light wells and property line windows and light wells created the only type of light and air in the apartments. i happened to live in one of those myself, but by using the argument of property line windows aren't permitted, which under the current code when buildings are built today, that is correct. in those days, those rules didn't exist. so i believe that the examination of how we all of a sudden decide to brush away the quality of life in those units, irrespective of who lives in them, owners, renters, i don't care, it creates a change. we have a rule in this room that secondary conversations, please be kept to a minimum, if you don't mind. i am sorry to saying that, but

i'm in the middle of the thought i want an answer and consideration and besides it's light. so i'm having a hard time that we're just brushing that aside saying property line windows, that is just too bad and we're opening the door for a huge amount of large apartment buildings, which are the signature and the mainstay of many of the buildings in that area, without really thinking about the consequences. in addition to that, i do not believe that adding one floor to an already large building without adding any units with the affect it has on everybody else is really any net gain by which i'm interested in not having a larger argument of why we're doing this? >> i wanted to respond to you about the notification for the

conditional use. the project was correctly noticed to all property openers. regarding property line windows i take your point. the department's practice in reviewing cases like this is to, of course, see if the rooms in question have oracle sources of -- other sources of light and in this case they do. they have windows that look to the rear of the building or the front of the building or windows that look into the large light court. so it does not remove the main source of light or air. that is our standard. >> and any unit loses one

window, however has the remaining window impacted by a terrace, by a roof terrace, including an additional, more advantageding look at these solar panels. i think there is a diminishing ever quality, which i think we should be really be aware of. >> we did look at the rear terrace in particular and we noted that the level terrace is 6' below the sill of the window. so there is not really a question of sort of yes, you could stabbed stand on the deck and you could see somebody there. >> there are many people are who 6'2, i happen tot knob that tall, but even if you see the top of the head looking out the window is not particularly comfortable.

i'm not saying that we should necessarily go for the specifics -- i want a broader discussion of where thepability is instead less for those people who spoke tonight. >> commissioner antti. >> it doesn't like like you have room to put them on the 4th floor that remains rather than the very top. i don't know if that can be done. >> commissioner, if i

understand you, the fourth floor terrace is actually a northern-orientation and would not work well. >> the second question for the architect, i'm not necessarily proposing this as a condition, but you might want to look at your plan and see if there is any way you could match the property line windows that are being affected by any sort of matching light well or some source of light and still not detract from your plan for the upper floor. because it's a graciously-sized floor and that might be something that we'll see if the other commissioners have any ideas about that. i don't know if it can be done. >> essentially we're kind of extruding from the existing light well, which the building already maintains.

it's got a light well on either side. the height we are getting isn't impacting next level of windows above that, for example. cutting down a couple of feet wouldn't open up any windows that we would be covering by going up 14'. and i just wanted to make one comment, if i could, regarding the idea of the blocked property line windows. if you look at the rendering of the building as proposed, the building to the left of our proposed project, the units within that building are all typical. in other words, they repeat from bottom to top. they are designed similarly on either side of the building and if you noticed the building to the west of it, it's the same height. it matches it. it's approximately 70 something feet high. so all of those

unitss are designed essentially with light well and courts. rear of the building, those rooms are all designed to function in that way. as are the lower four levels of this building. so in other words, the only units with the property line windows would be maybe 25% of the units within the building existing. >> what you are saying the mirror imagine on the other side doesn't have it because there is a tall building there, probably built about the same time or probably possibly even predating the building to your west. >> correct. >> so there is no possibilities of those -- i think that would be difficult to drop anything down there to be able to provide light to those two property line windows and i'm more concerned what you can do do keep the height of

the building down a little bit. even though i am not that interested in protecting views, but i think building the panels down flush and dropping a foot or so might be a good thing to do? >> definitely dropping the panels down. >> commissioner sugaya. >> the project had a pre-application meeting, which is required. which included notification to the neighborhood associations

for the neighborhood. when did that take place? >> that could have taken place, i believe prior to the filing of the building permit application. >> so mr. nickitas, do you know what that date was? >> commissioner, that pre-dated my involvement with the project, but architect levitt sent out notices for the preapmeeting and we have the attendance from it. my understanding is that the pacific neighborhoods association received notice and choose not to attend the pre-app meeting >> thank you >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i actually don't have a problem with this project. i don't like the way the solar panels are sitting and if we can work on that, that would be

-- not too happy that we're not gaining any units, are we? but then we have to talk about making the building even taller. i don't know. >> commissioner hillis? >> i would agree. i mean, obviously you can't add a floor here in a dense neighborhood and not have some impacts. so i would be supportive of getting rid -- reducing the angle of the solar panels and making them float. what is the interior height? >> approximately 12.5'. >> commissioner sugaya says

14.5'. >> >> do you know the heights of other floors in the building? >> the other floor to floor heights are listed on the elevation there. >> 8.1, 8.1, 10 13 >> they are relatively tight, about 8' ceilings chamber typical of buildings built then. >> >> >> moving the solar panels down is a good step. >> commissioner wu.

>> is this project necessary or desirable? and i think fact there is no increase in number of units and that the increase is really about expansion of unit no. 11 from 1500-square-feet to over 4,000-square-feet. so i think in my estimation that is just not necessary or desirable and will not be supporting the project. >> commissioner antonini? >> excuse me, commissioner wu i wanted to clarify that the zone the rm-1 zoning would not allow any additional units on this property. it's at its max mulch maximum right now. >> commissioner antonini. >> to be necessary and desire, you don't have to necessarily add another unit. i have seen additions to single-family homes and multi-dwelling units that make

it nice to live. i would like to make a motion to approve with the following conditions, dropping the floor to floor height to 13' and take a 1.5 foot off of there and go with flat solar panels. i think the total floor to floor was 14.5, am i not wrong on that? >> i would just like an interpretation of this section. >> excuse me, that is okay. but the motion would be to take a foot and a half off and make flat solar panels and you have a nice, high interior space. >> commissioner sugaya, you are looking at interior height, 13.

>> section you have floor to floor heights, as well as the floor dimensions. and it goes 8.1 8.1, 10 and then 13 feet is the way mine is dimensioned. >> 14 is from top of the finished floor. >> this is interior 12. if he is at 14.1. so you take it down to 13. that is fine with me, drop a foot off of there. it's not a foot, a foot and one inch, i guess and make your panels flat. that would be the motion to approve. >> so you take a foot -- say it again. >> well, the floor to floor now i understand looking at

these plans is 14.1 for the top floor. and my motion is to drop that one foot, one inch to 13' total exterior floor to floor height and put only flat solar panels on the top. >> i second. >> commissioner borden? >> i would say, you know, what is really hard about this, this was a discretionary review, i would be whatever, to be honest, in terms it's a code-complying project, et cetera. but i have a harder time wrapping myself around the necessary -- desirable. if you get to live in this unit it's desirable, but if you don't, it's a hard thing to argue necessary or desirable for. in fact, i have not seen anyone other than the project sponsor articulate and even then i look at what the staff wrote. there is nothing really compelling in the necessary or

desirable space. and views are not protected. i know everyone here knows that. but i do believe that when so many people are being impacted negatively and there is not necessarily a greater benefit that i can see of, other than a really great unit if you happen to live there. you know? i have a hard time, you know -- we allow projects to be built with people's views are blocked and 27 new families or whatever occupying the boycedings, buildings, but this case it's probably the same people living there now and it's not benefiting -- i don't see how it really benefits. while it's code-complying and talking about discretionary review thresholds and looking

at necessary/desirable conditional use i have a hard time impacting so many people without a clearer articulation of what the net benefit actually. >> commissioner antonini? >> i think for the other tenants there are some benefits just looking at the new rendering. the whole facade on the outside has changed. it's much more attractive. you have french windows as opposed to whatever those windows are now there and they don't look very good. you have got the fires escapes in the inside are placed in different locations and it appears that the railings are much more attractive and just viewing the building from the outside, it looks like a lot more pleasant place to live. it looks like the entire exterior is being changed. and there is a much nicer treatment to the outside of the

building. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i think as far as impact, i mean, the architect did point out on property line windows that the other properties don't enjoy that either because it happened to be at the time that they built the build they couldn't put the property line windows on the other side. the other impact, if views are not protected, i don't think there is impact. >> commissioner moore? >> i don't think why we need to design an office building height, which is about 13', even 8' floor and 10' is perfectly fine. so i think the motion should consider lowering the upper floor to a 10' floor to ceiling height, which brings the upper floor to 11.1' and

solar peanut butter panels are flat and we have something to consider. >> that is a proposed amendment? >> yes. >> we're talking about a total inez tenenbaum of 11.1. basically replicating the existing unit floor to ceiling height, which is very, very nice for a generously sized unit. and working on the solar panels to be in the flatter configuration. >> if the secretary is okay with it. i will second that amendment. >> second. >> commissioners you have a motion and second. amending the proposal to incorporate a floor to floor

height no greater than 11' 1" and flat solar panels. (roll call ) >> so moved commissioners that motion passes 6-1. commissioners that will place you on your final regularly calendared item no. 17. 27-29 sutro heights avenue discretionary review.

>> excuse me, commissioner secretary, the gentleman wants to raise a continuance request. >> i apologize. there was a request for continuance that the project sponsor and staff was not supportive of commissioners. >> yes. president fong, members of the commission. my name is bruce prescott and i represent the discretionary review requester, lawrence rambling. this case was initially set to be on hearing on the november 15th hearing as a result of a procedural error, apparently, it had to be continued. at that time, the requester

himself, there rambling had a commitment today he could not rearrange. i had requested that we had the hearing on a different date and apparently because of the 90-day policy there was no alternative for doing that. i think it's important that mr. rambling is here. he is the requester and i would ask for a continuance for that because he cannot appear. it has come to my attention this afternoon that apparently the neighbors yesterday, while trying to find if there were other neighbors who mountaining be able to attend today learned from one of them that there is apparently an underground stream that runs under this project. leading us to believe there

might be some environmental impacts that have not been addressed and i think a continuance would be appropriate so could you investigate that further. although we have been here a long time today, i am requesting that the commission continue this hearing. >> [ inaudible ] >> >> hang on one second. if we take this item, you are going to have that opportunity, correct? >> he is going to speak to the continuance, i believe? >> okay, go for it. >> it has taken nine months since our 311 neighborhood meeting to get to this point. dr made extraordinary efforts.

the dr requester repeatedly delayed communications and beginning june 24th refused communications entirely. between march 15th, the 311 meeting and june 24 when they cut off communications as is documented in your package, i sent 20 emails requesting meetings and made more than a dozen phone calls and dropped byhir home four times. i explained that we are living in a rental unit and these delays are costing my family approximately $5,000 per month of delay. the dr requester allowed one meeting and the dr request he was not satisfied. we presented plans with further setbacks and a lowering of the remaining development by

several feet, the elimination of multiple windows a bathroom and other reductions all to avoid being here for a dr. the dr requester responded by cutting off communication entirely. the dr requester has offered no reason for his inability to appear here today. i rescheduled a trip to korea to be here today. the dr requester has paid attorneys here to represent him, but wishs a deferral per his letter to present the concerns of other neighbors. he is asking for delay to present hearsay. fairness is clarity is best concerned if they represent their own concerns. all neighbors have been given notice of this meeting and if they object to their project, it's their responsibility to be here. let's hear from those who have come here today because i know some have. please not hurt my family

financially and emotionally by granting this continuance by the requester. we live on at the top of a hill, where would the water come from? this is the experience we have had with the requester from the beginning. i request that we do not continue. i apologize for the late hour. it's very important to my family. >> thank you. >> well, i'm inclined not to continue. >> let's hear the item. dr requester, you have five minutes. i'm sorry 6 minutes. >> thank you. good evening again commissioners. david lindsey from department staff. the property contains two story garage, two-unit residential unit and located on the south

side of the street between 46th and 47th avenues. the 130' subject lot is 25' wide at the street and slope downs from the front property line. approximately 60' down it expands to 30' in width. project consists of approximately 21' horizontal addition at the rear of ground floor and creation of a garden level below the ground floor extending 32' from the building's existing rear wall. the project also includes decks above the rear extension, as well as reconfiguration of the two units. the dr requester is lawrence rambling who owns the adjacent property to the west. he included a petition that includes 38 names of people in opposition to the project. his concerns include the project's affects on the privacy of adjacent properties

and project's intrusion into the mid-block and open space and potential negative effects on light and scale. since the commission packets were distributed last week, the department has received communication from two additional people in opposition to the project, copies of which i will pass to the commission for the record. the project was reviewed by the residential design team, which found it to be consistent with the establishment block open space pattern founded to be appropriate in height and scale and found that the project would not create significant affects to the dr questioners light air and livecy. in summary the project does not contain or create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and the department recommends that the commission approve the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation.

>> thank you, dr requester, you have five minutes. >> thank you. this is a very unique neighborhood that we're talking about. >> excuse me, could you state your name for the record. >> my name is bruce prescott and i represent the dr questioner, lawrence rambling. i represent him and represent the interests of the other people who object to this project and that is virtually every resident in this neighborhood objects to this. as i said, this is a unique neighborhood. what do i need to do to make this work? >> you go ahead and start talking and it magically appears. >> so as you can see from this, which is the aeri