deadline. and there was a statement that one neighbor submitted a letter and because nine other neighbors were not presented in the packet. i watched the video, and staff in two sentences said that neighbors addressed concerns about size and height and privacy, as our letters were passed out. and immediately went on to say how the processor had dealt with the project as if our concerns were dealt with. normally in quasijudicial hearings those letters would have been provided and the staff's report was inaccurate and the speed that was delivered was a clear indication that our

testimony was not heard. we didn't receive a fair hearing. without the opportunity to present them unfortunately the planning commission was denied sufficient time for our issues. and based on these procedural errors it would be reasonable and appropriate for your board to uphold my appeal and deny the approval of the project. but that's not my object though i don't like the architecture of the building as an artist i understand that our tastes differ and the owner has every right to build on the property and i don't want to stop that. however, the proposed design does violate city policy and important design criteria. you urge you to add conditions to the permits to make it more compatible to the neighborhood. another picture.

planning code states that existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve cultural and economical diversity of the our neighborhoods. the height of the proposed project, at three stories in front and four stories in back unlike any other building on the block is out of scale. it's at the very top of the hill in addition. and it juts straight out for 50 feet. a 4,848 square foot build on a 5,000 square foot lot. over the time it will completely undermine the character of the neighborhood, because it creates pressures on other properties for conversion to more intense land use. finally to provide adequate light, air and privacy.

the proposed project will destroy privacy and the roof deck should be eliminated. when i first read the planning commission's design review check list, i wondered if it actually be written about the project. the determination seemed so much at odds as the design before you. i don't have time to review 40 plus questions, but let me cover a few. topography does the build respect the site of the surrounding areas. the proposed project imposes itself on top of the hill as if located on a flat lot. it shows no respect for either the topography or the surrounding buildings, it should step down with the hill and the building should not stick out further than the adjacent homes. it leaves my garden faced with a huge rectangular wall 50 feet

long with a roof access staircase that is undrawn in the designs. but probably at least another eight feet high and right on my property line. again on the overhead. on the front setback, the first question does the front setback provide a pedestrian scale? the proposed structure looms out at the upper two stories and will not enhance the street. the top floor should be setback. in summary, the proposed project is inconsistent with planning code policies and design review requirements; however it would be acceptable to me if your board would add the following conditions prior to the project approval. setback the upper story in front. eliminate the roof deck and it's

unsightly property line stair access. have the building step down as the hill steps down. and not stick out further than the other neighbors. and just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's appropriate. and finally given that the project provides a separate entrance for a guest suite, it should provide a separate parking space. i consider you hearing this project de novo and hearing our testimony and my neighbors, if you do please consider the impact on the neighbors, i thank you. >> questions? >> mrs. knight. >> good evening again, jody

knight on behalf of the permit holder, i want to start with a house keeping matter that is that we discovered today that there is an issue with the rear-yard setback and it has to come back a little over three feet. and so we just prepared plans today, i apologize that you didn't have those before the hearing, it was kind of a last-minute thing. it will if anything alleviate the concerns of the appellants as it creates a larger rear-yard setback. i have copy of the plans for review if that is helpful. we would ask that the appeal be granted and then the plans as revised be approved this evening. and the zoning administrator has reviewed the plans and in agreement on that.

so just to go back and give a little bit of background on the project. i don't want to repeat everything in the brief. currently on the site there is 750 square foot home in disrepair and unhabitable. the plan is to construct a three-family story home, the project sponsor has made significant concessions over the course of the project. the original plan was to build a four-story home that was two units, and agreed to make it one unit from two that was a significant concession and remove an entire floor from the home. and the set-back was increased to 15 feet and modified to allow sufficient light and air to the

adjacent properties. after the project was modified the project sponsor didn't hear anything from the neighbors for two years, essentially until we came to this process. and at that point heard the objections. and working with the neighbors on landscapes and other issues and didn't hear about these problems until recently. the home will be 3,611 square feet. it's not a monstrous home by any means. and the footprint is fitting with the neighborhood. if i could show the site plan here. so this is the proposed project. and you can see in terms of the front set-back, and rear

set-back it's consistent obviously -- sorry. obviously much greater set-backs than this property over here. and it's shorter than that property. this property next door is shorter and significantly removed from the project. it's a double lot. and so in terms of light and air that remains for this property over here. just to give you a little bit of sense of the scale. there a diversity of heights in this area. here's a rendering showing the front of the building. you can see -- sorry, it's a little dark. you can see this is a cut-out that was provided in order to

provide additional light and air for this property. this is a very large property two buildings away. and then the shorter property next door and significantly removed in terms of the open space between the two properties. and this is the property to the south and no sun impact though the property is shorter, no significant light impact from the project. here's a rendering showing perspective from the rear. again you can see that there is a very large property on the corner. there is a diversity of heights and set-backs. and this property on the corner has significant lot coverage and essentially what you can see here there is a wide vary of heights and massing in this area, and this property is entirely consistent with that variety.

one issue on the roof deck also the roof deck is setback five feet from the front and from the sides. so that's a pretty significant setback in terms of any concerns that the neighbors have about privacy. that again was made in response to neighbor concerns and the project sponsor thought at the time alleviated those concerns. and that is what you have, unless you have questions for me tonight. >> i do counselor. you say that the current structure is 3600. the appellant has stated a couple of times it's 4800. and sorry, let me finish what was the original? so you said there were some

concessions made can you elaberate on that? sorry, if i wasn't clear, 4,427 with the basement. subtracting the basement 3,611. >> so the question was, what was the original square footage? and then after the concessions what was the revised square footage footage? >> sorry the original was 5,600. sorry, and two units and 40 feet. and then it was sort of

decreased over time. to the current 4,427 and height of 29 feet-9 inchs in a single unit. >> and the last question i heard you mention there was concessions made for the adjoining or next-door neighbors. how many neighborhood meetings did the sponsor hold and how many conversations with the neighbors? >> there was a formal initial meeting and a number of one-on-one meetings. as i mentioned there was a lot of concerns of neighbors of issues related to construction. and so there was conversations to construction measures to decrease the impact to neighbors on the construction. and some requests about some landscaping to be put in in order to preserve the privacy of adjacent homes and one-on-one

meetings related to that also. >> thank you, counselor. >> we can hear from mr. sanchez then. >> good evening, scott sanchez planning department this property is in the r-h-2 district, and approximately 2500 by 100 foot lot, a standard sized lot. and has requirements of the adjacent properties. and underwent 3-11 notification in august of last year and there was some confusion of the dr process, and according to staff report there was no public discretionary review filed. but there was a discretionary hearing because of the demolition aspects of the

project, and held one on september 4. a that hearing the planning commission did approve the subject application. when it came to the appeal and reviewing the appellant's briefs caused me to do a double take at the project given the concerns that were raised of the plan submittals and the concerns raised about the design of the project. i wanted to make sure that our staff had made the appropriate call on this. and asked our residential design team to take a second look at this. and they did so and maintained their support of the project in regards to the design concerns and the height. they expressed there was a varying pattern, irregular pattern of tall and short buildings. you have buildings of varying heights and rhythmic pattern and felt that the height was appropriate for the project. and regarding the set-back for the adjacent property at 922

carolina, there is no setback, and a building wall. and the belief it's two lots together and developed as one. and that was sufficient space on that property to provide light and air for that building itself. and that no kind of concessions were needed from an adjacent property in order to respect light and air for that property. those are the responses from the rdt on that and in response to some concerns and mrs. snider sent e-mail about the code compliance. and they are compliant in reviewing the rear-yard requirement, i did determine and apologies i didn't have time to make this determination until late yesterday. they did not correctly use the rear-yard averaging method and underestimated the rear yard and

the rear building wall and the plans submitted today. increased rear yard and the main building wall is 3 feet-3 inches from the property line. and the pop-out is the same extent it was. it had gone as far as it could under the previous calculations. but you can go up to 12 feet in the required rear yard but not the last 25%. they are able to keep that to the extent because they were at the 25%. that 12-foot pop-out to the rear and that relationship to the adjacent property remains the same and it's the rear building wall that moves out further. that is not sufficient to address the concerns raised by the appellants, but i wanted to

note that. and with that i am available for any questions. >> what does that make the depth of pop-out then? >> the depth of the pop-out on the revised plans -- if i can have a copy sorry only electronically. >> i think it's 11 feet. >> close to the maximum allowed. >> exactly, it's 11 feet-8 inches, just four inches shy of the maximum. but it's at the maximum now, with that construction they can't get that last and that gets them to the 25%. >> the corner building did that ever come in front of us? >> i do not know i can look that up. >> that is a pretty big building. >> it is, i don't recall if it

came before this board or what the process was i can look that up. >> okay. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> go ahead. >> here for appeal? we will determine if it came before the board or appealed on that. >> you said that you took design review because it was required in essence of the demolition. >> correct, the mandatory discretionary review was required because of the demolition. >> were there any changes proposed by the commission? >> no staff did not recommend any changes at the hearing and the planning committee did not propose changes. and to what the appellant stated i don't know what staff did giving public comments to the commission. but in the staff report it was stated that only one e-mail of

opposition, and i could see how it could be read as public concerns and a fourth story was addressed the neighbor concerns and rdt concerns, because our staff didn't support it and that was done prior to the hearing. >> how did this three foot i am confused about the three foot taken away. how did that get taken away? >> one of the appellants raised some questions about how the rear yard was calculated. and i asked the project sponsor last night and i was at home and didn't have a time to challenge it and for the rear wall there is a two-story element for the building and that's the

appropriate point to take the rear yard averaging. >> are those calculations prior to this? >> yes, the staff is responsible for doing a full code compliance check before going to the neighborhood. >> so it passed first round. >> correct, this was an oversight on the part of the department, we didn't catch this. >> to what effect does that affect the bulk or square footage? i am concerned with the pop up, and the story is above the three feet and the pop-out will remain. >> exactly. the square footage will be reduced but i think minimally in 200 square foot or so. >> affecting two stories? >> or three? >> at all levels. as it appears from the rear.

put on the overhead. so this main real building wall moves back 3 feet 4 inches. >> commissioner fung said all that is brown. >> all that is brown. >> and i had question about the corner building that looks large and fairly new as well. >> i will look at that. >> kind of a related question on that corner building. that kind of influences the analysis of the neighborhood doesn't it? >> it does it does not alone on the block face of being a three-story building. if i can show you -- if this will come up here if i can have the overhead please. thank you. so we have the corner building

here and kind of as i discussed this with our rdp staff with this rhythmic pattern on the block, you have a taller story building some the subject property is here. and you have a wider lot and one or two stories at the rear, and the down sloping. and a two story here. and another story over a garage here. so it's seen as a pattern of alternating heights. and that's how staff reviewed this. >> since have that up can you move back to the proposed site. the next-door neighbor it's unique, it's three-unit building is that conforming three unit? >> i believe it's four units. >> it's three. >> it's illegal nonconforming

structure and the zoning ordinance allows two units. >> mr. sanchez, i will play the rookie card since i am still new to the meetings. how does design review exactly work? i look at this and i am going to probably be a little crass, sorry to the architecture this block, which looks like an apartment building more than it does a single family residence. has absolutely no character, no finishes no window definition no attempt whatsoever to fit in the neighborhood. though the three-story house next door which is quite large. how does design review work to approve something that absolutely destroys the neighborhood character, in my

opinion. and -- and is this sudden mass how does that work exactly? >> i hope you don't have -- >> i hate architects -- sorry frank. >> as i mentioned when i reviewed the materials that the appellant put forward, i did a double take on the project, and probably had the same reactions that you are having now. so discussing that with the residential design team staff. the idea with this it's more of an art than a science. it's not meant to be overly prescriptive but to design the mass and details of the buildings. and in this case they didn't support the fourth story, they didn't find the fourth story to be compatible. that was removed from the project, it may have been code complying, staff recommended

that removal. and the set-back from the 906 carolina street at the front from the entries to mimic the entries on that building at 906 carolina. it's in ways trying to respect those elements of what exist there. but i can see certainly in relationship to the 922 carolina property how it can be seen as more jarring, if that lot was developed, i mean it potentially could be part of the house would have to be demolished and developed, but have more of a pattern here. this is r-h-2 zoning district and it's a larger home. often we see people building if the density to add more housing. and in this case it's a large single family. and certainly i understand those concerns.

but the response from the rdt was overall on balance that it integrated into the neighborhood. >> just because you can build to the density doesn't make it right; correct? >> correct, but in their case they are not building to the density. >> but in generally. >> often we have a different approach we don't encourage people to build to the density and look at that as a factor. >> in the issue of neighborhood character, i really enjoyed reading this brief. i really enjoyed reading the commentary from the supporters of the appeal. because as a native san franciscan it gave me pride in my city. and i think that the sensitivity, what their sensitivity to maintaining the

neighborhood character while trying to allow in their own words, we heard while trying to enable the developer, who isn't going to live there anyway. it's only about the money -- but it's not about the money. they were reasonable about that. but really echoed consistently the thought about maintaining that wonderful neighborhood character. even enabling change even enabling a new direction of architecture, etc. etc. and as i sit here and look at the things we are supposed to evaluate one of which is neighborhood character and the impact on the general neighborhood. i was -- needless to say by my reaction i am stymied by what is design review in the context

of that spirit. so -- >> i appreciate those comments, and maybe just two responses i may have. first i am often in a position in reviewing variances to make a decision on a project. and i very much appreciate and it's exceptionally when neighbors bring specific alternatives forward. i think that's wonderful. i wanted to comment on that. and maybe quite some time since we had, if ever our design review professionals could do a presentation here about how we conduct our process and maybe a brief overview on the residential guidelines. i think in the past we have distributed the guidelines to the commissioners and i can work with the president if that is something that the board would like. we had one with dph and could have preservation. >> that might be more fun.

>> we could have preservation or a joint hearing with the planning commission. >> don't get carried away. >> before you go away the subject of max density is brought up are they at the maximum? >> no. >> what is the maximum density of this project. >> two it's r-h 2 that allows two units and they have a single family. >> and what about residential? >> for zoning residential there is no far unit, and do it by constraints of set-backs and the guidelines dictate the envelope of the building. >> thank you. >> so inspector duffy has indicated he has nothing to add, and we have public comment. how many people plan to speak on public comment? >> rebuttal is after public comment. all right, if you would, if you are able to line up on the far side of the room i