roughly $8 for -- per square foot, and that revenue will be added to the eastern neighborhood public benefit fund. since the issue of the case report, the department received three letters in support of the project. i will pass these out to you now. the letters in opposition to the project request that the commission eliminate one story, and the parking, reducing the number of dwelling units. and a less contemporary design. they support the project as proposed because it will be an increase of two units and seven bedrooms, which enables greater density.

and this will incentivize the developers to provide two or three bedrooms to increase the number of family-sized units. the department finds the building is compatible, given the absence of a prevailing neighborhood context. this does not meet the threshold of exceptional and extraordinary, and we recommend that the committee not take review -- and accept this as proposed. i am available for questions. >> the project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i am year to recommend -- represent the project sponsor. we began this process in 2007, for a five story building with 40 dwelling units. we patiently waited and listened, and watched the zoning

process. we convert the pipeline project to a confined project that respects the new zoning controls, dropping the building height to 40 feet. we held a three neighborhood meetings, and the first was on october 2011. after this meeting, then made a few constructive suggestions and we responded. we made important modifications to reduce the mass, of the penthouse -- and we brought the light well all the way down to the ground floor to match that of the building directly to the north. to soften the building we inc. the sighting of the bay windows. we presented these changes on november 2011. we recently held a third meeting on june 18 at the request of a neighbor. the property was zoned to see

heavy commercial on the mixed- character block that is predominantly residential. this building has not been occupied as a residential dwelling unit for nearly 20 years and has been vacant for several years. nobody will be displaced as a result. we pay the impact fee and the project will create three family size units. and -- i would like to conclude by saying that we worked closely and although this project was not required to be reviewed by the residential design team, we went back and forth with your staff, and modify the treatment of the ground floor, which was acceptable to the residential design team. on behalf of my clients i would request that you not give discretionary review and new -- in support the project as proposed.

we are available for any questions. >> calling out for public comment, i have three speaker cards. joe sharillaho, vitria merrow, syrian scallan -- thank you. >> i am happy to be here today. i am a resident at 1358, and i have been a resident for four years and working at a community-based organization for seven years. i love the feel of the community between the neighbors, a very open and people are very friendly. there is a lot of solidarity but as finances come to be known in the neighborhood a lot of us have serious concerns. we have gathered at 34 signatures within the past two

days, from residents and landlords and homeowners and businesses who are all concerned with the negative impact from this project. some of the concerns that they have are about the aesthetics of the project and the designs that you have before you. the parking in the affordability. i would like to present this petition the current plans -- for the rebuild of 1340 net, -- 13540 natoma. we have concerns with the demolition of net,, and the rebuilt with the contemporary condominium building. we believe this is out of keeping with the neighborhood in terms of design and tight and we ask the planning commission to reject the current plan and

called for new design that better reflects the character of the neighborhood. we look forward to working with all parties involved to a better development. we hope to move forward with this but with more community can send. i will leave this petition here. we have copies as well. thank you again. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 1359 natoma and i am opposed to the current construction plan. i strongly disagree with the discretionary unit -- which is out of touch with the community and out of date. my first objection is about the design of the building. and the current high and mass of the building.

one reason i chose to live here is the combination and affordability, and the charm of the street. you see street with buildings with an accordion design, 1340 is one building. if you look at the property at the present state, you can see this as a building with an eduardian build. the current plans for the new property for modern buildings retain some of the character of the original building, and with its removal around the buildings -- a stohr survey that was given stresses the importance of individual buildings contributing to the overall significance of the neighborhood. an individual house cannot have much significance on its own but in the context of a neighboring properties -- this is important

to preserve the historical significance of this potential district. when we, as homeowners, try to make changes to our properties we are expected to take this into consideration. we expect to put these in with wooden windows, we are expected to respect these properties. this does not seem to be the case in this neighborhood. to tear down an existing building and put something in that is out of character with the construction is already present. i believe a compromise building that retains the features could be done, and it would benefit the neighborhood greatly. if we look over to the building

that is parallel -- i am will say i am sorry, this building is out of scale. with 1350 was developed, the commission expected the neighborhood -- for a 40-foot height limit, which was at 48 by the time the roof was there to be considered. that is the plan of this current development. thank you very much. >> vitria? and other any other speakers on this item? >> come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 1349 -- across the

street from this project. we have had meetings and seen the plans of these buildings and the only thing i have -- is basically a consideration to redesign the front of the facade so it will blend in with the street. >> thank you. >> i am joshua macdonald, and i am concern about the footprint of this building. there is a ground level building depth of 80 feet, over 25 feet in setbacks. as the owner of the property on the same block -- which stands to the north of the subject profited, i have been granting building permit 2018 -- which

will reduce my building depth and i am doing this not because this is a requirement of because i appreciate open space. if these plans are approved, this will be lost and there is little on the block. this will be traded on my project begins demolition next month. i would not like to see this diminished. i am able to stand on the roof of my existing building, 1340 natoma. plants grow there. i suggest maintaining a setback. this is a transit-friendly location, and perhaps they'd like this place for gardening instead of parking cars. >> is there additional public comment?

>> i am beatrice merrow, at 1326 natoma street. my mother owned the home for 47 years. five years ago, there was a fire. we had to follow the guidelines. we couldn't add vinyl windows, and had to spend $1200 on weather windows. one building was added, very modern. it stands out. 30 buildings are on that block. three or four are businesses, but they are edwardian. i know i came to a meeting a few months ago. there was a building on 15th

street. they want to put in a modern building. there is mention that this really stood out, in the duardiaedwardian buildings. the same thing is happening in a group that is edwardian. something modern would be awkward. we had a meeting last week. we asked somebody from the city department to show up. i think we asked for them to support us, but they were lopsided and there was a planner. i didn't hear the comment, but it was sort of like -- the planning commission wants new buildings with 2012 standards. that is wrong to say to

neighbors or residents in san francisco. the beauty of san francisco is we are edwardian. do we really want to change everything in san francisco. do you really want to change san francisco? i find it strange said someone would say a comment like that. >> and is there any additional public comment? there may be questions for you. >> there will be a two-minute rebuttal. >> this is mandatory.

>> we will ask you. the public portion is closed, commissioner miguel? >commissioner miguel: i patronice san francisco and am there from time to time. they have not been occupied. not for 20 years or so. i have no problem with the demolition of something used for many of those last 20 years as an office. this was a disgrace and a fire hazard with no mid-block open space. in the manner in which the homes are build. t.

i do not want to see buildings in 2012 looking like 1907. i want to see something built in the 21st century. i know that -- the more modern or contemporary term, that style -- this does not please everybody. i look at some edwardian and victorian, with the 18 colors, and it clashes with my eyeballs, also. that's what the people want, they won thown the house. i have no problem with it. i say to not take the eir and approve the demolition.

i agree that this is a very good project. it could have been 10 feet higher. they are paying be $8 per square feet, which they would not have had to pay. they are creating 3-bedroom units which are family sized with appropriate parking. it is well designed as far as the plants. -- plans. i like everything except i disagree with commissioner miguel. i am going to vote to approve this project. i would ask the architect work would staff to see what can be done. it is not the worst thing in the world. the residents want something

that is more contexture well. you can build buildings with the elements of victorians and other period of the street, which are clearly a new buildings. you see these elements in regards to the window treatments, the bays, all those things that can be done to agree with the neighbors. i think it is such a good project and i will let that be worked out between the staff and the project sponsor as to the eventual facades of the building. otherwise, it looks pretty good. commissioner moore: the only thing i would ask is the tonality of this building be

lifted slightly more to the light side. i am sorry to be so blunt about it. it does not mean that it is not well designed. it lacks a little bit of better understanding of the color hues of the street. for example, the building next door makes a much larger gesture to the context. i would expect that this building not just operate on the traditional horizontal siding and then cement plaster, which is everywhere else. i am very much -- i would ask that you spend more time with the detailed elements of the

facades. i question the dark tenting on the windows. -- tinting on the windows. i would ask that the department spent more time designing it's a little bit more people friendly? commissioner sugaya: just echoing that comments. we're trying to get to something that is a little bit -- just taking a look at the

street. commissioner antonini: one of the neighbors made a good point. it is different when you are restoring the building. even so, ui think some sort of contextual sympathy to the buildings on the street with regards to the facades come up real treatment, window treatments, would be greatly appreciated. but that is up to staff and project architecture to work out. i think will hold project is a

winner and it should be passed. >> other questions? >> on the motion to not approve the project as proposed. [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. we will place you on item 10. 1490 francisco street. request for discretionary review.

>> are we waiting staff for this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is a request for a discretionary review for a project at 49 d francisco street. -- 1490 francisco street. it is located at the northeast corner of francisco and octavia. adjacent to 1468 francisco. it is occupy by a one-story garage structure. it is occupy by the owners of which are the request this. the project has three components.

the legalization of open space on the roof of the garage located at the properties in eastern and. this rooftop is accessible from one of the buildings units via a door that was installed with a permit. the proposal is to install open railings on the roof to meet building and fire codes. this would be access via stairs. the final component is the addition of new and modified fire escapes and pathways to meet the current fire code requirements for decks. the focus is the deck proposed for the roof of the garage structure. it should be explained that the broad structure is located in

what is considered to be the subject properties rear yard and is up legal noncompliance structure. interpretations of planning code 188, which concerns noncompliant structures, allow the addition of? on the roofs provided data associated railings are visually open and no higher than required by the building code. the additions ofdecks requires a 10-day notice to be sent to owners and occupancy of of budding properties. that is what was done in this case. the garage roof is 35 feet by 12 feet in area. as proposed, decking 35 feet by 12 feet would be installed off by the roof, a 42-inch pipe open reeling would be installed to separate the usable area from a

pathway. as indicated earlier, the garage roof is successful only from one units in the building, unit number 3. the request was filed by kim meyer. the owners of the for condominiums located in a three- story building immediately to the east of the subject property. the front approximately 27 feet of 1468 francisco extend the right to the property line is shared with the subject property. 1468 steps back from the shared property line that includes windows from the bathrooms and kitchens. the front portion of 1468 francisco that extends to the shared property line and adjacent to the garage roof

contains to property line windows that belong to unit 1 on the second floor. as you can see from the various -- these to property line windows are set up relatively high in the western wall and appeared to be glazed with non transparent glass. the concerns include potential impacts at the garage roof deck to their privacy, light, and there. there is concern that it will be a source of noise. it is the department's position that the project does not contain extraordinary circumstances. the two property line windows that are immediately adjacent to the garage roofdeck are set high in wall. it would be accessible from a single unit. the usable area would be separated by at least 3 feet from the eastern and southern parameters.

the department would note that if the garage structure was not present, the rear yard could be used as open space without permits being required at all. the impact is open space, it would be similar to impacts greeted by the garage roof. the recommendation is that the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. >> thank you. dr request your, you have five minutes. -- requestor, you have five minutes. >> ok.

thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak on behalf of the owners of our building and the renters as well. i live at 1468 francisco street. it is a four units right next to 49 defense discuss street. -- 1490 francisco street. i have lived in the marina for 24 years. some more pictures