shapes or various lengths. the windows themselves i think need to be a little bit more traditional. when the french windows or something that looks a little bit like it belongs there. too much glazing. not enough non-glazed areas. some moldings around the sides of the windows, the shape of the base is probably okay. i would like to maybe see a little more traditional shaped bay but if you could make the windows look like every other window in the neighborhood, then i've seen a lot of buildings that are contemporary that have b built that are contextual but obviously, the buildings that were built in the 21st century. i think we need to move more in that direction. as far as the elevator, i'm not sure it's a necessity either. i mean, i would hope that we could-unit two i think we could certainly

get three bedrooms. it's this huge space there that is indeterminate and it could easily be made into a bedroom. then, the other unit is not quite as much space. i don't know even if we illuminate the elevator we have enough room for another bedroom. we would like to create true family housing and week of two units that are three bedrooms and two baths. that might be a more desirable in my opinion and possibly we could redesign the interior to make that possible. those are some of the things i would like to see done. >> commissioner richards i agree with commissioner antonini and commissioner moore. i do believe this doctor is necessary with a traditional height of the bilge and that's not needed. i appreciate the neighbor bringing the letter because it helps us go on something could i also don't believe the elevator is necessary either. i also agree

with the changes that commissioner moore outlined on the roof deck and i moved to approve those changes. >> second >> commissioner antonini >> i would also like to include in the motion that the architect continue to work with staff to try to implement some of the changes that i have talked about today in the design, particularly, on the facial aspect and perhaps look at some of the interior design a little bit, too. most importantly, we look at the facial aspect and we also see if when we eliminate this doctor were able to diminish the height in any way it might make this thing a little bit more compatible with the neighborhood. >> - excuse me - >> commissioner moore >> i was a single bullet points what the issues update we have third-floor terrace. cut back on the north line.

with not the property line but state off the property line but 3 feet for privacy not into the light well. on the roof were eliminating the elevator. it's not a handicap elevator is a residential elevator which is not need get it was presented as a handicap but it isn't. >> just to the roof. >> they could have an internal elevator >> that's the point where you still need an elevator. it will be lower because it doesn't come up as hot. it's really not necessary. the second point is if you would illuminate the elevator you could re-examine as commissioner antonini said the layout of the bedrooms. you could has to be more efficient in how you use the space. then, thirdly, the roof deck itself would be cut back from the lowest property line but additional 3 feet on the south property line and stay off the property line by 5 feet. and on the east side, it cuts all the way back to the proposed elevator exterior wall, which is

-i can't quite read the number. what does it say? >> 1511 inches >> on the reader, it can stay at the building wall where it is. >> and the stacker. >> that is correct. >> very good. on that motion then, to approve this matter with conditions, as amended to include removal of the stackers system in an effort to reduce the height that third-floor terrace to be pulled off of the property line 3 feet to eliminate the elevator altogether and the roof deck to be pulled back 3 feet from the north 5 feet from the south and 16 feet from the east it on a motion antonini aye

>> i'm sorry to interrupt i think with the elevator to the roof. >> not the way, commissioner moore stated >> no. i actually took it out altogether because you need an elevator override if it doesn't go to the roof. you still need a full elevator penthouse on top of your roof in order to do so. >> no. i think if you're making it is not going to the roof the mechanical can go into the basement >> using hydraulics. >> can you explain >> you don't need the penthouse for the internal elevator. >> correct >> if that is the case use the elevator without any penthouse. only not to access the roof >> okay amending the motion to eliminate just the rooftop and house for an elevator only.

>> that is correct >> better to say the elevator does not come to the roof. >> are you saying is a hatch better? >> thank you. >> on a motion or antonini aye hillis aye moore aye wu aye richards aye fong got so moved that motion passes unanimously 6-1. >> that a place you on item 13 ab. 201-203 was about weight conditional use authorization. >> good evening pres. fong and

members of the commission. i'm planning department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization. to allow the renovation of a two unit building tantamount to demolition. the merger of the two units within the building. in addition, the project includes the expansion and conversion of the garage into a new dwelling units. the project requires a conditional use authorization due to the removal of two units to demolition and merger. in july of 2015 permits were issued to allow the interior and next error alterations of the two-family building over the course of construction did the scope of work was exceeded resulting in a de facto demolition. the two units that were demolished are proposed to be replaced with two single-family units on the same property. the existing residents will be replaced with a three story four-bedroom single-family home and the garage will be replaced with a two-story one-bedroom resident.

both residences would have a single car garage and bicycle parking and the two units would share the yard space located in the front and rear corners of the lot and similar configuration to as it currently exists your to date the planning department has received 35 letters of support for the project. with that said, the department recommends commission fined the project necessary desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods for the following reason. the project would result in no net loss of units. the building was vacant so no tenants will be displaced. the two units will be replaced with units of similar or larger size. the total number of bedrooms on site will be increased. the density and mapping of the proposed replacement buildings is in keeping with the development pattern of the neighborhood. this concludes status of presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions and project sponsor is also in attendance to answer any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> good evening commissioners.

william-when use attorney for the project sponsor. tom mcelroy the architect is here as well as well as the project sponsor mr. miller. for most of the presentation i just want to quickly thank allah for her help in bringing this forward. as she explained this is would allow the renovation of the existing two unit building into a single-family home. as well as the renovation of the existing two card accessory garage structure into a new residential units. it requires the conditional use because it's a merger and tantamount to demolition pursuant to 317. also variance 43 yard variance. we believe the project is justified under the conditional use authority and 317 for the following reason. to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. maintaining the general massing and the existing structure could say

number of residential units will be provided. to be comparable of greater size than existing to units. it will not displace any tenants. the units were vacant at the time of purchase by the owner. and, the primary units before the current owner bought the property owner occupied for over 30 years. the second unit had been rented at some point in the past but not in the past 10-15 years. the project will provide an expanded more desirable living space to the relocation when the units of the garage structure will actually approve and complement the residential building pattern on 15th st. overall, we believe the project maintains an upgraded design while maintaining the same block open space and usable open space on the site. it is elementary, and supported by over 35 members of the community and with that i like to turn it over to tom and list of questions for me to go

over the design in detail. >> good evening commissioners. tom mcelroy architect for the project. can i have the computer? images to show. i've worked with the client rick miller, for about eight years. this will be our fourth project together. we've had several successful projects in the city ranging from victorian to modern buildings in need of repair. often, with presenting unique design opportunities. roosevelt way is the exception to that. so, this first image is a high level aerial in the area shows intersecting streets, which form unique shaped corner lot. in regular shaped corner lots and ours is one of them. so zooming in, you can see the lot here outlined in red has two buildings on the

left facing roosevelt institute unit dwelling. on the right, facing 15th st. is the garage building. the lot has generous open the space that the tenants can use. that is something that we've always intended to maintain. and preserve. which also contributes to the mid-block open space. in the area there are several local examples of modern design and remodel. on the site plan, we can see the general outline of the existing buildings get the blue line and present the setback line. which indicates how the rear garage building already was located in that setback. so, our intention is to again preserve the open space between the buildings and make some subtle changes to the building envelopes come up building footprints. you can see here indicated in the area of gray, are our expansions. so to the front building, there

would be a window expansions. on the right side on the property line there would be a triangle shaped right well infill. some [inaudible] to gain headroom. the rear building would be expanded 5 feet horizontally and the entire building would be expanded vertically to create a second floor for the dwelling units. these plans preserve usable open space and proposed design that fit in well with the surrounding context. this is a 3-d rendering from above showing how the your building has been expanded vertically and the to now have similar roof lines and shapes. the existing building, we intended to maintain the existing gable shape and let that informed the design and proposing two buildings together form a harmonious pair. the height shape height and shape of the roof and general footprint of this building will be maintained in a proposed design. now, here's another view setting back across road we can

see both buildings on either side of that tree to the right is the residential two unit existing on the left is the garage. so, the expansion of the rear building echoes the design direction of the front building. so, the fund building is maintaining the roof line and adding some dormers and a windows. the rear building expanded vertically another two work together to form a pair. the rear building mass and scale are consistent with the residential design guidelines and neighborhood character. looking along the street view on 15th st., which is kind of possible to c here, but the far right side of that image is the existing two pay garage building and then with the vertical expansion, it is more appropriate scale with two floors matching with the pattern existing on the block already. along roosevelt way,

at the bottom left of this image them again kind of hard to tell is the existing two unit dwelling and then the minor expansions not really visible from a long rows about the rejection of the order of the sought elements such as windows and entry. generally, the exterior material for the two buildings would be matching to form a cohesive pair. we propose gray stain horizontal cedar siding aluminum clad a windows and a dark bronze. smooth stucco at the right lower portion of the front building which it is an existing extended wing. and standing metal roofing. these changes will update and improve the appearance of the two buildings in and hands the existing neighborhood character. regarding the drawing units, the improvements of the building

includes proposal to separate the dwelling units from one building into two stand-alone units. as i mentioned the front building remains a family sized dwelling units with an increase from three to four bedrooms and new exterior deck space. the rear building is more desirable two-story unit with a double height interior space and have you up to area parks. the unit closely maintained their original square footage size and again, increasing bedroom count on the property. the separation on the lot allows for more privacy for the units and each now has direct access to the shared outdoor spaces at ground level which they did not before. regarding the 10th amount to demolition, in 2014 when we started the project, we were aware of the front building system that were in need of upgrade due to deferred maintenance and being older construction there was not in compliance with current structural and life safety codes. reframing for the remodel and structural design

necessitated the in time replacement of many of the walls and roof in their same location. regarding the rear yard, the irregular shaped corner lot and rear yard setbacks result in a more shallow building area and as said, we would present-we would prefer to maintain the outdoor space between the buildings on the lot and any expansion of the front building which is out of the setback for that usable space but inherently, an expansion of the rear building would require a reader yard of variance. the vertical stanchion of the rear building allows us to maintain the usable outdoor space of the lot. in summary, project improves the property and maintains to dwelling units to parking spots use of outdoor space and preserves the character of the surrounding

neighborhood. we ask that you please approve the conditional use and grant the bearings for the project. thank you. >> thank you. opening up to public comment on this item, number 13? one speaker card. >> that was him. >> any public comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] i'm not taking over for the meeting because pres. fong has gone. i asked to speak or did have some questions on this one before i form a better opinion of it. the staff report says the resulting project will result in a loss of two rent controlled dwelling units. as the merger of the two units and construction of the you unit would not be subject to run control. zoning administrator can you comment on that? >> yes. as you know the rent

control laws can be murky when comes to these types of projects. it also leaves up to the rent board enable process for determining whether or not the band building remains in the rent contribute it is clear the existing building is under rent control to what extent rent control would apply to the propose project. i would say that it is possible that both units would be out of rent control given the scope of the work and again that's up to the rent board to finally decide. it is maybe possible one unit would remain under rent control but it certainly up to the preps likely both units would not be subject >> think. we hear every week but look public comment and sage was there to set the rules in the city. one for me and one for the people with money. we hear this the drumbeat goes on every week and it's disheartening because people don't trust the process. what i see in front of me here is somebody going over-the-counter to get eight alteration permit. the results and pretty much nothing less than a building. i get the fact you want to grade 2 units. or two units however

they are different units could probably knock on them be under rent control. that's my right line right there. density equity, you have two units of 1550 each. they're going to a 3200 ft.2 one and eight 1090 square-foot one. okay. you squeeze through that keyhole. subordinate units don't really apply. for appropriate densification but all these things i look through our under proper building permits. people coming and using the system the way it's designed to be an giving integrity to the prospect i don't see that here. so for the reason that this looks like you just way exceeded the scope of your permit and you did, he did not

come back and say look we found this and we found that. we need to get a bigger apartment. it's a demo which had to be an mov and get reported in comeback. regardless of whether the was anyone living there or not, i just can't in good faith. when i hear every week from the public say yes to this project. i would support you putting the building back with the two units at 1550 each and converting the garage and i think getting a see you for a 30 unit. could we do that >> >> this to possible scenario. given the lot size is seems that through conditional use processor could accommodate a 30 unit through that process. it's also in district 8 witches have existing a du provision. so that is another possible avenue >> that's proper densification for me. this is not. >> commissioner antonini >> i can understand the little bit about commissioner richards is bringing up but it is a vast way better building than what is there now. i know their circumstances that are questionable how we got to this point. and we end up with still with two units although one is

really pretty large and the other one is a little smaller. so i think i could be interested in seeing something like commissioner richards brought up where we try to perhaps create two units on the site where the large building is in the garage building is probably fine. whether they are rent control or not doesn't really matter to me. i mean, we can't do everybody has a different opinion. you know, it may be up to the rent board to make that decision and if it does come out maybe it might be more inclined to do it if there were two units on the existing two unit site which could be viewed as a restoration of those units even though i think

they're considered a demolition, i guess. i guess it would all depend and the 30 unit of course would be a new unit which was not under rent control. i would probably be supportive of some kind of a redesign where you end up with 203 to 1800 ft.2 units. there's plenty of lot there. you probably could come up with two agent hundred-2004 those two units. same design everything is good with the design. i think that is good and then the garage building being as it's designed, i think looks pretty good. i think it's can have to probably go back for redesign. i'll see what the others have to say >> commissioner hillis >> if i can ask the project sponsor just a question about what was the prior permit what was the scope of that permit? >> the scope of the first permit was to maintain to dwelling units in the front building. and that was

considered to be interior work -over-the-counter permit. the second permit was applied for was to expand the rear building at which point we would add the dwelling units in that we are building and then at the same time, go back for a revision for the first permit to then increase the take over the space of the second unit in the first of. >> right you get the issue of the loss of the rent control? because you're going from a two unit building to know single family home and new construction. i'm not sure we know because i don't know how the rent board views rented logos and apply to single-family homes but say you up to dwelling units on one lot but they're not connected, by those subject to rent control? >> is my understanding, yes, we have a building at the back that is an old scottish and the

building at the front and the surf 379 for both the building it's my understanding their subject to rent control >> so this could these kids even though it's configured it could be subject to rent control? >> if the garage >> i think the concern for the rent board as i understand it when the new space is being created in the case of converting the garage to residential that new residential space where previous rent controls pasted not exist there. i don't think i would be subject to rent control then the question is what does that do to the building at the front which was previously subject to rent control which now become single-family home. >> got it. >> can i point out the size of the dwelling units by commissioner richards called out can is incorrect. they were not equal size before. it's just >> thank you just a detail >> have you thought about this way looking at your plan that can be configured you've got a

one-bedroom unit on the ground floor of the larger structure. the remainder of that structure a unit as well as the garage is a unit. three units on the building. three units on that lot. >> right that that's a possibility. yes. >> i'm concerned about the loss of rent control units. you know we get into this territory of equal size units but we could get three units a garage unit that stand alone. somewhat equal in size to the units there before but to unequal units but in in my unit and larger unit which i will be comfortable approved good i think is a benefit to have three units on that lots. i think that something would that have to come back and get noticed again? is something like that approval today? >> this was not notice the conditional use authorization

to have the third dwelling unit which is in and of itself requires a conditional use. i think this would need to be re-notice and brought back is better to see the redesign. >> sure. that something i think that that's the rent control in the two units. it gives you an extra units two of the three unit project. >> i be supportive of something along those lines but we'll see what others have to say. >> we are aware of potentially being right controlled and that's perfectly fine >> thank you. commissioner moore >> the project as proposed is interesting as an project it's a situation with the rent control unit would not be really racing me to pause and question for us. i appreciate both commissioners weighing in on the. we're stuck between a rock and a hard wasted we don't have any wiggle room anymore that to be consistent and recognize our responsibilities and decisions. given the site has a lot of other

opportunities i'll be interested in pursuing the refurbishing of the existing building as is together with the status of maintaining the rent controls with the option commissioner hillis suggested and looking at a 30 unit as being really the geewhiz piece of the unit which could be marketed right for the situation. >> commissioner hillis i guess i'm looking for direction from zoning administered. we can continue this but are we looking at a new project? it's got to come before us or should we continue this item debt indefinitely just some direction on how we could move on that to get at that three unit? >> this the two options did the one if they would have a full ability to expand all three units then that would be

go to a conditional use process to establish three units at this property. but if it was to be going back to the same envelope deviously existed, that could be through and a du. it would still need probably to come back to you but it seems the building has been substantially demolished and would cure the 317 demo but that would be a small part. those are the to >> could we approval the demolition under the conditional-deny the unit burger and require the building that's been substantially demoed remain two units? one unit on the ground floor and the unit on the upper two floors and then they can go about seeking the add you on their own, which were not necessarily require the common had >> granting the conditional use authorization for the demolition >> we deny the merger. i mean

there's some design work because there's no kitchen downstairs. they need to get the architect project sponsored take on that >> basically going back to the building that was there before. >> yes i would support that >> not necessarily there some expansion of the building. i mean i would approve the building as proposed here as long as that main structure remain two units with a unit on the ground floor, but the opportune floors being its own separate unit there's one garage there. then allowing them to go through the edu process to at the other unit >> that within and be in the garage structure. >> which would not have to come back to us? >> to have something that is larger >> i'm hot trying to have them to avoid go through another process. >> it would be their choice

>> we can easily create a two unit building in the front building as was priously proposed. that was the first permits. then add in a du at the garage building. >> any issues with that fellow? >> yes the edu program would not allow the addition of au is expanding the building beyond the footprints of the existing three years. the garage could be converted but it cannot be expanded. >> you need a conditional unit to do that? >> thank you. commissioner antonini >> i was going to see if there was a way we could approve this today. mandating that the two units in the front the existing structure or whatever form it's in now remain two units. and the garage should be approved separately but i guess that's a different motion then we could make today. is it possible we could-

>> sir were in deliberations. please, saddam. thank you. >> he may have some >> dewater,? >> go ahead. >> this is not a crosstalk. >> i have a question. could the garage be approved not by you but at the variance? just needs the variance to be converted into a or am i wrong? i am guessing >> under the edu provision to win on the variance >> with that prevent us from doing extension with the current design is the 80 >> the edu would prevent you from doing the extension >> if you want to do an extension of a third unit on the property you need to go through a conditional use process. that's why this could be continued and could be re-noticed basically for the project you would want to be expanded garage and two units

in the building the three units total. and coming back with the same design largely but >> is a slightly different google because that's accessory dwelling unit. >> though there's two ways of adding. we have multiple ways now but to at ways of adding the dwelling unit. one is through the edu process but that's very limited and the others just under the zoning given the lot size it can allow a third unit you need a special conditional use pacific conditional use to do that densely. so if we was continued we could be notice re-noticed for expanded garage. if you want-today only way to do that is to have it so the garage cannot be expanded about coming back for another petition >> i'm going to speak and weigh in again. we are rewarding behavior i question you exceeded the scope we are building permit now you're getting real reward. you will be original building into a mega holding bigger than it is

and you get another unit whether it's an 81. i support you put the building back the way it was. you're altering it you want to redo the electrical nudism dry rot. fine. i look at this and my heart sinks. this picture. this is not an alteration at this is a demolition i think professionals know better. so this speaks to everything everybody gets up every week and tells us about the two sets of rules. as once the rules may apply to everybody and i'm sorry i cannot reword this. mr. moore. i am going to vote no. >> could you repeat your last sentence? >> this is a >> i'm going to vote no >> the contents of this project within a common master demolition we want and got one already and we got caught. because the rules don't apply to us. now were to come here and we see this and i say, this is the stuff everybody talks about every week in public comment. people are doing this

kind of stuff and you guys sit up here and let it have good we are letting it happen were given you what you wanted to demolish the building already. put it documentary to talk about the three units. that's where i am at. if the pipe line. i can't sit here every week and people tell us about all the buildings in this happens to. you just got caught. i'm sorry. now the enforcement price. commissioner antonini commissioner moore >> him and ask we continue this. i may not have a date certain because you make after re--notice the provisions that they put with the two units are now and they also create a garage unit. whatever size they feel is appropriate. that would be maybe it's indefinite continuance so i think that's my motion >> can you rephrase it? >> well, i'm going to continue this project indefinitely with direction being that project

sponsor will create two units on the site where they have designed a single unit in keeping with two fairly equal size units hopefully. then, a garage unit with a grudge is that would be my intention to have to come back for a separate see you. >> there's a motion. moved and seconded. mr. moore >> i thought we were trying to protect the affordable units. that's at least >> [inaudible] >> that's not what we're doing >> no. two units. >> you are saying the two units will be rebuilt good they will be market rate and its inevitable when you rebuild that's the form they do.

>> the rebuild will be rent control. >> we are thinking it will be. >> i would have to ask the city attorney if we can do that. there would be no owner builder building from scratch when they hope to build something market rate. the design is definitely a market rate design. that's not an affordable design. could you answer that question for us please? >> commissioner moore not sure i understand your question. >> we cannot condition if we approved the demolition of these units as proposed right now, we cannot condition their building to become rent-controlled units. we can -we can say you basically have two rebuild the existing units so that they remain rent-controlled units but we cannot condition new units as rent-controlled. that's the sally in point here >> it seems city attorney's office-it seems the direction of the planning commission that may be the clearest way to do this is to continue the item in its entirety with direction for a total of three units on the site. the commission could

either continue it to a date certain allowing enough time for the new conditional use permit application to be noticed or the commission could continue its indefinitely since a new notice is going to have to go out, but that new notice would give the neighbors the better sense of the entirety of what's being proposed on the site. so that people know that with commission is looking at now were what's being applied for now is this total of three units. >> if i may come i think you did not answer my question. my question is, can two of these units be declared, required, to be rent-controlled units and that is following up on the policy question that has been guiding commissioner richards discussion all along. >> commissioner moore, i think

what mr. sanchez has said and what we've advise in the past it's a determination by the rent board it is dependent on imports, on what certificate of occupancy the building department issues and then the determination by the rent board. i am not sure. i don't think it's part of the continuance motion that the commission could make that a condition. the commission could indicate its desire that this building be pursued with the potential to preserve the rent-controlled units but because of the legislation it really has to involve both dvi and the rent board in that determination >> i think that with commissioner is centered to continue with the direction

that the building largely be built in the previous's form with the intent that if possible, the unit retain the rent-controlled status. but that is not our call or your call >> we can't ndition the. >> >> we can work with the rent board to scope the proposal in a way that we most likely to result in retain the rent-controlled units have many conversations. rent board has been excellent to work with and it's my understanding generally as long as the space the previously occupied the rent-controlled unit is refurbished and maintained the same residential unit it should generally be subject to rent control. but i fear the direction to maximize retention up rent-controlled unit >> commissioner moore >> it's a question that goes beyond what we are decided at the moment. is it possible to have an instructional discussion with the rent-controlled board in order for us to be more certain? ip were basically being potentially thrown under the train here because the ultimate jurisdiction of what we discussed his important policy and what is really in actual

implementation is not even within the reach of what were deciding your. it's getting very fresh rating because we take the brunt of public criticism and rightfully so but we don't really have the tools to clearly say that this is what we are approving and those other particulars we want to see implemented >> we've had rent board here to present and able wonderful presentation it i think one of the issues there simply is no clear-cut answer. there is a process and they have hearings within alj and a law judge that makes a decision that can be appealed to the rent board. there's a lot of investigation and discretion in the process as well. we try to get a definitive answer but would retain something as rent-controlled and what would not within the process for determining that the we just

cannot come up with a formula to replicate. >> is that a part of any process? the reconstructed building and let's say we approve a reconstruction or expansion because not expansion, demo. is there a process that says is officially rent-controlled? to somebody have to apply for that? >> is my understanding given the building is currently rent-controlled it have to petition to be exempt from rent-controlled. >> survey builder, so it and rent it. this amigos and rents it and they have to go back to the positive figure out whether 2012 are not? >> i've seen cases work was done many years ago and maybe a new owner and eight then go to the rent board and petition for it to not be under rent-controlled years after work has been done. it is a complicated process and we can discuss it more with the rent board and bring them here for further discussions, but it is not as straightforward as we would like >> i can be supportive of

reconstruction building. if you would deserve it under rent-controlled resolve all the issues electrical plumbing all the things you brought up and come back to us with a 30 unit. that something i could support. that's what you want to do in the original permit anyways. commissioner moore >> i'm glad it used about what you do because i was going to ask i know you can't make the motion doing what you do right now but that should be at the core what were considering as a motion. >> will you make a motion? >> i make up the motion >> there is a motion. >> i apologize. >> the motion is for two units. >> indefinite continuance. >> [inaudible] >> the motion on the table currently is to continue indefinitely with direction from the mission to create three units to full-size units and one subsidiary unit in the garage area >> on sorry but it's not a conditional >> that direction the

candidate commissions preferences to rebuild the existing two news to the extent possible in hopes they can be retain their rent-controlled status >> that is correct. they are rebuilding >> we can't make that decision had. you can make that decision. you can only state that as a goal. >> except i do not hear in this motion that two of these units are rebuilt. i only heard two units which means basically charge for with what's in front of us. build two new units and hope you get the third 16 i'm simply repeating what is the commission's desires >> commissioner antonini >> again this is a continuance. all were doing is giving guidance to project sponsored to come back at future commissions may or may not approve. and probably do you know, as close as they can get to a configuration with the sizes of the existing two units

they don't have to be exactly like them, but the chances are best they may came under rent-controlled we can control that it is technically a demolition already. so, we can't even if they match them exactly to what they were before. we still can't control it. it's a continuance. that's my motion. i think it's for another day. we are hopefully getting three units on this site. if were lucky we get to them being rent-controlled. >> commissioner wu >> i just want to ask if you could restate the motion please mr. clerk >> also like to get this but motion seconded to continue the matter and definitely to rebuild to-eight - excuse me - with the direction from the commission to rebuild two units and haven't for a third garage in an effort to retain the rent-controlled status. >> nothing about the size of the two units just two units? >> effort to retain >> thanks.

>> on a motion antonini aye hillis aye moore nay wu aye richards nay that motion fails 3-2 with commissioners moore and riches voting against. is there another? >> i'm sorry. this is a continuance so as a procedural matter i apologize, does actually past 3-2 is a majority vote. i apologize >> great. thank you. call the next item please >> yes. commissioners, items 14 a-b working 33 bush st. conditional use authorization.

>> good evening commissioners. any department staff. you have before you conditional use authorization to revise the previously approved to module project to demolish the one-story commercial building containing the ottoman new rental use as city rent-a-car. and construct 01 and 17 foot use building containing 47 dwelling units within the zoning district within the then a special use of district and the height and bulk this. the zoning district planning code section 253 state conditional use authorization is required to construct a structure greater than 53 and i. the planning commission grievously prove a similar project at the site on may 22 2014. the former approval propose 115 foot 10

story mixed units and containing 32 dwelling units, 26 residential parking spaces 3900 ft.2 foot ground floor commercial space. on june 9, 2016 the commissioner heard a conditional use authorization request to revise the previously approved budget and continue the cases directing the project sponsor and consultation with planning staff to redesign the project to address concerns primarily related to the size and quality of the ground floor retail spaces and dimensions and location of the interior courtyard. the project before the commission today differs from the june 9 version in that it features one 40' x 39' central courtyard rather than to swallow court arts and increase the number below grade parking spaces from five to eight. the transformer has been relocated to a dedicated room funding for an alley to the low-grade vault beneath the bush street sidewalk. this is

increase the amount of floor area for the two ground-floor commercial spaces from approximately 1100 ft.2 to approximately 2000 ft.2. the project still proposes 47 dwelling units within the same building height is a number of stories. the draft motion included in the package is revise from the june 9 version to fight the current project which would modify and replaces the previously approved project. commissioners since the publication of the staff report there have been two letters of support. one from the lower court neighbors and one from the middle polk neighborhood association. the department

continues to recommend the planning commission approved the project on the basis that the project represents the sensitive redevelopment of an underutilized site improvement over the previously approved project in that it will provide additional 1512 when units including three affordable dwelling units, 22 fewer offstreet parking spaces 37 additional bicycle parking spaces into fewer curb cuts which will reduce potential the hiccup or conflicts on both streets. the project is also in general compliance with all applicable requirements of the planning code and proposes wind uses an overall greater conformity with the planning code. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor you have 5 min. >> only because this is the second hearing and public comment will have 2 min. >> good evening commissioners my name is-project management project sullivan development since the planning commission developed for 1433 bush st. we met twice with commissioner moore and staff to resolve issue do we also did additional outreach with paul both which fully support the project and provided letters of support taken a consideration the design implements over the made since june 9 hearing and the strong community support we believe 1433 bush st. deserves

full planning commission supported your we like to thank commissioner moore and planning staff including jeff joslin for providing their valuable time. we would also like to thank board members of laura polk and middle polk neighborhood groups for providing their valuable input in this post. we believe we have a better project as a result of their collaboration could like to introduce alan say the designer of the project will walk you through the design changes since the june 19. >> good evening commissioners. i wanted to the biggest modification we made to the design is to replace the split courtyard with the singular 40 foot wide by 39 feet deep ace in the east orientation. the courtyard is open on all sides. as you can see in the floor pan.

with two bedrooms units facing bush and two one bedroom and a studio facing the front. this maximize the light court allows us to bring in more than sufficient amount of natural light to all units and adjacent bedrooms. the building is now equally divided into 40 feet parts matching the previous scheme and each unit is now lit with window exposure from both ends. as you can see here. 40 feet. in addition, after establishing the light court then transitions into the ground floor. into a 15 order to square-foot residential entry courtyard. with the help of from lower polk neighborhood association, we are now able to

get rid of the transformer in the building outside of our building. allowing us to clear up the ground-floor space on both sides. the of 41 linear feet of axis usage on bush and 37 when your feet of axis usage on firm. so the space you're looking at here is 1000 ft.2 in 700 ft.2 commercial space. after establishing the courtyard as well as the two commercial spaces, we were able to fit 37 presidential parking on grade and in the basement as mentioned, with the offset in circulation court we are now able to fit in a parking stalls total in allowing us a

concentration of life safety equipment and utility rooms in the basement getting rid of them from the ground floor. the same strategy was then brought into the logan story and where the two-three bedroom units are housed. we are introducing 10 feet deep decks facing north to allow to create façade articulation. so, the three goals in our design revision presented here. when is contextual relationship. we have looked at the scale of the windows from adjacent buildings. how the days can be better established with the height of the adjacent building. the scale of a one-story window scale and layered with a two-story scale lattice screen in front. and we are also

trying to develop richness with of the side with the idea of layered this front lattice and backing it with another scale of windows. the third point is to articulation of the residential scale. we are brought in-we reduce the size of the windows tremendously from the previous game we also introduce windows on the living room at such a. so, that summarizes the design revision we did since the last presentation hearing. >> thank you very much. opening up to public comment. i have one speaker card. >>[calling public comment cards] >> hello again corey smith on behalf of the 300 members of

the san francisco how housing action: get think the opportunity again. briefly, please approve the project your we appreciate they went out and got the full support of the lower polk and polk neighborhood association. well done everybody >> thank you. >> commissioners i don't even need the time i have. from the previous speaker all be very brief. i know it's a long naked we support the project. i would just want to thank the project sponsor jeff sullivan get i think the commission. for giving us the additional time we requested to work with the project sponsor. i really do appreciate it. we think it's a stronger project it if you look we were focusing on fern ally and if you look at the drawings significantly expanded along with the project sponsor i like to think the project banner

christopher may. i would like to thank commissioner moore for working with the project sponsor. i do want to take a moment and thank commissioner wu for years of service to miss you on the commission. i do want to do a thank you to the office of economic and workforce development. while we did work closely with the project sponsor it took some interagency work with the office of economic and workforce devoted to actually make that happen. so thank you so much. these approve the project. >> thank you very much. additional speakers? >> you can leave your speaker card in that basket. >> thank you. any additional speakers on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> commissioner moore >> just for the record credit goes to the department architect and developer and the architects. i was again witnessing the discussions in several meetings it was an honest hard-working dialogue with serious challenges to reconsider the building in some of these elements. every exchange was positive. every exchange was honest and to the point. i do believe it created

a better building and there were no hard feelings and somebody had to give something to it was a creative exchange and one of the emphasis on creative because sometimes they are niggling and dining things which in the long run don't matter. in this particular case we have a more sensitive building can we have a complex response to a changing neighborhood yet that is the new design is respectful and indeed, a great response to what determines considerations for designing a good building could so thank you to everybody and i'll make the motion to approve as conditions >> second six commissioner antonini >> i like the bilge and only design changes i would like to see, you've done some mouse ground elements that came to our quinoa but to the adjacent building. if we could do kind of acorn assault level of that to the buildings to i guess the west if i'm thinking the right direction of the street. it

would be to the east, okay. possibly even below that were that middle elbow is. it would tend to address the cornice one of the buildings a little more emphatically. maybe a little bit less glazing on each of these buildings each of these force as you go forward but i mean i think work with staff and see if we can do a few things but i think overall it's pretty good. >> commissioners this emotion and second to approve this matter with conditions. on a motion antonini aye johnson aye moore aye wu aye fong excuse me richards aye do that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> public. in aggressive modification >> we're going to tak

>> >>[gavel] >> good evening welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular meeting hearing for thursday august 4, 2016. we left on off on discretionary review calendar. item 15. this is a discretionary review. >>[reading ordinance] >> good evening vp richards and members of the planning commission. department staff. this represents two separate

public initial request for discussion are viewed located in the residential two-family house. it's a 40 height and bulk district. the commission first item at the june 23, 2016 hearing. the commission voted 4-12 42 the june hearing. [inaudible]. logic sponsor pr requesters team on july 8 and july 11 project sponsor made initial modifications to the project. the project sponsor was unable to meet the deadline for samiti materials in order for the apartment to review in advance of july 14 planning commission hearing as a result on july 13 department requested a continuance on the case until next available hearing date. at the july 14 planning commission. the commission voted 6-1 to move into august 4.

since the continuance of july 14. after meeting with the project sponsor to discuss design modifications to the project department has recommended the following modifications. reduce the overall height of the building by 12 inches. the laminate for projecting balcony along the rear building for socket reduce the amount of overall glazing along the rear façade. over the last light well such that the subject property light will reaches the lowest light well of the abutting property windows. lastly, change the third-floor roof deck railing from glass to open line building. after meeting with her, project onto has made the following modifications to the project. the zero height of the building by the following amounts: 18 inches at the rear and 9 inches at the front with additional reduction the roof there that at the rear. over the entire building but costly 6 inches as part of this modification one step with delete it from the front and back porches. reduce the ceiling height at the back half of the eight-between the stair landing hollowell hallway,

species me and master bedroom by approximately 9 inches. so this in effect reduces the floor to ceiling height from 9 foot 28.3 inches. reduce the ceiling height from 1 inch. this is reduced from 8 feet .11 to 8 foot .10. reduce the roof thickness assembly by 2 inches. and lastly lower the rear roof parapet by approximately 18 inches could to achieve affectively a 36 inch or 3 foot that lowering at the rear of the property. in addition, the projecting balcony at 42 from the rear elevation was also eliminated. there was a reduction in glazing approximately 50% in a net 35% reduction across all three floors. additionally, we configured glazing. lower the west by well 2 foot 5 inches to

match the mirror window 64 russell st. again provided by a setback at the third-floor guardrail and replace all the glass guardrails on floor three to open railing. additionally the design changes have been offered by the project sponsor but were not depicted on the planning site include the phone. provide frosted blazing light wells for increased privacy 64 russell st. paint the lust light reflective color to reflect maximum light into the light will. provide acoustic isolation measures across level to a new [inaudible] sound of the mechanize cars for the abutting property at 64 russell st. and lastly placed hydraulic machine for the mechanize along the east basement away from 64

russell st. to reduce additional noise impact. so since that july 14 continuance that one has really received eight additional letters of support five letters in opposition to the project the nature of the letters in support of the project to the general support for the homeowners to build the compiler project where is the nature of the letters in opposition to this project speak to the need for additional time definition including the removal of [inaudible] for the reduction of the glazing and lastly consideration of flipping the program such that the walkup beecher would be relocated to the west side of the building with a grudge on the right. thereby enabling potential overall height reduction. after viewing the updated plan summit on july 22 department has reevaluate the project conformity with the following clinical section 317 demolition calculations the class i ceqa

determination. we take discretionary review and approve the project. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor, >> actually dr requester >> just for everyone's so you know, the second hearing dr requester and project onto each get 3 min. in public comments will be limited to 1 min. per person. >> these are for you. one for each of you. if you could turn on the overhead ? so, members of the planning commission, at the first hearing with clear directives from you as to how to proceed and we follow those instructions carefully. we reviewed your session transcribed much of the discussion and noted your requested changes. firstly, plan

nick foster and designer ian raines and architects conducted visit on june 20. the architect of record monica ring was not present. this walk-through requested by the commissioners to verify existing conditions proved beyond a doubt there's a full lower-level 260 russell. 790 square-foot space with 7 foot .2 ceilings buildout rooms was not shown in the 311 plan due to the omission of the existing longitudinal building session. it was added to the package days before the first hearing. this sheet has a minimum comments and the omission showed the sponsors have squared those responses. it's non-habitable underfloor storage but this picture visits clearly shows the height of the space. sponsors themselves refer to the space is a basement with laundry on their airbnb page. big knowledge and that this love should be the first up towards

incorporating it into the design. significantly lower building one that could satisfy sponsors need for square footage and mitigate negative impacts to neighbors. we contacted the sponsors with all points indicated in the first hearing after the walk-through met three times in person exchanged numerous e-mails. sponsors of offered several service modifications but our main issues are still not been addressed. these are the height and massing of the building in proximity negative affect your privacy light and air. opposition has evolved considerably over the past seven months there we've always been willing to come mice with sponsors and asked to streamline concession to in recent days we've asked to greatly reduce our request for rear setback to the third-floor and we've now agree to the juliet balconies. we believe our proposal to move to the garage to the east will result in a home lower more torsional and for those multiple request. our architect has drawn a plan showing the smearing of the sod the floor plan is a viable and attractive alternative resulting in only minimal loss of square footage. this

proposed project will make your ramifications to neighbors and to russell street as potential storage district. we urge the commission to take the art and vocal more sensitive building to balance the number neighborhoods current usage with the needs and desires of the sponsor. >> thank you. >> can you leave the projector on please throughout the presentation? thank you. good evening commissioners. first of all i want to restate i continue to remain supportive of the sponsors desire to read about their property. however, i do believe it's fair to request certain modifications to respect light and privacy of their neighbors. modifications of sponsor thus far been unwilling to entertain in a meaningful manner setting their needs for square footage etc.

specifically with respect to light and privacy were requested the dr existing light well be maintained in an effort to follow the residential design guidelines for offset light wells. this will prove privacy for both parties won't have seen the light my home receives from the south light which will nevertheless be dramatically reduced simply due to the vertical addition since the last hearing the sponsors of continue to propose smaller lightbulb and exist today one that is aligned instead of offset and one does not respect the vertical height of either of her existing light wells. further by aligning the light well privacy concerns are greatly impacted. the two windows looking directly into my property including a toilet. additionally the aligned light will result in a dramatic reduction of light which currently benefits the southerly offset configuration. next, this industrial mechanism which require significant ongoing maintenance continues to cause concern relating to sound vibration and weight on what will become a 0° lot line that is going to about my living area. as such, we also

request the sponsor consider eliminating the stipend relocating the garage to the side similar to 4042 russell st. thus creating a sense of consistency and proportionality also have an opportunity to reduce the height of the building. based on 3 feet. the sponsors of running unwilling to contemplate this request citing economic in the light well it was moved to the west side when we indicated architect otto's feasible they asked us the neighbors to plans drawn up. these plans clearly show in fact the garage to be relocated to the other side. the height can be lower-priced some 3 feet. additionally by doing this the existing light well can be maintained including the light and privacy to both parties with minimal impact to square footage. further, if the commissioners wish to enable two car parking this single-family residence this configuration could still allow for parking elevator is that of a parking stacker which could leverage some of the underlies basement space for

parking. from our perspective there's a lack of ingenuity were desired to reach a compromise could be provided alternatives which we believe can meet both parties needs and we respectfully request commissioners to please require the requested changes which include lowering the height of the property at limiting the stacker mechanism, maintaining the existing light well providing setbacks on the second and third floor which will result in 25 foot setbacks in a limited the third story deck. thank you. >> thank you very much. i'm calling public comment for speakers in support of the dr request. your 1 min. each. >>[calling public comment cards] >> good evening commissioners are minus chris. at first hearing it was stated despite

the residential design teams instructions proposed buildings ground floor cannot be lowered farther because of a separate rdt request for raised entry. we proposed by moving the entry to the westside and garage to the east, both rdt construction can be follow. an entry on the west side of the building would allow vertical rooms the needed steps up to the front door placing the garage on the east would allow for a lower standard height garage which abuts another garage correcting the current designs problematic 11'1" tall garage could in fact mirroring the façade could achieve three rdt instructions simultaneous get a raise entry lower garage lower lower building overall. there's already an example of this just a few houses up at 40 russell. with the entries on the downhill side. thank you. >> can we have the projector on cleese? >> sure. >> speakers i called these line up against the wall. >> next person can come up to

speed. >> good evening commissioners mining is willing show. i like to comment on the russell basement and less that a plans is always unclear in the basement. the planning department [inaudible] referred to at a crawlspace as such not suited for development get from the site visit on june 28 is the picture of nick foster standing in the basement. we can see it's not a crawlspace but eight [inaudible] would be the tallest building on russell street and only three-story building. the sponsors say they can't flip the floor plan can retain the light well can't do this setbacks because would be [inaudible] with minimal excavation much of the basement can be made height of all. in fact the maker move the top floor and about the basement without any loss of area. [inaudible] occupancy and other such projects higher than

[inaudible] and light wells were like courts to the basement level. the sponsor indicated they do know what habitable story underground but a large just at the rear of this floor would open up to the yard and light. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> if you could just stay on the dot cam? >> good evening commissioners of the project sponsor propose reckon the tallest most intrusive building on russell street. 33'3" arise above its russell street neighbors. he will come within 16.5 feet of its union street neighbors. the proposed two-story vertical addition to bring 60 russell to the same vertical plane as the lower floors of the union street unit in close visual and listening range while the force on the union street building. it introduces new privacy concerns release seven

neighboring five. to include privacy for all, the new stories must be set back at the rear and existing buildings. we ask the second story be set back 5 feet from the first-floor rear façade in the third 40 7 an additional 1.5 feet. resulting in 25 foot setbacks. the result will alleviate some of privacy concerns for all papers in this constricted me block open space. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. my name is nick copy of the proposed building with the toss on russell street visit among the three lowest buildings the bottom of two converting

sparrow this bowl like settg will make height even more pronounced. it called the building to be lowered by a story were 3 feet at the very least. we demonstrate how this can be achieved utilizing the basement which would only require small moment of excavation and provide more square footage than the proposed top floor which could then be removed. another option is flipping the entry and drudge exactly as they did just three buildings up the street. these should be separately or combined. fully utilize in the previously on knowledge basement level would result in a three-story structure to be no taller than 25 feet. even only during the façade in the rate entry to the west end garage release would result in a 30 foot boat. either approach or better yet both approaches combined would result in a building more integrated into the store context and more considerate of its neighbors. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. the building's façade communicates its interior to the street and this i propose building those that does not fit on russell street. the rdt claims façade takes visual cues from the neighbors these

feature still appear out of proportion to the demands of the interior. the secure include straight run staircases and over 11 foot tall garage level with the two-car stacking system. these are all features of a new home on a much larger lot not a remodel the modest home in the context of the other modestly squealed) bones on russell street and union simple drawings on small lots never meant to comedy that is on get the concert claims went up [inaudible] tells us and you do not well revise but important context and design homes in san francisco. as proposed this to be the first single-family three-story over basement home unrest did we believe important changes are needed to develop by building the project participates in the store context. the current design does not do this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners.

my name is-i concerns about the proposed building on russell street. i lived on russell street for 17 years and i live around the corner on union to get some insight into russell street historic charm. i feel the small scale of the drawing on the street is in essence a trade off living in a vibrant area so well served by public transportation. it 33 foot tall three-story building would be taller than the existing three-story buildings there because of the proposal oversize ground-floor height. in this oldest part of our city lot size are small. rogers on russell are generally not. ray but moderates the scale of even the tall buildings down there. of course there's many beautiful smaller homes and no garages at all. this is the neat character of this tiny street. this belongs to a vanishing much charge san francisco. i asked the commission to take extra special care to be sure whatever it is approved on russell fully complements its neighbors wonderful block. >> thank you very much. i will call some more speakers. >>[calling public comment cards] . >> good afternoon commission.

when i came before you last him my concerns about the building where the privacy of my filming and neighbors. the commissioners direct response or to adjust the height and bulk of the beating and conditional change. i thought the directives given by the commission were very clear. after planning and design walk to the building on june 28 mr. raines spent a good hour on the roof at 60 russell taking measurements. during this time mr. reid was close to me. my only option was to stay away from my windows i did not want to interact with them. this close proximity is the proximity we been talking about all along. it's an issue of consideration and privacy. if 60 russell's bill as currently proposed will be staring into each other's windows at close

range. it will be more invasive. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners could even. evening. the sponsors submitted three sets of demolition calculations. the horizontal cut which went from 8% to 1% removed from the first or second is that the vertical calculation went from 29 percent to 40% is demolition percent is 50%. so, even the sponsors on current figures show the project is teetering on the edge of demolition. another 60 ft.2 removed january debbie over the pressure. we've no doubt whatsoever that threshold will be surpassed during the actual construction. we look at the demolition calculations that would be however if you were to require a flipped plan to be small amount of additional demolition on the front façade but to be

substantially less demolition on the west side because the existing light well would be maintained as we've also requested. the net result of demolition calculation be further away from the threshold. >> thank you. >> booty evening commissioners. i like to talk about the parking stacker. with some commissioners defined as a non-started this machine is large noisy and inclusion his cousin the ground floor to be out of proportion with all neighbors. there is no

precedent for machine like this among the small lots and narrow lane of russell. sponsors will point to similar device at 1945 hide but that is an anonymous industrial structure which bears no resemblance to 60 russell were any house on the block. was importantly there's no need for it in a neighborhood in which public transportation is extensive and narrow streets are already clogged with traffic and transportation policy seeks to remove more cars using our street so traffic flows especially transit flows are reduced. we as a city are never going to cheat air-quality in tropicals by promoting more parking than is required by code. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i've been a resident of san francisco for 15 years. reading a statement on behalf of rob curtis. dear planning commissioners, i live across the street at 57 russell street and requested that this be read on my behalf as him on able to attend the continuance hearing. i continue to be concerned about the proposed project 60 russell st. specifically am very concerned about having a two-car stacker garage directly across the street from where i have to park my car. this treat is already very narrow and difficult to barbecue because now the getting up and down the alley. the introduction of a two-car stacker would create additional traffic and

congestion as one way to pull into the second garage. most of concern the president is setting on such a small narrow alley street and believe this is wholly out of control i'm sorry, out of context without quiet neighborhood. again i asked the planning commission please look into this and ideally illuminate the stacker garage. >> thank you. next >> ladies and gentlemen i'm speaking on behalf of my grandmother did i understand the project sponsor at 60 russell plans for increasing the height and size of the residence please consider the value of light and warmth that comes into my house on a daily basis. the 60 russell project was presented viable and reasonable solutions to the project sponsor of my home to retain the light of enjoyed since 1952. this put the discretionary review of my neighbors at 64 russell and

time and energy invested by the rest of the members of the 60 russell project team. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commission. i'm here in support of their discretionary review and my statement support the 60 russell team >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. i'm here in support of the neighbor's discretion or reviewing tonight statements provided by the 60 russell project team. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. we have invested significant effort in trying to understand the sponsor's needs and communicating our own. requests have evolved from the initial dr position to the five suggested improvements we have

today. these are, one, lower the height by one story but no less than 3 feet by utilizing the basement level and or your enough aside and 4 pm. two, illuminate the stacker parking lift. three, maintain existing light well from ground to roof. for, sit back the second story by 5 feet at rear it's about the third story by additional 1.5 feet resulting in 25 foot setback. five, illuminate the third story roof deck. while we appreciate the changes to date them your plan and set back are essential to addressing our serious concerns. take you for your consideration. >> thank you. any additional beakers in support of the dr request or? seeing none, project sponsor, you have 5 min. 3 min. >> 3 min. per dr requester >> no. 3 min., total. >> good evening commissioners.

i'm the project architect for 60 russell st. this is my design partner annually hearing from him as. thank you to the planning staff and commissioners for your time and consideration. since the previous hearing we work diligently to address the concerns presented by the neighbors many e-mails, many in person meetings. our sincere hope was to resolve this outside of this room but unfortunately we been unable to do so. today i want to show you our plan to address your concern and illustrate this project is appropriate for russell street and the russian hill neighborhood. here are the changes we made since you last saw the project. we lowered the entire building by 7 inches. any additional lorraine would compromise the rate entry as a request by rdt. this is a rear perspective of the free 11 submission. in order to address the concern voiced by the union

street neighbors we focus on the rear of the building work be done to reduce height and bulk and increase privacy. this new graphic shows the current proposal for the rear of the building. we lowered the rear of the building by 29 inches by reducing ceiling height and illuminating the rear parapet but combine its 7 inch overall talk the gives 36 inch height reduction at the rear of the building which is what was requested at the last meeting. we eliminated the balcony at the seven level and reduce the size of the third-floor terrace by in sizing the railing. we greatly reduce the amount of grazing by 50% at the second level and 35% over the entire rear elevation. the limited glass railings and open replace them with open metal railing. overall we match the aesthetic of the front elevation. the light well, to address the concerns of our neighborhood at 64 russell we made changes to the light well and to the garage. we proposed a fully online light well to maximize light to her window. the existing condition you will see is offset which actually blocks

half of one of her existing windows light to it here we lowered the bottom of the light well to match the neighbors window sill maximizing the amount of light into our windows. further dropping would create a second pit which is problematic due to debris and trapping moisture and access issues for maintaining its. nick mention our light well will also be painted with white paint privacy glass soul not be looking into her property. the garage-we have proposed to hire charles salter associates to specify acoustic measures to prevent any sound from the stacker. that is a serious consuming we take it serious bit weird looking the pump away from her. we believe that the operation of this machine from the perspective of the neighbors and traffic epidemic which is no different than a standard single car garage. this project >> thank you.

>> thank you. happy to answer questions. >> you sure will. speakers in support of the project sponsor, you will have 1 min. each. i will call the names and please line up. >>[calling public comment cards].. >> just the one before i start one question. i also the couple of letters from people who could not be a good like to give them on >> you can commit them into the record >> okay. hello. i've been unable to of phillips for the last two years. i first lived debt union and hide. but above the market and then i moved to filbert and hide. very long move. when i got to know phil

after moving into the neighborhood i realize we been neighbors before. in a city called in iraq when we were both serving as officers in the marine corps in 2004. i have to say, i love our neighborhood. i'm very familiar with the architecture did it before architecture. there's a huge amount of character to it but i love it not only for the architecture but for the type of people that live there. the type of families that live there. philip and kristin >> thank you, sir your time is up. >> it would be wonderful to keep in the neighborhood. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i want to comment on the new living space is

absolutely outrageous. the plans for the home there's no home theater. no rent room rec room or ping-pong table and the workshop. these are the kinds of rooms though be acceptable to put into a basement. the home they want to build does not have these kinds of amenities because it's a modest home. when someone says it's confined space in the basement to make the rest of the house smaller they're saying they should move their nursery or family room the living space for their newborn into the basement. i think everyone here can agree no one especially not children should be forced to live underground so someone else can have a better view. this is san francisco. we live in one of the most pupil climate environmentally aware regions of the world. we should not seek to build homes that do not have windows or that have adequate access to light and at. please do not consider an underground basement of viable living space. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. i'm a local resident for over 12 years. his was a firefight.

i want to but the height and size of this project it but i can't figure out however is why the height and size of such an issue. this is going to be route 33 feet tall but the same homes of the neighbors behind are over 50 feet tall from the same spot. this home will be a little over 2000 ft.2 of actual living space but those same union street buildings are up to 3600 ft.2. to me this seems backwards.: neighbors are complaining about the shorter building being to talk. the bigger neighbors have complained about the smaller building being too big. the closer neighbors are complaining about the building farther away being too close. the neighbors are talking a lot about privacy. it also seems backwards. when you look down on someone from higher up is a mock make since you're the one losing privacy? i feel when you consider the second floor of this project is at the basement level of the building behind it. the second floor is a living room deck in the heart of the home.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. ivan found this process for quite a while. in the requester organs basically neighbors should not have to see or interact with one another. that's our community is. i think it's healthy to be able to know someone is home. lot of these people already see windows from their neighbors. whether watching over the home while gone or vice versa it's covered by knowing this community run you looking out for one another. contrast with the neighbors request about the process and the assumptions behind them, no windows no balconies or terraces do not go outside, live in your basement is a request are not people looking out for the best interests of the people. people live in them long after. i

think we should build a wonderful home they'll be there for many years so future generations and the neighbors can be part of this larger community. i urge you to approve the house and not make the modifications. >> thank you. >> hello. i want to speak on behalf of the project at 60 russell st. the city is well known as the city are to stay and to raise families. i believe this project as a neighbor of russell street i live around the corner and this is a project will help them stay in the city and not move to the suburbs where actually environment to impact will be much higher. they be commuting into the city. they want to stay in the sick. they're twins at home they like to raise here this project will allow them to do that. i hope you'll consider that.

>> thank you very much. and the additional commenters in support of the project sponsor seat? seeing none, dr requester you get 2 min. secretary >> there's no more people. >> okay, thank you. at this portion of the hearing is closed >>[gavel] >> commissioner antonini >> i've been working on this a long time. project sponsor enlisted my help long ago when they were trying to work with staff to design this project in keeping with staff's request, which they did. since then they been many modifications that have made it a better project but it's a modest project and i'm kind of amazed why there seems to be the opposition. i visited the site many times. the last time i jotted down with the configuration of the houses were. i do not have a tape measure. i cannot go up and measure how high these places were but 59 and 57 russell were two flowers are garage 51 on two floors over garage. 70 russell is two floors over garage. 46 and 43

floors. their supporters incidentally right to the east. 42 and 42 floors over garage and 47 and 49 are three floors. so, the place looked pretty much the same height as this will end up being. there are exceptions. the dr requester home i think is 64 russell is shorter and i knowledge that. but there has been some height reduction already but i don't think 33 feet is excessive. i am interested about this flipping of the garage but i don't know at this point whether we have to do it may be staff can weigh in on that one of them with my comments. alas for some comment about this whole idea and why was not brought up. there's a 16.5 foot setseparation between the

nearest place on union street from the back of this which is a very large separation. i live in a detached single-family home. in the western part of san francisco we have 6 feet between our home and the home of the person to the south on the same with a person to the north. so, they have windows. if you really want to you can look into the window but we usually don't we close the blinds on our window. i just really don't see why 16.5 feet is exceptionally close. then, another comments or send me an a miller called me on the phone. she was not one of the ones testifying tonight but she was in favor of the dr requester's and she saying it's for floors. i don't count the basement as a floor. i mean, technically even if it's there it's not a floor. the number of

floors important are the floors above grade kid 33 feet is approximately what we would expect three floors to be. so, a couple of things. the light well is kind of security is to me because i think we talked about this for a long time. we know the dr requester at the adjacent properties at the base of the light well to be the same as the base of her light well. maybe someone from the project sponsors team could tell me is that the case now? that was one of our directives speared >> i believe she would like the light well dropped all the way to grade. we actually have a section cut through the two light wells if you would like to see that? >> the whole point was the level of the base of her light goes to be even with the base of your light well. is that

correct? are you asking what she's asking for? that's what i interpreted it as being the dr requester's are asking our label to drop to the ground. if you turn on the projector, you can see she has living space underneath her light well so that doesn't go to grade school we would be proposing the same thing. we living space on our lowest floor below the label as does the neighborhood 64 russell. >> so viewers does not go down to meet the base of her light well? >> we have dropped ours below her window sills so as to not block any light into her windows. >> okay. i understand. i guess she wants it all the way computer i thought that had been done. because i think i

was one of the things had been the only point i saw the dr requester and the neighbors having except for some opposition to the left and concern about it. it was the level of the light look at nagel we can talk about that appeared of talk to staff a little bit about the good i'm not sure how much good it does to take it down below the level we're her window ends because-the other thing was and she apparently does not want it to match because i thought we always make matching light wells when we require light wells. i don't know why we want to make a non-matching labor because it diminishes amount of light that goes into the light well that you are matching. because that's the whole point of having a matching light well. would seem like it's a bathroom or some other room you would have frosted windows or put something there to keep people from looking into your room. anyway, all that stuff weigh in on that issue and also the issue of the flipping of the garage. if you would, maybe i know mr.-you worked with the

project sponsor extensively maybe you can tell me a little bit about the whole light will issue and also the matching the flipping of the garage? betwixt id happy to. >> be happy to. starting with the light well, it is a typical practice as directed as our guidelines in place. this offsetting light well, we have not recognized there's any advantage there. i don't know if nicholas has any other insights about light wells >> specifically it requires

matching light wells. the current conditions we have an offset. the project sponsor is actually matching them perk up. as i understand from the dr requester her request is actually to retain the existing conditions and thereby not actually matching it not being in compliance with residential design guidelines. >> the kind of answers that question. only other part we had to comment on is the advantage or advisability of dropping out even further down to the level of the bottom of her light well. >> as a matter of directing light into the adjacent light well, there's nothing been attributed by that additional drop i believe >> thank you. the other issue i want to get a comment on is the plan to put the garage to the other side whether that had been explored and whether or not it makes more sense? >> i have received a call from the architect. i seem to be responsible for these drawings. i haven't seen these drawings until this evening. but based on that understanding, that had been explored and they believe there had been there was a way to achieve that. we in turn exploit with the project architect as well as other

options opportunities for reducing height and reducing the graphic relationship to the proposal to the neighbors behind. given the narrowness of the lot and the specifically the minimum between the front façade and light wells were quick to get both the recessed entry a step or two and the requisite stairs, we don't find it was sufficient room to introduce a stare that simply work in that plan. it just not enough room to get enough head height between the entry and the light well to then make a turn and still have a corridor

underneath with sufficient header room. >> thank you. that kind of answers those two requests. then, based on the fact we got the separation from the houses on the union come i really don't see to further restrict the space. i think there have been some setbacks and if i understand correctly, the only remaining deck is on the third floor that's fairly modest now. you come and what 5 feet on each side, what did you say your separation was from the sides? >> we brought the railing into feet on all sides. so, as it currently stands i think the depth is less than 6 feet clear. usable space. >> 2 feet is also from the aspect facing union street, to? yes from the back and each side >> the former balconies on the middle level are all gone >> exactly >> it looks like i cannot fill

the window treatments, but it appears you're doing windows in the back somewhat like the ones in the front i would assume there like french windows to match the windows in the front of the house? yes. the aesthetic is very similar to the front of the house. the second level does have swinging doors with juliet balconies so there'sto step out. the walkable area outside of the envelope. we can change those two windows. although the dr requester asked for that and rescinded that. this is the current iteration is second in stores at the second level. i didn't have 50% introduction from glazing at that level which one which was committed at 311. >> thank you. i think that answers most my questions. i

understand you've and listed the services of mr. salter and then something also was brought up was the elevator rather than the left. is that anything that quieter? is there any advantage one way or another? i'm not quite familiar with the elevator versus the left. >> and elevator versus the left, i'm not really-do you want to speak to that speed >> i think perhaps what you're referring to is the machine that's been under consideration has two parts the mechanism. does the actual platform that holds the car and there's the hydraulic pump which is the element that makes the sound. that elements can be located remotely bolted the lifting mechanism itself. so we propose locating the pump on the far eastside within an acoustically

sealed closet. they would not be to also and 60 russell st. separating that pump +64 russell st. wall separating- i think there was should meet any sound requirements because all you're going to have is the hydraulic going up and down but that does not make much of a sound. the sound is from the pump. >> correct >> thank you. i think the changes you have made are good ones. a lot of the suggestions from dr requester's don't seem to be viable suggestions based upon staff comments so i am happy with the project. i will see with the other commissioners have to say. >> thank you. commissioner hillis >> thank you all for engaging with us again on the speed i think we spent more time on this project and the transbay tower. >>[laughing] will hopefully get it right. the question i guess for project sponsor architect. i am thankful for you spending time with me as well as the dr

requester in trying to walk through some of the proposed changes. i guess my question is, it would be good to get your thoughts on the revised flipped façade plan? how to does that get a 3 foot reduction in the overall height of the building? absolutely. i can't remember at this point if flipping it was their idea or our idea. >> it was mine. >> there you go. we actually think flipping it would be a good solution except for the fact that the stare and the light well are sort of mutually exclusive. that's the problem that we run into. in terms of the proposal that we received late last night, there is definitely there's many many steric configurations that could work, but obviously, there's many variables going into this the kinds program

rdt, store, stuff like that. we've gone and reviewed all kinds of steric configurations including one very similar to what's presented here. they are able to achieve that drop. it appears. when you rashly cut a section to the stare and mr. joplin spoke to this-the head height of the stare going into the basement does not code compliant. it's actually at least over a foot that your deficient and also as you walk through that pass the stairs to that halt when the stare passes about you don't have compliant head height there either. we do have poems making a stare work at that bottom area. additionally, to wake the note a significant amount of spaces that are client values in the home. just less efficient way out of the circulation. >> the reason is because the

stare bumps up against the light? with a light well is? is that what's causing the problem is the distance >> yes in the alternative there's no way well you're able to expand the stare beyond >> exactly. the light well is on that one side. on the other side there's no late woke. we thought a good idea might be pay for a skylight and illuminate the label and we could get the garage away from our unit at 64 russell. we are trying to work here get a workable stare into the project and meet as many of their requests as we can. >> you think in that case if you didn't eliminate the light well and the skylight [inaudible] but it's doable? yes. it's exactly mirror. >> would that be a 3 foot reduction? >> you know, the wayfarer

they've done additional switching of the front elevation the cornice and the parapets. which-yes, that i am not sure. at least my understanding to it rdt and historic preservation it doesn't meet the characteristics of russell street we are trying to match. that would be the concern there is the proportion of the windows the cornice, but like i said they didn't reduce ceiling height. that is not-- >> so the 3 foot reduction comes from you and i had this discussion earlier the 3 foot reduction the dr requester shows on their elevation here it's 3 feet relative to 311 set proposal. not the most recent proposal.

as best we can tell, that 3 feet is achieved through a combination of measures. first of being the flip, we believe garners 1 feet 2 inches of documents due to the sloping condition of russell street. second, they are deleting one step from the porch. thereby, reducing height 4 inches. 1.6. they are using to reduction in floor height that we show in our most recent revisions. have conversations and inch reduction. as best we can tell, they make up an additional 11 inches by compressing were scorching the front elevation

and they produce this head to head >> you can see the ghosted room 311 behind it >> 311 is ghosted behind is in the proposal and the squishing [inaudible] where the top row of windows is no longer proportional to the level to windows. the interstitial space >> that light is the same. it's reduction of the parapet? >> it's reduction of the parapet >> and the head height of those windows as well >> okay, thank you. john, is that your understanding where the architect, whoever can speak to that, proposal? to flip it? >> can i have the overhead on? it is on. >> the reduction comes also

from doing the flip >> would you speak louder into the microphone? >> the substantial reduction more than 1 inch >> he said 1 foot 2 inches >> 14 inches. there's more than that from where this height is to down here. did my fluorite would be at 2 inches below. this is reduce. i did not reduce the ceiling heights. this window i think it's 3 inches shorter than this one and the space between here and here was reduced. >> i guess i am trying to figure out how much of that paper edition because you did obviously squished the parapet down into the living space. it's a little awkward looking on that front elevation because what's happened with the parapet. try to separate what was done-what the flip got you

besides one in factor i'ii" >> i calculate you get more than the 14 inches when you do the flip. down at this level. from up there, to down here. that is greater. that's more like 21 inches. this window height was reduced by 3 inches. so, >> the floor height has not changed to the window height has changed >> it's all the same fluorite. i calculated it up and we can reduce- >> right >> this, if you want more space between here and here some of the molding could be shortened. right now the molding is exactly the same thank you. back again for the project sponsor, if you could put up that late well

diagram again. that section. >> sfgov tv can we get the overhead spirit's >> this shows the elevation upu. >> that section. the discussion is whether the floor and the light will match. you've got a coming into i guess your garage level right? you got a notch into

the garage level a little bit? is actually notched into a bathroom. it leads 7 feet clear over where the bathtub is located. the floor of 60 russell late well is aligned with their below the windowsill. 64 russell if you were to bring that down to the floor of the neighbors white well >> if we were able to do that is crosshatched area currently is useful iit would no longer be useful. you be reduced to something maybe like 3.5 feet clear heights. okay, thank you. is that it? thank you. commissioner moore i like to ask the architect for the dr requested to please explain the flipping of the building while changing the functionality of the stair and the net spaces minus furnishings or assignments to use relative to what are we

gaining, what are we losing? >> for one thing this dares to not work out so you can access the basement. you need to speak into the microphone because were unable to hear you >> the stairs down to the basement do in fact work it i calculated it. it has a higher rise but that still works. the idea this is just as much usable space is what they had before. actually, in this plan the two bedrooms actually become larger in this.. this was the level of these bedrooms. they are now back here so they are bigger. in this plan, when the nice advantages is you get a light well if you have the u shape

stairs back, you have a light well that comes all way down to the first floor. it utilizes existing white well, which then you get a window here, here, and here that gets used throughout the whole building the question i'm asking could you explain the number of risers of what you get the designer stood mr. johnson advising that the stair does not work and i like to have clarity that we all understand the design properly. to come up here you rise up you could of got 11 risers. i think at 12 risers intend tread. but i increased from 7.25 inches to seven .775 rise. then you can get 11 risers intend tread in this area. in this space righre