came to the conclusion this project doesn't conform with the guideline that is are taughted as being important to the city. it is not compatible with our neighborhood. why do i say that? it is a four-story over garage proposal. everything in the neighborhood except a few corner buildings and some at the top of the hill are basically three-story over garage or lower. if you look at the photographs that i have sent you in this letter, page two shows you pleasant street. look at the middle of the block. the mid block open space is greatly enhanced by the fact there's a long row of one-story garages. there's no buildings there at all. if you look at the other side, where 36 is, you could see the buildings are all three-story garages. there isn't a four-story building on the street. just because they're talking about setting it back doesn't mean it won't be highly visible to those that live around and walk around there. especially as you come down the hill. notice the pictures of taylor street right at the bottom, all

three story over-garage. i talked to the architect and they say, your neighborhood has penthouses in it. that gives you a precedent for another story. look at the precedent that is set. don't look at these tricky pictures that the architect presented with a line that makes it look as if the third story is hot. look at the picture on page five. these are penthouses that set a precedent for a fifth floor. it is a tiny unheated room that you go up the back stairs to get to it. there are only three that i can count in the entire 46 buildings that front pleasant treat and taylor street. three out of 46. but the architect says most of the buildings have this penthouse on it. most penthouses are nothing more than stairwells. i'm out of town, i hope you read the rest of my letter and i thank you so much. >> my -- my -- mike, elsa.

austin. >> mike couldn't be here. may i read his letter or at least -- >> just admit it. >> okay. susan crossley. jennifer solomon. >> good afternoon. ly name is austin hills, i'm the owner of the property situated at 26, 28, 30 pleasant street. my property is adjacent to and east of 34, 36, pleasant street. like to object to both of their requests, conditional use authorization and as well as a request for variances on the following grounds. i believe that privacy a major concern. it would add two floors to the existing two floors over garage level. this will make 3436 pleasant

street much higher than most of the nearby buildings and give them the advantage they would be looking down and through many exposed windows. of primary concern is the amount of light my building and others -- other nearby buildings would lose if the proposed additions are allowed from early afternoon to late afternoon. my building receives a significant amount of natural light, much of which would be lost if the proposed additions were -- are allowed. lastly is the impact the project would have on this -- the astettics of the neighborhood as well as pleasant street. typically, i believe that such a tall four-story structure would look out of place and would negatively impact the neighborhood which is composed primarily of three-story buildings. the -- the sauce tinos can renovate their property and add an additional floor in appropriate fashion and i would support that. however, i believe that the addition of two floors to this

property would not be suitable, nor would it be beneficial to the community. therefore, i ask that you deny both requests. thank you. >> thank you. >> whoever i call, just come up. i -- irene. kristie smith and harrison. >> harrison and kristie had to leave for a doctor's appointment, but i have their letters. can i submit them? >> you could submit them. leave them there. >> i'm jennifer solomon, i own the building at 40, 42 and 44 pleasant up to the west slope of the property. i'm probably the most directly feekted but i'm clearly not the -- affected but i'm not the only objecter. it doesn't stair step down the hill. the building that -- the little unit i have up on top is a converted laundry room apparently -- according to the historians in the neighborhood. the reason it fits in with the

pattern of stepping down the hill is the upslope property which tim and susan are owners of, it sits nine feet above mine. so the top of the room there is level with their terrace. i do have a photo slowing this. and -- j put it on there. he should -- >> i don't want to start anything from here. >> okay. >> as -- their top floor now currently is level with the flooring in my top unit. so i'm not sure how they're going to add two full floors and only go up four feet above my roof. i like to see atory pulled. i think this is deceptive. what nobody talked about is the terrace on the very topceptive. what nobody talked about is the terrace on the very top which is a sixth floor. he -- he demonstrated that the four-foot wall is going to go up against my railings and will keep me from painting them, and supposedly not block air and light. you add the terrace and the

railings, that's essentially an eight-foot wall. you add plants and patio furniture and people, it is way up above me. it is apples and oranges. not the same thing. mine was added in 1958 with a permit. there's also a terrace they want to put in the back which is problematic because that goes much more into the variance, the & of the backyard than four feet. that's all the way to the -- all the way this the back of what exists. they want to put a terrace on top of that. that's a two-floor addition. it is not affordable. it is a luxury unit on top of fob hill which will be beautiful for them. it is not in keeping what what the planning commission is trying to encourage. ifing? gets variances and conditional use, you hope it would be more affordable. i object to any variances. the terrace will be behind my bedrooms on my top unit and it'll have people increase bat -- it'll have people backing up.

additionally, it is going to block the air. we're in a banana belt, it is going to be hot. there's no precedent in the neighborhood for a six floor terrace. it is not comparable and mass in scale with the adjoining properties as the planners said and has been maintained by the architects. i probably overpaid for my railing. i'm not a good negotiator when i see something pretty. we had to rebuild the roof deck. the site on the loot is inappropriate. sometimes substandard. you can't have everything you want because the impact on the neighborhood is great. i have more to say but i guess i only get my three minutes. >> that it? >> that's it. >> can i submit other photos? >> yeah. >> i think he showed you the ones i was going to submit. i think you have a clear feeling. this is the one that -- >> great. >> distribute to us. >> thank you so much.

>> good evening. my name is irene. i reside in the upper unit, 36 pleasant street . i own the building with my mother and brother. all we wanted to do basically was build our property. we purchased it. it was a dream. we wanted to build our property to where all three of us can reside there together and easily take care of my mom in one of the units as she's reaching retirement age. that's a personal goal. there's basically -- a lot of the heart-felt sentiment with it. i don't believe we're asking for anything beyond the norm, other than the fact that right now we stand a very small building. our neighbor jennifer solomon uses a lot of time when she has work done on her building, she uses ours as a dumping ground on the roof side. we're significantly smaller and we're trying to build up to be equal to the rest of the neighbors. that's all we request, thank

you. >> any additional public comment? >> come to us. hello. thank you for listening to me. my name is else is a dixon. i live at sacramento street which is across the alley from pleasant street. i have been enormously lucky that i have been able to purchase my unit through the modern income program. i'm a writer and i have been a graduate student for -- so my income has been very moderate. as i say, i'm very grateful to live on nobody hill. i would like to oppose the -- the proposed renovations to 3436 pleasant street. i would like to draw attention to the san francisco planning

department's execute every summary. in particular on page seven, policy 1.1. which stipulates in essence that -- that the planning department has an objective to encourage higher residential density in area adjacent to downtown which is nobody hill. if the higher density provides a significant number of units that are affordable to -- to the lower income households which i'm one. according 0 to my understanding of what has been proposed, this is not how -- housing for a lower income household. it simply yet another high-end nobody hill resident -- resident unit for an upper income person or family. thank you for hearing me out. >> thank you. additional public coom meant?

>> my name is steve jarvis. it seems to me, if you make exceptions to the rule there has to be exceptional circumstances. none has been shown. it is just another c1 none has been shown. it is just another rental unit that may be used by the family, that's not necessarily for ever. increased parking demand is create nood additional parking is provided. as owners have said, this area is 94% three-story or over garage or less. the impact of the -- of the building that is proposed was -- would certainly impact views and the daylight plain. the concern to everyone. we request that you disallow the -- or disapprove the request. thank you. >> thank you.

you could come up. anybody else off to the side. >> i hope you understand my accent, okay? now. >> it -- speak into the mic, ma'am. >> i hope you are. >> you can understand, you cannot. okay. i'm not asking much. i own one-third of the property. we had the most obvious one, shortest one, okay? what i understand is -- if s-if it is the garage, then you got one floor, second floor and then third okay? then couple of stair up. i have a bedroom, okay? up there. i don't consider that -- we are overwhelming by beauty -- by being up so high and so tall. we're pretty much -- much with the neighbors. okay? according to what my architect tell me. we have a lot of opposition

here. it make me question why? i kind of wonder why. okay. people get up together, okay? they go around. they talk to each other, give the wrong information. we have invited them to the house to see the plan only one person show up. okay. here we are. we're about to do it. waited for two years. been here -- then everywhere -- everyone is defense us. my question to you is please consider and tell me why. tell me why so much opposition here. why. how come? we ask -- we are three-story, not more. it is not four-story, it is garage one, two, three, four. couple stay up. i have bedrooms, two bedrooms, that's it.

now jennifer. that's a commercial beauty. she doesn't live there. you could defend her. all of her customers are from europe. she got a penthouse on the back. she got it right there. her picture can prove it. picture can prove it. that's -- she not be fair. now i am asking for the -- for you know -- i'm in equal treatment. give me a chance to make -- make the neighborhood -- to make it prettier. else if i -- if i -- thank you. you're -- you know how that is. thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> i'm one of the project architects. >> i wanted to point out or clarify the building height, the

-- crawford pointed out that the building is 49 feet high. in fact, if you look at the definition of the planning department's guidelines. can you speak louder? >> can you hear me better now. the building height is from the top of the roofline to the center property. comparing the property to the right, that property -- is exactly 47 or about -- about 47 feet, three inchs in height to the top of the penthouse, the roof deck. ours is -- 45 feet, nine inches. we're smaller in -- in -- in an objective sense, not only laterally downhill but in an objective sense, we're a smaller building as proposed. in terms of the glazing, at -- at the railings we discovered a product that might be useful as a -- as a solution to the neighbor's concerns about transparency.

it is called ornulux. it is a transparent material. it uses u.v. coating to allow birds to actually visualize the glass. i think you might be familiar with it. so -- it would just prevent bird strikes. it -- it is in use. lastly, i like to point out that the units themselves are quite small. the top -- the top floor units that -- that the top unit is only 1500 square feet. the lower ones are -- are tiny. i mean this is a really, really small lot. when you're on the street, you could see the top two floors. they're set back. we looked at in -- in a perspective, you cannot see them. we were wondering if these are indeed protected for -- for the

neighbors, and if that's an issue. >> thank you. additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> mr. crawford. mr. crawford, a few questions. i guess we talked a little bit. i'm looking at the illustration that is provided by project sponsor, it is bay six. i don't know if you had a chance to examine that or not. it has to do a lot with about -- what the architect was talking about, regarding heights as measured from the front. it looks like -- it looks like, we spoke earlier and you said their measured height was 49.9 and they're measuring it at 45.9, i guess to the -- to the top of the -- of what would be the -- what would be the fourth floor.

that they have if you don't consider the garage as floor, it depends on the semantics. then -- then they show the building to the hill -- upal the hillside at 47.3 to the top of the penthouse and then by adding the one up, the building to -- to the downhill side is about 46, using the same calculations. i don't know if that in keeping with your measurements or what you came up with in regards to the heights of the buildings. >> i think we we are a foot or two -- a couple of feet taller in our measurement, but -- i'm not finding his -- his -- >> i just have photos. >> it would be a 6 on that one, so. >> if you look at that and see. if you agree with that or not. >> that's probably correct.

if that's the case or not, i think we talked about the fact that they could have had a 45-foot frontage with no setback. >> that's correct. >> under the cap guidelines. >> yeah. what they did, is they went, whatever their height is, they're certainly not 45 to their -- to their -- their lower height to c1 their -- to their -- their lower height to -- to where the setback begins and then including the setback portion, they're either at 45-9 or 49-9 depending on the calculation you come up with. then they had a setback of about 12 feet i believe. what was their setback? >> 12.9. i guess the code would be 15. is that true? >> there's in the a code. the -- it is typically -- on a typical street, if you stand on the other side and you view --

if you -- you take a 45 degree angle. that gives you a 15-foot setback. this is a narrower street, the angle is sharper and it goes up above at this height. >> right. scrining you made that point -- >> i think you made that point and it has to be the width of the street. if it is narrower, it doesn't have to be as good as a setback. >> that's correct. >> that -- seems to end -- and then there was also -- statements made if regards to the -- to the basic height of the buildings along -- pleasant street in terms of number of floors. but i guess maybe you could comment on this stepping down. if you feel that -- that regardless of the number of floors, because as we know the floors can vary but the heights are what really matter, would you feel this continues a pattern of stepping down as designed or if it protrudes up above? >> i think if you consider what is visible from the street, it

does step down. the -- the -- the proposed upper floor, the fourth or fifth, however, you define it would -- would be higher than -- than adjacent buildings but it is setback and the way that the -- that the -- the residential design guidelines look at that, we look at it at the corner line, the front. it does comply. particularly since the upper story is set back far enough, it would not be visible from the street. it is more block views than it does any kind of -- you know, any visibility from the street. >> okay. thank you. i also like to ask -- i think it is miss solomon if you could answer questions. >> yeah please. >> i just was. we're talking about the, what we consider to be the fifth floor, i guess you would say, not the deck above it but the living

space. >> correct. >> and that's currently set back 12 foot nine inches. is your concern about -- where the setback of that is or where -- in your own words, would you prefer it was closer to the street or -- >> that's an interesting question because when i first looked at this project and -- this is nothing personal against the applicant, we had quite a good relationship before this happened. anyway when i looked at the project, i think i said to rick, this is almost two years ago, it would be better if they put a room up there if it was on the front. that ruins the look of the setback, the problem you got, you can't win either way. if you put it in the back and a terrace on top, it is going to create a hot situation in my terrace and down my height well, it is going to get hot. if you put it up front, it is probably worse from the view of the street, which is why i feel it is not a compatible project with -- it is not a compatible

project. >> you would be more supportive if it didn't have the roof deck on the top, is that your concern? >> that doesn't exist anywhere on the street. i think it is too big. it is a living area, it is not a little room. >> what -- i'm talking more about the deck -- the deck of -- above, we know there's living area and then above that is a deck on the very top. >> i'm completely opposed to that. >> thanks. we'll see what the other commissioners have to say on this. >> commissioner sugaya. >> actually, i was there are this morning and took a look around and -- walked it. up and down. and uphill and downhill all of that stuff. it is kind of a nice street. -- it has different

characteristics, whether you're up looking at the north or the -- or the south. it is out -- this house has a -- i think it was characterized by one of the speakers -- a row of garages which are only one story. there's quite a bit of sunlight and light coming from the south into the alley or not alley but street, at least along a portion of it. contrary i think to staff's analysis, that the majority of these are through lots, i would say it is -- it is about even 50-50. if you count -- if you count the clay street side and the sacramento side. i think it is -- i think it is -- i think it is -- like some of the other streets we have seen and -- and north beach, this one is a little wider. but -- it is -- had still has that kind of nice pleasant pedestrian feel to. -- to it. -- it is as people have

testified, two or three stories over a garage. i do have one quick question mr. crawford. would there be any -- i don't know how staff looked at this street as -- as a -- is there any difference this how staff would look at this -- in it were considered a street versus an alley? >> not really. we -- we looked -- it is the width is the -- the 35-foot width. it is called a street. we didn't -- i think -- >> i described it as a secondary street. it is really not an alley, it is kind of wide for an alley. they're usually 20 feet or less. we did apply the alley guidelines. that's based on the width. >> i kind of tend to agree with some of the neighbors who like to keep tat three stories. it seems like if you're going to

go up another story which would make it five -- or four over a garage, then a roof deck on top of that, this is an extremely -- may -- maybe not extremely small, but it is a substandard lot. 20 by 60. we already have the -- have the existing building going back within four feet of the property line. so, to add even more on top of that, seems a little egregious to me. also it doesn't seem like -- we should be planning a -- granting a variance if this gets approved. it doesn't seem like we should be granting a variance for the backyard to compound a substandard situation. the backyard is not in conformance but because we are

setting things back, we can allow a little bit more intrusion into the backyard and i don't think that that is a good idea. would be sufficient. i think -- i think the other thing that other people have test guide to is that there is a nice stepping up from the lower end of the street

might be the same as the corner building which is a roof structure which then takes that building up the hill. this is kind of unusual looking situation but if you look at it in the context of the alley or the street, it works quite well. this is obviously lower. adding a floor is ok. going up beyond that is problematic for me. >> i should have said this first, i have not heard too many comments from the speaker is even an opposition about the

rear yard intrusion. i don't see this as an issue or least it was not verbalized. as far as the car situation, i would tend to think that neighbors would appreciate the fact that more cars would not be trying to find places on the street. it looks like the uphill and downhill neighbors have four floors above the raj >> yes, but the penthouse. -- have four floors above the garage. >> yes, with the penthouse. >> they are smaller compared to what this is