a clear what would be acceptable to the other side. i had numerous conversations with mr. matchen and he never told me what is acceptable and you will see in my submittal and this type of building is and articulated and unbroken and this a collaboration between the staff and the neighbors that live there and the design team and we're asking for the commission's support of this project. thank you. i would like to bring up the project architect and i believe also that the project sponsor mr. strickland is going to say a few words. >> good evening. dave sternberg . i really don't have that much to add. i assume you have looked at the drawings of the buildings and that you

understand the situation. again i am just reiterating quickly. we worked as hard as we could through all of the processes, meeting all of the neighbors, the neighborhood groups. we have gone through a couple of major revisions of this project to satisfy planning staff and a lot of the udat input. we feel it's a great project. in fact there's some neighbors here also to support the project. we feel very strongly that to have two buildings, one fronting on perine place will make a nicer neighborhood on the alley rather than just rear ends of a building and more of a service fear to it. there are people that live on the alley that have the same feeling so i'm here for any questions or any further comments you want to direct to me. thanks. >> thank you.

>> hello my name is john strickland and i i'm the project sponsor. thank you for hearing this today. i built family housing in san francisco for over 20 years. i remember the first time i came to the city and i realized it was going to be my home and i feel extremely fortunate i have been doing this until today without appearing before your commission in this process. i always sought to achieve a balance between neighbors and neighborhoods and the city and if my role is done right it have a positive effect on the city, on the neighborhood by allowing new families to be welcomed with quality housing. i work hard to build consensus around the properties in the area. i received support for my neighbors -- concerned neighbors of perine place and california and from the neighborhood association and the department. in order to do so i have cut

sections of the building beyond the envelope and have improved design. i have unable to appease the dr requester but nonetheless i design the building with fashion smaller than what is allowed and meet his needs for light and air and given more than the code requires in order to be a good neighbor. i believe my proposed project is good for the neighborhood, respect the mid-block open space, respect the neighboring buildings and meets requirements of planning and pride well quality housing stock for the city. thank you. >> thank you. >> speakers in support of the project. >> sir, you've already had your opportunity. you will have an opportunity to rebut of two minutes but right now we're

calling up members of the public that are in support. >> [inaudible] >> (calling speakers). >> hello. my name is judy kumer and my husband and i live across from the 2526 california street with our three children and moved in a couple of months ago and bought the home recently and as you imagine we were interested in the new construction project that would be across the street and had numerous meetings with john strickland and reviewed the buildings. he's always been open and community minded and listened to our concerns and as mentioned before he was responsive in the design changes to address those concerns and we feel the result is a building that is compatible to the neighborhood and properly size in scale and thoughtful and

considerate of the neighbors. the setback and prevents a looming feeling on perine place which was a concern we have. the midblock open space gives a feeling of smaller separate homes versus one giant ugly apartment building which is something we were also concerned about so we felt that john didn't have to give up valuable square footage. we know how much it costs to live in the city and he did that because of our concerns and treated like a residential street which is what we want. we don't want a parking lot and the butt of the garages and basically a crime pit. anytime you have a alley way it attracts crime and having a residential feeling on perine place are more eyes that deter illegal activity and strengthens the stret feel. we just moved

in but there is foliage, flower gardens and neighbors. i feel you could walk anytime. you see neighbors walking their dogs and replacing the old decrypted building will strengthen the community and bring in families because there's enough space for kids and also increase the safety of the neighborhood and as a mom and a neighbor i want to support this project and john met with another neighbor and he couldn't come today because of child care issues but he wanted to pass along his support also. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is david. i represent the [inaudible] corporation and the owners of the property right next and to

the west of the project. this a rental unit, three story, three different units. all right. my bottom line and your take away is that we recommend the project. okay. one of the things that i'm not sure about is what is really expected, and what my objectives should be during my presentation here. i have a few minutes to make some suggestions. all right. and really there's only one objective i have and obligation to myself and that is due to the amount of time we've spent trying to coordinate this effort, and get ourselves in line to something that we can agree with. all right. so

we've spent a fair amount of time after having submitted our variance opposition in june to discuss with john the issues that we have and the concerns that we have. those concerns focused on obstruction, loss of natural light, shoring and improvement of the property, permit and liability responsibilities and disruption to the tenants during the construction process. after about three months of pretty intense working of this and enhancing our concerns, and iterating over solutions, we came up with and did reach an agreement of cooperation. we're very comfortable with this agreement and feel it does

address our concerns. specifically and my own opinion it protects our property. it respects and considers our tenants' rights and actually it benefits as john has mentioned both parties and we worked hard during these months to make sure that's what it was doing. okay. so since have withdrawn our variance opposition and feel that it is easy to support the project as it goes forward. >> are there any other speakers in support of the project? okay. dr requester you will have a two minute rebuttal.

>> i'm not sure about -- sorry. talking to -- with john -- with steve williams i only had brief conversations with him which i don't regard as numerous. i was out of town for three months, part of june, july, august and september. i i was available by email, telephone. people have my numbers so i wasn't avoiding anybody. as far as the issue on the easement for the fire problem i really feel it's a dangerous problem there with what is created. mr.

strickland did offer to put sprinklers in the thing. i said "how do they work?" and i have yet to get an answer on that. i can't see how putting sprinklers in my rear yard works when the fire could be elsewhere. what triggers the springers? so i just can't see that and we have gone no where with that and mr. williams was going to get a schematic of how they work. i have received nothing and again talking to the architect, talking to -- trying to reach mr. strickland i had no cooperation whatsoever trying to resolve these problems. hence i filed this and basically not going with the city code.

>> thank you very much. project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. steve williams again. if you want to see the revisions that have been made to the project i attached a letter from planning as exhibit four -- actually it's a response from the architect to a letter to planning. there were numerous revisions and changes and one thing i did want to point out is that -- can i have the overhead pleads? the way these lots are set up this will be the development pattern is that the orange is the gas station, and here's the dr requester's lot. this is a separate lot, lot 33, so at some point in the future there will be a building fronting on california on that lot, and so it will look just like what is proposed now next door, and so we all know that

the gas stations go away eventually and this commission has seen a lot of the gas stations go away. the rear yard -- if you look at the first page of your plans the current rear yard at the site -- here's the existing building -- is about 16 feet long and it's paved over, so this will create a 30-foot long rear yard in between the buildings which will actually allow the light coming from the southern end to reach mr. matchen's building here and the half lot here and that was the thought to take the height away from the rear yard and the windows in the rear that account for most of the light to that building, so we have been trying to engage and find solutions and we weren't able to and we are respectfully asking the commission to send this project

forward as is. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, the public hearing is closed and opening it up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> mr. cabreros i have a couple of questions. dr requester brought up some points and i don't know enough about the code to make a decision without you helping me on it. he claims when you have a situation with two buildings on a lot that goes through between streets that you need to have the same configuration on both sides. is that true or false? >> well, there are provisions of the code when that pattern is established of both buildings on either side of a through lot and that pattern exists that lot development can happen -- say on the subject lot without a variance. it's allowed to place the rear yard in the middle of the lot. in this case to allow for the buildings on either end

of the lot and that is why a variance is requested to plates the rear yard between the two buildings. >> so that's the variance of the placement of the rear yard but it doesn't mean that the two adjacent properties would have to be configured in the same manner? >> that's correct. that's what the variance is allowing and development of the both buildings on either side of the lot regardless of the configuration of the adjacent lots are. >> okay. and the second point he made was need for commercial on the lower floors. is that required here or not? >> typically a neighborhood commercial districts which this is part of the upper fillmore commercial districts the department encourages commercial uses at the ground floor. what we also look at and evaluate is where the neighborhood commercial districts, the continuous commercial street frontage starts to break down and at this lot -- at this

placement of where the gas station occurs -- occurs towards the tail end of the neighborhood commercial district and the rest of the block pattern breaks down into more residential use, so in this case the residential building wasn't thought to be disruptive to the overall commercial district. >> if memory serves me right the area between steiner and fillmore has commercial but steiner to pierce it's residential except for the gas station. >> yes that's correct. >> and the final thing talked about the easement being gone but it appears to be there be between the buildings. >> i believe it's still there and the corridor on the building and easements are seen as private so the department doesn't regulate the easements. >> that is a matter to be decided -- >> between private parties. >> okay. based upon your

comments i don't see any basis for taking dr and i'm going to move to not take dr and approve the project. >> second. >> on that motion to not take dr and take the project as proposed. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commission president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. and that places you for item 15 2013.0959d at 1040 broderick street and discretionary review. >> good evening. mr. cabreros and the project is located at 1040 broderick street and a

discretionary review is filed from the adjacent property north and facing eddy street and located on eddy street. the project is located -- sorry, the project say rear horizontal addition three stories in height and the mix medium density and height and bulk district. most of the dr's requesters concern are related to shading created by the project and actually access to solar energy as the sun house complex takes advantage of solar access. at this time the department does not see exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. while the residential guidelines do not necessarily protect solar energy the team found that the dr requester's yard is being retained and therefore light and

access is preserved and at this point we ask the commission not to take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. thank you. >> thank you. dr requester. >> leslie donaldson and the current president of the association. these are the five town houses that were the first solar homes in san francisco. you may have the articles in front of you and built in 1978 and at the time they were experimental and trail blazing that the city required a backup heating system to be built with the homes in case the solar system didn't work. it does work very well. it has two systems. one is solar panels on the roof that heat the water. that will not be affected by this addition. the other system we believe is properly characterized as an active solar system and my neighbor mr. ward

will expound upon that for you, but it involves collecting hot air, storing it, super heating it, putting it in what we call a thermal box and then redistributing it to the home in the evening hours. when this addition was first proposed we met with the rk architects and they explained to us the shade that would be created and we explained to them and gave them the articles how our solar homes work. they did a shade study that showed in the winter when we most rely upon this heat the two lower units would lose 50% of our sunlight in the winter. this represented a loss of heat and a financial burden to us. a subsequent study by the 1040 broderick street owner confirmed that we would lose heat and

actually made us a financial offer so that we could purchase more natural gas heat. we are committed to solar heat. the houses are solar homes. they were built to take advantage of what was at the time the first big wave of solar power under governor brown the first time around. there is you know, the city is on record as city supervisors want to transition more homes in the city to green power, alternative energy. we are pioneers in that, and our question to you is why would anybody build a home that relies on solar power if they cannot guarantee their right to sunlight? and with that i will say that we have met a number

of times, every time we were asked to meet, and explain our concerns. they have never offered to make any modifications in the plan for the home, and we remain committed to trying to protect our solar homes the way they were built to function. thank you. >> thank you. speakers in support of the dr requester. >> good evening commission. my name is greg ward. i own with my wife 1973 eddy street and live with our infant daughter and moved in a year ago to live in a energy conscious and energy efficient home. as leslie referred to with our solar system it was designed to

provide 60-70% of the heat which is detailed in the articles. the heat is stored in mass under the flooring. the thing i want to stress is the sun house is not a system like this and in case law and in the case it designs a passive system as it does not employ a thermal mass or any heat storage system or distribution system which the sun house has all of those. in addition it means it doesn't contain special materials primarily selected for thermal retention. these are detail said in the information you have and sun house has and as currently interpreted by case law in statute the sun house is in fact a active solar house. key characteristics again. heat storage, the heat storage bins that we have, the house has

special building materials, the design of the 60-degree angle of the window wall and be perpendicular with the sun on a specific date. the other thing i want to emphasize is solar systems have been protected from development and currently protected in certain areas and this is a area for discretionary review by the commission. in santa cruz county they have a solar act protection and planning should be reviewed when construction would impact a solar system. an impact is design as more than% of the available sun being lost a specific date of 1221 between 10 and two and i emphasize that because the calculation that leslie referred to as 50% is 50% for her unit, 48% for my unit and based on the shade studies by the architect and the loss

of light during the day frame -- that's where the calculation comes from and i make reference to santa cruz and that is a reference to what they consider a significant i impact and more than 10%. does the city of san francisco and this planning commission want to be a deterrent to the use of solar energy? this will increase the greenhouse gas from the unit and reducing our use of solar. the impact is clearly not minimal and i want to stress that and it's a point you will hear later and what is in addition what is proposed is not modest. thank you. >> thank you. any other speakers in support of the dr requester? >> my name is lisa ward and i am also a resident in one of the units at the sun house

association. i would like to add what leslie and my husband mentioned that it is an active system and it's providing heat for our home. we're not asking for them to completely dismiss the project. we're simply looking for modification and you will letter hear -- ms. clark will talk about the addition and the main priernity is providing home for foster children which we think is great. however if you look at the designs we're asking just to reiterate the plans which will provide our home heat in the winter time. the extension for her current house is quite significant which has been mentioned it's not modest increase. they're planning to build the house from current size of 1.2 -- 1200

square feet and increase by 90% and which to us is a modest increase and like a four story building behind our home and not providing sunlight and in terms of providing more room for foster children the addition on the second floor -- the two bedrooms it currently has will remain two bedrooms but just bigger in size which i don't think is a correct argument, and all we're asking is for modification so we can protect the way the houses were designed and built. thank you. >> any other speakers in support of the dr? okay. project sponsor please. >> can i get the overhead

please? good evening commissioners. dan flatten and i am here this evening on behalf of amanda clark who lived here since 1997 and worked as a court appointed advocate for foster children and wants to expand her house so she can take in foster children and young adults transitioning out of foster care and the city plan encourage expansion for this purpose. i think you have seen good projects before you that provide transitional housing for foster youth. the dr requesters have not demonstrated about special or extraordinary circumstances. even if there was no policy preference involved. as can you see on the overhead the project is well within the zoning envelope in every regard. its

square footage is below average for single family homes in the neighborhood and average 2800 square feet and this is lower than average and for the dr requester's building. whether active or passive the dr requester's solar system is not protected as a matter of law. under california law there is protection of solar systems from shade cast by vegetation, not by buildings. san francisco also specifically considered whether it would adopt protections for solar systems. the board of supervisors did not adopt that ordinance finding that it would be too difficult to give adjoining property owners notice of restrictions that would flow from the neighbors installing solar systems and an obvious impediment in a density of san

francisco to project the solar systems. amanda did go to the trouble of commissioning a solar study to determine how much energy costs would increase for the neighbors. the total was $180 a year across the five units or $30 a piece. she made an effort to compensate them for the loss of energy for 20 years. that offer was rejected and lastly i think you need to understand a rear addition is the only thing that can be built at this property. it's a 1872 house and heritage has a conservation easement on it and they're not going to approve a vertical addition or expansion in the front and the rear is the only place to go and while amanda hasn't made modifications and it's not that she doesn't want to but