created over thirty years ago or allow this new generation of billionaires to carve on. neighborhoods are upset that mr. cox tore out a legendary garden a legendary garden 411 am i done >> you have 24 seconds. >> for years it was part of the open day garden towers and many letters from neighbors show 0 the variances that will erode the special uses of the district and in ca did care that recycle

people from buying in the neighborhood and other neighbors to build higher. i respectfully ask you to deny those variances >> thank you other speakers. >> hi, i'm on sanchez street i'm aware of the special neighborhood delores special exact date - we've done construction projects i've seen other projects that take those code whatever you take the rules taking into consideration when they do a construction project. i'm concerned when i start with variances on one how is it

becomes variances for more and more and more. there are beautiful views and gardens. people have striefrd to maintain those in san francisco. the project before this that supervisor wiener talked about the character of a neighborhood and when you start taking away the foil linkage and build things to sidewalks you're taking away the character of the neighborhood. i don't know how to work this video. commissioners we're going to pause for the video >> this is the house on the corner that belonged to the old mayor. it's an incredible, incredible view. i think this is coming up on to

the property in question. right there. so that's it at night. thank you >> thank you. any further public speakers in support of the dr requester. seeing none, project sponsor your team has 5 minutes >> members and commission. my name is ms. barkley representing the applicant. first of all, that case is about cloo the case violated the delores special use district and i support it misquote. i presented a very extensive

subject matter to the commission and that will be part of the administrative efforts. i want to first show the graphic. the green color this line is the permissible building envelope that's 35 feet from the existing grade going up. so they can build a house as high as that instead the red line is the existing single-family home with two-story volume here. so the project sponsor did was to basically put most of the additional over here and extend this portion a little bit further out. so they're basically the building after it's finished is about the same height.

and that video you just saw clearly demonstrates >> you're walking down the street you'll not see the addition of the master bedroom that's on the other side of the two-story volume. this shows the red line is the area of the existing housing plan. this color the area that's already in the rear yard in terms of the existing house that will be removed. and see is this garage which is in the front yard that would have otherwise regarded a variance. so this project basically removed this part of the volume. and this area and move it over here directly behind the

existing projection already that is in the rear yard. the planning department asked the project applicant to remove the ignori - what this side is e a transition of the front lot which the neighbor next door so you can create a transition of the front yard down to something that's on the front property line. the public view corridor that we'll be talking about is this one looking down. this is the project site. this is the home of the neighbor across the street that testified that the view is blocked.

and see this is her house and the view that she showed you is actually from the proof you will not able to see this area through the existing garage. this is the photograph that she took from her porch you see the red line here this much is what the new edition will be and the special use district said you shouldn't unreasonably obstruct public and private view and in designing this the architect has

done their best to make sure that any view impairment felt neighbor would be minimal. the other impairment would be this here that's the neighbors property. the project sponsor is here and would like to speak to the commission for a few minutes >> hello, i'm chris the project sponsor and homeowner. i've been in san francisco for 10 years on and off. we've been living in the neighborhood for several years we love it. i'm out of time >> yes. thank you thanks for your time. >> any speakers in support of the project sponsor?

>> i'm tom and this is jerry we're tom and jerry the christmas trees house we support the project and the project doesn't block the view of the christmas tree at all that's nouns. we're without a president on the board so we have no say at this time because we're revving what we've done in the past and has helped cause the housing problem we're backing off because he realization the not caused but certainly helped it. we're going to review what we can do to easy the problem we want to be part of the cure.

this is my partner jerry >> we've lived there for 40 years and done the christmas project for 45. >> next speaker. >> i'm tom tlarlz new spouses so they were talking about weddings we closed the street for our wedding and they said you'll never do it and the neighbors were wonderful about it and we have a very delicate balance of folks on 23rd street we have no opposition to the edition. my motto as being a neurorevolt is according to the chimpanzees

make love and not war we would appreciate that from everyone on the street. we have been on the street for 40 years and one of the reasons i'm here is because i received an e-mail from sue hester which she stated paris has been her inform 50 years everyone has rights whether or not we've been here 40 years i don't think this should if i can the decision of this commission they should be fair and tom taylor single and now married man on 21st street it the most family friendly person on the block we give a block party for the children actually, two this year we do the christmas tree you all know

about we try to bend over backyards including for your wgd. it was disturbing we didn't know about this until a neighbor said they were in support of the paris opposition to the project and all fairness we love our neighbors we should say that, you know, that's make love not war and let's live in peace and harmony for the rest of our lives >> further speakers in support of the project sponsor. seeing none, dr. you have a 2

minute rebuttal >> so i'll start where i left off. so this project it started off as a small renovations but now a de facto demolition. we want a new roof-deck and we wanted elevations on the revolver and we haven't had any requests met. i think at this point the best thing to do we'll all sit down and talk. there's a lot of things ibm inner consistent with the plan the roof is not consistent with

the plan there's issues with letters we have over 20 letters of opposition those things should be taking into consideration. and think we've been up front as far as the variance portion at least and we should sit down and talk. we tried to talk to them in the pathologist we proposed which would have been on a month and a half ago we proposed an additional set that plans and he refused to look at them. you know, he was - he stated you'll slow me down but ultimately i'll get what i want. he wasn't there to compromise. so i guess i ask from you just

to maybe make them come and talk to everybody about this promise and so we can come to a better consensus >> thank you. project sponsor you have two minutes >> so i'll pick up where i left off we found this property and love it. we have a child on the way and another one hopefully after that the house on the property doesn't support the family we're trying to have and hope to have there. my wife her family is is thailand so when they visit we're hoping to have an in law area so they can hang out with their grandchildren.

basically, we went to meet with tom and jerry and paris on the other side we saw they were concerned about the view and the project proposal is one we've tried to limit the height. i think the height limit is 35 or something feet and the height we've proposed is 16 feet we've tried to be really, really respectful that allows us to have kids and in-laws in the house but the minimal job of raising the height for the neighbors. that's the proposal we've met with the paris several times >> i just liquor to mention that to the landscaping plan has not been completed what we the architects are thinking about it

i can - if? a green roof they're going to make this a green roof and this is the deck in question they have the low penthouse and the proposal is that this is already slipped and they will put the panel here and matching the angle. >> thank you your time is up. >> thank you. >> okay. that's the close of the public hearing. commissioner sugaya >> yeah. i'm confused can somebody clarify the roof-deck issue is it at the very top above the family room? is that the one we're talking about there's also another revolver deck a that's off of the family room which is at the lower level i'm not sure what we're referring to here

>> hi, i'm bridget with the architects. it's above the second floor it's this zone right here >> okay. >> that's one of the questions. >> the other one is at the lower level off the family room. >> that's correct. >> that's not in question at the moment. >> that's correct. >> your graphic scale on some of the sheets are off. >> we were told to scale down for the commissioners packet and i know but graphic scale should scale down with the graphics. >> you're right the graphic scale should be accurate. >> they're not but a-1 i'm going to look at this it's 16 feet and the guest room

dimension is at 14th doesn't match. >> my apologizes. >> that's the only question i have for now i have other observations but. >> commissioner antonini. i don't see this rises to the level of exception. i understand there are several questions about the delores su direct your attention but i understand you can't go to any higher height they're close to the same thing that moves he elements around from one place to another but if you look at the things by the project sponsor they've golden gone to extremes to keating keep it flat

i don't like the architecture but it's a matter of opinion it's in agreement with the obtain of keeping the height down it has done that very well and the views for public and private seem to exist now so i really don't see where we have grounds for taking the dr i'll listen to whatever the commissioners have to say >> commissioner antonini i want to clarify it it says it has a different measurement this is 35 feet above grade vs. the 35 feet for curb. you can measure our height above

the curve and the lower site su d it shouldn't be 35 feet above at any point. other portions of the city you have a 45 percent yard. in regards to the height >> yeah. they're well below. >> the exist building is legal non-conforming because it's encroaching in the rear yard so it stays within essentially the footprint. >> i think i read it's a little bit less non-conforming. >> yes. >> commissioner hillis. i agree with commissioner antonini's comments we've heard a lot about the historic garden

but it seems to be the deck. i encourage the proximately sponsor and the dr requester to continue to talk to each other. for me it doesn't rise to the level of extraordinary this project is well-designed for the topographic and set forth. i move to approve the project and not take dr >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i have a question for staff. one of the variances is for the garage door >> yeah. for the garage structure as a whole it projects forward at the main wall and to the garage door. >> and the door is how wide or there's a standard weight correct? and you're asking for x number of feet beyond that and the reason is why?

ate a 16 foot wide garage door they're asking for generally it is 1/3rd the worth of the lot or a maximum 12 feet. and why do we need an additional 4 feet it looks like hell >> the reason the garage itself has a minimum depth so the minimum depth prevents it at an angles so we have to keep the depth narrower. >> okay anyway. in the neighborhood there aren't huge volumes of garage doors and it seems like an intrusion to me to have something that's 16 feet

wide in this case. if might >> the logic that's gone into our design for the narrower garage door is the typical frontage is 25 feet. this particular project michael correct me if i am wrong they have a 55 front because of the amount of frontage it's less likely to dominate that front elevation >> you're talking about one lot i'm talking about the whole street. and a lot of the street homes garages are narrower than that. i like to condition the dr oh, you're not taking dr >> i say look at the 0.1. i think the house to the east

has a large garage that's non-conforming across the street. because you don't want to go farther you can go deeper but that reconfigures the project >> it's sill agreeable it's more line 10 photo and not 16. anyway. okay. commissioner moore >> we i hate would i do garage doors and grammar demeanors to dominate but you have 16 and a half for our permissible garage

door based on the departments interpretation. when your interour garage on an incline it's extremely difficult when our door is two narrow. i see that on all in all neighborhoods which are on a incline so i feel i can't challenge this given the fact that lot is 50 photo would i do. it's an issue of practical cattle >> commissioner o'brien. >> they painted it the same color as the rest of the house but it intends to make it less visible and blends in. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner sugaya were you challenging the roof-deck on one portion of the house or asking

for an explanation. >> right. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners there the motion and second not to take dr. sxhlg. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fung and commissioners president president chiu u wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and acting the early administrator >> mr. sanchez was called away and he'll be taking this under advertisement and if you have any questions contact the staff. >> formerly close the public hearing on the variance as well. thank you >> if we can move on to items 12 a and b for the 1074 sanchez

street i want to note after hearing the matter was continued to february 6th by the vote of 6 to zero and commissioner fung was absent in order for you to participate you have to say you've received the hearing. >> i'm prepared to vote. i also want to say the new representation from the planning department is to take dr and disapprove. good afternoon >> good afternoon casey department staff. the item is a proposal to merge three dwelling units into 2 marry the proposal was original

heard on december 12, 2013, at which time it was continued and requested the project sponsor provide a alternative plan. the size of the retained unit increased the size of the newly emerged unit. subsequentially changes to the planning code took effect requiring the staff and project sponsor to further analysis the merger criteria and b.c. being a continuance. while it was addressed the concern regarding the size of the second unit by adding one hundred and 5 square feet and converting it to one bedroom accident department changed it's recommendations to discretionary review and does not approve

because of the criteria. the project met the criteria and the proposal relevant from meeting 3 out of 5 criteria to now meeting it out of 6 criteria. per section 134 the subject property is to main 21 feet and the proposed balcony will encroach 10 feet and result in a rare set back of 11 feet therefore the variance of the rear yard to be in compliance with the planning code. the application number 2013 for the rear yard requirement. the scoping misted will consider the variance application. this that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. project