an e-mail exchange and my clients made two further concessions one of them to bring the master deck by an additional two feet that would have helped rochelle and reduce the overall height of the addition by one foot we've made a lot of compromised to address the concerns and i think what was proposed is reasonable especially for the neighborhood and this project should be approved as proposed thank you. >> thank you is there any speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> hi, i'm patrick my wife we're the owners - >> sir as the owners of the project is that right.

>> yes. >> your opportunity to speak was within the 5 minutes as part of the sponsor team, however will you'll having a two minute rebuttal you'll be able to speak. >> any other speakers 2, 3, 4 support of the project sponsor not from the team. >> i'm nick nash the owner on douglas the property to the rear of the 360 my partner and i support the project we didn't go to their initial meeting of the neighborhood because when we got the plan hair well within character of the neighborhood our house is only 15 hundred feet but 360 they're adding 3 hundred plus square feet is not out of character so, please support

their project thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for your time. >> my name is peter i'm also not a neighbor on the plain clothes but a neighbor in noah valley i have a variance for having done a remodel ourselves in our own home roadway our direct neighbors are doing a huge standard model we have to negotiate some concessions and before we even engage with our neighbors we did a lot of research and the only reason we even gave them feedback we felt they were in a gray area with regards to the planning code that's why we engaged them and talked about any kinds of

concessions because one of the things we had to come to grips with as homeowners anything we can do with our home the neighbors have the exact same right that we do so you know it is not a matter of race who got to the department first and in the same character cities change and it is not going to be stagnate things change you'll see neighbors because that's the way it is thank you. >> thank you. >> hey good afternoon. i'm deborah i live in eureka valley as well i fully support this project i think that is good we're updating our neighborhood

boring or we're going to need more people into san francisco and additionally those are old houses that need to be maintained we need them come back to live and having walked by the property many times when you look at the other houses it is the remodel is very much in character and from looking at it in the front it seems like the other homes are bigger than this house and at the end of the day, we need more families in san francisco thank you very much. >> okay. any other speakers no support okay dr requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal if you choose. >> okay

i have never seen any of those people they're all for construction i believe the lady just before complained about changing of the neighborhood with the text building i'm a little bit confused one of them were in my generated didn't see the impact on my generated and house on my light and privacy i mean theiry're looking at up something on the computer it is look at the house and look at the daejs and the 40i78d it is really bad i've never seen those people and they've not spoken to me what

can i say i feel sorry i'm not against construction i the lady said we need more families but where do the people going go if they can't afford the city the distribution is not fair people should be recognizing lower rent this is the high tech building in noah valley. >> project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm katherine i live in eureka i want to express the reason we choose to move to the home i've been work in the city and renting and finally have the opportunity to buy a

home i'm looking forward to building the ideal home i want to address the neighbors concerns it is important we are good neighbors i've been working with arnold's and pat to listen to their concerns i've visited with them and set up the hearings and in addition pat and i have gone to rochelle's house and taken photos i see what she's seeing we've done our best to accommodate the concerns and listen to the feedback and try to build a home we want i hope you takes into account and looking forward to this project thank you. >> okay. the public hearing is closed opening up to commissioners commissioner moore. >> i looked at this carefully and one is in a discussion when we have an older building sitting in the rear of the lot while the rest of the neighborhood is in the front

that is something we fully emphasize i believe the building in front of us has made apa all the right tweaks and adjustments we'll ask ourselves if this building would have come in pits original version the most important part we're not asking for a variance so the rear yard set back etc. are all maintained and in that sense the project is code compliant project i don't find the size of the building excessive do i regret southern things yes bus that's another issue particularly the architect is not what we decide here notching of the building was the

set back relate to the privacy window is important the notching of the balcony itself by an additional two or three feet from the south side is important and any still life in prison issue about privacy one to think about the trellis at the end of the balcony that will create a breaking of the direct line the distance between the edge of the balcony and the room in question is by far learn anything we've been looking at in the past few weeks so i think we're within the assembly level of but this commission in fairness to all people in front of us has to look at each week this commission is fair to accommodate both parties the plant as well as the dr requester i impersonal don't see

any real issues i'll be interested in what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner richards. >> it's an interesting projectile went out to the project site and looked at it from the dr requesters yard it is interesting one on the center one in front of the lot and one in the back one is closer to the dr requesters how is it is a modest addition especially some of the things we've seen before this commission 22 hundred foot is not huge the project sponsor harassed begun a long way to be a good neighbor especially the spiral staircase taking those out and i like the idea of the panels and i like the set back

from 3 feet from the second-story closer to the south side of the we'll a couple of things i want to pit thought into the presentation from one the supporters of dr requester it looked like a picture of somebody you put up there and couldn't make out who that was a dr request i want to explore that we've looked we will have a penthouse that we've been looking on the dr requested structures and asked instead of that addition on the roof but some type of a roof and want to hear with the commissioners say. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah. i know i agree with commissioner moore the only

thing the dr requester can i ask you a question you alluded to this you mentioned a suggestion to reduce the deck size why. >> to bring it in an additional two feet from the back in other words 6 feet deep 4 feet deep. >> i mean yeah. >> it's something which is something my clients wanted to do and right that's i thought maybe the size of the deck would be appropriate that's on the table that may work that's my only comment. >> bay area the guardrail will be the same not massive. >> commissioner richards. >> yes question for the architect the programming on the

south bedroom is itch different man the roof deck maybe a barbecue or you're going to have chairs. >> right. >> a 4 foot deck affords you only a chair with a read not much more. >> right. >> that's what the deck is going to be. >> yeah. the sitting area maybe the plants actually probably not much more telethon that. >> i'm on to that as well commissioner hillis brought that up this should be something we consider. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to respond to the commissioner richardss comment about the hatch in since that's not at all the discretionary review i don't believe if a hatch has something to do with someone looking at it downwards

and this maintenance the pitch it is not into our face by a long shot i wouldn't think that is necessary although i appreciate the sensitivity to it. >> do i hear a motion of some kind. >> i move to take dr and take did deck to 4 feet on the second-story in the back. >> second. >> do you have a comment on that commissioner moore. >> i believe that in the deck is not quite workable you need more room for two chairs so can you please help us what are you thoughts we have the architect here i believe that 44 feet is not enough. >> (inaudible).

>> legroom and small table. >> exactly only sit facing each other rather than k3406b8g9 looking in the direction i'm not comfortable with that modification i'll uphold the architects statement about plant on the deck that is more interesting in order to create a initial direct lines i wouldn't specific as a mraefrpt but planting standing on that balcony deck. >> commissioners p there is a there is a motion and a second on that motion to take dr and reduce the deck to 4 feet. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore no arrest commissioner richards and commissioner president fong. >> that motion fails 3 to one.

>> if there's no substitute motion the essential the building permit application guess will be approved by default. >> unless an alternative motion. >> right. >> the project it proved as proposed i don't have to make a counter motion by default the project is approved as is isn't that correct. >> that's correct. >> in terms of putting a plant on the deck the enforceability is more of a suggestion that i'm not in a position but does the project sponsor try to be sensitive. >> the ultimate motion not take dr and approve that as proposed. >> i would note that the project sponsor could reduce the

december deck can we agree we don't have to make that a condition you can do that on your own you can workout with the neighbor. >> with no elicit motion commissions move on. >> do you feel more comfortable. >> it is also better when they come before you with an action taken by the commission as opposed to by default. >> i move to approve that without taking drn. >> i'll second that. >> thank you commissioner president fong not to take dr and approve that as proposed. >> commissioner hillis. >> no. >> commissioner moore. >> no arrest okay commissioner richards. >> no and commissioner

president fong that motion fails one to 3 at this point we'll move on to item 14 your project is approved by default item 14 on delores street a mandatory discretionary review. >> yes. commissioner richards. >> i want to be clear i have a past professional relationship with the architect on the project team we were working together sth that would not make me bias in any way. >> thank you for disclosing that. >> good afternoon. i'm with the planning staff you have with you a discretionary use authorization of the building permit involved with major alternatives with a

second-story 3 unit this. >> i'm sorry marseille if you could depart the chambers quietly we have matters on the floor. >> it involves the major alternatives with the 3 story building with square feet it result in a him or her moving the wall standing out and adding a rear addition and adding two levels below a 3 car garage will be staples to 57 hundred square feet the project will think maintain the existing number of floor plans with an unit is non-conforming 3 rent controls will remain on site and one unit

will remain 2 bedrooms and one, two family sized unit each the project is at an me out to roache the elements at the existing structure the definition for the demolition under the section of the planning code is proposed a removal of more than 50 percent of horizon and vertical eliminates it was continued indefinite in order for the project sponsor and adjacent neighbors to address the concerns related to light the project sponsor made revisions to the plan and other platoons mr. sanchez are before you today those are the major revisions at the rear of the major provision a set back from the property line 3 feet and on the front the bay window by one half and

cutting the northeast corner wall a fire chief degree angle the department has received one letter in opposition to the past a of light and one letter in support of the neighbor on the block since it was approved it was for the modified project one phone call if a resident of noah valley objecting the department recommends you not take a dr because the dwelling in scale are compatible with the surrounding building in a neighborhood that has mixed use it will create family sized unit that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for any questions thank you. >> great thank you.

>> dr requester i'm sorry mandatory discretionary review grateful project sponsor. >> hi, i'm tom the architect for the project i want to have my u s d for diagrams to help explain - will this be here we go and looking at the front of the building this is the proposed front view and we have the existing non-conforming unit relocated to the top floor set back from the ground floor it becomes a garage

the two middle unit become full floor 3 bedroom unit just to explain what we're done the current drawings you have reflect the notching of the building on the right side of the building above that colored planter to address concerns by the neighbor for access to light and security for her front door this is a birds and view in the front stair from the front door h how we cut off the corner at 45 degrees and pushed the bay window back to 18 inches this is the rear view of the building after negotiations and meeting with the neighborhood the same neighbor we pulled in the side on the left 3 feet going back to

the formally to currently proposed so we think we've worked to address the concerns for light and privacy that the neighboring building has existing non-conforming windows by pulling 24 back this is just another birds eye of the original proposal where the building touched the neighbors this with the light well in the middle so the light well preserving the property windows for the neighbor this is a view for the south side this side has remained relating unchanged with a sent to the south of the set back the block faced view with the building towards the right it is kind of hard to see two buildings to the right of that

are a little bit taller and then our proposed building this is the opposing sides of taylor's there are compatible a three and four story buildings i'll put the cursor here it is a little bit out of scale and received category exemption from ceqa it doesn't retain any historic value the project sponsor is hoping to update it and improve the experience for the tenants by maintaining 3 rent control units by increasing the units from one bedroom to 3 bedroom and in one case existing site this is a shot at the rear showing the existing conditions

okay so just looking at the site plans quickly just to show it is really hard to see so sorry about that so what i walked through before was the better representation of the set back we have introduced for working with the neighbor and preserving light and private on her does it is not worth looking at those site plans maybe the project sponsor want to say something. >> i'm thompson my husband and

i bought the building one year ago we had another condo we rented out for the last ten years not rent control we've been treating it as rent control we're interested in the same experience that is our last planned purchase and we you know worked with planning and the neighbors and trying to get something that has family appropriate unit three or four bedrooms without being in violation of any of the rules or something like that so we're looking forward to having long term attendants in those spaces we want them to be as nice as possible going forward thank you. >> thank you any public comment on this item? okay seeing none, public comment is closed sorry sorry. >> just sitting here 2 1/2 hours i'm next door on the north

side with the south facing windows are going to be pretty much screwed we had another plan on the table to move that back i was really concerned about losing my living room light and my stairway is going to be a dark tomb i came with the idea to plead for that the plan i don't royals it was only this one they've tried to accommodate me and been great and all that but any chance to get the variance moved back 8 feet so i have my front steps and window? >> ma'am that is our opportunity to describe what the impacts to our property is. >> i've got all my light and

bedroom my living room will be marge impacts and bathroom and another window next to the bathroom that lights my dining room and kitchen are pretty much no light and i don't know if you know this we live next door to a bar and the tunneling dark staircase is concerning i often find passed out people or people smoking dope on my stairs i come home and the light stair i didn't want to go up the stairs in a tunnel it's disconcerting that's pretty sure my concerns i thought we could negotiate the other thing that backyard variance thing you guys i think you'll all a different committee turned it down before but i will

plead for it. >> that's all. >> okay. thank you. >> staff can you you couldn't ask you is there my discussion. >> just to clarify on the memo under the following events number 6 i briefly mentioned it is not clear i'll just address that after we continued the item from the november 6th hearing from when the project sponsor and neighbors worked through the concerns related to light one of the proposals that was submitted involved pushing the entire building mass back and maintaining the building wall currently exists and pushing the proposed map back into the rear yard that requires a variants from the planning