ways i frankly don't understand of trying to use mirrors to increase the light interest finally all of the light and the sense that we now have is hard to judge what this large facade will do i suggest we not have it be done but put you up an t may not be feasible it is hard to minimal what this large project is going to do entail for our yards any chief concerned are the window and light those are real there simply won't be light to the staircases in the back of our house are there others who wish to speak seeing none, public comment is closed and back to

you, commissioners. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i wish we were the planning commission so we account examine but virtually everything is not in our purview unfortunately, i won't go into comments about light and mass and size ultimately i think that the steps that the architects have taken to reduce the impact on the district which is not specifically the backyards but from the street are good ones i think the - any dormers reduce you know things popping off the roof in a normal dormer replacing the windows in the dormer my only design comment the window that's replying the gable and the window seams way out of scale its essentially taking the window from the first floor and

putting it up to the roof feels like it really was evident in our skechldz it looked like the window the head of the window really just clipped off the gable in half chopped off the gaib so i'll encourage much smaller pull it in horlg work vertical is probably okay. i think a little bit large that's others only design comment having the garage go down it doesn't effect the district while someone has an 200 underground is it so reprehensible but for the historic district this has inform visible effect than the house to the east that has a

garage that's added at inspected obviously not now but at some point when the building was constructed with a big wide garage door it is far less impactful than that that seems okay to me as to trenching and digging and retaining that's out of our purview. >> commissioner johns. >> i share our comments that is one of the times when the staff has gone through all the requirements that we're bound by but the neighbors have concerns that we really are not in our jurisdiction one of the things i do sense is that part of this is the app apprehension of the

unknown that can't be dealt with those things are for another commission to deal with from all i can tell the staff has done a pretty good job in dealing with the historic preservation i might be grind to support the project i shared our concern about the one window this is one of those cases again that sometimes comes before us i think it's important we focus on what things it is are within our purview. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i guess what i would say overall i kind of feel like the project is rather over scaled i agree with both commissioners that have spoken if i was

looking at from a planning commission standpoint it's a commercial escalated project the rear yard is a 5 story building not having the residential character not visible from the public right-of-way it's out over our purview especially, when but look at the slaegsdz it location a small office building not a residential structure anymore but with that said as we limit our comments i recommend the top window be a perhaps the single wide window rather than a double wide if you took 9 window the floor up above yeah. the window on the left side of the second floor and used it do of window that is more appropriate in terms of the

scale of that window overall. >> thank you any other questions or comments did he have a motion. >> yeah. i actually president hasz i mean one can't help but notice the volume you know and the massing i agree with the comments that is not necessarily within our purview but i guess that i'm just curious from the applicants whether you know the fact that it does vergo on looking like a commercial structure and veers away from the hifshg character of the neighborhood is of concern to me, i'm curiosities to hear if from the advocate or staff you looked at 09 you know alternative how did you end up

where you are at i guess and shawn project architect a couple of things first before i started we met with the association and when we had a design we went back and presented them exactly what you see here we have a letter of support from them secondly the henry fellow that spoke earlier hits house is to the west a garage it goes down a new level and 3 stories above is going all the way back essentially to where we're proposing so 0 our precedent is next door we looked at the planning code and really what allows us to do and allows us to work in but we set back for the window and

pursuing a variance to shift that pop out offer against the blind wall to provide for light and your for the and were neighbors so we're i giving up a significant 0 amount of space to provide light and going through a variance project to shift the massing over against the blinded wall for the two structures for the neighbors on the east. >> thank you for the additional detail, of course i read all the report but again, thank you. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i want to address the whole massing issue that's why i asked about the 3 steroids versus 5 stories typically when we look at the house 80 to the west with we see approximately 3 story house that is based on the ground floor but when you look

at the mass of the house close to hear it is very similar as the architect pointed out and the rear design we had a similar project in the alamo square district on fulton street the facade was being restored a modern rear facade and no comments from the public and the commission we thought that was okay to do that sort of thing so you know, i think the design whether it looks like an office building is a matter of tasty look at a lot of architecture and this design and it sort of in coping a lot of the modern houses being built in san francisco it may seem out of character to liability hill but not out of character in san francisco per say and something we've done before and you know, i think the massing question is

an important one i think if you look at the houses and add up the square footage at garage floors that typically were a big on floor and typically those could handle 3 cars you'd find out those hours within on the order of 5 or 6 or 7 thousand square feet if you actress took the whole volume including the garages maybe i'm wrong and perhaps i'm wrong but in general the massing and the form of those houses and what's being proposed is similar and consistent so obviously the pit is what is making it look so large from the standpoint of the front or the height or it's projection into the yard other than this two foot piece seems

like in the not that big of a deal to align with the house to the west that's a planning commission question by from the standpoint of the historic preservation miss this is massing is consistent. >> so this actually a little bit tougher to be honest the front end of the house is no issue whatsoever a terrific set back 20 feet the garage is down deep i have no issue to be honest the concrete pit in the back actually is against in their opinion role is didn't fit in with the district didn't fit in anywhere all of a sudden a big concrete put everybody is looking down on something it not sitting right how deep do on the other hand we start going i

think those neighborhoods i mean i'm going to get traditionally those are garden you're looking at and even if their unkept but looking at into a concrete pit will honestly a rock quire is what comes to mind i'm having trouble with that i'm having a tough time i don't know if this truly is out of our purview i'll need a little bit of legal understanding if the backyard i mean i think we're stepping out of character and i don't want to see a bunch of pits in backyard all over the city this is a precedent setting project at first, i didn't think so this is just really starting to bother me. >> commissioners tim frye department staff as a matter of clarification president hasz the

commission has full purview over all aspects of works within the permit that effects the designated features the exterior of the building within the district so excuse me. if you recall you had a project and the telegraph hill looker-on montgomery street the commission stated for substantial modifications to the rear of the property while it had a limited visibility within the strict it is not necessarily italy outside of our purview to make apply those sorts of conditions to a k of a general the secretary of exterior says something minimized if the public r5u6 there are more opportunity expectation but up to you if you that the project as a whole is

in con formation with the standards. >> commissioner. >> i didn't quite understand what you meant by concrete pit i thought that after the excavation was complete there will be things built on it did i misread it. >> there's an excavation to create light and air for a unit bedroom underground basically and so to get that light and air that's a separate unit a my understanding is it true to get that so an inhabitable unit awhile retaining the living for the unit above very a 20 foot pit. >> it's 22. >> 22 foot. >> 22 retaining wall. >> 22 pit. >> drawing a demonstrates the

sects. >> we don't have this this is not normal this is pretty far off and i'm not sure this is a precedent i want to set and start digging all those ditches all over the place and now technically and are we ouch ourself up to create bigger space blow grade like that they can use more of the area i don't know this law very well but i do know he that we're stepping into something that would abate us and really not something i want to set as a precedence i know sitting here right now i'm going to vote no for that reason. >> commissioners tim frye department staff this is sorry it's common to continue an item or you could defer this to those

the ar v or c and have a destine 0 meeting. >> i'd like to hear if the sponsor if you want to continue this or go to ar c or have us put a motion out and have us vote on this. >> commissioner hyland. >> this is relevant to what you're saying president hasz this goes back to the archaeological i'd like to understand the sequence of the architect i think they're much more qualified to make an assessment anything more than 10 feet maybe a 311 trigger or something but you know - >> this is the other question this is a habitual this is a building back here does that count for the expansion in the

backyard? ; right? and this is a very serious question we need to - >> i'd like to have advice my understanding is more than 10 feet of excavation required other - >> commissioners as a point of review above a threshold basically transitions review by our staff archeologists so since the project is proposing significant demolition i mean excavation the archeologist as part of exemption will have screened the property and for any potential for archaeological you know deposits basically so the 8 feet is the trigger says we need additional review and

undertake the additional review as part environmental review process uses i want to hear from the city attorney by deciding down and creating habitual space they need light and air that's been looir like a roof deck in reverse on that bedroom and that's their area is this counted in the extension of this. >> the rear yard line is elastic basically what is basically subject to. >> i mean covering you can only cover 2/3rd's of the lot. >> tim frye department staff we'll check with the zoning administrator but my understanding of how he's ruled and reviewed other projects like that he counts all inhabitable

areas above and below to a certain extent that is trig the rear yard variance the other thing and if rich can confirm that rich did it require an exposure variants. >> the additional window didn't have it facing the street but it has no facing the street no. >> so it does not. >> to get aubt at our question the retaining is within the yard the retaining walls in the city but the structure the occupied structure requires and variants. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i guess i was saying when i prefer to continue to side more views of this backyard and this retaining wall there is not a

cross section it would be helpful to see the views the back in relationship to the backyard. >> it's a retaining wall pit pernicious. >> it looks like it is stepping up in a way it would have planter and things not shown. >> commissioner pearlman was that your comment. >> no. >> i i was wondering where the window is on the front i don't see one it requires a variance for that so on a-2.2 yeah, the front elevation on 3.2 it is covered by a bush. >> but in 3.2 under the stair and there's no window facing the street the one above the garage.

>> i want to comment on the pit (laughter). >> so i received a declaration from the architect it will trigger a review. >> i wanted to talk about the pity forgot lindsey made comments about the people that lived here and created the liability hill district but we're in 2014 no .1480s and the 19 hundreds we have to recognize the realty people like like zuckerberg has moved forward into the neighborhood and most tech people are not at the level of zuckerberg the people are not the fish more than these and the iron workers we have to

recognize that and taking a look at that people want a bigger house i'm in a position to defend clients when a neighbor says why do you need it room that's not the pressure view of this commission but if things meet the code and meets the design guidelines and meet the requirement of the district you know i don't think it's in our purview to deny someone their rights under all of those particular you know those 3 particular codes that's aside as to the pit it's a really tough problem there are plenty that are done i've seen many done there are steps and retaining walls and each one is 34r57d and there's overflowing planting it

is american people appealing landscape and beauty it is in the eyes of the e holder it is useful to have more information and because of that i would suggest a continuance rather or rather than a vote if you vote and lose you've got a problem. >> from the preservation side what a been done would the front of the building and the garage think it's tasked i encourage more folks move into the neighborhood they'll fix up 9 homes, however any of those subterranean situation are a - normally i'll see half the retaining wall. >> the garage is completely underground. >> it's two leveled. >> from the eye point of view. >> i haven't seen anything

better than e berlin that. >> i can point out in noah valley a house 2 and 3 stories i've seen plenty which them house on steep hills difference this is not a steep hill. >> yeah. >> but all my point is there's plenty of them in the city that are appealing that's any point. >> what about the side walls are they going to be planted there's a concrete wall the only people that get to see the terrace are the ones living in the house. >> commissioner johns. >> i have the feeling this will come back on another occasion i will i'm interested in who sees the impressed area the excavated

area i assume adversity not visible from the street i'd like to know if it's visible from the neighbors? >> yeah. >> commissioner johnck. >> well, i asked the question before about has the applicant you know look at alternative and while you've explained that you didn't get into that too much except to see move it around a couple i'll vote no right now i don't know what they can do to improve it where i come down on the character of the neighborhood entire structure including the rear issue as well so, i mean i would vote no, today. >> commissioner hyland not belabor this but 82.7

addresses our comments who would be looking at down on this this is a description of the level of the adjacent properties where they have levels at the same depth the differences is this 22 foot by 12, 15 foot pit on the outside which the neighbors don't have that's where the difference did you see where i'm talking about. >> i see it. >> mr. fry commissioners may i say with the department recommendations it would be helpful at least from the departments prospective most likely the architects as well as as the faa r.c. provides technical advise if i continue it refer it to the ar c and get some of how expertise on the

right direction she should take otherwise i'm fearful we'll have continue it again. >> is the project sponsor okay with that we refer this to those ar r.c. >> we take a vote. >> commissioner hyland. >> this was a conclusion to what i was saying in the excavation didn't occur outside the building than the functionss insides the building the dining room and the other room i want to see nor explanation i said to see exploration of other opens. >> commissioner a point of clarifications i think i'll interpret what i'm hearing improvement on the window facade correct to a smaller scale the second window above the porch

basically some additional rendering for the rear and the rear facade of the building and basically more information and some kind of other options being endorsed for what's happening in terms of the excavation and digging down correct? yeah. >> okay. >> and let's ask the sponsor a month there. >> commissioners if i may enter jefferson county i suggest to think t continue this for the direction it be referred to the ar c in between them so your establishing - >> i'm assuming they're to need a month. >> right. >> we won't be vpg the ar c on february 4th but the can remember heritage the earliest

will be the 18th for the aa r.c. and we'll have the meeting after that the march fourth. >> is that enough time for the architect to prepare. >> plans and . >> i think - the 18th february 18th with a meeting for the aa r.c. >> the concepts and the hearing will be. >> then i'll give yourselves more than a month to take what ar c says and put it into a package justin just to be safe. >> that will make it to march 18th and yeah. the earlier date will have to be continued. >> as long as our calendar is not full your march fourth march they're not ready and ask for a

continuance. >> sounds good. >> okay is that a motion. >> could we have a motion. >> motion to continue this well refer to ar c for the february 18th and continue this to the h pc to march fourth. >> second thank you commissioners then there's a motion and second to refer this to the ar c and continue this matter to the full commission an march fourth. >> commissioner hyland commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman commissioner wolfram president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> i apologize to the next 2 items we'll take a 5 minute break and