from an neighborhood could not be here. we are thrilled with the proposed design, this will enhance our block. 12 have third stories with no set back. one-third have these stories but no set back. these are suited to the way that urban families live today. this building has excess space. let's not call this space for parents to work not -- excess base. this is one of the most important to raising this generation children correctly. please keep in mind that these homes will not attract

deliveries, customers or patients, so there will be no impact on our neighborhood. thank you for your support of this project. i have known this for the rest his family for 11 years. they are extremely community- oriented people. we have been able to res -- raise our child. thank you. >> thank you. my reading a letter. i am a horticultural instructor.

i also sit on the urban forestry council for the city's department of the in marmot. ours is a neighborhood of families and what is proposed is a family sized home. if the city cares about encouraging square footage consistent with this housing, this should be flexible. the 15 foot guide line was not meant to be a requirement. in the case of the fact and of the home, it does not make any sense. there is no objection to the proposed plan that i know of. we appreciate the way that they reached out and informed us of their plans. they were considering it of our move and made many changes in response to labor concerns. it appears that they have been

very responsive to the planning department concerns. please do the right thing and grant the family this request. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, board of appeals. i would like to speak to in my two capacities. my son went to get their and i had to watch on my sons to be best friends love for the east bay -- left for the east bay. some new children entered the class. that is they really dig problem

in san francisco. i have also watched the parents who've had the pleasure to meet on several occasions. i know they are extremely close and it is wonderful that they are willing to take them in in their old age and make a bid multi generational family. the family is extremely important to them, more than money or more than anything. i am the director of the bayview opera house. gene has volunteered her time to help us with the design and foreign annual report and she would that be able to do that sort of thing if she had an

office downtown and she does not because she works in a basement and it is not fancy. this is not extravagant. this is not a huge light well or anything like that. i would like the families to be supported. i want them in the city. >> next speaker. i am here to the letter on behalf of -- "i am a nurse practitioner. i have lived in san francisco for 29 years. i am writing to suppose it does support the proposed design. it is critical that the design be approved as proposed because it allowed jean's parents to move into their home. san francisco should support

families, especially those who take care of their parents. they are extremely family oriented people who are close to their family and parents. i have known them since i first moved to san francisco. my husband and i lived on a duplex on a street. they are close to the pence. they are very involved in their children and grandchildren life. i have met them and seen them visit. i have seen genes parents in the neighborhood. the grandparents come to take care of the children. was the building is designed, to reduce it to one or more places, the size of the first floor is what has allowed them to have

enough room for genes parents. i and a stand that the planning department is partially responsible for the oversized building. without a doughnut hole in the middle of the staircase, there would be no room for an elevator. this will allow the grandparents to live there indefinitely. they are the type who want to live with three generations of under one roof. that is of value that san francisco should support. they are good neighbors. they are not the type of people that would plan a design that would change the character of their neighborhood. san francisco should do all it can to keep the family in the city. we planned to move to the east bay where the housing is more family friendly. thank you. >> thank you.

>> we strongly support this plan. this is been central to the cohesion of our block. we feel that this is compatible with the surrounding buildings. we have very diverse architecture on our block. three model will improve the appearance of their home and the block. we're thrilled that they decided to incur the additional cost of building upon their existing footprint. they could have built to anyone feet into their back yard. they have been sensitive to the neighbors' concerns. thank you. >> thank you.

>> we have raised our two sons on this block. we have owned the home since 1977. we really care about families and children, obviously. they regularly organize our block party and communications and other neighborhood concerns. they have outgrown their home and a proposing a lovely addition. with families and the number of children dropping every year, san francisco must keep families in our city,

especially as a family such as this the contribute so much to our neighborhood and city. the families' support this edition and we appreciate how the planning department protect our city from the so-called monster homes. this is no monster home. we see that this addition will retain the scale and character of the 400 block and allow the families to remain on our block in san francisco. please allow them to build this as designed. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i will be reading a letter on behalf of -- "i'm writing in full support of the plans submitted to the planning department and hope

that you will allow them to pursue the design they have presented. i'm the owner of the two-story home built in 1913. i have owned my home and i have seen much change. almost all of my neighbors have expanded their homes by increasing the height or the footprint or both. this trend has been to upgrade and expand the homes to fit modern tastes and lifestyles. in the past, they have been one or two bedroom cottages. they were much too small and impractical. it seems that my neighbors should have the right to alter their homes to fit their needs. allowing the owners to expand their home seems in keeping with the stated goal of making our city family friendly. the owners have been exemplary in their inclusion of the

neighbors in the room model. they have made multiple concessions in regards to the size, design, location. the addition is completely compatible with others on our block and they add character and a beautiful of the sections. i urge you to approve the design without changes or conditions. i would like to say something really quickly on my own behalf. i have known his family for more than half of my life and i would like to say that this family is the glue that keeps the 400 block to get their. -- together. our block owes so much charm to this family. this would be a tragedy for us.

>> thank you. is any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. >> my clients as me to thank the director and several of the commissioners and they urged the client appeal. secondly, one of the more easy to do with planners must be corrected on a few points. 3,300 feet, as the plan shows, the existing building has 825 feet of non inhabitable space and it will have the same in the 3300. i want to point out the she mentioned that the 15 foot

guidelines is a codified ruled by the board of supervisors. you said "we're asking for an exception to the role." if it was an exemption on a variants, what is codified in this is language. these are suggestions only and the 15 foot guideline is a recommendation. i would challenge him to show me where the rule is could fight in the planning code. i wanted to point out a couple of things. what is most important and surprising is that it said that the proposed front set back

provides a pedestrian scale and in hanses the street and i read that and i was really surprised that this was the court recommending is was not appropriate. this shows some internal arguments about this case and it suggested that it might come up tonight about perhaps a compromise where my clients can do an additional set back. they asked me to point out that every additional set back will have a negative impact many times more than the previous inches that have been given out. what the planning department is saying is that these can still be done at the top, they can have the open space and square

footage and we can do away with that . this has not been designed, mr. macy has tried. i caution you to see that as a given. >> in your conclusion and in your brief, you talked about how the residential design team meets and how your client might prefer it if they actually were seeking a variances so that they can meet with an individual zoning administrator. can you talk about that? >> that was merely rhetoric, part and i hope it was taken that way. the design team does not meet with architects or with the project sponsor's owners. i can see why. they want and the objective of the.

at the same time, some planners don't do as well as the project sponsor can end they are teaching the goals and needs and why there are decisions to cut back which don't meet the goals and don't work. it is a shame that simply cannot meet with -- which overrules the staffers that initiate the conversations with our clients. this rule is not in the code. if this was a variants, there would be a give and take at the hearing between my client, the architect, and the decision maker during that hearing. that is >> thank you.

mr. sider? >> thank you for the opportunity to respond. first, just to reply to mr. gladstone's good-natured remarks about what the planning code does and does not say, i would quickly mention that planning codes section 311, subsection c, subsection one does require compliance with residential design guidelines, which mandates the 15-foot setback. there it is. secondly, with respect to square footage, possibly and misstated something. i am not sure. the point of which to communicate is that the square footage of the home as established by criteria lengths would be unaffected by the reconfiguration to address at

the commission's concerns. let me back a second, if i could. one of the things that struck me during public comment was the tone of the commons. -- comments. it is refreshing to hear from a group of people that are enlightened about the character of their neighborhood and change to their neighborhood, the maturation of their neighborhood. i cannot begin to articulate how unusual that is. it is to be cherished. with that in mind, i need to address some of the things that are mentioned, to state what we are and are not talking about. at this point, we are not talking about building in the backyard. we are not talking about family housing reverses some other kind of housing. we are not even talking about size. what we are talking about is configuration, layout, interior space design.

the commission ruled that this project had to play by the rules. that was the essence of their finding. commissioners, this can be done without any loss of living space. this is the fact i am struggling with. the commission decision did not require any reduction in square footage of this proposal. all that has to be done in order to take the proposal and make it consistent and compliant with the commission decision is a mild reconfiguration. same bedroom count, bathroom count, some offices, same art studios, some square footage. quickly, with these changes, with the externalization of open spaces, the project would also provide the established, longstanding residential design guidelines. we would respectfully urge you

to uphold the planning commission decision and allow this to move forward. thank you. >> thank you. anything further from ddi? the matter is submitted. president goh: i have another question for mr. sider. i am looking at your submission, the third from the last -- it is an aerial photograph. maybe you could put it up. the arrows pointing to the subject house -- if you go up

the hill to the peaked roof victorian, go up the hill, three houses, how tall are those buildings? i mean in terms of stories. they appear to be three stories. >> i believe so. let me look. it is dark, but i think this may illustrate. >> there you -- president goh: there you go. i can see that better. is this new construction? the two peaked roof buildings i see to the left of the tree -- >> they do not appear to be. we may have some material on the documents, but by all appearances they would be -- vice president garcia: i think the audience is trying to

vigorously respond to your question. president goh: does the commissioner have a question for a member of the audience? vice president garcia: are they ? that is all. -- are they new? that is all. president goh: i am looking at your submittal below the subject property. there is another peaked roof building. maybe you can show us on your map. that goes a little bit further. oops. i see. two stories. thank you.

commissioner hwang: can use circle around? i would like to see the rest of the neighborhood. president goh: that is a school across the street, isn't it? >> the play yard. some open space. president goh: what school is that? thank you. and you mentioned that the building into the rear yard was off the table. was that on the table at some point? >> it was my understanding that was a matter of discussion. the planning commission was considering the third story

addition independent of a rear addition. i do not believe plans were ever drawn up for a rear addition, although i could be corrected. president goh: thank you. >> the staff asked the sponsor to drop plans for putting up two stories, i believe, into the rear yard, and doing a much smaller top floor. the client said that is not what the neighbors want. we are here to work with the neighbors. president goh: thank you. comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i will start. having worked with the planning department and planning commission for 30-odd years, i do not think they are anti- family.

and to a certain degree, some of their statements i would agree with. i would agree that the overall profile as proposed by the appellant could be fit in, even with the more extensive setbacks. the question here is, in terms of the rdg's, they are an element -- they are an amalgamation of a lot of experiences the planning department has had dealing with in this case, and prominently related to, a vertical extension and how to mitigate those impacts either to adjacent neighbors immediately or to a certain neighborhood in terms of the context. certain neighborhoods were much

more vociferous in the adoption of those rdg's, and some wanted more extensive setbacks. with the vertical extension -- there are a number of things that relate to the intent of why the setbacks are there. initially, they were there primarily because it was starting to be a proliferation of four story buildings within to story and three story neighborhoods. you did not really hear very much about the addition of a third story when it for started. i think it grew into greater compliance in terms of its usage as people recognize that for story buildings were not

going to fly very well. the question, in terms of at this particular solution, needs to be looked at in terms of the front setback and the lack of a rare setback. the question is whether the front setback creates enough of a definition in the street plan of the building, and therefore demonstrates that there is an accommodation to the scale of adjacent buildings. in this particular instance, i find this setback does. i think the type of buildings that are both immediately adjacent and this particular one, the setback is enough to be able to demonstrate a change of plane, and therefore mitigate, to a certain extent, the

addition, with respect to the neighbors. the rear yard, however, has very little setback. what is interesting is the fact, obviously, by all the people here, that nobody has complained about the rear yard. whether there is a question of impact by the fact that there is no set back in the rear yard, i hate to see the rdg's become cookie cutter as an approach by the planning department in how they view these residential editions. -- additions. i find the front setback is appropriate. the we're setback is really not required, because it is built into the fact that it is 21 feet. therefore, i would support overturning the department.