conversations a few weeks ago i know the neighborhood looked this they think the man makes a difference at a region level and helps the crisis they don't dr. the specific data yet to actually suggest a project has the impact at the very local listed level and more researcher on that it does not isn't not in hand there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that might be the case but no localized data of an individual development. >> and the challenges we have you're talking to the right people. >> the other work as well as and i think you know if i could i mean, there's general

agreement the gentrification happening to the mission and other neighborhoods some of that happens regardless of new development; right? the question whether the new development accelerates liquor gentrification and displacement that's the conversation. >> that's the scenes of our conversation people low more often and displace people what's the effect of the hours accelerated or mitigated things we've been talking about you're right on the money director rahaim thank you very much. >> i like the alleged pdr i think you know admirable we're not replacing and referring the pdr there will be an effect of 2 percent over time it will be 100 percent and but i support of pdr the one of the issues i have is parking i know you're using

stackers but on a corridor three or four blocks from bart yet 53 spaces is a lot we've talked about that theoretically and maybe not practical when we had those projects and potrero hill i said parking or pdr convert some on the first floor and a light bulb that is underground but looks like a lot of parking spaces but they're on stackers. >> commissioner moore. >> with respect to director rahaim's comment i'll make a motion to continue let's see conversation with you i'll ask the director one week if? the correct amount of time. >> commissioners the one week based on for additional wanted

to review the information i guess the question if there are substantial design changes i'll suggest there is not enough time because you will need to work with the architect to make the design changes and have those in your packets clearly the publth are prepared for invocation. >> two tiers the basic 2020 and sub you cannot information and underpinning of those information and the typical extraneous thoughts the commission wants to preview the project that come forward as cu having said that, 50i78d of i'm not sure substantive nature of our discussions with the mission people is what mostly drives an

expression of dissatisfaction from the short comments that commission made so i'm asking you basically guidance. >> i guess what i'll node recommend having another hearing invocation i will not recommend 3 hearings it is relatively might have project so from the commission direction to have work more within the architects we need more time but i would - there's a hearing date i believe in the middle of july that is possible but you know, i guess that's my recommendation if you think that the design changes - i i guess my remedies to do two

things the design changes and as well as the some of the responses on the interim controls. >> i will prefer the latter date partially i strongly feel we need to spend the mind to deliver a thoughtful frontages in that part of the mission. >> so that requires to go to july we should basically initiate reactuation on those levels. >> so the agreement with the project sponsor with the community is a week to hear the alleged facts of the interim controls not for architecture i think we're assuming we'll not be needing a continuance to love mr. hayward to speak to that. >> a desire to spend time on the earthquake the skin of the

building i want to continue i agree with director rahaim we'll be happen with a three or four continuance that would be helpful a commissioner can be involved in those discussions so we have a sense of what the commission is looking for. >> commissioner johnson. >> sorry commissioner moore you're going to pick a date. >> sec. >> july 14th normally 4 weeks from today i'm sorry not that i'm a voting member i'm on vacation that week but certainly embed without me. >> i have a sense the communities wants you to be here kindly pick a date you're here.

>> i want to entering jefferson county we approved a large project 8:00 hundred units that was just design related clearly design related staff can work with the architect is this the kind of project we can do to speed it up hear it in a week i'm looking at the precedence from before commissioner moore what do you think that type of project. >> i will ask the gentleman to weigh in he was part of castro project the push back was substantial and okay elements this project needs to be really rethought amongst other things and into the reality what do you think. >> i'm hearing concern over

the material palate it is proposed by the architect and. >> the lack of material palate consistency they call for a cement panel 9 majority of facade with the color elements in other peaceable that will take work not insurmountable but we certainly have precedence with a lot of the projects whereby we can work with a smaller group of the commissioners it refine the design elements you know and still - i'm not hearing from the commission regarding this overall massing so if it is a matter of refining the surface treatment and coming up with more the exterior elements i'm confident we can do that.

>> i'll take our feedback we worked out from the difficult circumstances so basically go to route. >> i'm recommending sxhoerp to change our motion for a week. >> if it is amenable i'll change the motion for a week. >> second. >> i didn't take my turn. >> i'm sorry commissioner johnson so a second and the date is june 23rd i have a quick question for director rahaim and staff so just on the question of the analysis on the mission area controls and map 2020 commissioner vice president richards mentions a talk with a berkley professor and research and also in the controllers report themselves they sort of are very sort of they don't as

their finding really work on a micro project by project level my question what analysis are we hoping to do in a week in relation to project. >> we can't do unlikely an initial analysis the community wants more time to dive into the exciting analysis we can do obviously not in your packet address some of the detailed. >> yes. rays citing sections i don't know if we have time to do much analysis. >> some of the comments about making sure the accuracy in the reports and we're powell the right references to the project i want to make sure we're not going to - it's going to be hard firefighter this project

and those reports in those reports say they're hard to target at micro level i want to make sure a week to get everyone comfortable their applying the controls of the project and putting the right view not necessarily we'll be able to make specific finding what is in the report. >> that's a good way arrest characterizing is and not scheme of things a modest project eve there were ways to address this this size of the project will have those effects. >> thank you commissioner hillis. >> so i'm supportive of a week's continuance and a lot of the the comments on the design it needs work it is an interesting context and residential and the of

the building should respond it didn't get there on the studies i brought this up on the interim controls this kind of someone quote from one study and something else from another quote this imaginedless debate on somehow this building this will help you know lower the prices or somehow not building helps you have to look at bernal heights and other places to see the entire city is faced with the housing crisis i said when we did did sgrrmd are there ways to make those projects better and can we add pdr or arc uses on the ground floor we're displacing those if we get into

that project by project analysis this project is increasing gentrification and a wait rating it is worse than bernal heights we'll be an endless studies and face the consequences we're not this enough hours loans one percent last year so let's try to make the projects better but an endless economic study will not get us there. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree when he talked about the mission chronicles we didn't expect every single project to do it's others impact study they have to refer to blanket studies we've dealt what the impacts of market-rate housing in various areas what they'll generally conclude with the impacts they do that maybe

more detail in the studies i carry a couple many any briefcase i'll quote many part of that invocation when we bring it up and find other studies in the meantime, so the main which i know thing that's what we asked them to do and make sure we have wanted to read the studies their refer to and the other issue the district court of san francisco something question should be happy a lot of the cities want to move to invest in them and build their businesses there and it hazard side effects but a good problem to have and we have to judge this project on the individual merits and what we've asked the projects and not ask it to be something that will cower

everyone's problems a fairly small project so long as is does the things it should do it needs design challenges. >> call the question. >> a motion to continue commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 17 case 4529 18th street arrest plaintiff good evening erica planning department staff before you a conditional use authorization for reactivate the ground floor incremental tenant space an 18th

street it - located and front of the lot to expand the one dwelling unit to a 4 bedroom units the commercial unit located along the front is with a show you room and office the planning department has signed petitions in support and opposition to the property project that were included in our pathways one additional letter of support by the participating jonas i have- and san bruno copies of shadow study by the project sponsor and photographs by the neighbor in the rear building on the property and lastly san bruno a draft motion with minor corrects that was e-mailed earl this is week and in exclusion that is

neshl created one single-family dwelling and other compatible will limited uses located in the vicinity the proposed operation is established locally owned businesses and contribute to the very ability of the neighborhood and consistent with the residential design guidelines given the conditions the staff recommends conditional use authorization and i'm concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> project sponsor. >> hello. thank you commissioner vice president richards for considering our cu application i'll be representing any family and my partner and i to expand above the residence my

partner and i have lived there for 8 years we're educators my parents teach and my partner i go lecture and work for an educational nonprofit our individual salaries from 40 to 70 percent of the medium a home for two reporters and two people in the home we plan on living here a long time i'll address the proposal and finally, the cu to begin the petition sets a high - this is not the case and the petition was endangering we've maintained a good relationship with the neighborhood and those errors we want to san francisco transportation authority and not

removing a rental unit and particle my - our friend supports this in a believer and also here, and, secondly, our platoons our plans to set a new height variance for the neighborhood our building has at all to the left and right they've reached the maximum height our house is less than 20 percent no handrails as force the island to briefly review our work to address the neighborhood concerns we began with the meeting in 2013 we learned about planning department will extension and held a

preapplication meeting no march 2015 i'm walk you through the original plan from - including a rear arrowhead shape and essentially i mean there is the design of our nightclub buildings shown in power up anticipates closed lightwells they're building were you turned to the property lines, however, ours in yellow don't wrap around the lightwells our design provides lightwells that open freely to the sun i would like to note our neighboring believes have heir rims to the lightwells than our building those romance are hero and here and finally we additionally incorporated of foot earn setback for the neighbors non-conforming skylight near the

property line and the 6 for the setback we've created for that level and after that meanwhile we made the following changes to the plans we removed the northern corners shown in orange and matched the lightwell to blue and offset matched opposing to the south and other changes in august of 2015 plans were you distributed to the one and 50 foot neighbors and got additional remedies we addressed in 2017 most significantly we completely removed an aurp deck there was a - we setback the

front of upper level go 18 feet from the front bay and all points 15 feet if the building face and increased the depth of the lightwell by 20 percent on the eastern side in january 2015 we met with 3 neighbors to see the - we held two more open hours in 2016 with 6 to 8 neighbors to talk about the plan modifications we cut over the rear to fufrlt increase the light to the lightwell and setback a minimum of 3 foot plus from the eastern property lines and added that roof to add interest for the neighbors that looked down in

our home the higher homes to the north and south and west of us now our eastern neighbors asked us to consider cross views for an additional on their building and any impedes our project my cause our eastern neighborhood we consulted with dbi that caused concerns and setback on the eastern property line whether allow sunlight into the leblt eve not into their design are the southern windows, however, sorry the southern windows on our upper level is not precociousable and mounted above the heats - we're

offering to add privacy glazing to eliminates cross views with that vertical addition and further like to point out our eastern neighbors are cornices we are installing privacy glass they can remove the perceptives corner news there's been concern about the upper level we've designed increase in the building permit i building permitted this avoids the need for bulk stairways and it is minimally viable and we've been asked to remove the level it is

setting north of the lightwell opposing openings this will have a large impact that xhapdz an office for my partner and myself we removed did roof deck additional made other cuts larger angles here on the lightwell could increase the light or a setback or eliminate a great watertank to slope that roof to the northern lightwell we've reached a resemble middle ground regarding the size of our home i that to the briefly clarify our square footage a - our stairs take up disproportionately space and discount those under 3 thousand

square feet it is in context with our neighborhood reference in the last 3 years the mls listed 50 over 3 thousand square feet and we're in comblieps wire first year first we are removing non-conforming rooms in the house and as consolidated the footprint and provides emergency access to backyard landscapes i met with the fire department to design a leaguer quieter that encourages safety all around and finally like to review the storefront that was constructed in 1909 and locally operated a design office previously an evict office we're proposing to keep the existing storefront we feel this is in scale with

the adjacent commercial uses in similar zoning the 3-r reports list this as a store in 1909 in a footprint of the store no complaints with filed and parking we're open to have zones to help to lessen those concerns that is a longs process and our goal to benefit the neighborhood we realize our frontage will have impacts we've worked to minimize them if the commission feels 24 not enough we've gone beyond in areas of disagreement eliminating the upper roof and deepening the light openings. >> thank you very much opening up for public comment commissioner chair we granted a

10 minute presentation to the opposition. >> 10 minutes covering 3 speakers please. >> mr. chair thank you. >> overhead please.

commissioners thank you thank you for your time we represent all of the adjacent neighbors to the east and west and south of the property project my name is a annette from the moment neighbors first learned of that project we've consistent express strong opposition over density of use from a 22 wide lot and extensive light and bulk and mass he's made numerous changes from the rdt are the hose made no changes that address those concerns we appeal to you to consider our request for reasonable modifications to reduce the height of the building by roving the fourth floor and reduce the commercial use for this residence what about appropriate sized for the lot

million dollar a local i live at 3, 4, 52418th street next door this matter comes before you as a rinse statement of commercial use seconds that is actually a proposal for continuation of commercial use and a construction of a 4 story home and needs to be considered operation of current store caused problems to driveways blocked by customers or delivery vehicles and what garbage and recycling on a walk in a single weekend following the notification 68 neighbors signed the petition opposing this not in opposition to the boards operator not the issue the neighborhood opposes the total i would for commercial space and four story residences it has been the excess density of use

and is dimension of that lot are unusual one and 22 feet wide and narrowly long there's a 3 story residence that is occupied bid tenants in common and an application for an adu has been filed with the planning department and given the desire important affordable housing in the city we ecp this will be granted at some point in the future with the addition felt commercial use results in 4 ooze on a single lot with no off-street parking and the ability for unauthorized uses or short-term rentals in the future the obvious potential can be seen in the first floor plan and design, however, it sieves the technical requirements staff is recommended approval we ask it be included to first an express

requirement a truck loading and customer cars not block the driveways of just a minute neighbors and hours of operation be limited toe normal hours and neighborhoods not substantive to customer parking and foot traffic we hope, however, the commission will consider the totality of the circumstances and exercise our discretionary powers to reduce the density on this narrow lot. >> commissioners nickel and dimed a kearney live behind the proposed project we're concerned about the height and mass of this proposal it will result in 5 thousand thirty square feet of buildings on a narrow lot on 2 thousand plus

its scale is in appropriate the planning code had asked the gentleman to minimize from the street view the bulk and mass in fact, the building will a tower that looks at on the rear yard and homes to the set the 40 feet height explodes the height on the buildings only either side 31 feet and the other at 26 feet and inconsistent where the existing ceqa step down with the natural grade you'll see that from on the perspective this is an aerial view of the existing property and all adjacent lots note house the existing building

gradually step down from natural grade to the land now look at the 3-d render of the project from the same viewpoint the fourth story towers over the two-story building adjacent to the east similarly explodes the height to the four story to the west and on the rear the lot boss of those hours are on a slightly heir grade and the will impact the privacy of surrounding neighbors decks on the third and fourth floors look down on neighbors yard and look contradicting into the rear structure on the same black it effects the light and privacy

due to the excess number of windows and looking at the fourth floor plan as you can see that shown and three hundred plus the floor envelope is much greater than 5 hundred and 50 feet that is 40 percent of the fourth story is not used as floor space but to have skylight ceilings and those two empty spaces block light and further reduce the lightwell light to the neighbor on the east the western wall didn't match the lightwell of neighbor the adjacent homeowner to the west has four windows facing a blank wall despite an abundance of light shows northerner 16 windows facing east and it number that should be reduced

asia privacy glass eliminated and the gentleman showed studies hostilities the significant walls at the fourth store on the east and west proposals at the height of summer the 6 windows facing south and ante east and currently enjoy direct sunlight most of day in allowed did proposed building is shade those windows by midday on the west side the 3 residential units have 9 windows that face east that will have direct sunlight and those have considered solar panels but the showed studies the potential for solar that can significantly impacts as you can see he seeks to maximize light and while depriving the

neighbors of sun this proposal is executives for this narrow lot we ask the commission to reject it and the following modifications remove the fourth story are require the gentleman to eliminate the unused space reserved for sunlight and two match the elements and 3 reduce the number of windows facing the adjacent building and install privacy glass where noted to address the concerns of density we ask you not recommend the request too much is property, however, if it request is approved we'll ask the modifications previously requested regarding private driveways and hours of operation be added to the motion wen we believe in proposal can give

more thoughtful consideration to the privacy and light of the adjacent neighbors without compromising the owners assess to light and it's desire to build a large project thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> opening up for public comment i have one speaker card. >> hello good evening, commissioners thank you for your time my name is although, i live 3 doors down from the proposed project at 4417, 18th street i've been a realtor since 2007 and i'm all for development absolutely and all for the gentleman for the home but it is out of character with the

neighborhood it will be the stooeld taller and stick out like a sore thump hose proposing will be liquor this and the other photographs photos he's stone the, gradually come down it is been very hard to engage in meaningful dialogue with the gentleman hose been living in chicago in fact, the first meeting with the neighborhood was via skype i've lived in my home since 2012 and only seen the gentleman 5 times that's it been recent the only reason approval from the eureka valley association he tell him he lives there he can do everything he wants on 3 floors the gentleman

partners are here but you won't hear from them because of their legal agreement with the gentleman i highly suggest you speak with david and tommy they with the immediate neighbors on 18th street will be highly impacted and again, the gentleman can achieve the same okay outcome in 3 floors the 4 floor will only have skylights bringing in great light for m the gentleman he seize the bout of light and taking away neighbors llth the decision you'll make today will set and precedent for this neighborhood again thank you for your time commissioners. >> thank you, sir. >> any other additional speakers for this project. >> no additional speakers

seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i dollar a lot of things i like about this project most notably the drawings looks like that belongs in the neighborhood i didn't think anyone could 0 do that and build something that is built one hundred years ago it is extremely good there's the issues maybe i can talk to the project sponsor for a second if you want to come up here great there are is couple of things the first one is looking at the deck in the back here you know it seems large i'll think that the deck on the fourth floor can be minuteized you have a roof that separates the deck from the edge

of the building i mean it is a pretty big deck that might eliminate issues of privacy. >> and then not sure whether you need the fronts and back deck on this in that something i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say the neighborhoods talked about the fourth floor i'm in favor you having but a way to consolidate that you have the skylights which are for the floor blow. >> but those should be outside the periphery of the fourth floor the fourth floor should end and the skylight a floor blow that takes a big section out of the fourth floor that impacts the neighbors and not gain anything you mentioned about collecting e collecting rain water if this is that

important in the total scope of things that makes that fourth floor a nice size studies you can have the drafting tables and a bath and a good-sized bedroom and one deck that have have a reasonable good size and the other things they've asked for matching the elements that i'm not sure if they match or not but in your opinion do they match. >> on the eastern side they match but needed the 2/3rd's over laptop and increased do developed of lightwell 3 feet to the east. >> it sounds like their 3 feet deep. >> 3 foot 8. >> that part is good but i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say making those match exactly the desire lightwells of the odds that sounds like one of

the things you've talked about privacy were needed to eliminate the cross viewers that's one the requirements and i'm not sure about reducing the number of windows facing the adjacent buildings a question of privacy off those buildings the windows but i thi we're not too far if a having something that can be done i think that is a good project i clearly support the commercial space on the empowering there are restrictions the neighbors asked for easy enough to do whoever occupies that space as a restrictions on loading and the operations seize at 6 o'clock someplace but those are some of the things i see that could still keep that fourth floor intact but lee allow more light

into some certificate adjacent neighbors victims i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> can you pop up one .3 and talk about. >> is that visual to you. >> yeah. yeah so walk us through i think some of the concerns we're hearing from the neighbors your autograph got a lot of mass up there in you know blocking some of the neighbors lights in it smokeless is it so under to accommodate a two-story month room >> not the living room and kitchen area below that area.

>> all right. a double height space and the southern part of house is over here that will be the part that impacts the light and then the one tanks mentions for that gray water in the top of stairwell we can or more that and lower that by several feet and give for light to the lightwell we wanted to keep the gray water tapping. >> what about the issue of their people have talked about eliminating the fourth floor i don't care think you need to do that but consolidate the uses imyou're trying to build a second story room above the kitchen you can accommodate your program without that why not do

that. >> if we lose mass take it off the southern side that is the most impact of light the northern side not to the north of the lightwells yes. >> so, i mean i don't think we'll redesign this i suggest you all sitting down with the neighbors and figure out how to reconfigure that fourth floor to get our program but kind of minimize the bulk and impact that fourth floor creates so i mean that is what the causing some of the problems i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> if i look on plan a-13 and the mixed use a-3 one and from the elevation it makes me

laughter in terms of of this it seriously fails partially because i'm sorry. >> again from a that have the history it fails partially because it does the facade is there made in in a cookie cutter you apply them 1, 2, 3 this is did the it falls apart if you have a fourth floor not show a contemporary railing on the balcony in a manner that you do but pop up the parapet or the top of the building but what is a 3 and a half parapet on the upper floor that is pulled back as an attempt on a historic

impression rather than letting them clash in a manner that's one point ii building that the suggestions made on how impact the neighbors with the fourth floor you need to think it through from the inside out how do i create housing on top of without getting the push back by which privacy privacy is effected by which you are effecting the privacy for others this is a concern we almost all talk about and as i got the memo it is clear that the drawers shown don't show the interior of the room this project has to reshape in a manner that is respectful and accommodating to the privacy concerns that involves match of the lightwells

might mean matching of cutting back the upper floors including the deck i'll agree with commissioner hillis as well i think that commissioner antonini said it why do you notice two decks that is two is small spaces that gather and connect them a lack ever moaning on the upper floor that has to do with with not much justification why it is there i think i'll take it to another discussions with the neighbors i'll expect that you reconsider the facade treatment with significantly more expressed patent parapet as as far as the concerns the operation of the commercial space i'll agree with everyone asking for the delivery in conflict the driveway indeed

our operating hours i'll suggest we send this project on for further discussion between the neighborhoods and what the commission pretty much in principle agrees with. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks i agree with the comments of commissioner moore and commissioner hillis i think that you know there should be some consideration to reconfiguration of the back floor maybe removing the study no more two-story kitchen and leave it to the project sponsor work with the neighbors to figure out what role works we don't want to redesign only give the direction. >> weighing in as a look at this i think this is we two much and have a hard time supporting

a fourth floor you have a arts and family room 4 hundred and two large decks and a big skylight and an atrium that is an incredible amount of massing that impacts our neighbors they made a good case in their - i definitely wouldn't approve this project but send that back and my direction will getting get rid of the fourth floor there is a lot of square footage there upgrade seems like that is made for a family of 20. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'll agree that probable needs for work and agree with commissioner moore on just first on the design the parapet if you carry the historic conservation elements of first 3 floors you don't want a railing that if harmony news that is easiest he

will enough to do if you still have a deck you have to make those windows fit into the architecture that you have been others on the rest of the house if you keep the fourth floor i agree with it was significantly condensed and drop of area down that is open and just has the skylights of three story you have to look at the matching of the lightwells and dropping that roof down with the rain clerk sounds like it is good for me we didn't talk about the lower floors commissioner vice president richards did if this year areas could be cut a little bit and allow more light into adjacent neighbors and make those rooms smaller i'm not

saying you have to make the rooms smaller but get more matching that would be something that people probably will favor those are the suggestion and probably going to move to continue this project what do you think jonas like july 14th and sure july 14th and twit both work. >> what do you think. >> i'll recommend. >> we need to ask the architect and the neighbors if they have time to work this out this is an negotiated design we've given a push back and if this is a compromise i need to be convinced a balance what we're supposed to approve and seriously impacting the

neighbors this moment light. >> i have a question for mr. washington we have a rh2 lot with a commercial structure a dwelling unit and dwelling unit; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> the expansion of the small dwelling unit is a large house not a demolition of a dwelling unit the percentage of the area host is not paramount to the demolition is so small this is the case. >> i also support of neighbors in reducing the number of windows as well we really have to live literally right on top of each other and have a lack of privacy is unnerving and did we

select the day for the tall ones i'll suggest july 21st we can bump if it you're not ready. >> i'll not recommend july 21st. >> can we hear from the option. >> ask the architect also. >> is the earth here. >> we'll ask the earth as well. >> july 21st is the earliest i'll, out of town for a portion of that town to be able to have meaningful discussions where the gentleman we'll need some time. >> okay. and the architect thank you and the architect the architect. >> architects are not here we have a structural engineer but i'm representing so i can speak for this we're open to whatever

time. >> 8 weeks because of neighbors for the being available. >> i'll recommend august 4th. >> that sounds like a good idea. >> second. >> so is that continued? >> i'll not recommended the 11 you have a very full calendar. >> september september 15th. >> that looks at good. >> that looks at good. >> are you going date of birth here september 15th.

>> yes. >> september 15th. >> i guess that's the motion all right. commissioner a motion to continue this to september 15th commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and commissioners that places us in your discretionary review calendar ninth avenue. >> good evening, commissioners

nan planning department staff the item before you is a public initialed discretionary review requester for ninth after the proposal to construct a new second story single-family units and the structure will be approximately 4 thousand plus gross square feet and includes the evacuations and a new curve cut and landscaping the subject property is zoned rh1 d in a height and bulk and it is with residentials single-family home dwelling units and depth varies within the neighborhood the dr requester sites the concern with the massing at the setback and impacts to the middle-income open space by maya angelou in the rear since publication of case report

the department has not alleged public comment, however, i want to clarify the port ironically notes the option from a association the socialization had no position but an individual member submitted a separate letter with concerns of the project the residential design team rdt and in general support of design the staff recommends not take dr the project is one family-sized dwelling unit for the period of a significant housing demand the mass and scale request the residential design team and appropriate for the development on the underutilized lot and

have impacts with the system and it meets all requirements planning code that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you dr requester. >> you have 5 minutes. >> good evening. i'm agreeing nonetheless live next door to the proposed project on ninth avenue many our presentation my neighbors and i will go over the project that has critical elements of residential design guidelines section 4 of guidelines states it is essential for the xhashltd with the surrounded buildings to

preserve the neighborhood character the fundamental problem is the projects violation of that guidelines now by age b a little but a lot this a 4 thousand three hundred plus square feet house on the street side present 4 stories above and no other building on the block presents more than 3 that will be twice the average square footage of the 12 existing houses on the block and 28 percent leaguer man than the largest house on the blockage the skoenl to the lot size will be 78 percent of the other homes one and 3 percent versus 48 percent the developer has not -

he asserts many homes in forest hill that is as large are larger but that is just isn't true his support a exhibit h a list of 7 house in the meltdown vicinity and presumably took his best shot this proves his contention first only 3 of the hours are arguably under the immediately vicinity one is 5 blocks away and 3 on the hill and completely out of sites of ninth avenue in a different setting of the remaining 3 there are an ninth after the two are substantial smaller ninth is going 27 percent smaller with a

square footage to lot sized robber it is 64 percent compared to the one and 3 percent and similarly 2200 ninth it is on a double lot is 11 percent smaller with a ratio to lot size on 50 percent compared to the one and 3 percent of the developers robber the third house on ninth is actually a block and a half away to the north in the vicinity and while compatible liveable spaces ; moreover, it sits on the downhill does the street from the street is present a mankind 2 and a half story home

in order for the developer to get this into the lot extend the house into the rear setback and 5 feet further than the house on the other side the setback results in sight lines into the rear bedroom window and yard and in a modify backyard we'll see be hemmed in with a massive wall as noted when permitted by the planning code building expansion might not be appropriate and leave the surrounded neighbors cut off in a open space that's exactly our case the thinking tuition results in a significant intrusion in the middle-income open space on the houses on our block and above that it is

internal this open space can't be physically usesed the corridor it provides a significant community asset and once protected setting back back the larger rear yard setback and matching or reducing the footprint of proposed building the developers >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> you'll have an opportunity to respond to questions. >> thank you speakers in support of dr (calling names).en >> i'm derrick your honor and

thank you. good evening we live directly across the street and have for the thirty plus years welcome the addition of a new house not generally a fan of getting between people what they want i was happy to get involved there are limits and agnus talked about the overall size problem but this project is also out of character and scale with regards to two earthal features the massive two-story glass bay that projected 5 feet and the massive architecture that sournldz the entrances the problem is equivalent in the 3-d rendering of the proposal in the package if i can have that up. >> overhead please. is that on the computer.

>> so this is the rendering and as you can see the two-story glass bay that faces the front cantonese the interior stairwell and around the entrance and further ore and this mesh this large bulk to the left over the garage i mean those features are out of proportion but incompatible with the nearby houses made clear by the exhibit d presentation so not visible i think you have it on your screens this house is in the center and there's nothing on either side of that

that many in any way comes close to the two grass structure or those massive architecture a modest calm block at night the two-story glass bay within is a giant glowing latin lantern those feefrnz with not necessary and exactly are the guidelines prohibit from the guidelines proportion is equivalent and the place of disorders doors and the scale and the building features including the bays and entrance must be proportional and with respect to bay windows with on illustration that is similar to what we have here and a belief word about the developer having objected a large number of

snatches if i may we'll present that in rebuttal. >> i'd like to at the present time, present a letter from one of the signatureries. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> additional speakers i've called line up. >> we live immediately behind and above the proposed house i want to be clear that is not true the obtaining neighbors refused to meet with the developer acquit the opposite from the begin we sought to revolve this through negotiation but the developer recused roosted the outside scale the project we stated the offer riding problem with the excess size of the house in comparison was a smaller home and as at the

second meeting the architect stressed modifications that have made as much as moving the house on the lot and lowering it's height slightly but even with that instruction the house will be turn around it's neighbors and no change was offered by way of reducing the mass of hours by pushing it back they aggravated the neighbors privacy and combroechl on the green space when i asked the architect to reduce the building height his answer you have to understand something about how modern architecture is done those days we build from the inside out and want to make the house as big as possible that brings the maximum profit at the end of the meeting

i asked the developer to do more to reduce the height his response i quote that is an non-negotiable in 2015 agnuss met with the developer on the sis issue before you the developer refused to bulge it was after on the ground news filed for the design review in relationship that the gentleman suggested a meeting but the agenda he proposed only very ambiguously was talk about the health address size we respond pointless unless hose prepared to negotiate the developer never respond to our request so no meeting took place that was his discussion not our we don't begrudge him the opportunity to build but no 2, 3, 4 disregard the city's george

washington high school that are there to protect the exit neighbors we played by the rules and so should he thank you >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm paul i'm a license architect. >> i'm sorry, sir sfgov go to the computer. >> i'm paul an architect residential anxiety in san francisco for 48 years and resident of forest city for 35 years and served on the forest hill design board i'm speaking on my on behalf of i oppose this and to show the concerns could be addressed without impairing the projects value and provide a

concrete settle with the developer that could have avoided this i've provided the developer with a design i want to emphasize one possible solution not meant to be the answer only there which is a way of doing it i wanted to illustrate those differences so that so often the client says you can do that and we can put those together and come out with a win-win situation sierra club a tweaking deserves the square footage and all the floor plans for the current design and the height of the at all building reduce by 5 feet making it more o no higher and rome the roof deck that is useful in forest

hill alu you'll not get up and a there and reducing this garage from the to 8 and the bonus space 9 to 8 and the other floors 10 to 9 those are substantial but not that big deal we eliminated accident massive in front bays and the door around the garage and front entry that is accomplished by turning the dangers to be enclosed within the front wall those changes will reduce the construction and one experienced forest hill broker it will increase the market-rate for hours in forest hill lost how many of these houses but i want to repeat the last statement we

presented this the developer and he looked it and said, yes and called back a couple weeks ago and said no i'll take my chances with the planning commission and i want to say the power point the design dominated a win win situation the changes will - >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> next speaker, please. >> additional speakers in supported of requester seeing none, project sponsor you have 5

minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm elizabeth we own the property on ninth avenue we are a 10 year resident of forest hill we want to design a house and made concessions i'll hear about shortly we have collected over one hundred signatures thirty live on ninth avenue and i'll handing you 18 additional letter of supports collected in the last week 12 this on malcolm heinicke do so across the street from our lot the forest hocking board of directors we're in combloins with their guidelines and others spoken in opposition to tour project give the length we've gone to design a house that fits well

with the neighborhood we respectfully ask you approve our house as is and i'm going to turn it over to to my colleague to continue the presentation. >> going under gladstone for the folks we want to thank nancy and others in support of this effort thirty live on the same street as mentioned here's the project i'd like to show you in 2, 3, 4 drawing about 35 percent of volume not the floor space but the volume of the house is it so i think virtual you see this arrow a doted line comes down hero and

here and represents the hillside from the rear the 20 only two stories and from the side you see they see mostly 2 stories and from the front you see what i think is a well articulated facade that has 4 setbacks in the plan of the facade if you could bring that back this is is house next door this is the appellants house this is the kind of house that you you were presented by the gentleman an architect in the neighborhood that wants our facade to be flat and which is our facade closer to the street that was done in the neighborhood in the 1960s we don't want it this low the builders 54 feet wide 55 actually and few look at our dependability d you'll see that the home adjacent to the hongz

house is turn around the honz house and see that that house is turn around my clients house if you locate the house to the right of my clients house the peek that is my clients house note because the top floor of this house proposed house is setback about 25 feet from the front a series of 4 articulated the top floor will not be that intimidating to passersby and the architect and neighborhood would like to replicate on our lot the appellant wants a bigger open yard i'd like to point out the appellant can build back another 17 feet into the lot frankly this is very wide and wider than allowed not allowed

today it didn't meet the 5 for the setbacks and instead of coming back into the rear lot it leaves 17 feet of unbuilt says that a future owner maybe the appellants will want to build out they should all the other families are build out we're here looking for a single-family home and this neighborhood is the only oe the subdivision guidelines have a minimum not at maximum i've not seen that in any other neighborhood and many, many concessions having been made to reduce the parapet and bringing the house down this in size and making sure no side windows to see through and please note that appellant has from side windows

at all its privacy concerns we're not sure about i have more to say later 2 minute rebuttal speakers in support of dr requester i

(calling names). >> not only the san francisco guidelines but the forest hill and was approved in a opinion but the forest hill board of directors didn't obtain on september 8th i was present almost a hundred people in attendance and fully compliant and procedurally very arduous working with the dr requesters i am present at the a couple of moseying they've made outline attempts to work with the dr requesters to come up with a house they can live with almost to the point where essentially we're addressing the privacy concerns we're going to record and have the blurred glass but the dr requesters refused to consider that so finally the third reason a question of

common sense if you step back and look at it what is going on you'll see the subject lot is currently vacant a vacant lot of the dresser are in the right direction neighbors i suppose you can't blame them for trying to avoids the inconvenience of construction not a luxury we can for the record a public policy in favor the heirs and auto guideline code compliant in every way shape and form and you should approve the project as present and deny the >> former commissioner hillis ms. darling. >> good evening. i'm kathy lebanon and my husband todd and i are residents of forest hill we support of plans for ninth

avenue and trent has gone to great length to design a home that is an excellent addition and deny the discretionary review authorization and approve the plans and trent and liz have a single-family home in a single-family home neighborhood no deceit it colonel applies about the code and the residential design guidelines of the association the neighborhood impact of the home is softened by their plan to build the home into the sloping lot and in addition the landscaping provide a subtle effect own the neighborhood and the vast majority of neighbors like the plan my husband and i attended the association meeting in which they've confirmed that the ninth avenue complies that the homeowners agreement folks

with large homes saying the scale is two 0 large with a hoa member with a larger home the comments should be viewed in light of the folks we respectfully request you approve the home as designed thank you for your time. >> thank you, ms. darrell mr. o'donnell. >> my name is pacific o'donnell i live in the nearby location he agree with the nearby plans that trent with they're now home thanw home the >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> again and again good evening. i'm veronica a homeowner of the forest neighborhood my my husband and i patrick and i - we were another forest hill association meeting and appreciated the comments and building that liz and trent anymore have been the due diligence required to address the neighbors concerns and have a project that fits in nicely with the neighborhood we ask you approve the project as is a. >> any additional speakers in support of project manager seeing none, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> first, i'd like to calling your attention to exhibit 16 and in fact, given by the dr candidate that addresses those

please be skeptical of the signatures they were collected on a one-on-one conversation a charming fellow he was take advantage of the neighbors go will but none there to present the other side this is a letter from matt another neighbor that assigned it and recanted in the letter callingism naive he's a pulitzer prizewinner and i ask you to consider what the in closing the developer has not disputed this housing is twice

as other houses on the block and 28 percent larger than other houses and it is 78 percent greater than the other houses and it has four stories and nothing presents more than 3 human resources and it can't be seriously disputed those are the massive bay windows are in disregard of residential design guidelines with the out of character and style and earthal features that is violations of the guidelines and simply ask you to enforce with the rules that the rest of us play but by and contribute to the rest of the neighborhood their seek to capitalize on. >> project sponsor a two

minute rebuttal. >> brick gladstone just to be clear the appellant says there should be an averaging of the rear yard and the building to the right of my clients building under the planning code anchorage the rear yard is enabling a pertaining to go further and not further towards the street than the code allows she's using it in a inverse way with section 334 of the code to reduce the size of riders rear yard i wanted to point out that the articulation of font was done with the project sponsor in mind to preserve with the side decks in view of the north is

certainly is in tone with the facades of the neighborhood one of the most important thing is process my clients came here and took the risk or bowing swog empty lots and it is a neighborhood they have to go with complying that the guidelines but comply that the forest hill guidelines their rigorously energy the guidelines and rely on the code and guidelines the process means anything with 13 moseying the neighbors something you can rely on and going through the extra procedures let's respect the process and the association let's respect the guidelines their indicated they've comply the minority said no good enough

let's call that a democracy they voted the oh, my god association not to take away the discretion you have it thank you very much. >> that excludes this portion of the hearing. >> mr. washington in that neighborhood at 25 percent rear yard is what we need more r506 scoping; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> 25 percent. >> are we providing the proper. >> yes. we are. >> my understanding that project is code compliant and that's where the difficulty it nothing unusual about the dr requesters talking about an oversized building, however, it is almost every neighborhood every thursday for the last year for the last two years the same questions arises what tools do

we find to make the scale of older buildings anymore comparable with new ones one tool called privacy one tool this commissions has used again and again and from my opinion i can't comment on the architecture that is the pretty standard there's one thing about this project i have problems the additional roof deck in an area there is otherwise no roof deck particularly this roof deck will create privacy issues no doubt being that for me on the other hand, i'm concerned mr. washington talking to you how on the the department look at the stairs on the east side and they come up and half have an ability to look back at the

building the stairs on the east side of the property line almost on property line - you see the ones i'm about. >> the stairs leading up to the rear yard. >> no specific policy about rear assess on the side you know assessing the rear yard through the stairwell but a series of bays that is projecting into the area is there a specific question. >> as you community-based down from the garden up an ability for looking at the rear of the joining building

in other words, you can look at the neighboring resident on 2177 it is considerable we're talking about an area - the two homes are - it is feasible you can a lot into our neighbors yard an increased distance and a side yard and the feasible possibly has windows that be facing each other but may have a scenario you may have a 10 for the separation and landscaping plan between them that provides a

certain amount of privacy that is some of the distinction but, yeah it could poeshlt also result in you know your privacy impacted because the person has assess to that ear otherwise very wouldn't that requires a big windows or something to the effect you'll create the privacy. >> there could be connecticut essential ohio it is code compliant to take to love additional changes because it is criticism fortunately

i basically can't support that otherwise i would be interested to see what other commissioners have to say in responses to what the dr requesters are pointing out. >> i'll take questions next to sxhoers point we see larger homes every thursday and in fact, 50 percent by discretionary review and privacy is one i agree with commissioner moore's issue with the roof deck that brought this feature into the neighborhood living in a neighborhood this has a lot of heels but and the

bay that jets out trying to understand at night will that be a light house with a light glaring over the neighborhood. >> advertised an interesting concept how does that work at night someone turned on a light will the light be obtain all the time so many times a beacon. >> there is the possibility and the intent to use you know

the window you know blinds. >> uh-huh. >> era to mitigate that that's one thing but the bay was the design feature encloses the main stair that is the central feature the house. >> one of the opponents says there are more cost effective was to achieve others same programming and pointing out the stairs your consideration in making those changes mr. glad stoop. >> the architect will talk about how, how it effects the inside the deck of that bay window with the stairs was decreased by back to the facade to give the neighbors a view it is lowered a

little bit for design purposes at the request of planning department. >> on the outside but i'll let architect talk about the inside. >> would you talk into the microphone hold the microphone down if you need to. >> that's the plan that shows the arrangement of the rooms that how it w the main stairway so at the bottom of the drawing the main stairway how the rooms organized around the core of the building including the master bedrooms and two bedrooms on the left and inside and the stairway that led leads to the roof deck it on 200 and 75 square feet it is small a

small roof deck with the sun comes into the stairway that specifically addresses one of the concerns of the neighborhood was one of the concessions to symsink the stairway into the building you know this shows the stair if the inside organs that central bay that becomes the central element of building. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> name favor the project with perhaps some modifications the dressers didn't provide me with any impacts spent a lot of time talking about square footage in forest or st. francis shouldn't be an issue we have huge homes

from the 20s that are larger than this i'm surprised did issue was brought up this neighborhood encourages larger homes by having anytime square footage so the only other books is you may give privacy in rear yard as pointed out early the dr requesters home was built wide across the lot and shallow and 34 feet of rear yard that is much more than anyone else has on the other properties that property as designed for this neighborhood to the adjacent sites 23 feet of vashgd rear yard they're the exception they're more appropriate for the neighborhood or seems to be with most of hours have in the neighborhood their compliant and

the other thing i noticed a noise 5 feet set back on both sides to the adjacent property lines in a couple of places they pop out only 3 feet at least but let me had had math minimum size i know i'm in lakeside village 3 feet between our homes and the other side has 3 feet their adequate separation so i think that separation that are allowed for on the sites seems to be adequate and i don't know about the deck i kind of have questions about that seems most of commissioners seem to question whether you

need a deck on the top of this house i'll agree with them this is a prospecting or pretty big house it is a shady area and you never know that will be the only other thing i'll say the top of house some houses are flat roofs 90 degrees like the dr requesters but many have a small kitchen that you know will not take away from the size of the house but make it blend in better than b relevant the rest is designed and i don't see much else this a dr they have to be exceptional or extraordinary and not too many things that fit that description. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to make a motion

to take dr and the figure out if floor roof deck off owe approve as designed. >> commissioner hillis. >> no. >> very good there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and remove the roof deck on the fourth floor commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero. >> that places us on it5 >> that places us on item 20. >> also a discretionary review. >> subject property again located ann at ferry street

economists of a horizon single-family units the height of the emotion at the front elevation will increase by two feet from over 6 feet to 6 feet 6 inches will rim or remain as a single story at the front street elevation it is 40 feet and ailed overall 5 and a half feet 50 and a half feet the residence after the addition will have a rear setback of 41 feet plus at the 45 setback line for this rh2 district the existing floor plan and the floor plan will have two floors this parcel has an overall depth of 92 fight the residential design team and the dr found no exceptional or extraordinary

related to the project or is dr requesters concerns the proposed two-story rear addition not adversely fact the open space more create a privacy impact on the adjacent project the project was xhfbltd with the residential design team what the primary living space on the strait level and two of the 3 bedrooms on the lower level and no existing more proposed off-street parking that concludes my presentation. that's correct. >> thank you dr requester. >> the property owner next door. >> pull the micro towards you. >> at the 133 as you can see

from some of the photographs the house is built extended beyond the end of my property by this other house i'm in agreeing tunnel and even with decks or the light project i'm still in a carbon tunnel the light up from the bottom unit will receive almost no light other than slout direct light the upper unit will have an more light but blocked by both sides.

>> i don't why they can make improvements to their home and i thank you. >> thank you any speakers in support of dr requester. >> okay. then project sponsor. >> he good afternoon. i'm susan watching one of the owners on the street my husband and i will be long term residents in glen park but right now our house is two small and raise our teenage daughter both bedrooms on the street and we're worried about the our safety a bullet

went into a house it could have gone into her bedroom the 3 fuss are sharing a single small bathroom and in addition the living room is not big enough for the 4 fuss to watch a movie it needs enormous repairs and part of foundation is brick and needs to be upgraded and the walls and floors need significant work we want to make an investment in the house and the neighborhood we love but like to make it a liveable space for our family good evening jody from reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the the thought homeowners susan watching i appreciate the staffs

recommendation the project is - to allow them to remain in neither home a beautiful officially a 9 housing unit 39 square feet home with two small bedrooms and two small to accommodate their family including their daughter and this that protects the cute storefront and it is the additionally direction of the planning department

>> and again it what of the dr

issues requestedit would create a tunnel for the property with her to only two small windows with the addition would be and in those are 4'8" and 6 inches away from the proposed additions there's a fair amount of space between the two houses. in addition there spaces away from which creates additional space between houses. so there's really minimal to no impact on the light or air privacy to those [inaudible]. the owner sought to minimize the minimal impact even more by replacing living space at the southwest corner of the addition with the terrorists and so that's not enclosed living space.just to give you an idea of the scale,

the street front and the small-scale of the street front and then this is the reader. you see it's completely compatible with the reader and as you heard before with the midblock open-space. thank you. >> thank you. any speakers in support of the project sponsor? public comment seeing none, dr requester, the of two-minute rebuttal. >> ma'am, your 2 min. of you would like to say anything else? >> i already stated my house still will be blocked on both sides. their house is-did not get smaller since the time they purchased it. i don't know what else to really say about it except it is it does impact my lot and my tenants, especially the downstairs which will be getting is totally talked on those sides. we do get direct

light from the back but as i said the property on my right side is gone about 20 feet beyond my house. they will be going out about 15 feet beyond the end of my house. that's a big impact as far as light is concerned. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. >> thank you. is responding to the issue of light as i said we could add a take away some of the living space on the corner in order to minimize the light and air impact. in addition, in terms of shadowing, the lower window is actually most shadowed by her own there's a tree and she has a port which causes primarily shadow in her property. there's a small opera window and because of the because the house or a fair

amount of part, on the longest shadow of the date of the year all shadows gone from that window by noon. so, the shadow impacts are quite minimal on her property. thank you. >> thank you. this portion of the hearing is close. commissioner antonini >> i know and see anything unusual or extraordinary things well-done addition i think it maintains the store nature of the house and the face the street one even carries that out with the fixed roof on the addition, which actually lets more light and air to the adjacent neighbors than the flat roof would get so i think that is well-done. they only go back another 10'6" and add about 2 feet in height. so come i think those are all in the

significant separations between between the homes. so, i don't really see anything significant with this. i would move to not take dr and approve the project >> second >> commissioner mar >> the project is a code compliant project. it is not asked for variances. it does not intrude into the choir [inaudible] on the side that's [inaudible] it does all the things the sensitivity design project does and it's actually well illustrated for us to understand the three-dimensional depiction of the project with this tiny little vignette. it's a well resented project and unfortunately, there's nothing really which is wrong about this project. so, again, i'm in support of it. >> commissioner there's a motion and second to not take dr and approve the project. [inaudible]. >>[roll call vote].

>> so moved pressures that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> commissioners that lisa and the general public, to which i've no speak cards >> any general public comment? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned in honor of the carla johnson and orlando basco. >>[gavel] >> >>[adjournment] >>[gavel]

>> good morning everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting for thursday, june 16, 2016 by name is mark farrell. i'm sharing this committee. i'm joined by katie tang as well supervisor norman yee and scott weiner, nothing the clerk as well as scott wiseman from the sfgtv for covering this meeting. we have any announcements >> yes please sounds all cell phones and electronic devices. complete speaker cards and eight copies of documents as part of file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will appear on june 20 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated >> thank you mdm. personal everybody welcome to the budget season. for this year i look forward to the next week of our deliberations. a few things i want to note before we start

off here. in an effort to hear some of the department budgets with different ordinance they have attached to them, sometimes will be calling a few things out of order today. were going to recess at 11:45 am for lunch and we can being approximately 1:30 pm to continue the hearing. willie taking public comment on legislative items. however public comment for the budget itself is going to be heard on monday, june 20. next monday followed by two more days of budget hearings potentially one more day of budget hearings on june 20 and potentially the 23rd. the of to complete our budget committee process next to hear this balance, and for a balanced budget to the board for our the liberation set the board on july 12 to there are a number of departments that do not have budget analyst reports. i want to spell out specifically. our asian art museum, the cise