be defined and i think will time between who's living there and when it's built and you have to wait until it's built and pome are living in it to cubing that study. >> so i know in the draft legislation and may be solve fee can help me remember this there was a distinction between when the study would start and the cap so when the study would begin even when the cap was met. >> if you have 320 units that you are going to study and none of them are built that is not going to help you study anything. yeah, i get your point and so one thing is that i know there was a thought about let's start the study before we hit the cap and that number might need to be looks at but, i think your point makes sense about you know, what if nothing is built yet? you know? and then

we -- you know we can talk to the board members about you know, addressing that and think being that and in the terms of how we design this study to cop cap size. >> my thought is i'm supportive of some kind of reflection period and after some amount of time look unit were planned and reflected on and seen how it's done because this is new and we don't know what is going to happen but i think the cap is again clungy and i don't think if we are going it solve that here but may be it's just a -- recommendation to the board to look at alternatives. >> one other quick thing about the study too is that i believe the student housing while it's excerpt from the cap wouldn't be extent from the study, is that your study and if that is not a clear then may be that is something we should study and

consider and whether or not we want to writing the whole pool in the impact study and remember there is a cap on a very specific sub group which, is the "market rate," and student housing could be market rate but yeah, there is going to be a larger pool than what is actually built out there. so that is where i would recommend going and moving this out and not coming up with a solution before you rep.ping that the board comes up with alternative and is putting more meat on the bones as far as the cap and see where it goes. >> can i ask a question to staff i have been confused all week is that why staff is recommending disapproval of this because as it stands it needs more study and work about how we are going to measure. the requirement reason why staff is recommending disapproval is because it the fact that this type of housing was a type of housing and when

you are looking at it from a policy question it's either do you want the housing or should it be improve and if you want the housing it's unfair to say there is a cap on only the market housing but no cap on the affordable hotsings and it's the comment that its not an appropriate housing time for market rate people it's not appropriate for anyone and vice versa if it's appropriate for house affordable housings and students then it's appropriate for market housing. >> woo. i think i here on the commission some general support for these types of units and some type of rigorous study and so i'm going to make a motion to approve the legislation with a recommendation for the concept of a cap and leave it at that and so not -- not the number, not you know us trying to retrigger it right here and also to ask for a rigorous reporting

to be developed by the supervisors. and with the modifications proposed by staff on the what is that? the definition, the common space, and the section of the code. >> second. >> commissioner sag guy 88. >> yeah, i can support that may be one other idea for the study is that it could be i do not want to say multiple, but there could be some kind of track information to begin with and that might address some of commissioner hillist' concerns and that you can start trashing it right from the time that someone come in with one of these or has housing units incorporate into a probability and start to collect numbers from that standpoint and then later you can enter into and that can be reported back to the commission and the board at

some periodic if i am and then there would be the more rigorous study at some point and it seems to be a concern also of the housing community as well so i have confidence that, that will continue my own only comment is, i guess and someone else already said this it doesn't seem like 70 square feet could make that much of a difference but i don't know mr. kennedy if you want to take another hike uphere for a second and give us some idea. >> i'm just going to ask you one question and so and that is -- is there a real tippling point here? between 220 square feet which, is currently the minimum allowed for living space and then, i assume then that the bathroom and kitchen and closets are in addition, to that which would kick it up to

what 300? yeah 250. >> 250 and so 50-sny thousand dollars per unit. ore yeah easily and so this is 700 bucks per square foot and it's probably a 55% reduction in square footage would translate to a 25% reduction in rent and there is a direct correlation between rent and purchase price and the total size, and i think, the important thing to remember is flexibility. and as i had point out you will find as of these microapartments going into larger projects that otherwise would not be able to be used and soul find the flexibility will create more unit just because the developers can now use parts and portionability that previously they were not age to and also, i think we could expect that not every unit is going to be built to the absolute minimum. >> no, not at all and i think

that if could go as low as 220 but i think the suite is 240, or 225 and we are building on hair inoon street all the 220 and i would like to invite the commission to come look at those and see exactly what they are like. >> thank you. >> commissioner was your motion such that you included all types of housing being the same or did you were you being encouraging them to have no cap if the cap is studied on affordable housing or you are not answering that question? >> i'm not making a motion to include affordable housing. i heard the comments today about if it's okay for one population it should be okay for another population but i'm going to leave the legislation as it's written. well, i'm not quite sure

on this one it sounds like it's moving in the right direction but i still don't like the consideration of a cap. i mean i do not really and this is my own opinion but, i was really surprised that there was such a turn out today and so much attention given to this and i think it's about mirroring the population and i think there is a fear by some leaders who control people and they are afraid that this might result in a huge inflixof people who are different and not controllable and who may vote the wrong way and they are not afraid of most market rate buildings because they are fairly expensive and the numbers are fairly low and that is why this cap is important because we don't want more than a certain number and if we get hundreds or thousands of new people living in san francisco -- excuse me. there is no discussion here the commissioner is speaking he has the floor.

>> you know if it's a large number and so i'm just say and i'm surprised and there must be some fear out there about this measure because the cap makes no sense otherwise unless some way to monitor or meter the population and so i'm probably voting against this although i think it's moving in the right direction. >> just for the record there was a an initial motion made by commissioner ant knee knee that was not second and had commissioner we made a motion to recommend approval with a concept of a cap to request a rigorous reporting program in moves proposed by staff. on that motion an teeny no. >> hillist aye, sack guy aye aye. and commissioner -- [inaudible] and so move the commissioners that the motion passes six to

one.. >> commissioner is there a place on your regular -- excuse me the last regular calendar item case number 2009.0035 d d at fourion jersey street requests for discretionary review..

>> staff here? s. >> good answering planning commission, washington southwest team leader this proposal is to allow the alteration of a an existing single family residents the property is locate the at fourion jersey street in the zoning grict and the application by two adjacent homeowners. the proposal is to construct a white vertical addition a rare horizontal addition and insed the set backs at the east side of the building and alter the fast sad of a single family dwelling the proposed building would be a two-story gar range and four bedrooms 3.5 bath and is with a total of 3200 square feet. the residential design

team reviews the project following the files of two d r project and it should still be consistent with the residential

illustrate 3 4 f1here, you will in the photograph of the house, -- here, where one two and then a third in the middle parlor. in that four-foot side set back, she gets aum of the light and air to those two rooms from that earn exposure and the large free in front of her impact the victorian that she has live in for three years that comes into the front parlor and so those side windows are very important and in the second parlor, the widow is the only access to

light for that habitable room. here's a picture of the view from that widow. and the middle parlor and you can see the story poles. what she currently sees as blue sky, she'll now see as the wall of a building adjacent. where she is looking to the rear, to the south or to the north, the netting will be a solid wall. if you walk up to the widow and stand right at it and look up, oh, there is a little blue sky left so in this room who's affordability is afforded by this one widow and the middle bedroom in the house who's widow is on the north white wall let me point it out in the model on this elevation, those two rooms will now be shared by a third story addition. and, this third story

addition, is going to severely deprive at the same time of day on march 20th at 9:00 a.m., 7525 any light that is going to get into that front widow. these horizontal bars that you see, have been removed from the building, thankfully, but only as recently as in november and we didn't have no time to remodel that. i think one of the things that we need to look at is if the project sponsor is going to weep keep the original permanent application, if you are going to forego the feels from a whole new set of reviews by war planners fine, but don't let the new applicant under the uold application take the project in the reverse direction that you want. accommodations for the light and error of the neighbor. >> second d r questionser you have five minutes

good evening president wonk and members of the commission i'm i represent the neighbor and they have lived there last 40 years and i heard mr. washington say about all of the reiterations of the plans going through but the plans mail out in march of this year did not show any light windows, decks or set backs or skylight on the adjacent building it simply walled over those adjacent features and when these were brought these facts brought to the attention of the planner march 222005 and i am flaintd e-mail sent to the planner ten days before the 11 expired, that hey it's too late they should be prepare to file the d r that they thought that the plans were

inaccurate and so basically, these poor focus had no choice whatsoever accept to file a d r just to maintain a code d r and it's incredibly unfair the player could have conforms what they were saying about these maps in two minutes with a google map and none of these were diminished capacitied on the plant and so not only did the department fail to do it's job and fail to check the plan for crazy and fail to dplie comply with section 311 when they were told that they had failed and they sithly said that's too bad and is response was that they have to file a d r and so the old plans here today the d r there is no question you would have to file a d r and there is an exceptional circumstances for the department to send out those sort of lance and the probability sponsor brief says it's enough that the neighbors understood the

relationship of the proposed building to their buildings and widow and is that is on page six of the project sponsors brief. that is not true. that is not enough. the residential design guidelines and common sense tell us that plant must respond to specific features widow, doors, set backs, decks this is how we design plans. so, how on earth did the residential design team, find out or determine that these complied with the guidelines when none of those features were even shown? i don't understand. it also -- in the probability responder says immediately after finding out that these lands were wildly accurately they were changed that the no, sir truly the d r's from filed fix most ago and the plans were change three weeks ago and finally they said that the current plans comply and that is also not true and they also said that we mirror the

light wells and set backs and that is also not true and that is what we are asking for. hold them to their word on the first page submit by ms., barclay who says we mirror the light wells they don't mirror their light wells they are 2 feet short on both end and so they are going to have a full wall sitting in the deck and is they finally added the deck and is set backs on both ends. they also extend far past all of the neighbors. since when did the residential design guidelines, permanent these wild extensions deep extensions under the rear yard look at the way the building is currently lined up right now the buildings are pretty much lined up all the way across miss may beels building is the one exception and that is a

historic building but this current building goes even yet past my client's building and is that what the residential design guideline stand for to expend into the open space here three stories? that is not how i interpret them. finally the issue of the demlation in this case it's a demolition, the department called at that demolition when they first came into the department and i'll submit this, the department twice said very few existing walls have been retain on the probability and therefore the probability has been determined to be a tandem amount to a demolition and that was based on the original plans here's the first lan and there is the demolition plan for the current demolition, they are identical and so when did it stop being tanned mount to a demolition

and so when magic wand was waved over this probability to make it an alter ration and it's a demolition that destroys affordable middle class housing. >> okay speakers in favor of the d r you have three minutes, i have one card here m. o n iq u e may be. >> i'm the owner of 485 jersey street and if live infinite value yo for 20 years now and i enjoy the architecture very much and as you know it's a wonderful area composed of edwardian and victorian homes and since i have lived in jersey street there have been no large additions on any of the homes on my block and we have been a very stable block in that period of time four and-a-half year ago the original

owner of 48 one sold their home to bar ton and epiand is i work with in good fate with bar ton to come up with a modification that would reserve the light and air to my hope home and he made consegs by reducing the size of the home and modifying the effects that the house would have in both the personal property and back of my home however in spring of 2011 this home of two bedrooms and one bath under went a new construction consistenting of new kitchen epiand bathroom and floorings and it sold in august for a little over one .1 million to the current developer and is these present owner and is developers in no means is anything other than a demolition they tend to build a larger structure than that, that was previously negotiated between me and the previous developer and i'll like to keep the previously

negotiables 15-foot set back that was played placed on the top level of the house and not to extend beyond a foot beyond of rear of my house and finally, i find it dysp concerning that the city allows developers particularly developers from out of town to come in and construct monstrous homes without any regard to the aesthetics of our neighbors and i think the acterek tour in our valley stands for itself it's a beautiful communal area and furthermore, these monstrous homes do nothing but create less affordable housing, four bedrooms and three and-a-half baths there is no larger structure on my block and so i guess in closing, i wouldic i would like to that i thank you all for your time and thank you for any consideration given to my request and as you all as not

taken a walking tour of knowy valley, i think you would find the history and actech tour worth appreciating thank you for your time. >> thank you are there any other speakers in favor of the d r? come up thank you for this opportunity my name is dated measuringcal and my husband john and i have the adjacent mabels to the east side. we just celebrated living in our home for 39 years that we moved in on november 11th 19 sny we take great pride and a lot of pride in our home in the past 39 years. we refer to the previous owners of 481 jersey street to expand the property and out after a lot of negotiations with them we came to an agreement with a -- on the top floor and

that included a 15-foot set back from the front of our house to match our front light well. these out of town developers bought the house last hear year which included the same building permanent. had the very first meeting with them at monday necks house with them and their design showed no bedroom and from the firsthand and they disregarded to the envelope that we had previously greed to they said flat out that three berms was the model and not negotiablable to eliminate a bedroom we do not agree with that. in march 2012, we had another meeting with the same developers and we requested they match our side wells -- light wells in the front and they agreed to that and they came out and they setup story poles

which showed which showed where they would put -- where they would match us. this is a picture -- how do you turn this on? . >> it should turn on as soon as you start talking here's a picture from our front bedroom. that shows that they told us that they were going to match our side -- front light well. and here's another picture that shows from our other room they were matching it. and now, they have they are not matching it and they -- the final plans show that they are going 2 feet in the front in the light well and 2 feet in the back. our request is that they honor the original envelope at the top floor be going back 15 feet from the front of the