tripartheid. if there is a way of making the height of the windows less. they are a lot higher than they have to be, especially at the base of the window where it is not letting that much more light in at that point anyway. by doing that, you might be able to create an area at the top of the building where you would be able to do something that terminates the building, whether it is a freeze or whatever it is. all modern materials. something that announces that the building and is there as opposed of just a repetition from the bottom to top of the same thing. i think that makes it seem more foreign. that is a suggestion. if you could try to do something along those lines. commissioner fong: thank you. i am right in the middle on this one. when i first saw it, i said, that is a nice building. i think you have some great

skills and it first struck me as may be a medical building. looking a little closer, i understood that the light wells are there and i appreciate the use of the space. then i looked at the map and realize where it was. i have a little bit of a concern of how it did -- of how it fits into that particular neighborhood. again, it is a beautiful building and piece of work. it may be more welcome somewhere else. i have a little feeling in me that says, 40 years from now, someone might say wow, how did that once lived through and get there. fontana towers, no one has ever criticized them for being not beautiful buildings, but they are there in that spot. we should be redesigning it right now.

president olague: are you finished, commissioner fong? commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i think this commission should try to design architecture. the devil is in the details. i believe that this building can deliver it in a way that will be pleasing. the building makes a concession to the adjoining buildings, working with the department, stepping back and letting it be a smaller scale dictate on a third part of the building of how you transition down 15th street. perhaps we should ask the architect whether or not any of the commons stir any ideas.

i am prepared to approve the building, with the condition that the entrance moves on to south van ness. taking retell and the architectural alternatives, is there an additional tweak? i would ask that you look at some additional variation on the top of the building to give it closure. it creates a facade that has an end to it, rather than looking like an office building. >> is that a motion? commissioner moore: that is a motion, yes. squats i will second it. >> in terms of the comment about the contrast, there are some other options made by different manufacturers of similar

materials that we could try to find something that was less distinctly contrasting. we are in the process of developing the details. this is a step towards that. all of these comments can be transformed into something that would look quite a bit different. commissioner moore: i believe that he has the ability to work creatively with the commons. the building, in the rendering we have, almost looks like a metal clad building. until you showed me the material, i would have thought it was a metal clad building. with the ability to give texture and the right decaling to contrast the materials you are currently using that includes potentially surface variation in the stone or whatever, i will let you work on that. i am prepared to support the building and have him take it

the next step. president olague: you mentioned south van ness as the entrance, right? commissioner moore: yes, i did that. president olague: are there any other thoughts on the bicycle parking? >> i will leave that at that. >> we could try to get more if you would like. commissioner sugaya: i have not said much. i kind of like it. i am the only person that likes this building, but with some subtle changes, that the architect has already described to us, perhaps it would satisfy people. i think he has already defined a little bit of the direction he might take the assault on the --

the facade will step that takes place on the upper floor. there is a deck there and he has introduced last -- introduced glass, some material that is different from the proportions of the rest of the building. subtle things like that are the suggestion that he might find. material that would end up looking like a horizontal band or something. i think we would leave that up to the architect. he has already introduced some ideas here that the staff could follow up with it. commissioner fong: i want to be very clear. if the motion goes, i am probably going to vote on this, but i am clear that i like the building and architecture. i am comfortable with that location. it is something i would have no problem with. commissioner borden: i feel a

little bit hesitant on where it is going to end up, how is going to end up, how it will influence future buildings in the mission district and i find it -- i think is really in context with that neighborhood. i know the hpc even, mr. martinez, i know you were fine with it. maybe it is the renderings we were looking at, but i am not able to sit here and feel like i can get to the place where i'm comfortable with this design and neighborhood. although i am really supportive of the fact that the developer was willing, and it is a beautiful building to me, but just not here. it is not a criticism of the -- you know, we are subjected in our opinions, obviously. as civilian commissioners, with

the exceptions of commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya, we do not have professional experience dealing with this architecture. on a purely subjective basis, i am not feeling comfortable with the design completely in this neighborhood. i do want to thank the developer and the architect for working with staff and the developer working with the neighborhood. and through supervisor kim and the school district. and being amenable to their concerns of moving the entryway to south van ness. i want to thank you for that. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i am going to have at the same caveat as commissioner fong. i am going to vote in favor of this because i think it is important that this get done. if we went back for more and more continuances, there might be problems. however, i would like in the

future to begin design at the barre beginning. as i said earlier, when profits first come forward, if we could have a look at it, make some comments, and try to find something that fits the testily we are going to have a project on 300 grant that came out beautifully. while it was not ready to come out at that time anyway, it would be nice to begin this process at the beginning so that by the time it comes before us, everyone is comfortable with the design. i think that, with some of the changes we have suggested, it will help to soften the building a little bit. >> on the motion to approve as proposed, with the following modifications -- moving the parking entrance to saw van ness and continue to work on the

details of the building, and specifically the top of the building. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: no. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye. president olague: no. >> that passes 5-2. if i understand correctly, we will be calling item 17 out of order. president olague: yes, because i am concerned that if we do not, he will not make his -- let's take a five minute break. i'm going to figure out the project sponsors year. we have a project sponsor for 17th? and then the request for is from

the other party. five minutes is all we need. ok, he is coming. great. we are good to go. >> commissioners will be taking item 17 out of order, for case number 2010.0394d, broderick street and a request for discretionary review. >> the product before you is located at 2853-2857 broderick street. a discretionary review has been fought on the building application. 3 feet. the existing building has a three story basement, two-unit building. the proposal to raise the building 3 feet would allow the private sponsors to insert a garage. the concerns are that the project would force easement.

staff feels that this is not an exception or an extraordinary circumstance and recommends the commission to not take discretionary review and to approve the project as proposed. i would be happy to answer any questions. president olague: thank you. dr requester? >> thank you for taking this out of order. i am going release lokke as i got -- going really slow because i got food poisoning to dead. this is not a good day right now. my clients brought me here about 10 days ago and i disagree with some other issues in terms of what is in the jurisdiction of this board. although they are still going to talk about it. the project sponsor is attempting to install a garage, if we could take a quick look on the overhead.

he had designed this -- they originally came up with a four- foot racing of the building. the environmental analysis people said if you raise it 4 feet, what is going to happen is, you these buildings pretty identical. they are going up sloping broderick street. you cannot have one building above the adjoining these if your in a row of four homes built by the same person in 1910. the macs it out at 3 feet, which i believe is still over the eve of the adjoining buildings. at 3 feet, they are required to put a 25% driveway matching the existing sidewalk. i do not think it was considered -- the street requires the curb to be raised and have an upward sloping sidewalk which is going to increase the height of the

building. if you try to drive down this driveway right now, a classic car will bottom out. they are going to have to make changes to the driveway. i believe one of the original tests was, in a was an existing eight-foot planter boxes. we can extend the curb cut beyond the three-foot that the bureau allows. i have contacted your street use and they said that 3 feet 9 inches. the challenge is to get a car to fit are going to increase the height of the building by 3 foot 9 inches. that is their best case. probably the original 40 they asked for is a good number to actually drive down. i do not think the current project -- i do not think a car will fit. if that is not your jurisdiction, i understand. i am asking that if you're going

to let them have 3 feet that you recognize that the building department also had a 6 inch construction tolerance for. we should be having construction tolerance applied to building heights. if they want to raise it 3 feet, they do not get another 6 inches. then you will establish a precedent that building heights are a 6 inch tolerance. the other suggestion is if you want to let them try, you have got to take jurisdiction and say, raise it 3 feet and raise it from an absolute point, not the curb. that would be a suggestion and i will let it step back. we are talking to and our mental analysis about a ceqa appeal. i got involved so late that i find it offensive when people do see what appeals the day before the hearing. i do not like it. we will do that later. i think there are some ceqa issues. even at 3 feet, i have measured it.

this building will be above the adjoining. you are wrong to have this funky lot on four row homes. actually, this is what they have to do. they are going to have to put in a circle transition and create and s-shaped curve. i have done is enough. this is the only way that is going to work. president olague: speakers in support of the dr requester? everyone gets three minutes at this point. >> i am the owner of 2845-47 broderick street. our concern has been not only with the non-feasibility of the garage, as he just described,

but also raising the building up to four feet. they would have to come forward with the adjoining stairs in front of our housing so that the only way they could get into the backyard is to trespass on our property. which means there is no way for the fire department or other services to service their back yard except through their existing garage. if they clapton out or change any of the elevations in the garage, it will not be able to meet the height requirements. it seems to me that it is not only a question of trespassing on our property, but is also access and safety access to their backyard. the question now is, we have asked them, can you take the stairs into your portico? by doing that you would leave a way of entering the step away. they said no, it was too expensive. i ask them what it was. they said it would be $3,000. i said, do you think it is a

inconsequential figure in terms of what you're doing to your building? they said, if we have to, we can do that and return the stairs back to the backyard in without disturbing any other site. any other areas between us. i said, why don't you do that? they refused to discuss it. at this point, where we are is, they're going to raise their building in it is going to essentially kill our privacy. it is going to be almost an identical area. take away all the views of the back. they want to have a change in the back part of their building and, at the same time, they want to kill off any of the walking areas between our buildings and have a permanent easement on their property to get to their backyard. that does not make sense. it seems to me that there is a much better way of doing this. i do not know at all about the

height of the building in terms of the feasibility of their cause, but creating garages on hills is not easy. you have to slope the sidewalk and yet your garage is flat. you need a custom car to get in. what car is going to be able to fit in? that is what i have to say. president olague: is there additional public comment on this item? for those in favor of the dr request for -- requester? seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i am the architect for the project sponsor. being here tonight is not an issue. i am sorry the we are hearing

this case. an example is the pending dr reform had been finalized, you would not be hearing this case for it does not have extraordinary circumstances attached to it. i do not know how to respond to the issue of the garage. it will be steep. we did request a four-foot race of the building. because of the ceqa impact on the historical resources preservation, if the commission wishes to grant four feet, we are open to that. it would be a typical, inserted, steeper drops. the plans are just that. it amounts to the house being raised, as the house was up the streets, but much less so. that was raised four-6 feet.

the situation with the houses are that there is a tiny, two- foot wide side for the dr requester's house, and all the people on the south side. the weight pattern goes, there is a separation where the entry to the house is. there will be no impact by the raising of the house and serving for the 6 inch steps to the door. we entertain the recessing this stairway, but it impacts historic architecture and would intrude on the portico and the porch. it would create a railing that would not allow furniture to be brought in. it would not be a smart architectural thing to do. so we request that you do not take the dr and approve the

project as it is. thank you. president olague: thank you. supporters of the project sponsor? >> i am the owner of the property. i am so upset about how the whole renewal of this property, because we had a fire. my husband died less than two years ago. i want to keep on living there. we have lived there for 55 years. but now i do not have a companion anymore. it is important for me that i get a garage.

because my husband and i, we would go out together and at night, come back. we did not care if we had to park outside, two blocks away. now, it is important for me -- i hope that we are not doing anything fancy. as a matter of fact, this neighbor who is trying to make you stop is using the whole entranceway as an easement. the easement we have is that he has grown his flowers. but i just cannot understand --

there is no one else in the neighborhood thinking of -- that it is going to disturb them. they are asking when are you going to finish the house. everything has been put on hold. thank you for listening. president olague: are there any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, dr requester, you have two minutes. >> i will be very brief. if they want to build their house, i think they have a right to build their house. i think some of the things that the dr requests, are not in this commission. what is is a 6-ins construction.

if you want 3 feet, it is 3 feet. not 3.6 or 3.9, and they go ahead and build. thank you. president olague: in rogers sponsor, you have two minutes. do you want to take them? you do not want to take your two minutes? ok. so the public hearing is closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: given the situation with the relationship of this house to the others, i would like to take dr approve the project, and say that it cannot be raised any higher than 3 feet. as measured from whatever the stable point is, or whatever you want to call it. not one that shifts around if dbi or anyone else says that they have to work the sidewalk

or do something else. and the measurement start from there. that does not work for me. i do not care about 6 inches either. >> and yes, i understand. commissioner sugaya: unless we cannot have that kind of jurisdiction. >> that is what i would like to comment on. i think that falls within the department of building inspection. the six-ins tolerance to the three-foot racing would go either way and possibly be 2 feet 6 inches and be ok or be 3 feet 6 inches and be ok. i believe that jurisdiction would fall within the department of noting inspection. commissioner sugaya: tell them we are pre-empting their jurisdiction. [laughter] then there is no reason to take dr, other than to make it official that it is our position. that should be transmitted to the building department, but it is the desire of the commission

that it remained at 3 feet. >> that is certainly to be placed into your action notes. commissioner sugaya: i will make that motion. >> second. commissioner antonini: i agree with what is being proposed. the other issues, the etr, -- the dr requester is not in purview of the commission. what they are saying is that because they are expanding its someone needed to get back there, they might have to cut through the neighbor's yard. that would be more of an emergency situation. my understanding is there is accessed from the back of this house to the backyard. >> there is still accessed through the garage and through internal connections. commissioner antonini: it is just the extern the connections

they are removing. that does not really mean anything. there are instances were up only people can go to the backyards -- probably the majority of houses in san francisco are attached homes, meaning you do not go outside. you have got to go through the house. it does not change anything. commissioner moore: have you talked about where you each expect to measure the height of the building so that you are on the same point of measuring it? would you please answer that for us? >> yes, we have. it is within the jurisdiction of the planning code. the hike is being measured per how the hike is defined for the planning code. center of the property line. at the top of the curb on the building edge. commissioner moore: correct. that should be very clear. collapse unless the curve is going to be going up or down, right? commissioner moore: existing

kerr is a demise in line. i do not have any problem with what is in front of us. commissioner antonini: for my own identification, i did not look at the zoning. they are attached, correct? >> that is correct. it is a two-family -- commissioner antonini: not necessarily detached. >> correct. commissioner antonini: i know that districts that are rh1 detached, you have to allow a three-foot space in between your house and the property line on either side. but that does not apply here. thank you. >> on the motion to take dr and two approved the proposal to raise the height of the building no more than