of buildings and protecting alleyways. that's one big thing. also the street slopes and you're going to be taller than the building uphill. the penthouse and everything on top. it is a huge enormous building in the context of much smaller and shorter buildings. it is not so much -- if it was just the fourth floor, that would be one thing but then the penthouse on top makes it look giant. and then the issue on a brand through building is exactly. it is a stand ashed lot size is 25 by 100 feet. if you had an unusual lot size, it would be -- i would napped but because it is not furble hot size and technically variances

are sufficiently granted in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances as well. i think you do have a -- there's an issue here that the building is designed that way. so, those are the issues that i have. i don't want to redesign the inside of your building, if not, that's not my job. my job is just the footprint of the building but right now the matching of the building, it makes the building overwhelm the street and the neighborhood and the the context of this. so i don't have the best suggestion on how we fix that, but i would say that you know, we need to figure out how to make it less boxy and less imposing to the neighborhood. >> mora. >> i believe that this building in order to be removed or compatible because among a large number of homes which are all traditional homes. this is a modern design and maximum height cannot exceed three throors and i think in terms of of sidelines it needs to respect a number of other

things -- i think this building should probably go back and -- and rethink of how the space is allocated. i suggest that we stick with the mandate of -- of finding a way for the three bedrooms. that's fine by me. but this house is intentionly oversized and wouldn't -- when we move into a neighborhood only -- on a hot, there's a prevailing participate. on the other hand, i complain point to five houses away and say they have more than i do. that's not the way it works. i think it is a collective impression which allows you to have some sometimes more or less and lets you design an house. it meets an average. you're not gaining more, from my perspective, i believe this is immediate oakener design, you're lowering the value of the 0 adjoining buildings. sorry to be crude. and it is not good modern design. >> would you not do that please. >> are you -- may i respond?

i'm prepared for -- or i basically can. we have to take d.r. i can't approve the building as proposed. >> i was going to move to continue for a month or six weeks whatever the commission feels is appropriate, let's go six weeks for project sponsor and neighborhood to work together to try to create a design in the department -- and the department to create a design that is in keeping with what the commissioners have said tonight, that will -- will help to make this as more compatible with the neighboring houses in terms of its design. >> a second? >> second. >> your proproceedsal is to bring this back december 2nd. >> that works. >> public hearing to remain open. >> sure. >> olague. commissioner olague: i would be inclined to support a design that goes to three floors. i'm not really appreciative of

the -- i just think that sometimes -- i really -- don't have an issue with modern architecture, i don't, but i do think this -- this just is too glaring. in a way. it just -- i don't -- i think it is -- it doesn't conform very well with the -- with the traditional neighborhood. i don't. >> i don't know what you do with that. i mean -- but i don't. anyway. i know people are mocking me and laughing but it is late and hard to articulate on some level. what i'm trying to -- to say here. i think three floors. i would rather go with the first motion but given we're forced into this continuance, i guess -- i guess three floors is something that you should be able to work with. >> i support the d.r. requester --

>> would you like me to respond to that? >> no. i don't. 078 r only condition to support a continuance is several architects in the d.r. work together and come up with something that works. it is not necessarily exactly the expression of architecture but the general principles of massing and appropriate fit including size. >> i want to add we're not rep -- replicating the building. nobody is asking you to design an artificial victorian. if you could work it out with the neighbors, hopefully we wouldn't even have to see it and you could resolve that. that would be ideal. >> olague? >> yeah. again, it is what everything was saying. i don't need to see a gabled roof and mock -- what do you

call the windows. bay windows. that's not what i'm -- whatever. i think work with the -- with the architects and maybe -- that's good. >> commissioner antonini: i'm not locked in with the three floors. it would need to be something that blends in. you could go through neighborhoods in san francisco and see different architectural styles and see massing, that is similar and even though one is a little higher but because of the roof treatment that is are similar and because of the lines of these buildings that are similar, even though they may come from different periods, and be 134 what different, the massing is similar. and i think that's where you would look at it and say, yes, that's taller. but it seems to sort of flow with the pattern of the house as they come down the pill -- hill. that's why i suggested the gabling idea. it will allow you to flow even

though it may be higher. that's for the architects to work out. >> commissioner commissioner moore: moore i encourage the applicants to do more on your own presentation to matching and 3d expression and the majority of things we have here are done by others. perhaps we are not doing full justice to your proposal but something to describing it properly. >> commissioner sugaya: i think the setback part of it comes from staff, is that correct? the front -- the front setback on -- on the fourth floor. >> 15-foot came from the staff. commissioner sugaya: they're back frankfurt than that on the design. >> 15 feet from the paper wall. commissioner sugaya: okay. there may b commissioner sugaya: okay. there may be consideration given depending on the design about -- >> depending on the design --

yeah. sugging is i rather have three floors myself. as with ant ton neney, if there's any consideration for a fourth level, it has got to be something along the lines of what he's talking about and maybe if that -- if that works its way -- works out, we might even entertain bringing it forward. i'm not saying i'm going to vote for it. i'm saying there are certain options that might be explored. there's a lot of things here that you know, some of us don't like. i particularly don't like grinning a variance on a new building that violates the yard requirement. that's done because we want -- we want to have two units with three bedrooms or -- one with two and one with three, whatever it is supposed to be. and then therefore, you know, there's a bit of -- of compromise there, to say that --

to accommodate the housing in the floor flan, et cetera, et cetera. the way the space is allocated frake i -- frankly in the two units that they need this variance. i think you could save space, perhaps for the exactly what the program called for, but -- you know, you really need a family room? i don't know? and -- so from that standpoint, i think that -- i think the program can be rethought and -- the commission seems to be drifting toward three stories, i start there first. >> i think it starts with both groups, talking to each other and -- facing the issues and -- coming up with -- there's been enough criticism, we're not here to design the building, but at minimum a presentation that resonates with consensus and

uses all of the tools which are normally required for this commission i.e., 134 3d present is -- presentations or colored rendersion or whatever. this is far shooter of -- short of what we normally get. >> i believe -- >> we're -- i guess we're -- it threw me off in what -- it was -- really was the reference to harvey milk and diversity and try to apply it to this -- to this project. it just -- i don't believe those were his intenses when he made the comments. i'm not sure this is what he referred to. it is out of context and for what that is worth. i mean -- anyway. so hopefully you work it out with the requesters and we come up with a better project. >> i haven't said anything on project. up to now, i'll be susssint, the building as presently designed

does not fit the site. it is just that simple. and -- on a few building, there's for reason for a variance unless it accomplishes something else. if the vireyaps -- variance is necessary to get two, three bedroom units that coom units t bedroom units that could be proved, that's one thing. otherwise a new construction doesn't call for air variance unless there's very unusual circumstances. >> commissioners on the floor is a motion for continuance to december 2nd with the public hearing to e are paper -- remain open to consider a new design and hopefully there would be discussion between the two party the. on the motion, ant neney. eye eye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye >> thank you commissioners, this has been continued to december 2nd. commissioners now in gem public

comment. >> we have one comment. >> better be quick. >> barely. >> commissioners. rather than going into everything i was going to go into, i would just make this as brief as possible. this project taught me a lot about the planning process. and prior to that -- >> you can't. >> i'm not going to talk about -- i objected -- i did not object to the changes you were making in the d.r. process. i have learned that the d.r. process is critical and it needs to be public. which was residential design team is not. having the same person do a review and the project review and the items to be missed. the preplanning -- preplanning notice to the side is inadequate. i can go into this further,

given lateness i will not. i ask you to direct the staff or the zoning administrator to give me a call and i could express directly the problems that came up and the problems with the planning process. if these remain i'll go to the board of supervisors and oppose any change to the -- to the d.r. process that you would like to see. thank you so much. >> additional public comment? >> if not public comment is closed. >> and the meeting cannot be adjourned, the zone administrator needs to add on the variance for lloyd street. >> we'll continue that item the public hearing will remain open to december 2nd, the same date as the d.r. hearing. >> that the hearing is closed. sorry. didn't mean to cut you off.

i'm the president of friends of mclaren park. it is one of the oldest neighborhood community park groups in san francisco. i give a lot of tours through the park. during those tours, a lot of the folks in the group will think of the park as very scary. it has a lot of hills, there's a lot of dense groves. once you get towards the center of the park you really lose your orientation. you are very much in a remote area. there are a lot of trees that shield your view from the urban

setting. you would simply see different groves that gives you a sense of freedom, of being outdoors, not being burdened by the worries of city life. john mclaren had said that golden gate park was too far away. he proposed that we have a park in the south end of the city. the campaign slogan was, people need this open space. one of the things that had to open is there were a lot of people who did a homestead here, about 25 different families. their property had to be bought up. so it took from 1928 to 1957 to buy up all the parcels of land that ended up in this 317 acres. the park, as a general rule, is heavily used in the mornings and the evenings. one of the favorite places is up by the upper reservoir because dogs get to go swim.