900 folsom, so the real interesting experiment in about three months we'll know. the first flex space unit will be for-rent in three months and it's residential with accessible. first and foremost you have to comply with bmr and you are aloud as an access use commercial. we worked with the community to ensure it doesn't become residential with big curtains and non-active streets. so it's all the 16' high ceilings and very open frontage that really encourage commercial and retail uses. so we will hopefully see success in three months on folsom street. >> when you lease this or sell it, are there covenants that say you have to put in more of a commercial/retail type? >> there is no covenant. it's more encouraging commercial by design.

>> right. >> and so again it's a grand [skp-efrplt/] and experiment and hopefully will be a positive one. >> we hope so too. in the alley, which is great, that is in the conditions of approval, forever publicly accessible. >> right and our ownership will maintain it. >> thank you. >> briefly, if i may, too, commissioner hillis. the project authorization, one of the exceptions allows them the flexibility allows them to change the amount of flex space. >> commissioner moore. >> it would be interesting for staff to report back the flex space and if we could encourage it, because we're discovering many new angles how people are using space and what people are looking for? i would be

interested to see real applications in terms of what comes forward. >> commissioners there is say motion and second to approve the project with conditions on that motion commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> a commissioner hillis? >> aye >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner [sa*-eug/] eau? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commission president wu. >> aye. >> that motion passes 7-0 and places you under discretionary review calendar. items 15a and b at 354-356 san carlos and request for mandatory review and rear yard, et cetera. >> good afternoon, commissions. rich sucre, department staff. the application associated with the reconfiguration of two

existing dwelling units at 354-56 s&p correlation street. on the west side of san carlos street between 0th and 21th street in rto-m zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. the propose the project reconfigures two existing dwelling units so 254 san carlos would increase no to 1677 square feet and 356 san carlos street decreases in size from 857 square feet to 407 square feet. other aspects of proposed project include removal of the existing rear stair and deck, raising the existing building by 18 inch, construction of a new one-story real estate horizontal addition with the second-story rear deck and facade alterations and sitework and would rehabituate and restore the primary fagaed by installing new horizontal wood

siding and replacing non-historical windows with new sash windows. to-date the department has not receive any correspondence. the historic preservation reviewed of [speaker not understood] as their there appears to be no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the department finds that the proposal is consistent with the planning code and recommends that the commission approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioners, i'm the architect for the project sponsor joliet nash who found

this house in the liberty hills historic district. it's a moderate proposal, 21.5' wide, 75' wide deep lot that triggers the need for the variance. there is an extension into the legal required rear yard which is averaged to be 15' minimum and adjacent property is actually encroach even more. the properties on the side have been raised with garage. this property has a garage, but it's hard to access, so the owners wanted the building raised slightly 18th. the family that intends to occupy the whole building is an extended family, and that is where grandmother is going to

live. the certificate has been granted by the historic preservation commission and there is really not a lot else to explain about the project. it's going to be fully upgraded in the front, even though that wasn't the project sponsor's intent, but because it's an historic district and non-contributing building, and the extent of the request for the variance, dwelling unit merger triggered that review to be this compliance with the historic district. so that pretty much concludes what i have to describe about it. the owner is here, if you have any questions and i can answer questions of the commission. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this project? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i think this is a good project and i agree with staff we should not take dr on it. i do have one point to make in

the staff evaluation; it satisfies almost all of the criteria. with two exceptions. it is owner-occupied. it is not removing affordable housing. it's zoning is appropriate for both the neighborhood and zoned for that amount. there is no design or functional deficiencies, which i agree with. then on the next to the last one, staff felt it did not meet the requirement regarding number of bedrooms. but some of this has to do with the definition of a "studio." when the studio is considered a bedroom or not? if it is, it adds a bedroom. if it's not, it is a push. and i think the way this criteria is, will they be equal or greater? i think they will be equal, because you lose two

on one unit and add two on the other unit and even if you feel that the smaller unit is studio does not have a bedroomer it's still 2:2 and meets that category. so i would move to approve and not take dr and approve. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to approve the project as proposed. (roll call) . >> that motion passes unanimously, administrator what say you? >> close public hearing and grant the variance noting the historic resource and reducing overall encroachment into the rear yard. and the existing said the backs with the side and front. >> very good, thank you.

this case was continued to alloy additional time to review the submitted materials given that day. the subject property is currently a two-story single family residence. that is located at the real estate parcel roughly 36' away from the front property line of the proposed project including a horizontal and vertical addition to the front of the house, which would result in a 4-bedroom, 4-story single-family residence and expands the existing structure into a larger single family residence and significant portion of the lot. however,

no work is being done and required rear yard and no variances are needed. the fourth story would be setback 15' from the front property line. and due to the sloping nature of the project site, the proposed guarding would be fully above grade on the front of the building, but below grade along the rear of the building. the discretionary review was filed that owner-occupants of 1100 ashbury street. some of the dr requester's concern are associated with the scale and coverage of the project. the dr requester is particularly concerned with the massing of the structure along the north side property line. the dr requester is also concerned that the project is not comply with planning code interpretation for code sections 134 and 135, which is real estate yard and open space and also takes advantage of a buildable area of unpermitted bathroom addition located in front of the house, near the

north side property line. the department and the residential design team did find exceptional and extraordinary circumstances due to the fact that the existing building is a non-complying structure within the rear yard area and recognizing it create aids challenging site with respect to design. but overall, we felt it complis with residential guidelines. first the proposed building scale and the form at the front is compatible with that of the surrounding buildings and secondly, the issue of massinglocated near the north side property line. 9 residential design team viewed the proposed site setback at the property line walls sufficient as it provides continued light and air, access via side setback, similar to eye light wall. finally reviewed by the zoning administrator for compliance with the interpretations for section 134 and 135 and he

determined it complies. the department received three letters of support from adjacent residents one in the rear and one from 1112 ash bushy and received a letter from zoning administrator robert pass mor, who served for the department in the '00s and '90s and wrote the original interpretationsing for the sections 134-135 and wanted it known for the record that the interpretation was written for circumstances such as this case. finally as a reminder. the neighbor at 1096 ashbury presented at that hearing how this project impacts her unit in terms of privacy and shadow. again, the department recommends that the commission to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you.

dr requester. >> could i have the projector on and left on for the duration of the presentation, please? commissioners, mary gallagher, for the dr filer. i want to talk about four issues, non-confirmity, topography, sunshine and privacy. first, non-conformity. the project is existing -- mostly in the requires rear yard, making it a non-complying structure. so there is a very longstanding interpretation that says when you add to the front of a non-complying dwelling and doesn't have at least 25% rear yard you have to provide for the balance of space elsewhere on the lot. this is apinterpretation about lot coverage and providing open areas in the place that is

based on the established patterns of adjournal development. this interpretation is not about providing open space on a deck that has no benefits to anyone, but the project sponsor. it's about creating areas without lot coverage in places that benefit adjacent development. so existing and proposed site plan-- the proposed site plan leaves rear yard -- project sponsor seas 17%. so you need another 5-8% open space he is where on the lot. it doesn't have it and so this project is not code-complying. next issue topography. this is the proposed project. these are steeply upsloping

lots on ashbury and here we have a step on the building, but it's only at the front. where no topography change is viewable from any location. next, sunshine. so the sun comes up from the back of the property site and swing as round to the cottage and enters the light wheel on the back of michelle's property, right in front of the cottage wall. when the new project is built, the sun is blocked and rendering the back of michelle's house very dark in the afternoon. here we have a picture of the sun. this is michelle's backyard and michelle's house getting the sun and the sun coming over right in front of the cottage wall. finally, privacy. we recognize that in the context of a densely-developed

urban area, absolute privacy is an unrealistic goal. we're not asking for that, but asking that the existing situation not be made egregiously worse. so what do we really want here? we are looking for a project that addresses these four issues. this is a code-complying alternative. it provides for about 230 square feet of open area in the place that is based on the established pattern of adjacent neighbors or adjacent development. obviously the light well in the backyard area and then steps up from there, according to the design guidelines. it also lowers the roof from 11' to about '. 9' and new side windows horizontal about above

eye-level. this alternative proposal allows the owner to have larger floor plates. so it doesn't have the complete amount of open space, but also absent the fourth floor to address sun, topography and scale. the windows will also horizontal and above eye-level. the illegal constructed bathroom is removed and existing hip roof is removed and in part as trade-off because in part of the project sponsor -- as he told one of the neighbor he would be willing to do that. i have written conditions of approval that support this alternative for your consideration. thank you. >> thank you. are there public speakers in support of the d.c. dr requester?

>> if you start speaking and refer to the monitor sfgovtv will turn it on. >> good afternoon, my sister had to -- cannot be here due to work-related travel. she lives in unit 3, 1096 ashbury street. it's at the rear of the complex. so it doesn't get a lot of light. the unit only has side windows and due to the steep terrain, the sunlight that comes through

the windows from late-fall to february, peers over. these photos basically show the path of the sun as it travels during this time of year. you can see that the proposed building will impede directly with this path. the sun shines through her windows not just to the rooms with the windows, but further in through the kitchen doorway and in other words, the sun that comes over the cottage, illuminates every part of her small home. although we know from the shadow study all of the sun will be taken with the project. at the last hearing it was stated there would only be

minimal loss of sun, 1-2 hours. all toe it may be true during the fall and spring, he failed to state that in the winter hours all sunlight will be taken away, and compounded by the loss of privacy. the large glass plate windows will allow occupants to stare into her bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. she will be forced to keep windowed shaded to maintain privacy and on the occasions she opens the shade, when she eyesed to see the sky she'll see a towering four-bedroom building in place. my sister works very hard everyday and saved up for almost ten years to purchase this apartment. and she takes a lot of pride in this home. it's really difficult to

justify sacrificing so much for this burgeoning middle-class in san francisco, especially when there are plenty of existing homes in other areas of the city that could be utilized without harming small and affordable adjacent units. thank you. >> thank you. further speakers in support of the dr? >> hello. my name is roman rodgeras and i have been asked to read the follow statement from my friend who resides in unit 2 at 1096 ashbury street. he is out-of-state op business. i live in one of three units, our building looks over michelle's yard and benefits from the sun that comes over the roof of the front part of the cottage. although sun loss

is an important issue to us i'm also very concerned about what that project says about the future of our neighborhood. it says when you own a real estate cottage you can cover the rest of the lot regardless of whatpaques you have on neighbors and says you can double the square footage of a neighboring building to create a monster single-family house in a neighborhood that has historically provided moderate-sized and moderate-pricing houses for generations of families and creating new views for multi-million homes should and can come at the expense of smaller and more affordable units such as ours. we support everyone's right to expand their homes for growing families and an owner should have flexibility in the use of his property. if the owner were to have proposed a three-story building to match every adjacent structure, all of which are three stories and have proposed the balance of a yard in the area just in front of the cottage, and ad[skwra-ubts/] to michelle's light well, we wouldn't be here and dozens of

neighbors wouldn't have signed the petition asking for your help to reduce the sigh of this building. i and the vast majority of neighbors along the project side respectfully ask for redesign of the project and require further side setbacks in in order to provide the minimum 25% yard on this lot of the thank you. >> thank you. other additional speakers in support of the dr? >> commissioners, good afternoon. for the record i am ellen nevin and i'm here to read an email about this project into the record, as well as hand over a petition against the project. the email was written to a planner jessa luck from robert passmornoticed earlier. mr. passmoras i'm sure you know was the city's longest serving zone administrator and author of the original version of the

interpretation at issue today. mr. passmorwas not hired by or paid by anyone. he noted the email to help correct the department's mistake. "my luck the pending case at 1110 ashbury has been brought to my attention as zoning administrator for your department during the 1980s and '90s i wrote the original interpretation have been do with providing minimum 25% yard on lots already developed with a rear cottage. i have reviewed the site plan and mary gallagher's letter to the planning commission concerns the proposed project at 1110 ashbury and please include for the record record the term was written for circumstances such as this case and i hope that you and the department will reconsider your current department and require appropriate modifications to the project to make it code-complying." so in summery both before pass d morthe

author of the interpretation and longest serving zoning administrator and miss [tkpwa-lg/] mer both testified fished for that the current project is not code-comply and must be maid to comply by incorporaling minimum 25% yard. regarding the petition, 70 residents of the immediate neighborhood have signed a petition requests that you modify the project so that it becomes compatible with the surrounding buildings and maintains light to adjacent neighbors. here is a map showing the location of residents signing the petition. i will hand the commission secretary mr. pasmor, email and petition signatures. thank you for your time. >> thank you. there r there additional speakers

[speaker not understood] i'm speaking for the owner of unit 1, he could not be here today as he requested the following statement be read to the commissioners on his behalf. i have reviewed the plans for 1010 arckbury street and concerned about the impact not only to my building, but also to the neighborhood. shadow studis have shown that the proposed additions, specifically the four-storis will block sunlight to the rear units in the building also the rear yard for approximately 4 months a year. we currently have lush green gardens composed of flowering trees and plants, behind our building, which rely on light year-round and use this outdoor space often to rolax and garden. the proposed addition will result anyway complete loss of

sunlight and to the rear yard for the winter months and the landscape of our beautiful garden will dramatickally change as its current path -- as the current plants we love die, due to this loss of light. as for the neighborhood, the proposing building would stick out in a bad way. the first the building would cover the [pha-eurbt/] of the lot, whereas most of the homes on a street have a greater than 5% open space. second the building would be four-stories where as adjacent homes are all three stories and i believe that the plans of the current addition need to be down-sized. it should be three stories and have least 25% open space and these changes would definitely address the light and privacy issues for my building and make this building more in line with others in the neighborhood. based on a petition signed by others in the neighborhood, this opinion is shared by many others including neighbors within a 1-2 blocks of the

project and also by residents living in the homes on all of the hills behind my building. unfortunately i believe in a -- excuse me, ultimately, ultimately i believe many a homeowner's right to expand their property, but impact to neighbors and neighborhood should also be considered. had this case a 3-story addition with a yard covering 25% of the lot would still allow for a beautiful and large extension to the existing cottage and limit the impact to the adjacent neighbors while preserving the neighborhood character. thank you. >> anything elsag speaker. >> my name is hugh diamond and i look at 1040 ashbury street. we're very lucky in our neighborhood to have such a

variety of interesting architecture. old build and victorian and also new ark tectural designs and pretty much everything in between. i do think it's a shame to see one of the neighborhood's rear yard cottages be destroyed. it's very interesting and charmingle and i will show you a photograph. perhaps if developers weren't allowed to cover all of the lots in front of these cottages, then they wouldn't be so drawn to buying them solely for speculative redevelopment purposes. without this undeserved bonus may be growing middle-class familis would buy these cottages and treasure their front yard gardens. what we ask of it and every project in

our neighborhood is this, that the same rules apply equally and that this building respect the size and scale of buildings around us. if every other lot in the zoning district need as 45% yard, then this one should too. part of this in front and part of it is in the rear. other nearby build ogn this side of ashbury are three stories tall and this should be too. even with these rules, the cotage could be expanded, but in a way that cherishs and respects the buildings around it. thank you. >> thank you. next to speaker. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is david ryan. i live at 1026 klayton street and my garage is on ashbury street and live across the street from