i-living this would be san francisco. now i'm not an architect. i'm not a city planner but i think you will agree with me when you look at the plans this is not smart architecture. this is not smart development of buildings. this is simply just a big box with no considerations to the life we live in san francisco; the life we want to live in san francisco. now, to be very clear we happy that house next door is going to be remodeled finally. we support that. however, i think what is important that we feel that the owner would be able to accomplish all his goals with less impact on our lives and on our property. we love the house. we love the property. we love the area. it is something very special. please let's not kill it. please give

some chance to smart urban i-living in san francisco. thank you very much for your time. >> all right. thank you. any additional speakers in favor of the dr? okay. project sponsor. you have five minutes. >> if we could vtd over head? good afternoon commissioners. i am mark [inaudible] and the architect for the project. my clients are here this afternoon. they actually grew up in the subject property and their family has owned the property since 1924. it most recently did have tenants in the two

existing flats, and the property has been in the family ownership, and the intent is to maintain it as a family owned property with the hope for some day for them and their children to return to live in the city. mr. cosgrove lives in st. louis and his sister lives in the vicinity but not the city. the dr requesters have talked about the love of the city and one thing to think about is the long-term owners want to maintain the property. it's in need of updating structurally and they need to look to the future for themselves and make sure it's a viable entity. they're adding a unit to the ground floor and horizontal expansion to the rear and also adding a bedroom and bathroom

to the existing flats and those units being really truly family size homes. you can see that the applicants are talking about the open space and one thing to keep in mind we're not talking about being in the heart of north beach or mission where there isn't much open space and this is opposite ft. mason and there is considerable open space on the other side of the street. the existing interior block does have a lot of variation in terms of the depth of the buildings. most notably the building right here goes into the rear open space and looking at the ground study this is proposed change with the new addition and this is the existing, so it gets to be very hard to see what that impact in terms of the open block is. the other issue that kind of came up that we heard a

lot about was views and the occupants of the building next door, the dr applicants at the two meetings that were held they came to both of those. their objection they weren't have the view into the subject property's rear yard and primarily they're talking about view and that is not something covered in the planning code. we have tried however to be sympathetic and scaled the proposed addition and setting it back from the side property. we were initially three and a half feet from the property line and we increased that to slightly over 5 feet. we have a condition on the west side and that property has property line windows that we wanted to maintain and aside setback so those windows wouldn't have to be abandoned by that owner and that owner by the way has written a letter in support and in support of the

project as currently designed. we ask that the planning commission -- not take dr. we think that our project nicely fits into the neighborhood. it mediates between the long extension of the building to the west. it doesn't severely impact the open space. it doesn't cast shadows as your commissioner packets should show in terms of the knowledge to the west and the area there gets plenty of light and the trees are fairly tall and create a lot of morning shadow so their concern for light and air is certainly understandable but they have control over the light they're getting and we have minimal if any impact on their light to the yard because the late afternoon sun is already blocked by the western building to the subject property. to

that end we have -- my office is locate the here in san francisco. i have been available to be reached and contacted by the dr applicants. they expressed concerns at the meetings. however we never heard anything further from them exactly what their specific objections were to our project and it wasn't until this past friday i heard from mr. paul and we met at the site this week and i heard the proposal and the building deep into the site and from property line to property line. unfortunately that would mitigate the windows to the neighbor and the neighborhood is not in supportive and goes against the design guidelines. >> thank you very much. speakers in schtd the project sponsor. >> good afternoon

commissioners. my name is [inaudible] gosgrove and a native of san francisco and lived here for years. my job took me out of town and i hope to return. the building has been owned for three generations and my grandfather bought the building and proud of the fact it was born on rock and as i mentioned i want to move back. to show the intention of wanting to move back it's not about maximizing the monetary value necessarily and appraiser advised me we're reducing the value our specific building because we failed to fast track for the third building in for the condominium and that shows the reason we're doing this because we gave up the value. we're not able to fast track it

which we don't intend to do. we want to pass it on to our kids and i hope to move into one of the units eventually. the owners of the two units and all of which talked. they implied that they're owner occupants. the upper unit is rented out and only the lower unit is owner occupant. we had a neighbor notification meeting. they mentioned they didn't like the project. we reviewed the plans and unable to do so and the specific objection we received was it going to hurt the value of their building and i explained about different types of value et cetera. they didn't want to hear anything in regards to that and i will leave it at that and once again i hope to move back from st. louis at some point in the near future into the building and we design

today to accommodate our needs. thank you very much and good afternoon. >> thank you. additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> i am jerry burkeman and thank you commissioners for listening. i'm a native of san francisco as well. i have always been very proud to live in this city. i know many, many of the neighbors in the surrounding area because it's where i grew up. i have a love of this city that endures and i would not in my perspective do anything to change the feel and the comfort of the area. i have worked my whole career for the city of san francisco. i work said over 35 years recently retired and

currently am a clinical nursing instructor at csu east bay. i have talked to my friends that lived in the area. i have gone down to that area to play. i lived there since high school years, and i would like to move back to the city. i would like to move back to the city. living in a unit with a sun room that i cannot use as a bedroom and having one bathroom for the whole unit is not a place they want to move back to with my family, and i am also interested in enhancing the neighborhood and its look. the building needs a lot of repair and updating as the architect mentioned, and i want to move back to a place that i can be

proud of that is pleasant; that is comfortable, and i can enjoy the nature of the unit and its surrounding area, front and back. thank you. >> additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? okay. dr requester you have two minute rebuttal. >> over head picture please. so this -- chair, on behalf of the dr requester. this is a shot of the property across the dr requester's property. the place where this photograph was taken from will no longer be open space when this project is built as will the area where the toys

are and the living space there. it's going to be replaced with a fenced in patio, and this very large living room, dining area. now, i would not presume to re design his project. he's very good at what he does. all i can say is the exchange that the community is getting for the mid-block open space for this kind of treatment at the rear just is not justified, and i think the residential design guidelines protection of midblock open space and suggesting appropriate massing would suggest that dr should be taken, and cut back to about 10 feet from 24 down to 10 --

excuse me to 14 and stepg up as they go. i think they can achieve all of the goals of this program and maintain open space for the community and the future residents of this house. thank you very much. >> project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> if we could have the overhead please. the unit that mr. paul was showing was in fact the new third unit at the ground floor and i'm not certain, and may clarify, that doesn't seem to be the biggest objection. it was the second and third floor additions is my understanding. we are limiting with the space on the ground floor and accommodating the off street

parking as required in this zoning district and neighborhood. we are limited in terms of square footage on the ground floor. it is only a smaller two bedroom unit and yes, there is ample living room in the living space, but again the intent here is these could be family size units and even if this one with two bedrooms. further it mitigates the large extension of the western building and not something that comes as the applicants stated and they go back to the views, the views, the views. we have offered if there issues with privacy to put landscaping in if that is the general problem as well as privacy issues. taking the

clear glassing windows that look into the rooms at the rear of the property and those are being changed out for translucent glaises glazed windows for the property and further to the south which is in the bedroom itself so it just would look into the yard opposed looking directly into the bedroom windows and the shadow studieses have minimal impact and we hope that you again don't take dr. thank you. >> thank you. the public hearing is closed and opening up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> i am trying to visualize this. one thing that is extraordinary we have a deep lot. it is 138 feet deep so that tends to mitigate the

amount of addition. mr. crawford if i am correct i am reading they plan to go out on the ground floor 24 feet -- oh i'm sorry you're handling this. i didn't realize. 24 feet on the ground floor, and then 18 feet on the second and third floor i guess. >> yeah. 24 feet on the ground floor. the second floor extends as deep as the ground floor. >> yeah, and the third floor is the 18-foot. >> correct. >> then i was looking around to see what the depth of the present building is because they still have a lot of rear yard left it would seem. got 138 feet total and after the addition obviously they're compliant because this is a code compliant project. >> yeah. it looks as though i am just doing a quick adding up

here. it seems that the existing rear yard is approximately 55 feet deep. >> okay. so they're taking -- at the most off of there they're taking 24 feet off of one floor -- or two floors and the third floor 18, but they still have quite a bit of rear yard left proportionately. >> the remaining rear yard is 34 feet. >> 34. >> at the ground, yeah. >> so that is -- and that is still compliant? that is still 25%? okay. all right. we will see what the other commissioners have to say and i guess as a final question for you if staff felt it was preferable rather than stacking it higher or bringing it wider they make it a little deeper, and leave some

setbacks on either side. >> we didn't see an option that went side to side. we would have to look at that. i mean -- generally we want a setback at the property line. >> yeah, and i can understand their issue trying to make that lower unit be a decent sized unit because if they make it too short and have the parking in the front there is necessary left. okay. we will see what the other commissioners have to say -- if any. >> commissioner hillis. >> so it's a fairly high bar for us to take dr. we're looking at kind of extraordinary circumstances, or exceptional circumstances, and in this case given the size of the lot and

the addition of one unit on the project sponsor's project which i think is great. i don't see in the setbacks, or the other side setbacks of 5 feet. i don't see exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would encourage me to take dr. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. could i get some clarification on the plan, drawing, whatever? in this exchange with planning staff there was a mention that two stories comes all the way out, and the third story is setback with a deck. >> yeah. >> if you look at 4.1 it seems only the ground floor only

comes out all the way. the deck is at the second and the third floor. >> there is a covered deck at the second floor with a roof over it, and the other deck above that, so -- >> oh -- >> inhabitant portion of the project is only at the ground floor. the second is open at the sides but covered above. >> okay. but you would still label that as a two story addition? >> well, it allows light through. >> just a technical question. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i like to ask the architect to explain to me the ground floor of fence enclosure of why any how? >> i'm sorry. could you repeat that commissioner moore? >> the fence on the ground

floor. you having a fence here? >> it is existing, and it's proposed that it would be maintained. there hasn't been any expression by my clients or the neighbors that it go away or lower. >> i am just wondering as to whether or not and more informal garden like that kind of deals with playing with the garden as it helps with the side yards setbacks and planting wouldn't allow this building to look more -- less imposing but more generous to maintaining the collective impression of the mid-block open space. i personally don't find the ground and intrusion into the midblock open space or the fence partially and it staggered and holds back from the adjoining building to the east. we have to remember that the building

is -- the grarden is north facing. it is a north facing building which means the sun, the southern sun, the eastern sun, is fully affecting all units impacted by this addition, but what i am wondering -- i haven't seen the fence and what it means but delineating it is rear yard with this even more defining element of a fence would it be better to suggest take the fence down and do garden architecture and more generous to embrace the side backs. >> sure. the yard when you have all this other space it's not going to be utilized for much other than visual. i'm not certain what the dr applicants use their side setback for.

there is a shot on the overhead now if you wanted to see that fence. it's about 6 feet high. there are some plantings there. it does screen out the occupant objects of the yard at ground level, but when above seeing it's a different experience and you get the aspect you're after, but in terms of the utilization of that space it's pretty minimal, and i think it's purely functioning as a visual garden, but yes it could definitely be utilizeed. this being the fence and these are the previous tenants that had children and they had play equipment in the backyard which is no longer there and i'm not sure if i answered your question. >> it does and the privatization and the dilynnization of the yard and i find when midblock

open space is the discussion further distracts and now extending the building out and that particular fence and height and solidness will look even more intrusive. if that is a way to open the expression of the common open space more generous softening the expansion i would support that. i do not see anything xemzal extraordinary in the code compliant addition. generally i do have to say to the dr requester that the type of change that is suggested here is in line with dense ifz of neighborhoods as we see them part of this citizen strategy to really use its limited resources, but also operate within the code and support denseification as proposed year. they are following the rules.

they are not asking for dr's or exemptions but play the rules and the details of the execution of the project are sensitive to minor tweaks like the one i am suggesting i personally have to support the expansion of this building so i like to make a motion that we are not taking dr. approve the building and ask the owner of the property -- the property owner to consider modification or elimination of this rear yard fence within the garden, within the garden. >> second. >> could i ask for clarification please? so you're not taking dr and making this a condition. >> correct. >> thank you. >> yes and i would like to see the architect who seems to be perhaps having it is owner's consent on that if this is a way

to improve the garden as it is. >> commissioners, the motion and a second not to take dr and approve the project recommending that the owner consider modifications to the yard and the fence. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. >> do you guys want a five minute break? next item. somebody needs to take the helm while i go to the restroom. >> can we take a short break. >> that braces you on item 15 at 4066 26th avenue mandatory discretionary review. >> good afternoon president -- excuse me acting president antonini and commissioners i am rick crawford of department

staff. this is mandatory discretionary review to merge two units into a family unit at 4066 26th avenue in the residential family district. the project will not expand the existing building. it was constructed in 1961. in 1971 the first and second floors were turned into separate dwelling unit and the stairs were closed but not removed. the project will open the stairway and merge the two units occupied by the property owners since july 2011. the former tenant vacated voluntarily and moved out of the region. the ellis act was not enforced against the tenant and allows two dwellings per parcel

however 70% mixed residential. the department recommends approval of the project and the proposed merger brings the project into compliance in the area and both units will remain owner opened on a full time basis and meets the criteria in the planning code. i am available for questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. probably the project sponsor wants to make any comments. they don't have to. it's a dr but i am thinking maybe and first and then we will take public comment after that. >> thank you members of the commission. i am jonathan kaplan. i am the property owner. i live in the property now with my wife and two children. we bought this house a year and a half ago and looking for a fixer up and

convert to passive house and green building and europe and much more aggressive than the green building standards and 90% more energy efficient than conventional code requirements. our project would include super insulating the building and if we can afford it adding a green roof over the garage. as mr. crawford mentioned we have support from both of the neighbors. there was a tenant that left voluntarily after we bought the house and over a year ago. there has been no ellis act for this property and certainly not by us and we plan to live in the house with our family. i want to say this house was originally built as a single family home. we have the drawings in the