zone allows the map like this that red mass would be if we were really maximizing out the project as they claim you see the house nesting within the is quite a bit smaller and that's what those further go into the reductions we've made along the way in response to both planning and the neighbors not only did we reduce from the map version but reduced further in the process so the rendering you saw from the neighbor were not entirely accurate especially from the rear and the face where the comparison was made >> thank you, sir our time is up. >> we've reduced it to the last. >> thank you that's the close

of the public utilities hearing. >> thank you for all your comments a few comments we've heard a lot of things in my opinion the amount of skrooj doesn't matter and the number of floors didn't matter what matters it the health and the limit is 40 feet i understand it is 36 what is typical of some of the other homes not area i know it's a little bit hard when you have a peak roof to measure. >> the department didn't measure the actual haircut of the buildings but as i mentioned in my presentation the majority of the buildings on the street are self-same some two family dwelling and multiple dwelling units towards the end of the block and most of the buildings are one to two stories above the garage level so for that reason

the department when the project sponsor, you know, agreed to set back the penthouse the department felt that, you know, they complied with the residential design. >> i'm thinking 90 in terms of the visible look on the street and the dr photo shows as you go further down the street there's one very large house two floors over a garage but an actinic up under and it's quite a bit higher than the other houses the key is it does sort of look like it fits in with the neighborhood and done a good job of south the penthouse back. an ideal world i'm more a trait i thought i would like something that is more conceptual with

many of the houses project sponsor pointed out that many are flat roof and not all of the same period and stuff there's diversity there but, you know, aside from the design i think it is a project that has a lot of good features i see what the other commissioners have to say. >> couple of other issues that were brought up there was one speaker that talked about the cottage well, nobody is going to rent that cottage if it isn't torn down not legally habitualable it would be a very expensive cottage and the misuse of a lot so that didn't makes sense i support staffs position open is demolition and see what the other commissioners have to say on the dr of the building

itself. >> commissioner fong. >> i support the idea we're building some housing in the lot. i do take a little bit of the concern of the health i think even if you removed the penthouse that'll you'll have a 4 story single-family home and that's one of the priorities so i wouldn't be opposed to moving or shrinking the penthouse >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. yeah. i have to agree with the developer or the architects characterization that there are a lot of flat roof buildings in this area if you count the ones that are on the com post

elevation of the interstate street we were handed there are 8 will flat roof buildings and 7 peak roof buildings on this side of the street you have them outnumbering i took a quick street google view on the other side of the street there are a number of flat roof probably apartment building rather wide and i went around on 28 it has more peak roof it is neither here nor there i think the building is too big. you have a guest bedroom that is fine what's the bonus room >> i might ask. >> yes.

>> please come to the podium. >> the room labeled is a bonus room on the lower level it's adjacent to that room one thing to say about the level because the entire house was pushed so far into the ground that is not a place a great place to spend a ton of time down there so we don't see that as - it's really the the footprint of the foundation given the typography but not being over, you know, dpreed i didn't with space is other thing. >> thank you. 39 - >> thank you, sir. okay. so we have a bonus room

we don't know what we're going to use and a diagram and a large kitchen and 4 bedrooms etc. including a master closet that's bigger than my bedroom and a penthouse. usually we have a lot of plans come to us on drs or other kinds of conditional use and there's reasons for the purposes felt room they don't also have to say but the project sponsor whether their developers or the homeowners themselves have something in mind as a program that seems like it the designed around a loss program we end up up having a lot of spaced and

the penalty how did is not necessary because i don't know with what the pragmatic is for the penthouse if i'm makes senseing i'm in agreement with commissioner fong the house can live without the penthouse structure >> commissioner moore. >> i think the project for this round has explained itself better it finally submitted rendering by which which we understand the proportion of the building and it's overall relations to get other joining properties this sub i cannot the

fact that they're in step with each other is one of the still unwritten guidelines for hilly or up slope streams we've basically affirmed that over and over again so while i'm not as concerned about the roof form i think there are works as he you can count them there are buildings with flat roof collectively blend with each other in the longer waking lines as you move uphill having said that, there's one concern i have shared with the plan as well as with the gentleman what is of concern is a concern lack of care about how thirty this project is brought are forward. i believe the last rendering

show a sensitivity particularly as it deals with multiple treatment of windows, etc. the plans which we got a few weeks ago don't match the render that's of concern i use the word in thin air having a set of drawing a set of rendering 31 they create the illusions the point in case is the penalty how did itself in the oriental drawings the penthouse was shown as a glass box now, it's a solid integrated piece which on the flat screen would be more understandable if there's a structures of similar size but

it's actuated because the box of the upper floor is in the health and a couple of other things i'm talking to the architect the plan didn't express our render you probably got caught in the middle of the rendering i definitely grave at that time, towards the observations expr s expressed by commissioner fong the penthouse has to be modified >> commissioner fong. >> i realize it's on a significant slope and there's probably a great view of the roof i won't be opposed to a roof-deck on that roof with a small modest stairwell access

but the structure itself is what they are coming to agreement is a little bit too large. >> commissioner moore. >> if i may take that thought forward then the question is of where the stair is located it will have to be pulled bye back in the visible from the street and other considerations that are partially at the core that require a little bit extra study and couldn't be more than a stair or penalty how did in a modest consideration i will first have to see what that would be. i wonder in mr. joslyn have you thought about that and discussed that in the design review >> i put the question to mr.

blue please i didn't participate in the most recent discussion at the r dp. >> doug planning staff so that idea has not been brought to the attention of the department nor considered but i think that if the commission feels that it would be appropriate thing to do to remove the penthouse level and possibly receptionist that to a stairwell that gets to the roof-deck the planning department will design something that is sensitive and response to the adjacent properties. >> the exception is that mostly the roof-deck offset from the views and occupy a a reasonable

amount of space on the roof not the entire roof go to a similar residential design review to go to the deck in the location that's not intrusive. >> sir. >> i'll say given the plan it's easy to flip the stairwell all the way up through the plan levels could be easily done without plan disruptions that will allow the most penetration of one run dribble down from the roofs and with the stair with insides the roof that could be easily managed in a minimal way. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i could be supportive, however, the sentiment of the

commission is for removal of roof-deck i'll not the roof-deck by the penthouse and allowing the roof-deck to stay you'll come up with a nice structure with the penthouse eliminated and supportive of a motion that had that effect basically to remove the penthouse and leave the roof-deck not visible from the street. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'm going to make a motion and allowing the roof-deck shall be pulled back the staff can work with the developer and there will be an appropriate stair penthouse structure as

minimal as it can be and that also will be set back as far as we can get it from the front of the building. >> second. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to take dr to eliminate the penthouse and provide for a minimal stair penthouse to access - a roof-deck. commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. and places you on our final calendar - >> i image we also need another motion on the dr and for the may or may not dr. >> move to approve the demolition and the construction. >> yes. >> may having i have a second.

>> thank you. on that may or may not demolition and new construction. commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously have to zero supervisors that places you on item 16 at 334 a may or may not discretionary review. i'm david lindsey of department staff and presenting that on behalf of the sharon who couldn't be here today. the project is to merge the two existing passenger seat approximately 8 hundred units to create a 3 bedroom single-family

on third avenue in the inner richmond neighborhood does not include the expansion and exempts from second from the category class one exemption. the property zoning allows one dwelling unit for the per square footage of the area it is located in the area of clement street. there is no known opposition to the project and multiple letters of project support have been simpleminded by neighbors and other. i want to clarify some of the letters of support this is some additional information that was provided to me by the applicant. the staff we have letters of support from two from adjacent neighbors allen and elizabeth

and 5 from other neighbors on the block directly across the street and 4 additional letters from outside the immediate area. planning code section states that the planning commission shall consider 5 criteria in pits criteria the commission must consider the promoted mergers consistent doubtcy with the policies of the planning code. the commission should review the project take into account the miser december 2013 directive on housing production and preservation of housing stock the proposed merger with respect to the general plan and the mayor's office executive directive is included september

to the commission last week. i want to reference one point that is included in the analysis this this is having to do with criteria f on page 3 of the analysis that talks about the number of bedrooms in the merged unit i'm sorry in the separate units versus the marked unit. the accessories record has an error. the correct count for bedroom count for the each of the exist single units is one bedroom per unit the proposed bedroom is two bedrooms so the project provides more bedrooms in each individual units. based on the staff review it's anothers departments

recommendation that the commission take discretionary review and disapprove the property merger. the project will result in a net loss of one dwelling unit from the city's housing stock and replies them with a less affordable house and the r m-1 allows 3 zoning units and the proposed loss of the dwelling unit is contrary to the mayor inclusive including the naturally affordable unify u units and the housing affordability creates a exceptional circumstance such that existing dwelling units should be preserved that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you project sponsor.

>> good evening. i'm aaron he miller owner jennifer johnson i have printouts of the supplemental memory we've printed you should have received digitally. and jennifer will speak. good afternoon. i'm jennifer johnson this is my husband of 8 years and he is a nacht of san francisco. we have a family here. appealing to the commission to approve the merger of who junior one bedroom units our which don't 30th not provide first name heirs to create a modest size 16 hundred plus 3 bedroom home that appraise housing for

our expanding family we got married in 2006 and purchased this property in 2007. the two units were vacant for approximately one year before we purchased the property and after that we moved into the bottom unit attending to renovate the property and rent out the property in 2009 we become pregnant and in order to occupy our expanding family we used the top floor for oblg spaces neither those unit have been rented out and in total none of those units have been rented out and there's no history are eviction we want to create a family sized home to raise our daughter who is 4 in all that

san francisco offers to have here close to our uncles and family to help with the caregiver we have relationships with our neighbors we want to maximum our family and be in the richmond and grow old here we submitted a plan for the policies that mangles specific prerogatives for our merger request to create family sized housing pr the project as proposed is on balance consistent with the general plan and r m woshgs one zoning with low density one to 3 unit and single-family homes are the independent representing 23 of our property. we ask you approve our merger to

create family sized housing approval with about consistent with the mayors administrative goal as evidenced by you mayor on his page for housing which states creating for housing for our families at every income level is a critical appropriate of my administration i creating housing through merging is priority for in the general plan so we ask you to please help and families to stay in san francisco to continue to raise a third generation san franciscan surrounded by families and friends in this home and city thank you. thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment. >> yes.. hi i wanted to say i've known them for 25 years.

i have to say if you granted what you just did when i was here and explicit deal with the foonlt in the section 317 you have to give them they're very modest family sized unite it's 16 hundred secret they've laid out a case they're in the ellis act anyone and building a mega home they're not a crazy developer who brings 40 in crazy people to promote the project. i think they are trying to create what is the relatively affordable home they intend to live in with their children or child anyway so i support them i don't i don't think them and absolute them >> thank you. thank you

>> any public comment on that item? >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree what the speaker that just spoke i made a note no one in the entire discussion what the expectation of the woman that spoke ever brought of situation it was zoned rh2 to theoretically that project could have had two units that on the lot that question never came up just because this particular area is american people rh1 which is confusing it really means tests based on the number of square foot afternoon the number of units loud so you could have as many as 3 unit. that doesn't makes sense. because as was pointed out by the project sponsor mayor ed lee says you housing for families of all income levels we have two-thirds of our units rental

and 80 percent of the ones rental have under rent control as far as i, subtle closely to the 75 to percent of the units only 20 percent have 3 bedroom unit we're not providing the multiple units for children and they're getting by using both units that's not a family home and trying to use the other bedroom as a bedroom at the time not really the way you want to live. and realistically i'm not going to try to suggest what the project sponsors are going to do comba but if not allowed to have the merger they'll continue to use both unit this is not going to be affordable rentals if one

is ever sold one b will buy is and sell the two units above what the sellers were able to make because one of the premiums is single units that are vacant and you know people will buy them single people that can only use a single-space but not a two family homes their good small this was originally a two family home breakdown in 189572 into two units they satisfy the first two its owner occupied nobody it being displace placed and intended for fore owner occupied and staff is correct they're

adding now up to 3 bedrooms somehow they had it wrong and the density in the area tlarts there's a variety but single families was stated 25 percent and the remaining 75 percent are split within the apartment buildings further done down and some that have two bedrooms so a case could go made tyler certainly within the allowed density and probably a lot of the units in the area with single families i'm supportive of the merger and not take dr and, in fact, i'm going to move not to take dr and approve the project and i'd like agree you ail recognize