personally am not in support of this extension. you can sit down. commissioner antonini: i have a question for staff. if we grant the extension, of course this could be built or it could be sold to someone else with the entitlement, which is for the two affordable housing units, each on the specific site, which are actually even lower than the possible density for senior housing. if i look at the design from something else they did, it looked pretty good. if we deny it, it still would be salable, but at a lower price, one would presume, because there would be no entitlement. >> commissioner, i could not necessarily speak to the selling price of the lot. the entitlements would be extinguished, so someone would need to come forward with a new project proposal. commissioner antonini: the other

thing was that they would not necessarily have to have an entitlement for an affordable senior project. they could bring any kind of project for which there wanted to. perhaps someone could come up with the project were one of them was market rate and the other one was affordable. they might be able to get financing in an easier way if they had a source of funding through part of it, or as was mentioned the could partner with somebody with the offset. i see a lot of possibilities here. i am not entirely -- i usually think that extension is a good thing. but i would hopefully like to see something creative being done. we did things before. one of the classics was the palms of many years ago, where there was an offset in market rate which was offset by the improvements to the building. these are things that might make a lot of sense here. i think the climate is getting better for those types of

things. i am kind of torn on this one, but i wanted to get your input whether i am characterizing this correctly. >> you are correct. other than the existing entitlements before you, there is no special restriction on the properties that mandates a be senior affordable units. a new project could propose a market rate or some combination of market rate and affordable units. any permutation in the planning code. commissioner antonini: there was a staff recommendation on this. i guess there was a rationale in here. i guess the bases was that things are going to get better and they could get financing in the future. >> the basis of the staff recommendation was an acknowledgement of the difficulties of obtaining financing for any sort of project, let alone a senior affordable housing project, in this climate, and also the social benefits of the project, the mere fact that it is an existing entitlement for senior

affordable housing. that could potentially be developed in the future, with existing conditions. commissioner antonini: i could go either way on this. i have seen many projects that have gone quite a few years and have been developed with the next upturn occurs. the fact that it is a private developer instead of a nonprofit -- they should be able to do things just as well. but i think there is a compelling case for possibly having something else be entitled on here. it is kind of a tossup for me. thank you. commissioner sugaya: sorry. i had the same issues as commissioner antonini. >> i would just like to clarify that if the commission does pass a motion of intent to disapprove, when we are drafting the findings it would be helpful to understand that the commission's goal is that the entitlements are not extended, that the entitlement is

essentially revoked, and that any future project would come before us for new entitlements. we would make sure to get that in the findings. commissioner borden: i just want to say to the project sponsor -- i want to reiterate that in the climate we were in in 2006, when anybody could get a loan, it is kind of suspicious you could not get funding there at a time when people with very low salaries were getting very high mortgages. that is the reason that we have issues with this, among others. >> on the motion of intent to disapprove and make findings for revocation -- commissioner antonini: no. commissioner borden: aye. aye. -- commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. vice president olague: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye.

>> that motion passes six-one. president miguel: please include designing administrators comments. vice president olague: definitely. >> on the matter of the variance request, my inclination is to deny the request. however, i will withhold the variants decision letter until after the commission has had the opportunity to adopt findings. that will come at a different date and is publicly appealable. the public hearing is closed. thank you. >> that will put us on items 15 a and b for case number 2009- 1170. this is for 35 lloyd street.

the commission continued this item from october 14 to december 2. the public hearing remains open. >> good evening, members of the commission. aaron starr, department's staff. this is a proposal to construct a new four-story two-unit building on a vacant lot in a rh3 district and a 40-x height and bulk district. they are requesting a variance from the planning code which will be heard after your action on the case. the concern is mainly over the proposed building's height and how will affect privacy and access to light. i also believe the building is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. at the october 14 hearing, the

commission asked the sponsors to work together to come to consensus on the scale and design of the proposed building. the parties have met on three separate occasions. consensus between the parties was not reached. several changes were made to the proposed design by the project sponsor in response to the commission and the dr requestor's concerns, including removing the stairwell to the penthouse, reducing the building height while retaining a four stories, and reducing the height of the street beside to 26 feet from 29 feet. the removed the two side facing lending -- facing windows. they added one bedroom to the lower unit and moldings to the front facade. they added a pitched roof detail at the front of the building. staff finds that the proposed -- that the revised proposal with

lowered height and windows at the rear of the building have improved the proposal. however, some of the changes -- staff recommends approval of the revised proposal today, but to direct the project sponsor to continue to work with staff on improving the design of the front facade. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> the other microphone is the one you want to use. >> are you going to be able to hear me? >> we are going to hear you better through that microphone than the other one. >> todd mavis, project owner.

after the october 14 hearing, we met with two of the three dr the quaestors many times and made numerous concessions. we did not meet with and because she never attended any of the meetings with us. she never made herself available. however, we did make numerous concessions in the building based on the requests we heard from you. we removed the stair penthouse. we submerged the stairs leading to the roof deck, leaving them exterior. we lowered the building height significantly from 40 feet to 36 feet to address the height and mass concerns. we accomplished this by changing two 12-inch joists to a seven-inch. we also did this by additional

excavation and by reducing the ceiling heights from 9 feet to 8 feet 5 inches. we also added cornices to the front facade to make the building less boxy. we added additional window moldings and window mullions to make the window appear less expansive and to blend in with the adjacent buildings on the left and right side. in addition, we eliminated three of the east-facing windows to address the privacy concerns of our neighbors. in addition on the east side of the building, we have frosted some of the glass. we changed some of the windows to transom style and also added guard rails in front of certain windows to further address privacy concerns. for the dr requestors, this was not enough. what they would really like is that we eliminate all the

windows on the east side so all the would have is a blank wall. we felt that was an inappropriate response to the private -- to the privacy concerns. we felt that adding transom windows, where the window is horizontal at the top of the wall -- you cannot see out of it. that is inappropriate way to do with privacy concerns. lastly, we added an additional bedroom to the lower unit to make the lower unit a 3-bedroom unit. "we are proposing for you today are two 3-bedroom units. our architect says we can do a three story with two-units -- with two units using three- bedrooms, but this is not possible. we've been asked to create a light well of 30 feet. we do not think that is

appropriate. we have matched the light well of the neighborhood by the amount the planning code requires and the planning department asked us to do. we do not block any windows with our building that are light ports. despite these concessions, we have not been able to reach agreement with the neighbors. one reason is because anne never even made herself available to speak with us and address her concerns. in addition, i spoke with one of the neighbors that lives across the street on lloyd street. he thinks the design is much improved but believes we have not reached agreement because some of the neighbors would prefer that nothing be built. lastly, i would point out that after each of the three meetings we had this since the october 14 hearing, their demands became harder and more impossible to meet. for excess of book, they started

off requesting us to build a 31 foot tall building with a 9 ft. penthouse. after a subsequent meeting, they asked us to build a 25-foot building only. joe butler, the architect hired by the requestors, has submitted a design we know is not possible to build. our architect and structural engineer are prepared to demonstrate that if one were to attempt to build it, it would result in ceiling heights which are 7 feet 6 inches tall in order to get into a 25 foot tall building. i remind you that the planning department, residential design team, and historical research evaluation team all support our project in its design. these impartial advocates, these impartial professionals, have always been. after extensive review of our building, they have said it should be approved as designed. we are proposing a 25-foot tall

building on a lot is on for 30 feet. there are no exceptional circumstances. for that reason, we advocate that you support this building. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. robert denuncio? this is the dr. excuse me. i have been on a conditional use for so long. dr requestors?

>> commissioners, thank you for taking the time to meet with us yet again. my name is chris volker. i lived adjacent and to the west of the proposed project. as you know since the last hearing, the sponsor has made a set of revisions unilaterally to their project, which we feel did not address the bulk of the neighbors' concerns, and which nobody is happy with. the neighbors are not satisfied because we think it is still out of scale with the rest of the street. we think it is still out of character with the rest of the street. it does not address our light well concerns. because of the excavation, it adds a steep ramp to the garage that the cars will have to get out of on a narrow and steep street, which we think is a potential detriment to the design. the staff is not happy with the new proposal. they have asked to approve it

but let the staff make additional changes. you already see in their earlier briefly recommended that you not take discretionary review because they preferred the old design. even the sponsors do not like the new design. they offered to donate $100,000 to the part if we would forget all of this and let them build their original building because they do not like the new design. they devote a significant amount of their own brief to telling you how horrible their new design is from their view. they tell you it is going to be extremely expensive. they tell you how costly it will be. they tell you it will require unprecedented construction complexity. the reason it requires that complexity is because they are still trying to squeeze a four story building in a space that really wants a three story building. we fill a three story building would not require unprecedented complexity and would be more

appropriate to the street. furthermore, in their brief, once they have told you why their new plans are bad, the repeat all the reasons you should not take dr on a building that every commissioner at the last hearing expressed concerns about. the mix and match to wrap their brief and tell you why their new plants are a good idea, but then they of quotes that tell you why the plans on file are actually a good idea and that is why you should not take dr. they try to do is switch around, if you will. my concerns, being at 45 lloyd street -- we have concerns about the lack of a matching light well. you have seen the designs joe butler presented. even in their new design, it completely blocks off our windows, which provide the only light we have to the middle of our house.

in joe's design, by getting rid of the barrier and extending the light will appropriately, you can see the windows of our house. we would get a limited amount of sunlight, which would be a blessing. the second concern i have is still with the height of their building, which is still taller than our building. given the slope of the street, you can still see their building standing above our building when you are standing at the top of lloyd street. especially from the back, they have a four-story design. our house -- this is a picture of my dog -- is only 2.5 stories, at two stories with a little bit of a peak there. theirs is going to stand above all the houses at the back. we think it still does not match the rest of the houses on the street. the neighbors example design

shows that two three-bedroom two-bedroom units can easily fit in a three-story structure. three-bedroom to bath was the definition at the last hearing. that was the goal of this project. our house has only two bedrooms, which we are able to get a queen size bed in. both units in joe's proposed a three-story design have larger bedrooms than we have in our house. it would be adequate to, more than adequate for family sized housing. i support the neighbors example design or any three-story design that fits within the envelope. we are not trying to say how the building should be built. we are just trying to show what is possible in that lot that can remain consistent with the rest of the street. i would also be willing to grant permission for any property line

windows adjacent to my property if that envelope is approved. we ask that you take discretionary review and approve a three-story building permit. thank you. president miguel: thank you. any additional dr requestors? >> hello, commissioners. my name is anee. -- anne. last time i was here, i had unwieldy boards. i have learned to condense. i am a dr requestor. i represent my neighbors on scott street. several of them are here. unfortunately, a lot of the people who were here last time -- commissioner borden can relate to this -- are out of

town on business trips. if my scott street neighbors can please stand? one of them stuck upside because there are not enough seats left. here are two of the neighbors who are affected by this as well. lenore spoke last time. this is the backs of the homes that are in line with what can be seen from the new envelope the developers have come up with. this is 4749 scott. it is 1.5 stories. the homeowners unfortunately are out sick today. but as you can see, the bottom unit moves into the hill and the upper unit has stairs leading down to the back yard.

this is my unit. my building is 2.5 stories. my neighbors unit goes halfway underground. my middle floor there is in the very back of the building. there is a little room that is an office. it may have been a maid's quarters. next door -- and fortunately, mr. thompson is sick so there were not able to be there. this is the unit next door to me. again, it is two stories. i have a hard time understanding this. granted, i am not an architect.

i am an ordinary resident of san francisco for 30 years. in the developers package, they talk about respting the nature of the neighborhood. we are a historic district. my home is considered a historic home. this is what we will be looking at. i really do not understand the size and the amount of windows that are here. it is almost all windows. i agree with chris that i do think dr should be taken. thank you very much. president miguel: is there an additional dr requestor? >> mr. president, commissioners,

my name is robert denuncio. my wife and i retired at 33 lloyd street, the property adjacent to the east of the proposed project. on 14 october last, this commission wisely and with great specificity instructed the developers and neighbors to confer on a new design that should result in two 3-bedroom units that were compatible with our small street. the planning department generously hosted meetings between the developers and the neighbors to this end. and i would like to think the department, and especially mr. aaron starr. the developers chose to redesign the building without our input,

shrinking down the height but maintaining the fourth floor. at the meeting, the developers challenged us to design a three- story building with two 3- bedroom units, saying it cannot be done. as a reminder, this is what most of the commissioners asked for. we accepted the challenge, and a great expense did just that. joe submitted a design that would be acceptable to us and follow the instructions of the commission of october 14. in the final meeting, we suggested they build up to my property line and put the 5 foot setback on the western mind of

their property. this would fulfill our request for matching the light well of 45 lloyd street and make a variants unnecessary -- variance unnecessary. i submit the three story designed by joe butler better fits our street and put quiet all opposition. i want to thank the commission for your work, and i salute you for your service. the drawing -- this is the rear of my home. as you can see, two stories over a garage. this is the backyard overview. the original plans on file.

the unilateral revision. as you can see, it is massive. and mr. butler's design on bottom. this one better shows moving the 5 foot setback to the right. the bottom drawing would show that 35 lloyd street would get light into their windows there. i would sign off if necessary for them building directly to my building nine. -- line. again, i think you for your efforts. thank you. president miguel: speakers in favor of the dr requestors?

>> good evening, members of the commission. my name is joseph butler and i represent the lloyd street neighbors. since the first hearing on october 14, we undertook to meet with the sponsors and their architect to study the issues that were of concern to your commission, specifically whether a three story building that would fit in this context could also accommodate two family- sized three-bedroom units without a variance. on this 25 by 100 foot standard size lot, nearly flat, although in san francisco is definitely considered a flat lot, it seemed to the commission and that a it

seemed to the commission that a variants was difficult to justify it. this is the 12 foot pop out at the back. without a variance, it allows a 5 foot setback. when you combine that with an equal sized light well to 45 boyd's street by marion them together -- like welt to 45 lloyd street by -- light well to 45 lloyd street by marrying them together. mr. denuncio per person on the other side of the building. we were told that they would not produce any three-story study, nor any studies that did not require a variance. as such,