by the west wall extension of the project. the tunnel is filled with the noi street back yards by the land owners. i have no say over the height on planting or these growth. here is the picture of the kitchen showing the light that has been available and would be affected by the proposed section. this is kitchen window. most of my daylight hours is spent in this room. this is where i read, write, cook and hostess. this is the colored view. it how i imagine proposed extension will darken the area and affect the temperature, a space which feels boxed in. this bedroom window, the view when it's sunny this is an cheerful and

welcoming room. this looks told colder and darker to me. at the neck level there is a skylight area. it is a very cheerful place for my sewing and craft projects. this belongs here. it has original charm and can be just as viable in the 21 century. this appears

to be the thrust of the residential guidelines anyway. thank you. so, here it says setback upper floors to provide rear yard set backs or provide set backs from the side property lines. reduce the foot print of the peripheral building or additions. these are the kind of modifications that are going to be made and make my living space as enjoyable as it has in the past. thank you. >> thank you, speakers in favor of the dr. any speakers in favor of the dr?

>> hi. i'm a resident. i have a letter here of the dolores heights improvement club. i'm here in support of barbara barnard. this addition is enormous. my name is como. i can't believe it went that far actually. i can't believe the planning commission has approved it to go that far. it goes so far back that it blocks three houses on noi street. the height is a misstatement to say the height would be lower because the total height would be much higher and further back towards noi street. i'm here to support barbara. her house is small. she would suffer so much from this project. i just don't know how she could live inside

this house in the dark. >> thank you. any other speakers in favor of the dr? >> bob dole. i live on noi street. the back of the property hits our backyard so we are affected and i would say to barbara minimally. we lose open space and if i were to take this sentence out of the letter that we have just provided to you put in an large box where it's not very creative design wise. that affects our privacy and not consistent with what else is in the neighborhood. as my wife mentioned, it maybe legal but strikes me as unethical that

these things are happening in this town and minimum it's rude that a wall can go up 30 feet and create this in people's back yards. i think it's in incredibly unfair to barbara at this point and decent compromise. >> anyone else in favor of the dr? >> good afternoon, judith in support of the dr. the project sponsor proposes an addition that would create a 30 footwall along the east property line and put miss barnard at the end of a virtual tunnel and box in the properties and 806 and 814 noi. this is not such a great photograph, but you have a better version of it in your

packet. this is miss bernard's house. this is house next to it which is going to be extended out this way creating a wall. that wall will also, it's a building wall. it's the wall of the building would create, which already suffer visual aspect to the mid block open space and 806 and 814 annoy. we are very concerned about that as the neighborhood association. we ask for reducing the process and length addition would provide significant relief. nochg it at the level. lowering of the roof is another. we ask that you consider those options and

provide a 3-4 foot setback. this would leave an interior with of no less than 18 feet, a generous side indeed. please reduce the length of the project and lower the roof and notch the upper levels and provide a 3 into setback at every level of height addition. her light and sunshine and warmth are from the sunlight exposure. and by shadows from the noi street house and notch much warm from the north either. she depend on the sunshine that comes in from the south. the shadows produced by the sponsor, do not convey on how much this will affect her

life. they are not credible. the mid block open space for both miss bernard at 806 noi is serve and significant. i refer you to the residential guidelines included in my letter to you. i hope you will not underestimate the impact of this project on the neighbors and will endeavor to mitigate it. thank you very much for any considerations. i could tell you what parts of the residential design guidelines apply to this property if you give me a minute more. you had 3 minutes. >> okay. you might see in the sight design section, page 21 provide set backs at the rear

of the building in order to minimize impacts of light. page 27, building scale on form. you can see the effect of an extension that extends out and the impact it would have. let see, those are the primary ones. those are enough. to give you some ideas. page 25-26 as well. thank you very much. >> any other speakers in favor of the dr request? okay. project sponsor you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, my name is

michael levine, i have the architect. project sponsor. and maria is here today and she will add her remarks. by removing the rear portion of the existing roof area above the third floor replaced it with an extended flat roofed area which effectively is 5 feet below the current ridge line of the existing building. if i can get the overhead, please. the site currently exist an existing 3 story building. the rear wall is shorter to the neighboring building to the west and over

30 feet shorter of the average of the rear walls of building along 21st street. the dr request building to the east in the rear lot line of the corner lot fronting on noi street. as a result the building enjoys three open exposures, southern, eastern, northern. including exposure to a 55 foot deep front yard area. the southerly exposure of which the dr request or is on the property line in which it would not be allowed by current code. though some loss of light to the windows is recognized is acceptable by the design guidelines we feel the loss of light is claimed by the request

or is unsubstantd. there is unsupported examples of how dark these rooms will become. the following solar analysis i will show with before and after effects of the addition you will see any loss of light is minimal throughout the year. the first drawing here shows both existing and proposed conditions at 3 times of the day, 1, 3 and 5 p.m. at the winter solstice. i don't know how well this is showing up. the existing building has a slight shadow against it from the existing building, rather with the proposed project in place there is a slightly larger shadow against two of

the windows on the facade. at 3 p.m. in the afternoon you can see two of the windows receiving light. others are blocked by shadow of the existing building. similarly there are two windows received some, this upper windows receiving less. at 5 p.m., something interesting happens because of the flat roofed that we are proposing, the building is receiving some additional sun. that window that room she likes to spend room she will receive additional sunlight. moving to the equinox, we have got very similar situations between existing and proposed shadowing effects. as you can see we've got nearly all the windows and sun and we've got 2

of the five windows and sun similar to the 5 p.m. time. and in the summer hours there is very little shadow on the building and the sun moves north and west of the afternoon and the entire site is in shade at that time. it should be noted based on the feedback from the requester and others from the meeting the length of the main building wall on the eastern property line was reduced by 70 feet from it original length. throughout this process in the past several months we've made available to organization through committed outreach and our negotiations the project response was able to meet a mutual solution with a request with the result of the removal prior to today's hearing. unfortunately no dialogue was achieved. the sponsor will

speak to this further. thank you. >> speakers in favor of the project sponsor? i'm the owner of the property. >> so, i have been a resident of san francisco for 16 years prior to buying the property. when i decided to move back [!ez into san francisco i was excited to be living in this neighborhood. i took it upon myself, ahead of the process to reach out to my surrounding neighbors by writing a letter and going around and trying to see which was available and trying to meet and introduce myself and explain that i was going to be doing a project. some of the neighbors were available and some were not available. and i did meet

barbara for the first time during that process. we had a meeting as we are scheduled and during the preop meeting barbara was about a half hour late because i don't remember. she missed the presentation we were giving to most of the neighbors and probably received some of the feedback around that preop meeting. unfortunately when i asked her to sign in, she did sign in but didn't provide any contact information line looik phone number or e-mail address. it was a bit challenging to open up a dialogue when the dr process did happen. from two months after the meeting, i tried to address any concerns they might have and made myself available and reached out to the neighbors and did have dialogue and tried to come to

resolution with my neighbors. filed my plan on the 21st of december and plans were approved and from that time period after that, when the 311 process is happening, my architect and my girlfriend met with the valley association neighborhood association to present our project as had been afforded the neighborhood to present their side of my project and in that meeting there was nothing brought up in the letters to the valley association. in fact that letter was written about a week ago. i tried to reach bash rbara through dialogue and she did not respond. i tried to knock on her door and tried to have outreach and didn't get a

response. the information i have received to date has not been presented to me before this date. >> i also have a letter of support from one of my neighbors. >> thank you very much. any other speakers in support of the dr? you have two minutes.

>> we disapprove of the projects presented. thank you. >> thank you. project responsor you have rebuttal. >> thank you, this project was presented to the u reek a value association. as i mentioned redesign the project analyzed was sort of an l shaped we pulled that wall back by 7

feet. we were met with a rejective response and listened to modifying the design and there were a lot of heads nodding and not any word of opposition. during that meeting nor after awards. i was taken back by this. it was too late to engage with them. as maria said she is working very diligently in getting neighbors involved and testament to her outreach that we were able to reach an agreement with the neighbors to the west. we went to their house and they

different issues went back and forth and they reached a settlement. thank you. >> okay. public hearing is closed opening up to commissioner moore. >> could you please state what modifications have been made and why the dr. i haven't seen any drawings by which i can see whether or not the expectations i would have are properly matched? >> you wanted to know exactly what changes have occurred from the original design? >> from what is in front of us today. >> the changes were along the west side. there is a planter

and that planter box sits on top of the ground floor. that whole area has been removed and has been set in 3 1/2 feet so it will be consistent with that wall. that's adjacent to 21est street. but again, that's the only actual modification from this plan that's been presented to you. it's one that again is relatively modest in over all scale, a reduction from what it was originally. >> i'm glad to hear that because i think planter was inappropriate and indeed pointed out to where the flowers are and i agreed with the at the present time taegs -- at the interpretation of the guideline. i have another

question and that has something to do with the proposed ground floor, i believe the way the proposed ground floor is put out for the units here partially because of the fact and normally the department catches that on the main floor where the kitchen and living room is going downstairs that is normally not an occasion that the lower floor is an extension of the general living space. as you see further into the light of the floor into the ground floor media office room with a full bath is something which i cannot support. we have been very very careful and we have looked very specifically

of how we render our ground floor in this particular case with external access and the door from the main floor down to the garage. i'm not support that. i want to remind the commissioners because in this case the emphasis is so much on the dr's that we tend to overlook there might be other issues. i want to briefly comment on the still remaining key lots in san francisco are very difficult properties when it comes to right full expansion of buildings that sit in the normal block configurations. the fact that this particular project sits way in the backyard of it's own property causes problems no matter what you do. unfortunately i personally have not seen any rules by which i see substantial violation of any rules that this property

cannot be expanding and the reality is that we have expansion and using the flat roof there is still sensitivity brought to the expansion. but i would like the commission to comment on the ground floor because that is indeed for me a big issue. >> i would agree with commissioner moore on the ground floor there is something made and look like between the present version there is no

setback proposed on any of the edition on the dr request or side. i'm not saying there should be but i'm looking at the shadow studies but it seems to me if the pitched roof was carried out under the same height it is now of over-the-top of that third floor, then it would tend to leave more light in at least a feeling of more light on certain times of the day. know you can do your shadow studies and show where the shadows are and where they aren't but just a general feeling of looking up from your backyard to a pitch that starts sooner seems like a welcome to me. as far as the additional concern it's up to project sponsor if they want wall to sealing windows. i don't see any reason why the height couldn't be carried out.

with the rest of it and would allow more light in. it would probably be difficult to give more space to the dr request or but if there is a pitch there, it would tend to make it a little bit more opening. >> can i make clarification. the dr filer, the resident, this lot is oriented towards noi. so the windows that were cited in the photograph are actually abutting the side property line to her neighbor at 806 noi. the property line

is just along that wall of her residence. >> that's not where the addition is occurring. could

>> now also piggy back on the comment of rh 2,