to get in touch with the developer and again without success on february 13th we heard the applicant was interested in meeting with us but haven't heard anything. you have in your packet a petition and if i could get this thing turned on. this is a map of the neighborhood showing the locations where the petitions have come from. you can see here is the project site and the adjacent neighbor is the mined the applicant has an interest in the property across the street and in red is the scope of the neighborhood concerns. again we are not opposed to the

applicant demolishing the existing home and building a home that's significantly taller but we opposed o opposite the fact they're going to build a home 40 feet long and neighbors must apply by the code. they don't think it's fair to break the long tradition in the neighborhood by allowing a large structure particularly when the rear wall will effect the community. we are willing to work with the project sponsor. thank you >> good afternoon. i'm karen i'm here to represent the coal valley improvement kroigs

coalition. our letter of january 20th was not in your packet and that's a sdrirpgs. we don't get into neighborhood building projects our concerns are otherwise. unless there are variances applied for and in this case there are two set back and rear yard ambassador i'm not speaking to the next agenda item they need those variances i'm not going to oppose this i object to say the height of the building. we feel it should be 3 stories no more and the feelings the neighbors and the coal valley in

general. thank you a >> i'm russel it's interesting there's only two numbers you need to thank god this is a small half lot and 1 and 20 households that object to the height of the building. you live in san francisco and i live here you get one hundred and 20 people to agree on anything in the city is remarkable it's a judgment call people who walk their dogs and looking at this kind of a neighborhood i'm showing some pictures that come out of the

historical review that's included in the sponsors packet. it's not pacific heights it's our neighborhood we know what feels right and one hundred and 20 of us say the mass of the proposal didn't fit in with this neighborhood. thank you >> any other speakers in support of dr? >> i have a procedural question i'm accustomed with having a hearing with the parties involved off the top of my head

by a public comment. >> this is the public comment period so if you're speaking in favor in terms of speaking in support of project wait unless the presentation and so they'll b be no public comment. >> i'm opposed to the project and not particularly a worked with the ongoing i've learned of it and have not been as informed as i would have liked to have been but in general i've heard the idea you can't have a small house the building on the cornea was renovated and made very nice in a small version there's a famous coach man's house in

amsterdam it was created that is as wide as our entrance door the master learned of this and gave him the 8 foot wide home. there's a lot of people that point a trailer and they don't have a 3 or fourth floor. the owner understands this is a lot and have rules and what's a civilized society and the building violates the rules it stays there because it was grandfathered in. the owner wants to break old realize and there the footprint and the height what do we have

rules for. there are a whole range of questions they are giving the neighborhood dirt and run off and less ground being able to absorb water and finally what people call a lot modification where once there was a quirk i didn't cottage. i think the developer wants sheer grabbing diverse me give me give me and an expensive there's no pretens of my public benefit >> any speakers in support of dr. okay project sponsor you have 5

minutes >> commissioners i'm jonathan pearlman thank you very much for hearing our case i'm the architect. i think it's ironic but basically more than 4 homes in the neighborhoods are 4 story buildings i want to go through the application and talk about the application but i'll focus mostly on the fourth floor. we that the building scale is exactly appropriate.

we submitted a review we sat and worked with the residential design team and they approved our revised design it set back the top floor as described in the residential guidelines you'll see in the upper left on page 24. half of the lower floor is buried because of the topographic. the fourth floor is set back on all four side so in r x-3 you're not required to set it back. it's interesting that the requester has a home that measures 38 feet and ours measures the same.

we are reoriented the disabling so it's parallel to the street as it readies it anyone misses the house and part of the building that's at the sidewalk is only 28 and a half feet and steps back and the garf violence house 235 is 31 and a half feet with the flat facade up. so given page 11 in the design guidelines talks about stepping down which the gentleman talked about. we do exactly that and i think the picture on the lower lowest demonstrates that. this is an image a rendering from the cornea at the tradeer and congratulating on. we've used forms that are common in the neighborhood. the small house on the cornea a number of the dr protesters is

here. we've broken down the massing of the building it doesn't read as a bitten block and 1207 tradeer next to the cornea like a typical san francisco building read as a typical san francisco building up to the height. the backside the building in the foreground in front of which our picture is 407 trader and the top floor on that is set back and we've modulated the materials to have wood and unstuck could there we're north of the requesters house it's physically impossible to be

throwing shadow into his yard he'll get the same amount of sunlight as today. in terms of design -- strike that style this block is one of the most diverse blocks eastern there recent colonial all within a few hours of each other so the fact we're doing a house i think is akin to the modern 50s and 60s ironically the gardeners who have a cream colored trim our intention is to mimic that woodsideing and unstuck could. in terms of the variance unfortunately, i thought we were

going to have two meetings but we - the someone mentioned we're taking away ground space - would i be okay to get another minute or two >> you'll get a second chance for rebuttal and if you want to submit something in writing you can. >> it's all there. thank you very much >> sorry. >> okay calling now speakers no support of the project. >> hello, i'm erick i'm on

congratulating on street thank you for your time and attention. i've been fortunate to live directly across the street >> i'm sorry sir, your the property owner. >> yes. you have your representative represent you for 5 minutes you don't get an additional 3 minutes. >> if you have anything to submit you can do that. >> yeah. of course. >> good afternoon. i'm david i'm the neighbor in the little house on the corner that keeps being referenced. i really like this home they've proposed to put here. i think that's fantastic. i'm the neighbor that stand to

be most effected it's a welcome addition to our neighborhood. the design team as accommodated all concerns that has come up and they've done a terrific job i am in support and i like the design. thank you >> next speaker please. i'm robert i live cross the street from the property and one of those images you saw earlier that hinted maybe i didn't support the project i support the project and what they're trying to do i support the

height, the scale, and the architecture and what i'm showing here is a flier that this community group passed around and got a lot of signatures for smoking gun showing the height of the building being six or eight feet higher than what it's proposed to be. so i question the people that signed that petition what they were looking at. were they looking at what was supposed to be built or some photoshopped picture >> i support the project and i hope you will too. >> next speaker please. are there other speakers in support of the project?

>> dr requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i won't get into the subject activity of the issues what or what doesn't feel appropriate i will look at the evidence of what it shows. we have not seen least in the package any seconds that are southerner a four story building will be able to be built with a 38 reach of elevation so that would be a great piece of information to understand where the reference point is where you access the building and as a practicing anxiety i'm concerned

about the feasibility of that number. another issue that's important is that currently we're showing what could be a 40 foot building coming from the planning department we learned that the development to the smaller lots are also have a smaller height a shorter heightened is thirty feet we're essentially wanting to match the height of the building and the roof needs to be 31 feet. that's a point of concern. another one when looking at the plan there are certain amenity that motive not justify the

variance would allow the property to be designed appropriately and the master bedroom is to reach - >> thank you in all refrp to the gentleman who has lots of history about the variances. i think the project meets all the rules of the variances and the gentleman pouted the section drawings are available and as i mentioned half of the federal reserve is below grade it's easy to get to the building with code. this building fits in, well i implore you not to take the dr

we've been a good neighbor and worked with the design team and everything in this design is in respect to this neighborhood interest so talking about the neighborhoods is i mean material. my client is not a developer he lives across the street they have to children one just born one 8 months old they're not a developer who is flipping this this is your family home and want to be part of the neighborhood. again, no harm to the gentleman or the dr requester a they've had the chance to raise their families here my client is asking for the same respect

their building a home that's relative to the site and meets all the requirements and been should happen to meet all the code and the design guidelines so long as the variance is granted so we can do that. thank you very much >> thank you okay. the hearing is closed and opening it up to commissioners. >> i want to ask whoever wants to speak for the dr team whoever wants to come down. that's fine under taylor. my question i've heard in discussion not today but, you know, during my research there was a lack of outreach to the

neighborhood trying to refine the neighborhood to meet the complaints of neighbors >> we reached out to the applicant but that meeting was never schedule we asked the community board and they said they had a difficult time doing that. we since then heard the applicant was interested and we didn't hear anything back >> thank you that's interesting to know i think in case like this with that many people in opposition 0 it's important for outreach and meetings to try to work out differences thank you. i have a question for mr. connecticut traverse. it's been presented this is a

half size lot i'm not sure f are they talking about the depth or the frontage >> thank you for that question commissioner antonini. this is also in your packet. this is a subject lot her. most lots are the requesters lot to the project sponsors lot is here at some time in the past it was subdivided. with the subdivision of that lot they retain the rh 3 district controls and they can be developed as an individual lot >> how much street frontage and how much lot space. >> 24 feet in depth from the

street and the width of the lot is actually 55 feet wide. >> 55 feet. >> the different property lines. >> but it's very show will. >> shallow. >> okay. thank you. i'll have some other comments. well, yeah it is that's a concern. because, you know, you have to have the building fit the is size and this is a fairly small lot and deeper it would go back further but not to achieve the same aim. i probably should have asked the dr requester they're talking about height that's slated to be 38 feet; is that correct from the mid point of 38 feet

>> right it's correct i want to say the height is measured at the center line of the building so the existing point is from the existing building and to answer our inquire the heights of existing roof is at the 38 feet. >> this will be also be higher? >> i'm sorry to the existing building the center line is 21 feet and to the proposed building 38 feet. >> and that ridge is to the element that faces the street but the fourth floor a higher but set back; is that correct. the 38 feet is the fourth floor measurement >> that's correct so the 38 feet is to the privilege line on

the front property line is the third story it is 28 feet from the sidewalk from the center part of the building. >> and as is follow-up i noticed this popped you the project sponsor showed the drawing and there's probably a little bit of a grade change but the buildings along the block are in the range of 28 or thirty feet maximum. >> there's a - at the front of the project it appears to step up to the uphill of the lot. the ridge line is 3 if 8 feet and the gary bins is 37 feet so the actual renal is one foot

higher than that but the proposal is 28 feet at the property line >> thank you. i have a couple of other comments. i'm concerned about the design on the front there is a large window i'm not sure it distracts from the neighborhood it's symmetrical and have balanced windows and this may be a collection of windows but sort of a foreign element at the at least it would have to be revised architecturally to try to make it fit with the rest. and yeah. i would be interested in hearing with other commissioners have to say but a case could be made if not eliminating the fourth floor

bringing the height down a little bit. the 38 feet they've done a good job with the fourth floor but i'm not sure the 48 is appropriate >> commissioner hillis. >> so one i've lived in this neighborhood for 12 years on the corner of 17 and starn. it's a great neighborhood i still wished i lived there. my dream house is 28 gratton but this is great. it's interesting i read the e-mails on this project before i looked at the passage and i was expecting maybe it's a full-sized house i won't call it huge but when i saw the design i

actually think it works for this lot. i agree with a lot of the people it's a large house for the lot i'm not sure what getting rid of the fourth floor is going to do. i think the impacts are significant if you live next to it or behind it i think the houses on shareder street but it's been destined in a way that allows light into the backyard. it disguises it so it's well-designed and it works. if there's one suggestion and maybe i can ask the architect a question it's on the fourth floor in the back adjacent to

shadinger street there's a knock out most of the fourth floor is set back except there's a closet in the backroom knock that back to be consistent with the rest of the fourth floor >> is it going to be the computer overhead up. >> yeah. that one is - we'll figure that out. >> could you not step back. >> yeah. >> it impacts on slatinger street and gives the fourth story wall other than that, i think it's well done for this size of a house which is not huge on a small lot. >> commissioner sugaya.