people, for stores, four buses, taxis. that is all, thank you. >> good evening. i am here to support because this is a bad time for everyone. please, we are supporting this project. thank you. >> could evening, commissioners. -- good evening.

i have seen this city go from 300,000 to 750,000. we have grown in different shapes, buildings. i believe that this project is another one that is well-suited for the city of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am a contractor from san francisco. i have worked with time and kevin on numerous projects. they are a good company to work for. >> i am here to support this

project. i have known john and todd for many years. he has given me and many other people work and we really do need work in these times. that is why i approve this project. please approve this because this will be beneficial to many people. >> thank you.

>> hello. >> i am here to support this project. there are many people that need work during these times. i've worked a lot of years with todd and we need work, we need jobs. we need to be will to support our families. >> could evening, commissioners. this project sponsor is four- stories.

this project goes nicely into the street scapes. the in its third big enough to accommodate families. this is suitable for families and parents. i support this project and i hope you do. >> good evening, commissioners. i support this project. i have been a resident of this city for 67 years. when they put a building,, they put everything they have and they hope it floats. i am supporting this project. that is all i have to say. a thank-you. >> good evening. thank you for having me.

i do business with a lot of gentleman that our kahan -- that are in this business. i have been observing the process and over time, i have heard how discouraging this review process has been. i am here to support them because i heard the arguments in favor of continuing their review process and referring to this neighborhood as a historical neighborhood. i am a native of san francisco. i don't recall people referring to this as historical before.

people are willing to put themselves and their money on the line. to have to prolong the process does not seem right. i am here to support the project and i thank you for your time. thank you. >> i am here to support the project. thank you for supporting. thank you.

>> we badly need jobs. i hope that you support the project. >> i am here in support of the project. i think this is a very reasonable project. i would urge you to support the project. thank you. >> i am from the coalition force possible growth. i have to tell you that i have another 50 -- people waiting out there and they are wrong ready to come and talk. it shows the real hunger in this city for people to get into projects and work.

i promise you, i will wrap it up with the next speaker. they are urging ehud to approve this project to get people working. this is a bad designed by the neighbors. a camel is a horse designed by committee. i urge you to let the project by todd and kevin go forward and let's get back to work. thank you, commissioners. >> hello, commissioners. i am one of the owners of the property. a lot has been said by the applicants and a lot of their position predicates on the notion of what this neighborhood is and what this property is.

i want to emphasize the context and what the neighborhood looks like. these are large buildings. but some of the applicants are complaining about as far as how our project would look like to you, is because their back yards are not large at all, they are quite small. the impact would be that our building would be close to theirs because of how large or long their building is. that is the context people need to remember. when people are saying that this project would be too, this is definitely ignoring the fact that their own properties are

quite larger. what the neighbors are advocating for is for a george building. here is what of the property will look like in context should the floor be removed. what the architects have done is to disavow what the residential guidelines call for and that is for the properties to follow a typography. there is no way that their proposal would actually follow that a guideline. this is very disingenuous for the applicants to hire an architect and an attorney to argue otherwise. in any building will be completely out of character with the streetscape.

and the illusion that the applicants are proposing is that it would work. both the engineer and the architects are available and a member of the fire prevention community have stated that this will not work. from a planning code standpoint, this property will not work. also from a usability standpoint, it will not work. if you look carefully at the floor plan. >> in that case, that you each

have two have minutes for rebuttal. >> the neighbors have gone out of their way to find an envelope that they can settle on. this has been twice reviewed by building inspectors. they have found that this is not in violation of any buildings or fire codes. both the revision of the project sponsors and the neighbors proposal have bedrooms that have the skate windows to the rear

yard. this has been interpreted to allow the windows to go to the yards. otherwise, there would be no way to have any bedrooms in the back of the building unless there was a separate and dedicated to the entrance. the studies reproduced had a range of possibilities. we understood this to be our homework assignment. it was unfortunate that we had to do it by ourselves. the first was a 31 foot building. these explored a range of possibilities. it is up to this commission. these are offers, particularly by the second one, for the

neighbors to settle this and move on. we would love to see a building that fits into the context and that has some family sized units. that also respects the properties of the people who have lived there. thank you very much, commissioners. >> you mandated that the developer is comes up with a design that resolves your concern. what you got out of this process was a revision by the developer and the neighbors are doing something because we did not have any context. what is on here is the backyard

overview that shows you the problem that their scale has on the project next door. when you look at the light well impact, the light well, on the project to the west is totally obliterated by the developers for story scenarios. this is by a various that is sensible. you don't block the light on the west side of the project. we want this over. we don't want to continue this process. the neighbors are willing to have a three story building and work with the developer we are pleading with you to establish the context and the envelops.

this fits into the neighborhood. this is the context. this is a very narrow street. we are asking you to say to the developer, here is the envelope, stay within the envelope, but the staff work with the developer and see what comes out of the process. we don't want you to deny the project. we are asking you to accept dr. >> we have shown a lot of our own pictures. i want to show you the pictures of the developers.

this is not choosing an ankle. even from the wall of glass, this would block all of our light. i agree with the vast majority of what the supporters of the sponsors have told you. energy efficiency is important and local employment is very important. family housing, also important. i agree that the neighbors should not be the ones that designed buildings and i want to apologize for you that we had to present th had to present that. we tried to work with the dull the first to come up with a design. when that was not possible, we develop something to show what was possible. we're not asking that you take that as the only building that could be built on the lot, but just what is possible.

finally, the building will be built one way or another, and we agree. we don't want to stop development. we ask that you make sure that it is the right building. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor, two minutes for rebuttal? >> good evening, i am the project owner. i would like to respond to the d.r. requestor's initial statement, which is that nobody likes the design of the current building. that is not true. the residential design team likes the design, the historic resources evaluation team likes the design.

planning staff recommended that you not take the are -- that not take d.r. we responded to the concerns by lowering the building by 30 feet. but we are supporting the design. we think this will work well, and so does the planning department's staff. job other's 3 story design is not feasible, is not buildable, and he said he spoke what the department inspector who said it is possible, but there are no stems or drawings from that person. sue hastert tried to tell you the plants and from a few cannot be approved, but we followed plan department guidelines that if approved tonight. it she said we need a variance to get approval, and that is not true. it is helpful to accomplish family sized housing. this is not a particularly narrow street. it is walkable. many have you -- many of you have done that already.

it is financially possible that the building that joe butler suggested is not financially possible to be built. it is not code compliant or sellable. last, don't try to split the difference between the 25 foot building they are suggesting and are 36-foot tall building. we already responded to the height concerns by making a $200,000 investment in the new design to respond to the concerns on a number of levels, including design-related, to make the building conform to the neighborhood and the church does not stick out like a sore thumb. we have been very considerate to the neighborhood. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. for many years we have gone over the fights over the number of floors, and my contention is the envelope and the height of the envelope and its effect on the

adjacent properties is what matters. if the project sponsor prefers to put in floor. for floors rather than at 3, it is their prerogative as long as it is done it in a way that is structurally sound and does not increase the impact. i like to ask some questions. the project sponsor has said that the measurement of the out facade to the front most part of the building is 26.2. i don't know if you have the measurements to substantiate that or not. >> that is the dimension on the drawing. commissioner antonini: okay. and as you go further back, the setback, and then it is stepped up, and they're coming up with 36 feet, which is lowered from the original 40 feet, and 4 feet below what is permitted. it also presented other numbers.

i don't expect you to substantiate these, but they say using the same measures of the adjacent properties, it shows 40 feet 3 inches, and the other property, northside, bridget rather, the west side, -- rather, the west side, 32 feet. it would seem as though this particular property is pretty much in the context of the height of the adjacent buildings. >> the only clarification i would make is they're doing it to the top of a pitched roof, so the volume is not quite the same. commissioner antonini: i get you. to the top of the pitch, the highest point. i understand that if it is not a pitch and i have filled in the two sides, the volume is great, but if you're just measuring the height at the highest point,

that is probably what they are saying. i appreciate that. the project sponsor has done a lot of things i have asked them for, and that was adding cornices that had a pitch to them. it is not an unusual or unheard of concept. he say a lot of houses throughout san francisco that will have facades with small pitched roofs and tiles on them to keep them with the other homes in the area, even though the risk behind it may be flat. this is done all the time. what they're trying to do here brings in more conformity, design-wise. these i think make the structure fit in more with the neighborhood. as most of you know, i am not a fan of modern architecture, but i think it can be done in a tasteful way that is contextual with this very historic block.

i am generally in favor of this revised plan, and i will sit with the other commissioners have to say, but my feeling would be to take d.r. and approve the project as currently designed. and i will make that a motion. president miguel: do i hear a second? no second. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i will start off with a few things. i think throughout the process, generally i had hoped there would be a more collaborative design effort and this. i believe based on tonight's testimony, there is not a lot of back-and-forth, he said, she

said things about what process was. it seems to me if there were more collaborative efforts, mr. butler would not have had to produce his own unilateral designed to challenge the other design that the project sponsors have brought forth. when we continued with the idea that the building height would be lowered, in my mind, i thought it was going to be three stories. i kind of agree with commissioner antonini, it does not really matter whether you could squeeze 4 into three or five into 4, but i thought it would be substantially lower than it is. the language that said, well, i don't have that in front of me, but the staff at think took the language from the minutes or the tape. they said, well, three stories,

or maybe fourth story if it is going to be four stories, i forget the language, but more compatible or whatever language was used. i also thought that we said we would like to see something that did not require a variance. at least in my mind. for me, those things have not materialized and therefore i cannot support the present project. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i understand that people wanted to express their opinions, but it was overkill if you ask me. what is frustrating it is i don't know what has been going on, but clearly people are not talking to each other in this process and it is extraordinarily frustrating. there are complications. this what, for whatever reason, is known that rh-3, which in my

view is the totally wrong resigning. i-- totally wrong the zoning. i don't know how you would do three units on this lot. these are mostly single-family homes, and you try to put two units into a building where a lot of homes are single-family homes or small secondary units. the challenge for us, this whole thing -- i mean, first off, i don't want to navigate who said what. i cannot even begin to say how you cut this or cutback. it has got to the point where it is overly confusing and just not clear. the truth is the street is 30 feet. these people, they have to deal with this. the building, the matter how you slice it, is a big building for that lot, on a narrow street. it really is. that is the unfortunate reality

of that lot size. to me, the solution i would propose that would be the best based on everything i have heard is to make the height 31 feet, move the elevation to the east, and maybe reduce some of the windows and the back. that is what i would suggest. i cannot redesign the project, nor is it my role. i also feel -- i hate when opponents have products redesigned because i don't think it is my business what people do on the inside of their building, i just deal with a foot. . that is what i put forth, my motion to take the are, no more than 31 feet, and ship the elevation to the east. president miguel: is there a second? commissioner moore: second. commissioner antonini: the other issue that was raised, and maybe mr. starke can help with this, we're talking about the variance, which seems to be a stumbling block. and the light will issue.

my understanding is some of this white well is open above the first floor, but there is part of the property that takes that light well on the first floor, but it is below the greed of the adjacent window. am i correct about this? >> i am not sure i and a stand the question. i-- i am not sure i understand the question. commissioner antonini: part of where the light well would exist to the end is including the bottommost floor. although it does not seem like the bottommost floor has any impact on anybody anyway. and then there is the whole business about flipping the sides to move the light well from one side to another side. maybeou