from 1600 to 3849 square feet. this written dimension has been corrected on the plans -- originally it had 3150 square feet. the property constructed in 1905 was evaluated by the preservation staff and found to be a contributor to a district under ceqa. changes to the original design occurreds a result of the historic resource determination to adhere to the secretary of interiorase standards for rehabilitation. the project as revised meets all the preservation and planning code requirements and does not require further environmental review. because of the property has been found to be a resource, the property had stricter demolition requirements to retain the original cottage and thereto is not tantamount to demolition. at the time the packets were prepared, the department had received six letters in support of the project and 30 letters

in opposition, including one from the upper noe neighbors group and a petition with 59 signatures. this included several residents on the south side of the duncan street and further down on 27th interest who are outside of the 150' radius for the 311 notification. they are encouraging the commission to consider an alternative plan design by a neighbor that would reduce the rear massing. the residential design team first reviewed the proposal in march and again after the dr was filed. they determined that there are no exception or extraordinary circumstances to the project that is as presented to the planning commission and in this abbreviated format, staff's recommendation to the commission is to not take discretionary review and approve the building permit, that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. dr requester, your team has five minutes. >> thank you, geek,president wu and members of the commission i'm susan holey and

i'm representing the dr requester. as staff mentioned the request is support by a petition of 59 area residents most of them within the 150' radius and othersust beyond it in the neighborhood, as well as 30 letters from concerned neighbors. i wasn't able to hear all of the last discussion because of the problems with the capacity of the room and the next item that is coming up, but i did see the beginning and it appears there are some overlapping issues in terms of mid-block open space and the blocking nature of the building, but our issue is much simpler than the one you were dealing with. we don't have an interior stair issue or merger or anything that complex. is that going to sh:the first

photograph shows the neighborhood as it is and it shows the -- this is a potential historic district with a lot of contributor homes most of them 2000 to 2500 square feet and as the commission can semiconductor they stepped down along the roadway. and what has happened that is extraordinary and exceptional there was a house built in 2006, nine years ago or so, and you can see that that is this tall one here; which it interrupts the step-down nature of this street. this is the proposed house, put into the same context and you can see that the step-down nature is even more interrupted if this would be allowed. the only way this could have been considered is in the context of this house that was built next door at 455 where

the project sponsor now resides. this house we suggest couldn't have even been considered. you can sea both of them. this shows the view from the mid-block rear, the open space, which shows the existing residence and this is the proposed new residence. another view again, you are seeing the step-down nature of the current homes and the excessive mid-block rear portion of the new homes. the dr requester supported by the neighbors is not requesting any changes to the plan in terms of the bottom floor or in terms of the front of the house, it's all about the rear open space. and the mid-block open space, and the blocked nature of the construction. we had hoped to provide the

commission with a rendering of the current proposal and then the neighbor's proposal to make alterations vie craw this discretionary review that would eliminate the blockiness and instructions into the mid-block space while still leaving a very, very viable residence. the current proposal is for a 3900 square foot home, plus the 400 -- approximately 3900, i just heard staff say it's 38 something, but plus the 400 square feet garage. what is being suggested by the dr requester and supported by all of the neighbors is that this mass and again, it's not quite as clear as we would have hoped, but with the rain, some of our drawings were locked up in a building downtown without power. this is the 461 27th street building and the request is to take 10% off of that and all it

is is taking 6' off the second floor and 6 plus 1 12' off the third floor. that is it. leave the bottom floor as it is and leave everything else alone. it still leaves 3500 square feet residence, plus the 400 square feet garage and it's actually as i understand the numbers, based on the planning department's files, the house next door at 355 is even less than that. so we ask that dr be taken to save the mid-block open space. this residence would be scene not only from 27th street, but from duncan across the way. and it would comply with the city's residential guidelines to provide a very adequate home for the project sponsor without changing the character of this potential historic district. >> thank you. >> i do have copies of the --

thank you. >> now opening to speakers from the public in support of the dr. i have a number of cards, i believe these are all in support of the dr. [ reading speakers' names ] >> my name is jan. i am speaking in support of the request for discretionary review. i live at 449 27th street, two housess to the east of the proposed project. i live next to 455 27th street the residence. project sponsor

-- developer can be can't be heard. i'm concerned that the developer is using the houses to the east of the project as justification for building into the mid-block open space. mr. silverman's letter of december 3rd states that the buildings to the east go into the yards and significant heights. this is not true. every day from my deck i look at the homes in question and they are the four victorians, 417-423. these victor [kwra-eupbz/] built in the 1890s are small and 1100 to 2200 square feet and are one-story buildings over garages. i have gotten this information from the san francisco planning department website and i made this graph. the overhead, please. with information from that map, to compare the mass of buildings on the block. you can see the four victorians here. these four victorians are

setback from the street further than other houses on the block and appear to have once had front yards and this fact alone may account for the fact that the houses are procrude trueeding into this legislative said bac. other building that the developer is using to justify the mass is 415 27th street a 6-unit apartment building built in the 1960s awn could never be built today as our block is now zoned rh-2 and it's totally out of character with the other buildings on the block. just because goes into the mid-block open space doesn't provide justification for a single-family home at 461 to do the same. to illustrate this again, i have used the san francisco property information map of r block and duncan street. this is map is also from the website and i put dots on the four victorians and a square on the six-unit apartment building. on this map you can see that

the four victorians are setback from the street. i support the dr request because the project as proposed is much larger than -- and has more bulk than the majority of houses on the block. even though the front is to be preserved, due to historical significance, the rear of the proposed project is massive and will change the mid-block open space forever. i therefore urge you to take discretionary review and implement the neighbor's alternative. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> just refer to it and sfgtv

will bring it to the scene. >> hell yes, my name is andrew and my wife and i live at 465 27th street and direct neighbors to the west of the proposed project at 461 27th street. we support the request for discretionary review filed on behalf of the neighborhood and support the neighbor's alternative put before you today. we believe that existing proposal does not respect the mid-block open space and its massing is out of context and the maybe's alternative is more considerate to the overall neighborhood. as direct neighbor we'll be significantly impacted -- as again, as direct neighbors we'll be significantly impacted on a daily basis by this proposed structure. presently there is significant open space directly east of the home as far as i can tell it's a

picture, this is basically what the situation looks like now. you can see there is space there and this is what it would look like. is an attempt at a rendering -- it's this massing and structure that is extraordinary and exceptional. it's really important for us that all of you can see the neighborhood we live in and understand the situation that we're faced with on a daily basis. hopefully this does give you context as to how the neighbors do see the space? here is one more space so again

here is the proposed structure. you can see it taken up quite a bit of space in our backyards basically, visually for everybody. it's this placement in the mid block open space that is intrusive and makes this project extraordinary and exceptional. we love the home that we live in and the neighborhood that surrounds us and believe that the neighbor's alternative allows for this project to be built with less massing and more prespect for your open space which is why we support it. it represent a more desirable project for the broader neighborhood. in conclusion we support the neighbor's alternative, because it reduces the massing of the project, allows for the context of the neighborhood to be preserved and mid-block open space is maintained for the broader neighborhood to enjoy. we ask that you take discretionary review and require that the project sponsors work collaboratively with the neighbors to re-solve this. thank you for your time and consideration, it's much

appreciated. >> thank you, next speaker. >> >> hi commissioners my the name is carry lee and i'm andrew's wife and i live next door which is directly next to the project site. i have decided to keep this short, since i share some of the same sentiments as my husband and the oath neighbors. i support the neighbor's alternative plan, since the proposed project will be too massive and not respect the prevailing pattern in the mid-block open space. it's this massive size makes this project extraordinary and exceptional. we're grateful to the project sponsors for rehabilitating and renovating the house at 461. as a mom whotines to raise my 5-year-old daughter in noe valley, a appreciate that the homes are renovated and the neighbor's alternative provides the project sponsor with a reasonable alternative that

allows for the project sponsors to make a profit building a very large house while still allowing my family to have a little more light and air in the spaces where we spend most time in your home. the sunlight currently floods in your south-facing rooms and i'm concerned about the pacifics of 22' looming wall in the current proposed project is bottle. these are the spaces where we live and we do all of the things that we enjoy. reading books, doing puzzles with our daughter and making art and also ent tearing our friends. the city of san francisco is it dense and we live in a unique neighborhood because of the mid-bloke open space neighbors can enjoy. we hope that the planning commission agrees and recommends the changes included in the neighbor's alternative. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker

>> ask sfgovtv, thank you. >> and here have surrounding houses including 455, the sponsor's current house. to quote the residential design guidelines, "an out of scale rear yard addition can leave surrounding residents feeling boxed in and cutoff from the mid-block open space." the project sponsor's proposal is out of scale, too massive and leaves surrounding residents feel boxed in and cut off. so what is the solution? residential design guidelines have only four. no. 1 setback upper floors. no. 2, notch the building at the rear year. no. 3 provide setbacks from side property lines and no. 4

reduce the footprint of the addition. what is the project sponsor done? he has not sets back the floors. he has not no.ed the building at the year rear. he has not reduced the footprint of the addition. he has provided a setback from the side property line, but only when the planning department suggested he do so. the neighbor's alternative provides for modest setbacks at the each of the upper two floors. the project sponsor's 311 submission has rejected any upper floor setbacks. neighbor's alternative .

this house frightens neighbors regarding the project proposal. the proposal is even larger than 455, and in effect, would duplicate the oppressiveness of 4'. it's easy to imagine what the rear yard open space would look like with not one, but two block -- three story structures among more than a dozen modest queen anne workers cotagesing. one last point the board of appeals uphold the building permit right across the street from the subject site. as you can see from this rendering, two upper floor -- two rear upper floor setbacks were included. the 456 proponent sponsor stated that the setback were response to residential guidelines. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker.

>> good afternoon, my name is maxime and thank you for taking the time to hear our case, regarding the proposed plans for 461 27th street. my family lives next door to carry uniandrew at 649 27th street and we're there uphill neighbor. i'm here on behalf of my family to support the neighbor's alternative. first of a we're -- the city is proposing historic district encpsing our home and secondly we're happy that the property owners of 461 are investing to improve the house. however, we do feel that the 461 project has proposed is really going to change the character of the mid-block open space. that is really a critical part of the homes of the adjoining neighbors; which is why i am here speaking today. the proposed house is massive and lacks setbacks, which makes the situation extraordinary and

exceptional. and worthy of discretionary review. can i have the projector, please this house is 455. this is 461. this is carry and andrew's house and this is my house here. our house is similar to carrie and andrew's house. we love our home and my 2-year-old twin boys spend a lot of time in your back family room and sunny deck. here is a picture of carrie and andrew's deck and see how the imposing wall and how it cast as i shadow on their deck? you can easily imagine if this wall moved closer, it would really change the character and livability of that space, since

it would cast a dark shadow, where they depend a lot of their time, here in the family room and as well on the deck. since we have young kids who spend a lot of time enjoying the sunlight in our own back family room and deck, we really know that sunlight makes it a happy place for our own children and we would be really sad if carie and andrew's space were taken away because of the construction of a dark massive wall. so we talked about how we generally support improvement property. we talked about the impact of this project as written that in what impact it would have on carrie, andrew and adjoining neighbors. the neighbor's alternative is a healthy compromise between the two nodes. our own house is a 1900 square feet and we have five people living comfortably in the space. the neighbor's alternative is 3500 square feet, which is really almost twice the size of

our home and gives them the project sponsors ample space for living. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, my name is lisa speigel and i live one house up from maxime at 477 27th street. i'm here in support of the alternative, because of the open spacious the neighborhood. i have live there had for 25 years. my father-in-law was born in san francisco, my husband was born in san francisco, my children are now 22 and 24, and they were born and raised in san francisco and they have lived in that home in that neighborhood now their entire lives. part of the reason we have stayed there is because of the open space, because of the feel of the neighborhood and that backspace. now to start allowing one more massive big black box to be in our neighborhood would only

contribute to the destruction of the feel of that entire neighborhood. that is not why we live there. that is not why we have stay there had and i don't believe that the people who are building this will be living there. so this is not their neighborhood, this is not their care or their heart where they are going to stay and i ask that you please exercise discretion and allow us to keep our neighborhood and keep the feel you have already seen the pictures, but i will put it one more time. when we bought our house, this big, black box did not exist and it this is what we look at outside of our backyard everyday and don't let this continue and become the look and feel of noe valley. this is not what noe valley is about. we're now being given historic

designation on our street and how can we have a beautiful historic front and these ugly black boxes in the bax? thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm wendy and i'm an actect and have lived in noe valley since 1975 and what you have seen is a disturbancan of our context. this is a disturbance of our neighborhood. you have heard many of my neighbors asked for a discretionary review and that is because we, the neighbors have engaged together to come up with an alternative. this is engaping the neighborhood. this is engaging community to say what we have to do s. that three minutes? >> no. >> so i'm just saying that we want to keep the context and approving as neighboring getting together with consensus to bring you an alternative and

if this commission cannot see -- encourage neighbors to come together to this big giant house that is proposed next door. i live at 478, up the block in a little cottage please accept this concept of context. thank you.

>> thank you. i will call more names. [ reading speakers' names ]

>> and lastly i ask that the commission ask planning staff to work with the neighbors, as well as the project sponsors if developing a solution that will preserve our mid-block open space? please. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello commissioners and thank you and good evening. i'm jim constantine and i live across the street from the proposed site. at 446 27th street and i wanted to support the dr even

though i believe that the amended plan is massively too big for the site. can i have a monitor, please? the rear view of the propertis is just shocking how massive that house will be. and the backyard of my home is an important place for me and my family and i would hate to have that encroach on mine. thank you. >> thank you,. >> >> just one more time, you can see it. there is the project site. carrie and andrew, up the hill. you can see the stepping. oh, i'm sorry, i'm georgia and live at 460 duncan. there is a very important part of the neighbor's alternative that you are getting now, that you need to see, please.

here is the floor plan for the third floor of the neighbor's alternative. contrary to what was thought, the neighbor's alternative allows for the creation of a three-bedroom house, not a two-bedroom, but a three-bedroom on one level. this is the neighbor's alternative with the setbacks, but inside. it should be perfectly acceptable for any contemporary modern family that may be lucky enough to live there, if the commission makes a motion to approve the neighbor's alternative. it's lack of neighborhood preservation and lack of compliance with the rd