requestor's decks and a reduction in height of the one-story rear addition that would extend beyond the d-r requestor's deck. with the project's revisions and the withdrawal of the southern neighbor's d-r request, the rdt did not find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with the remaining d-r requestor's concerns. particularly with regard to light and air access, privacy impacts, neighborhood character, and building scale in relation to the mid-block open area. the rdt noted the following. that light and air access and the building scale in relation to the mid-block open area are addressed by the project's rear addition stepping down toward the rear yard. the rear addition would not extend to an exceptional depth when compared to the depths of both adjacent buildings. with regard to privacy the project is considered to be within the privacy tolerances to be expected when living in a dense urban environment such as san francisco and within the zoning district which allows

full lot width development and requires no side yards. with regard to neighborhood character and context, the addition would not be visible from the public right-of-way. however, the project proposes durable high quality residential scale materials such as painted woodsiding and metal wood windows for both vertical and horizontal elements of the project. in conclusion, the department finds the project to be consistent with the residential design guidelines and does not contain or he create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ~. the department recommends that the commission not take d-r and approve the project as revised. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. d-r requestor, your team has five minutes. [speaker not understood], and my wife and i live at 122

18th avenue. thank you for allowing us to voice our remaining concerns regarding the proposed remodel of 126 18th avenue. my wife and her family have lived in this home for over 35 years. erin and i have lived there since 1998. there are several things about the neighborhood that we love, including the nature of the open space and the backyards, the playground across the street. it's a great place, it's a great neighborhood to raise children, and we're very pleased that kevin and karen are moving in with their two children. i think it's great the families are moving in. our basic unresolved issue with the remodel is the impact it has on our space, air and light and privacy. [speaker not understood] or remodel, we believe the remodel will greatly impact our space, air and light and privacy, especially the southern exposure of our house. we are most concerned about the

lack of a setback on the main floor. the main floor living space will come right up to our property line versus the separation that exists today. the rear part of our house is setback 7 feet from that property line and i believe the existing design which i think is from 1911 is setback similar amount of feet, maybe a little more. we are asking that the design take the impact to us, the impact on us, more into consideration. we're asking that there be a five foot setback where the main floor and the upper floor intersect with our existing setback at 122 18th avenue. we believe this will greatly lessen the impact that the remodel will have on our space and air and privacy and we believe -- we also believe that this is more in keeping with the setback designs that are currently in place with our home and the other homes that extend to the south.

we have no issue with the proposed lower floor plan of the remodel. we have remaining concerns in regard to the penthouse floor plan, specifically we're asking that the northeast corner of the penthouse be squared off to match the setback on the floor below it. and to eliminate the overhang. we are also requesting that the proposed 10 foot tall windows on the angled portion of the penthouse be eliminated as this window creates a significant privacy concern for us as they will look down into our master bedroom. in regard to the penthouse deck on the east side of the building, we have asked that the north wall of that deck be high enough so that someone standing on that deck can't look down directly into our master bedroom. either a wall or a opaque glass. again, that's a significant privacy concern with us.

the only other remaining concern or question i guess that we have is in regard to the west penthouse deck as it appears that that -- it appears to me, at least, that that deck will come right up against our property line. our lightwell is located there and our bathroom and toilet are located right there and we have privacy concerns someone standing on that deck could be looking right down into our lightwell and into our toilet and into our bathroom. so, we would appreciate if the deck would not abut the property line there. thank you. >> thank you. are there any speakers in support of the d-r requestor? okay, seeing none, project sponsor, your team has five minutes. thank you, commissioners. this is john kelp a her with rubin junius and rose on behalf

of the project sponsors, karen and kevin cramer. the project before you proposes a substantial upgrade for the project sponsor's growing family. i'd like to have karen come up and speak to the goals of their project. my name is karen [speaker not understood], i'm the homeowner. our goal is to design a four for i house that [speaker not understood] multi-generational living for 7 people. unfortunately we are the sandwiched generation. we have two boys which hopefully are in bed right now, 5 and 7 and plans along the way with kevin's parents. the first quarter is kevin's parents own private living air i can't tellv we decided not to put them on the first floor because the d-r requestors doberman pincher often barks in the garage in the backyard and we wanted a quiet space for them. 126 18th avenue was a probate sale that is not structurally sound. we want a structurally sound house for a family friendly kitchen, eating area, family room built for 7 on the second level. it is really important for me as a mom that the computer is

on the same level as the kitchen so i can monitor the boys homework, their computer time, their tv. i measured our dining room table and chairs added to the recommended pediatric distance so that the couch should be from the tv so they don't hurt their vision. and that adds up to equal the proposed space which is 23-1/2. setting back the house on the sides and the first and second level would significantly impact us as a growing family and as a multi-generational family of 7 people. thank you, commissioners. so, the project proposes a sensitive expansion to the home to make way for their multi-generational family. the current rear structure sits on stilts that are not seismically safe. this was an addition constructed in the 1 30s without proper structural support. you can see this sinking with concrete patches underneath them on the slide. the project proposes to remove the unsafe edition and replace it with a fourth story space [speaker not understood].

the main living floor to the 35% rear yard setback plus extends the ground floor 12 feet into the rear yard. the project extends the third story to the 45% rear yard line with the fourth story setback an additional 7 feet. the third and fourth floors both have three foot side setbacks facing the d-r requestor. this project is consistent with the vast majority of homes on this blot. 65% of the lots on this block are developed to the 45% year line with no side setbacks. those are the green stars you see there. 89% of the lots are developed to or beyond the 45% rear yard line and those are the green side and the green checks. so, this project proposeses consistent with 89% of the homes on this block. they ducted significant neighborhood outreach before even the pre-application meeting. they worked closely with the south neighbor to modify plans and ensure they are comfortable with the project. pictured on the screen here are

all the months and days in which there was communication between the sponsor and the d-r requestor and the underlying dates are face-to-face meetings which there were six of those. now, the d-r requestors already developed their property line with a 12-foot 7 inch firewall that you can see that extends halfway up the project sponsor's second floor. this firewall extends past the 45% rear yard line and will extend further into the rear yard than the second and third floors of the project. the project's first story pop out will be 4 feet below the d-r requestor's firewall and one set above their existing fence. the new second floor adds just about 7 feet to the firewall height before setting back three feet on the third and fourth floors. other significant modifications that were made is that the pop out was actually originally a two-story addition, but that it was reduced to one story prior to even filing the building permit. as you can see from the next slide, it illustrates the changes that the project sponsors have offered to make based on the d-r requestor's

feedback prior to filing the building permit and those proposed potential changes were identified at the second, third, and fourth floors to increase setbackses remove windows and raise window sills. and there are a number of changes that have been made ~. they have increased the fourth floor rear yard setback by two feet and angling the window so it doesn't face the d-r requestor's master bedroom. it adds three feet side back on third and fourth floors. removes three windows on the third floor, raises windows on the second major and setback the decks three feet from the north property line. they have also offered to trim the tree from their east neighbor's yard that blocks significant sun from the d-r requestor. staff has found nothing exceptional nor extraordinary about the project. the project will allow structural upgrade of the home, expansion of the home for a multi-generational family and it's sensitive to the adjacent neighbor to the use of setbacks. thank you. >> thank you. speakers in support of the project sponsor. okay. seeing none, d-r requestor, you

have a two-minute rebuttal. you know, first off i would say we're in support of them remodeling their home and making it structurally sound. we have no issue with that. i think that the main issue we have is in regard to the first living level coming right up to the property line. we would like to have a setback there to match the setbacks that they have offered at the story above and the penthouse. we would like more of a setback. we'd like a five foot setback, but any setback would be most appreciated by us as we feel that the wall is really, really pence i have then. the other thing i'm concerned about ~ is the penthouse, the penthouse has a window that

looks right into our master bedroom and that's this wall right here and our master bedroom is here. and that's a 10-foot tall window if you take a look at the plans, and that's looking over -- that window is going to look right into our bedroom. and i would like to see that, that angle squared off, okay, to match the floors below and eliminate those window that look into our bedroom. we think that's a renab request when we made that before. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. thank you, commissioners. just to speak to a couple of the modifications requested by the d-r requestor, first, a five foot setback from the north property line is really

larger than should be expected here. the residential design guidelines suggest two foot side setbacks in cases like this when you have issues of privacy at the mid-block. and pro we're providing three here so i think this is more than even what the residential design guidelines suggest. with respect to the penthouse level looking down, it's an entire floor above their master bedroom. so, you're looking down and the angle is not one in which you're going to be able to see significantly into that master bedroom. and, again, they've removed all of the three floor -- third floor window so they can't see directly in. so, just getting back to -- i'd like to emphasize that the project sponsors have already gone out of their way in their attempts to compromise with the d-r requestor. they met with them six time and numerous times via phone and e-mail. they made numerous modifications already in response to their concerns. they've made project modifications to satisfy the south neighbor.

they've agreed to every design request modification through the planning department through two rounds of design review. as a result they've got at least nine letters of support from the neighborhood. once again, i also want to note that the city has made the recreation of family size housing a new priority in its housing element. currently 12% of the city is 12 years or younger. there is great opportunity to expand that housing stock. so, in closing we believe that a home expansion that is consistent with 89% of the existing development on the subject block and that provide healthy side setback from the d-r requestors property does not rise to the level of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. and we rehe expectfully request that the commission follow that recommendation and not take d-r. thank you. we're here for questions. >> thank you. >> the lightwell bathroom, if you can see from the elmo here, it's a very narrow lightwell that you cannot see into the lightwell or in the bathroom. >> thank you. that is the close of the public hearing.

commissioner sugaya. >> yes to mr. kevlin or whoever. on the penthouse, why do you need that angled window in the first place? in fact, it initially was a flat window and they angled it in response to the d-r requestor's concerns about privacy so that it faced not directly towards their home, but instead, you know, out away. yeah. >> but you don't need it, right? the angle versus -- >> no, the window, door, whatever the heck it is? is it a door? if you look at the elmo here, if you can shows those, that focus. originally as we planned this -- he >> i don't want to go into all that. i'm just asking why you need it. why we need the window? >> yes. because it's going to bring light into there and the angle out to the presidio. >> thank you. and then i have another question.

there is a three-foot setback on the, whatever, upper floor plan. on the third floor, the full three foot setback the whole way, yes. >> and then, but there is no setback on the main floor. >> correct, the main floor and the lower floor. >> and you said and the d-r requestor can confirm this, that there is a firewall on his side? correct. >> that extends from the ~ where the plan is setback in on his -- on his house. correct. >> extends into the backyard. >> correct, yeah, just past the 45% year yard line ~. >> correct. so, your building, your wall up against that firewall? on the main level, yes. the third and fourth floor -- >> how high does that wall -- you said it was 12 feet? 12 feet 7 inches and so there is going to be about an additional 7 feet of height above that.

>> okay. with the project. >> because -- and then, so, can you clarify on that side of the building up against the firewall, there is shown a fire rated metal fixed window? [multiple voices] there is currently a window that looks straight into them and because of their privacy, we removed the window that looked straight into their kitchen and put the sill high because we wanted to be respectful of their privacy. and, so, it's to allow light in, but to honor their privacy, and that shows that we've taken away the window that looks smack into their house. >> and how high is the sill off the floor? the current one? >> the one you're plaque. ~ planning. i think it's 7 feet, so, higher than me. i'm not tall.

>> taller than your husband. thank you. those are the questions i had. >> commissioner antonini. >> yes, just on the first floor is the one without the setback, is that correct? there is a setback where the extension is, but where the addition is, correct, there's no setback on the main level which is looking out four stories, it's the second one, the the main level. >> the second level. are there any property line windows on the other side of the -- so, there's really no reason for anything to be setback because this is the wall there. correct. >> okay, thanks. >> commissioner hillis. >> just the -- back to that slide, the side window, canti levering over. the third floor has the square full three foot setback

and the fourth floor, yes, is angled out ~. >> why not just max that line on the fourth floor? as we designed the three step back on the third floor we matched it exactly where their property corner is on the third floor above the ground which is where their windows are instead of even trying to push back beyond their property line a little bit and split the distance. we tried to be generous and match -- if you get the the setback we mach exactly what the rear of their building was. >> how about on the fourth floor? with their concerns of light and air we he pulled back two feet from the property line. after the pre-application meeting we pulled back two feet after going 20 feet across. we did a significant pull back from the property line and then we didn't think that overhang would affect them because their windows look straight out and it' going to be above and to the right and to the side and giving up quite a bit up there on the pulling back from the property line and on the side and pulling in there.

we thought to keep that angle would make the room be a little more light and airy ~. >> okay. i'm okay with it. that would be the only -- i would take d-r and square off. i'll make a motion to take d-r and square off that fourth floor to match the third floor. >> second. >> commissioner borden. >> i'll support that motion. i think the project sponsor has gone out of their way to be accommodating to the neighbor. i mean, could it be better, of course. that's not really our role. is it exceptional and extraordinary? i wouldn't say it was, but whatever. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'm not sure i agree with the motion. it sounds to me like originally there was a square area there or, you know, and then you took like half of that off so you now have the 45-degree. and i don't really see what we gain by bringing that back to

match it except we cut a little bit of size off your room and maybe a little bit of light is lost, but i don't see what is gained by the d-r requestor by doing that. >> commissioner moore. >> i think that this is a traditional house which is basically built as all houses on the block and east-west direction, prier errol looking straight into the garden or looking straight into the street. ~ primarily the the compromise is to the vernacular of the building type. what i understand it will be a freestanding house and it will be facing the street. might be one consideration. but since you have basically a glass facade over the entire length of the building looking east, i don't really see what this extra angle gets you, particularly when you stand on the floor below, you're having this simple angle pop out and then the window going.

so, i would agree with mr. hillis to take d-r and simplify the building to have the notch match what's below and i would support that motion. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to take d-r and square off the fourth floor to match the third floor. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> no. >> that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners antonini and wu voting against. commissioners, it will place you on your last agendized item number 13, case no. 2013.1133d for 1070 green street. ~ at, mandatory discretionary review. >> good evening, members of the

committee. commissioner byrne, planning department staff. the item before you is for mandatory discretionary review for the merger at 1070 grand street. the project sponsor proposes to merge two dwelling units into one unit resulting in the elimination of one unit in an existing 47 unit building. proposed for merger are one bedroom, one bathroom condo and the adjoining two-bedroom 1-1/2 bath condo resulting in a three bedroom 2-1/2 bath condo. the smaller unit was appraised at 1.5 million on june 24th, 2013 and the larger unit was appraised at 2.4 million on october 17th, 2013. units that appraise below 1.342 million dollars will be considered demonstrable housing at the time of analysis. last week the threshold for determining financially accessible or demonstrably affordable housing was raised to 1.506 million.

demon tram flip affordable financially [speaker not understood] is defined as a unit that has a value greater than 80% of the combined land and structure values of a single-family -- of single-family homes in san francisco. as determined by a credible appraisal made within six months of the application to merge. additionally, planning code section 317 subsection e-3 states that the planning commission may increase the numerical criteria by up to 10% of its value should it deem that adjustment is necessary to influence the intent of section 317 to conserve existing housing and pre-he serve affordable housing. it has been recent planning code and policy changes affecting dwelling unit mergers so i want to give you some background on this case. this dwelling unit merger application was filed on august 15, 2013 and reviewed against the merger criteria of planning code section 317. the project was eligible for administrative approval of the merger under the planning code

because it met a super majority of the criteria. the units were not considered financially accessible or demonstrably affordable. on january 24th, 2014, planning code section 317 was amended to change the merger criteria and remove the provision allowing projects that meet a super majority of the criteria to have administrative review. under the planning code administrative review is now only available to units proposed for merger that are demonstrably not affordable or financially accessible housing. while the project is eligible for approval under the code, mayor lee's executive directive [speaker not understood] and the resulting policy changes require all building permit applications that result in the removal or loss of any dwelling unit in a building of three ore more units po brought before the planning commission as a mandatory d-r. ~ regardless of whether the units proposed for merger are demonstrably not affordable. to date the department has received two letters in support of the merger from the green

hill towers homeowners association and a neighbor that resides in the building. the department recommends approval for the following reasons. both units have always been owner occupied. the project sponsor purchased the units in 2004 and 2013. the merged unit would continue to be owner occupied by the current owners. removal of the unit will bring the property closer he to conformance with the prescribed zoning. the subject lot would be permitted to have up to 14 dwelling units and is current rm-2 zoning. the building was constructed with 48 dwelling units and currently has 47. the proposed merger would result in a building with 46 units. planning code section 317 exempts units that are demonstrably not affordable from planning commission hearing and allows them to be administratively approved. this project would be approved administratively were it not for the policy response to executive order 13-01 stiping that only demonstrably not affordable units that are in

buildings with 2 or less units are eligible for administrative approval. the projects were determined to be demonstrably not affordable based on the 3.12 million threshold in effect at the time the report was published the threshold was updated to 1.506 this week. the most affordable unit proposed for merger was appraised at 1.5 million in june of 2013 and is $6,000 short of being demonstrably not affordable. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. [laughter] >> thank you. project sponsor. thank you. my name is greg [speaker not understood]. i'm the architect pour this proposed merger. we appreciate the planning staff's support and recommendation for approve. thanks to the planning staff for guiding us through this process. staff's support is very thorough but i'd like to quickly review a few high points. this building was built in

1961. it was the first high-rise condominium on the west coast. the billion was always intended to be and marketed as a luxury residence. the building was never intended to be particularly affordable and as pointed out in the report, both of the units involved are demonstrably not affordable. the building is primarily owner occupied with very few rentals. the merger will fit with the intended building design. the original -- originally, the building was designed and built with floors 1 through 11 having three units per floor. floors 12 through 18 were designed and built with two units per floor. the proposed merger will result in the 11th floor mimicking the seventh floor, 7 floors directly above. the same merger has been legally completed in the past on the third floor and the fifth floor. you can see in the photograph the area on the top, the green floors, they are two units per

floor. the yellow highlighted floor is our proposed merger, turning it into the same configuration as the floor above. -- floors above. and the red highlighted area is down below are the two units that have been already converted or merged in the same fashion. the units were originally built to a modest size. the 03 bedroom, one bedroom unit being approximately 1,000 square feet. the 01 one bedroom unit being approximately 1400 square feet. 1101 is the unit where the owners have lived for the past ten years. the merger will retain the three bedrooms in a more family friendly and reasonably sized home. in conclusion, this merger will allow the owners to achieve their goal of comfortably remaining in their home as they age in place. they are looking forward to remaining active in their community as they enjoy their retirement in san francisco. with that, i'll turn you over to the homeowners.

i'm trudy [speaker not understood]. i want to thank greg. he's not only our architect, but also my brother. [laughter] and my husband jim is a recently retired engineer. i am a potter and glass artist and part of a cooperative of 50 artists that all work together in a warehouse south of market street and i hope to never retire. however, retirement was really something we thought a lot about when we purchased this condo 10 years ago and have been living there ever since because we he really are fans of the idea of the aging in place. so, we looked for a building that has no steps, has close access to public transportation, and the sorts of things that will make it a comfortable place to live on into our older years. and the building has -- is a place where many people stay for