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 right here. so, going from 7.25 inch and seven .75 i get the rise and run. can you take it through the rest of the building, please? taking this long one and having a living next to the light well and going up and you are coming up here. then, the next level you be coming up around here and going up. to the third floor. with an open

space. then, when you get to the upper level, it comes up to hear. you could i do not design how the space would be-it could be designed in any way i understand that you are just basically saying i flipping the stairs, flipping the plan, that the spaces unfurnished open spaces are equivalent in size and quality to what we have? >> i believe they are, right. given nice open space here with a kitchen and dining area and living room over here. the reason why find this argument persuasive is because the architect and i to the existing proposed plan over the

new plan that is very strong because there is really very little change. the issue, which is very important and persuasive to me and one which has originally had the support continuance of the dr is in need seeing the dr requester and the building applicant cross-section in relation to each other. this was never offered by the applicant although it's part of the requirements in commission packages, but ikea makes us very clearly understand the critical relationship of the seven neighboring flats with two dr requester's, actually one presented from outside with >>[background noise] of the

resident supporting not an russell street dr requester. i am concerned the distance of 16 foot .6 inches particularly when it's extruded over more than 14, invites tenement feeling, tenement type of impressions for both parties as you can only really realize it in full session. if you look at a three-way lane being 12 feet, as a typical lane on i 80 major american highways, have an additional 4 feet on the side. that's not a lot of distance for having people for living units. alternating living rooms and bedrooms and bedrooms and living rooms on either side. basically sitting cheek to gel. from a light point of view, the great section on the second and then on the third floor, is more persuasive to me than

extruding the second floor straight up on the cross dimensional 16'6". nobody wants to live that way. it's ridiculous. i believe that for one, two cars are nothing we have to uproot. today were building with three units and we took the unit counts. the request from four to forget we denied stackers am interested in a technology we used on another project i think in item 8 we talked about an elevator which is basically a lower height stacking device first hard drive sin. it's relatively low ceiling height over that car. the car gets lowered and the other one parks. with a significantly lower garage height it's basically a closed

system. it's done economically for residential use. it does not require a lot of sound buffering because it's it's designed for residential use and i believe considering that as an alternative is a possibility i would like to ask the russell street dr requester to describe to this commission and you may want to stay there and help her, why she is asking for a full matching white well the matches the existing conditions in addition to a coming all the way to grade? i've been in this units. this is her unit has a living room in a particular place. that is cheek to gel. it's a lovely house. however, when that light well gets further reduced in size, not only is the impression of being in the living room one all of a sudden in the basement, you can't really visualize that being in

there, but the additional reduction in light is already you can imagine where it is. it's already constrained as it is. but could you please explain your own position on that? >> so, if we can have the projector on? this might look familiar from last time. i light well does have three windows. it provides where it's configured right out fights a lot of light into the main living area because of the offset position you have the southerly light that also helped. that is good and that privacy as well as importance. reportedly, here this particular window facing south

and basically when it only ways i get right into my lower level. i once worry over crotch with the back part of my house's were my master bedroom is. this actually provides light via what i call a light valve that comes in through this way and down through the stairs. i know it's going to be impacted when they build up and that is fun. i'm still supportive of them being able to do that but i do want to try to maintain as much of the existing label. also helps with the demo calculations and we saw it in the slip with the other benefits of being able to abut the garage to the other side, lowering the height maintain that exists white well and the demo calculations and it's a larger load well the proposing will be very beneficial. try to think of all the reasons right now. did i answer the questions. yes, you did. >> thank you. >> i personally do not see why we would not look at maintaining the light well in existing location as well as supporting

for the continued livability of the dr requester that the light will comes to grade. i think the intrusion into the quality of life including the spatial feel will be seriously altered. it just not enough to all of a sudden you fell to living in the full floor could all 07 new feel like you live in a basement. so, i liked to ask mr. charlson whether not you have any questions given the exclamation you heard on the stairs? is that convincing to you or are there specific questions by which you do not see the stairwell? >> frankly, the math still do so makes sense to me. the math

does not make sense to me. i counted 11 risers, not 12 but assuming it is 12, at the 7.75 with those described that's 93 inches. 7.9 minus the depth of the stringer is very compressed dimension. i don't know what the code minimum is but it's going to be 7.59 minus something on the order of a foot. >> i would like for you to to talk to each other, please >> [inaudible] you have to speak into the microphone >> the stairs go into the basement and if you take the 7.9 in the stringer at the angle you won't have more than 6 inches. brash where more than the 6'8" required by code. it's actually it exceeds the code minimum. because you have 7.9

and you take off six, you are still above the 6'8". that is required. that's just for the basement. >> yes, but again, i'd knowledge of was not familiar with what that specific head height was for the access down but when you bring in the stare around, and up, that is where it starts impeding into the entry hallway. let me actually show you. in this plan here, i realized i

was able to revise and add another tread here. it means one trade gets eliminated here. so there was really only three days a tread there. there would be three treads into their and that's an 8 foot point 10 inches sam. coming into your when you have the thickness of the floor, you would be dropping down at an 8 foot ceiling there. this could be da points and the nuts with the lined is. albion 8 foot ceiling. this could also for entry could be moved over here and you could get another riser in in both treads would fit within the floor framing

.net relocated your isa. it's possible that may be a configuration works. i'm not convinced of what is shown here. accounted it out. it doesn't work and am well within with the codes requires >> i'm just asking all of us to quietly listen. it's very technical points. however, if the commission is considering flipping the plan in order to achieve other objectives we need to have a reasonable amount of certainty it can work and i appreciate you talking to each other and challenging each other. i still believe that maintaining the light well, finding a better proportionality on the façade and finding a better way of how the building kind of amasses

itself is extremely important. i think when we look at the cross-section i think we're still maintaining good ceiling heights and we are creating the kind of relief in the building for the neighboring neighborliness of people were i think the concessions i saw today we still have our french windows, rj balconies, except we have a step-section which is an advantage to everybody even if at this moment it seems as though not quite seen eye to eye with each other. so, i would like to see the building modified. i am prepared to see the project gets the approval of two cars, with the caveat that enough with version there are no stackers but there are the appropriate elevators which

would lower height. you would still create for a growing family, two cars although we are concerned about the impact of two cars in the transit which neighborhood particularly today for the applicants. we were going to be what we call pdm, traffic demand management study, where projects are basically being valued on their contribution to less parking. we practice that to date on a project up on roosevelt where a project wanted for spaces and we could only really reduce it to the good in your particular case, if indeed we would consider to, i would only do that under the condition that we are using the flipped plan with the modifications that come with the stairs and the building section modified. that's a motion.

>> i probably would be a second i want to ask a couple questions. i'm sorry i've not spoken yet. i don't have a button to push. i guess the question i have is first, first off, the plan submitted as is right now, they are complete. you're still recommending don't know changes to this between the time this was delivered to us and today? >> just for clarification this would be july 22. were is this this omission some of you have seen because staff have not actually seen the flipped- >> the flipped version was the dr requester submitting it correct. >> what we have here in our packet hearing date august 4 come up is this the complete version. we need to take er

anyway? >> sure. yes, that is the final project sponsor submitted thanks. question for commercial moore. i noticed that really technical infractions of inches and stuff like that. in your opinion the dr requester cemented a revised budget plan with a foot. it achieves the same programming directive and from the project sponsors point of view with the modifications and also gives the dr requester some of the things they were asking for. >> from my interpretation, it meets the dr requester's objectives and is a larger group of people. i asked for-i read somewhere there is a net reduction of 54 ft.2 without using any of the possible basement space, which is available for children's playroom at such a. counting that is just optional that the

applicant could decide to use a basement for more than storage or part of the basement is obviously now-is now our barrage situation but my understanding that's what a net reduction of 54 square feet over was the original plan asked for but i should probably as the architect to verify what i'm saying. i just read that on the run because we do not have- >> i can speak to the comparison, please? >> would you please speak into the microphone spirit we cannot hear you. the second floor is that back 5 feet. it's 5 x 20. the next level is 1.5x20.

that is a total of >> 30. 30 for the one >> 5 feet 420 and 1.5 times 20 >> one 30 ft.2. okay. >> that's across 2000-what is the total project? 2000 something. >> i mean i like to also point out when we are talking but the basement, this is the actual level of the adjacent property and they have this grade. the grade it could be lowered so it's not so basement like. in the back. >> i think that is a good comments. however, that is not part of what we are suggesting as an alternative. it's an option that they definitely have. but it is not what's

basically in front of us. each could be an optional use of that space particularly when it comes to foundation design, etc. >> i guess project sponsor we've been here 10 hours now. we heard a revised flipped version. it seems like it can achieve a lot of the program objectives -1 30 ft.2. this emotion here. there's not a second here what are your thoughts on that? the dr requester would be happy you keep your two cars. it seems reasonable. i think a number of issues we've identified the number one, our calculations stare risers just spoken to a moment ago had room we count one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 risers.

in the current plan >> in the current plan. [inaudible] safe assumption for structural death for the stairs net 75 1/4 inches which is less than 8 inches which is the minimum clear ceiling height at staircase. the tricks code required >> code required. additionally, at the entry this is an egress corridor and among suing lot is 7'6" as opposed to 6.8 in the star. additionally, this area due to stare structure above is going to be diminished so the egress corridor is being blocked partially. then, as far as program- this is a modest house

proposed about 2000 ft.2. there several spaces that are missing from here. there's a family room that is delete it on the second level. i think the first level is pretty much equivalent. second level loses a family room. it loses a separate dining room instead the proposed plan has a much smaller dining look that's off the kitchen. at the top floor, which was not filled in reaction to the quick study and the ramifications of that of the difference their configuration in the set back where you lose the office nursery space. >> also, the proportions of the spaces that you results are less than ideal. what is shown is the living room with an aspect ratio of two to one which feels very long and narrow. it does not feel like a generous space. the bedrooms down below are similar where they have been, the depth has been increased but it basically gets you further away from

light axis. access. the net square footage loss would be 100 ft.2, 5 x 28 this area. the light will configuration being shown is larger so estimate that and maybe 5-10 ft.2 loss. at the next level up, we have 30 ft.2 lot. we are approaching one 40 ft.2 of loss additionally, the inefficiency of the three runs there versus the single run in the additional landing is actually probably the most significant square footage loss when you consider this alternate. also, lorraine 41 is quick to further diminish the basement clear height space. becomes less usable and frankly, it's an accessible

with the steric configuration so it's completely lost space >> right lassoed the constructibility has been affected because in this proposal didn't know lineup of interior walls in addition to these staggered back wall requires extensive steel frames rather than conventional framing and steer was good it does drove up the complexity of the building and therefore the cost and the structural requirements. you can imagine a moment the crane delivering steel beams to the back of the building think. i think you're summing up the project sponsors programming of the building as best they could. question for staff. we saw the demo calculations were kind of on the line with 317 definition of death militias get same-day open to the building when all of a sudden the portion is lots in that they take more away. but we know to be back here with the cu for demolition? how do you monitor that? >> so, the terms of the video

calculations, in terms of front and rear building was, as measured, their 40% just a 50% is the threshold >> 2% would be how many linear feet around? >> a believe who's about 60 ft.2. oh, lineal you're saying the demo consolations are based on linear square feet removal? >> there's a b and c. each of these has two parts. 4b, a we assume 50% of the front and rear façade as well as 65% of the lineal exterior walls on the aggregates. the c portion is the area of the front and rear and also horizontally. we

assume 100% move along the horizontal and 40% on the vertical elements that suggest area was nuts with a 60 feet for the area three lineal they are exceeded it on the lineal that 74% but they do not exceed the 65%. this 56%. you need [inaudible] >> the question i have, then, is and i ask you for your opinion, often when you seize kinds of construction projects do they end up with taking more out than i thought they were willing to? >> perhaps i would defer to worcester joslyn but this happens if dbi deems it to be demolition after-the-fact i believe this a project in the excelsior recently where a concerned neighbor command dbi inspected and deemed after-the-fact to be demolition

it were back here at a cu >> i assume the neighbors is 16 feet away will call dbi if they think too much is being removed. i can see a situation will be sitting here again sure. i will say for the record for the first continuance i did ask the project sponsor architect to take an incredibly conservative estimate on the demolition regulations not pertaining to or is untold but pertaining to lineal calculations trading out windows for actual walls >> they welcomed 317 changes. it makes it simpler. great. so dr requester, question for you. good for the project sponsor about what this would do. so, i don't know how many feet away from you could i consider whites of your eyes. if you move 3 feet closer, what does it matter? what do these

things get you? i understand the parking may allow for reconfiguration may be some noise and vibrations but where these extra things mean? were talking people i'm standing there what does three additional feet between you and i now? i think were probably 16 feet at least, maybe 18 to? >> we feel reducing the height combined with the setbacks grates more space to its very constricted made block space >> any quantification of spirit i understand it's going to feel different but linear 3 feet of just trying have a hard time understand what is going to do? >> lose them away from us in spacing grates more privacy for everyone, them and us. it brings the height of the building in alignment with the tallest buildings on russ. this building is the tallest good i don't understand whether we choose to build the tallest building rather than one that is like the others are slightly lower

>> thank you. i said before on another project many many hours ago in make sure whatever we decide to date people feel like they got a fair hearing whether we vote for you or not for you were some commendation. we really beat this one to death am really trying to struggling here with what we should do given all the sets of facts all these different things. i would defer to some more commissioners. commissioner antonini >> i heard with the architect for the project sponsor said and i did not realize that in addition to the flip, and the somewhat lowering the was also some year reduction, which cuts the square footage even further which is the worst part of the whole thing. i mean, the foot without the beer prediction might be more doable but i think you stop issues with those stairs. is that correct?,

project sponsor architect? >> [inaudible] >> there's a number of different things being suggested. one is allowing an elevator to be used instead of the left and the other parts of those being proposed i think by dr requester is taken additional depth of the top two floors. we seemed to me they are fairly modest as it is already. but i'm thinking if we don't take anything off the top two floors how do you feel about the flip and an elevator rather than the lift that you currently have? >> right. i think but we spoke to earlier is that the real difficulty with the flip is having the light well and the staircase the same side of the house. because it forces an inefficient vertical circulation scheme in the house. definitely, the additional rear stepping is

probably the most difficult element of the dr requester's proposal. to accommodate in this small footprint. >> can you speak into the microphone, please? >> as far as the core elevator is in one scene on the section the machine would look at this take advantage of the pit. i believe it similar to that type of mission. elevator type of machine. we like that functionality definitely. >> thanks. commissioner moore can you repeat your motion? >> i do not quite finished my questioning >> i'm sorry >> i heard what your same. the other possibility which i think i'm inclined to do, is to go ahead and set the light well as dr requester had asked and dr. depth of it if step is okay

with doing that, it would be one less issue for the dr bequest or on 64 russell get you lose a little space on the bottom with those may be a bathtub or something you might have to change the configuration of that but maybe you can follow it out a little bit down the were to be able to capture that space again. i'm thinking of that as a possible concession to the er requester was most impacted because she's the one next door. that might be something i would be supportive of love making the other changes. >> yes. i think we still have some confusion why think there is confusion about the merits and aligned way well configuration versus an offset way well configuration. so what were trying to speak to with a diagram is that when the light wells are aligned 64 russell

window gets the full benefits of the adjacent light well as far as washing invite good when they are offset you have a condition where one half of that window is not receiving any benefits from the shared light well additionally, we are proposing privacy glass. i know 64 russell's windows currently have privacy glass as well. i think privacy issue has been- >> what i'm saying is for one reason or another dr requester seems she's getting get more would be offset. i'm not sure if staff would allow that to be done but it might be a concession. we can make it a motion was a little bit on the bottom floor, probably i don't know if it's 2 feet it's a small amount without brings it down and that something i would suggest as a motion to set think

the flip is very problematic good were really not gaining anything then moving the garage suicide is maybe lowering its. i think feet is going to be more than it's going to happen because there's no interstitial space. i don't think stuff like this cornice breakdown cramped on the window. at best you can again 2 feet or 1.5 on the phone. that's not really significant. i seen buildings on the street to the south side taller than this building is. this in elevation change on the street so i think is height thing is been overstated. >> i think another an element lady to the existing light well, so it is shown in gray here, basically, the existing light well precludes-thank you, perfect-perfect precludes the

garage. the existing light well extends, interferes with the garage on that side. >> how much are you going to lose. looks like a foot or something? >> we do have the minimum death could additionally, when we originally proposed the matching light well the dr requester sent us an e-mail saying she loved it and were trying to work with her and not to go back to the existing is a new request that we just got. >> all right. even if you move it out of the garage you can stomach the depth down into the bottom. >> you can see it would compromise the bathroom to some degree but i think >> yes, we could do that >> i think that would make

sense. i can see the light advantage in all seeing none, staff has to say but that would be ibm client. >> i think the light advantage is currently due to the fact that the roof of 60 russell st. is slightly lower than the width of 64 russell st. this currently low angles >> won't be coming in. >> any vertical addition of 60 russell st. regardless of how global light well is configured, the vertical addition is going to cut into that little angle >> of the soft light that is coming in now >> my feeling is, i know commissioner moore made a motion but was not seconded edit >> can you repeat it before you make a motion, please? >> i still believe that the double stacker as proposed is

driving the design of the entire building. has something to do with not wanting to support the offset light well by not really wanting to bring it down to grade as was just discussed. i believe proportionally the overall massing of the building and how it cites itself along the russell street façade as well as help it you ball's to the reader is a better way the plan flapped >> what is the exact motion? >> my motion is to flip the plan. put the garage on the east side of the project. allow an elevator, a little profile residential elevator to provide access to cars and to shape the building to the rear in order

to create more light for the applicant themselves and to more privacy for the adjoining property owners on union street as is clearly shown in this section. allow for a second floor balcony terrace and on the third floor is the french [inaudible] they had suggested >> secretary is that specific enough? >> i don't think it will be in this case. >> we need to make some progress. i like to call the question i'm going to can you call the question to see where we are at the? >> the motion did not get a second >> i will second it

>> i don't understand the motion >> the motion tries to describe in words major moves proposed with the flip to a version of the plan because i see significant advantages >> i think we need more than major moves. you were taking dr and approving a project we normally do that through project sponsor drawings. i think the flipped alternative is something we want to do it we can't approve this project based on the plans we have from the dr's hired architect. i mean i'm very interested in exploring the flipped alternative. i think we have tonight but it would have to be drawn. there's no way i could- >> at this moment, though, i see relentless rebuttal of every thought which comes from this particular proposal and i'm personally not inclined to approve the plan as proposed given it's driven by wanting a

car sector which pushes up the building and configures in a manner unacceptable for the context of the neighborhood including the evolution of façade on russell as was the denying of light well to grade in the adjoining building. >> shoal should we entertain a continuance with the intent to look at the flipped version to see its feasibility? we need to move this on the >> are not seeing any acknowledgment except rebuttal on any of the ideas and if it requires a continuance around the parameters the board could be good ideas which could be verified before negotiated unprepared to change my motion from the flipped plan as a dr motion to a request for continuance. by the way. >> i will second that. i'm

good just the secretary to call the questions we know where we are at. >> commissioner hillis >> i think we have to keep kind of in view the big picture. i think what we're trying to do minimize the impact on the union street neighbors in their homes given the close proximity. this ways we can do that. we can push the building back towards russell street that i've not heard anyone necessarily propose that. the dr requester is proposing to do that on the second level. i'm not sure what that gets anybody. my thinking is always been to try to reduce the height. i been in the dr requester's properties while some of the adjacent neighbors and i think that would be

impact full to them is to reduce some of that height if at all possible. that's why was interested in the flipped version and spend some time with both parties today talking about-i'm fairly convinced that the flipped will get you something but something in the good of 1.5 feet. that's something, whether that's enough in a dr context to take dr and make that change, i honestly question whether it is. given the discussion we had today. i think it was it an interesting suggestion but i'm not sure it gets enough of what were all trying to do to rise to the level of busting up to take dr and do that. so, i just want to ask for the sake of belaboring this even longer a question on to the project

sponsor architect on drawing a-35-37, to better understand if there's other ways to get height reduction of the building . on the third floor this post to the exterior elevation as well as the section and on a 3-5,-can you go to a 3.5 for just a moment? we can talk about 2 feet here. obviously, what would be [inaudible] i know the dr requester will be interested in that. i don't think that's appropriate. just given the code and what's allowable here in this context.

i do want to make an effort to try to minimize the height as much as we can. >> commissioner hillis, after we spoke earlier today, we took a second look at the roof parapet profile. it's illustrated on the side elevation drawing. it's also illustrated on this perspective view. basically, whereas in the last iteration we were aggressively cutting down the rear parapet, this drawing depicts a similar aggressive cutting of the parapet for the entirety of the sides of the

building. basically, carrying that kind of approach all the way across the sides and then having the very sort of typical san francisco condition where you transition up to the cornice parapet at the front. so, with this is netting us both into the 311 profile that shown in dashed in red at the rear of the building we net-again this is a combination of moves we've done to the building and it includes lowering all the floors about 70 interested in includes diminishing ceiling height of the rear half of level iii. then, removing the parapet that's a 3 foot height reduction at the back ends, but gradually stepping up and we went 2.6 height deduction in this zone. 2 foot height reduction in this own and 1 foot height reduction on russell street >> with these measures, this rear most wall right here

>> [inaudible] >> the rear wall right here which is 16.6 setback line we talked about the top of the wall is less than 7 feet of all the existing wall that's in that location right now. >> is about 6.9 higher than the existing top of ruth's. additionally our third-floor level is lower than the first floor living space than the [inaudible] i think we have to try and minimize that impact on them. >> what is the difference between what you're showing us now and what we have in the package? >> the only difference is >> parapet cutting >> cutting outside parapet. >> and a slight lowering of the cornice >> the plans that you have in

your package show a 7 inch height reduction at the front and what this drawing on the monitor shows his 12 inch height reduction at the front. >> that's mostly parapet? >> is primarily parapet >> go to a37, think that certainly would be something we would take because it's not impractical to you and could be hopeful to the neighbors. it's parapet productions so the building remains the same. >> additionally, the other plans are basically pushing the first floor to grade and the reason why we have proposed because of trying to maintain the step up country per the defining characteristics set by store preservation. if we can get that additional lowering it

from you have our first floor at grid >> just hold out for a minute. on this a3 .7 is that the same are off of 3.7 we have in our drawings? because you have a different elevation and your third-floor going from 8'3"-8'8". >> this is the same in your packets. what we did is lower the wall plate height for the rear happened level iii. then it steps back up at the bedroom. in the front. all of that allows us to have this kind of long roof slope that steadily getting lower as you go back towards the rear neighbors. >> okay. go back to the front >> yes, to the front. the other section that we have-okay

>> this does depict that parapet dropped. we know everyone foot drop at the front built into the 311 second the we we accomplish that is we slightly diminish the overall height at the cornice and then lower the cornice and basically we went from having a 12 inch interstitial space between the projecting window could and the bottom of the cornice room to now a 9 inch separation and looking at again character defining features on russell street we feel like that's about as close as we can get for it to still properly look architectural details >> it looks a little off. >> yes >> go back and talk about if you reduce that step, >> right. the step up entry,

if the commission is okay with illuminating that we were told to include that by the rdt. then we can get additional lowering just by lowering the entire building. >> by how much? >> that is about 6 inches. >> about 6 inches, yes >> if you take the section and a foot3-7. does that ring the- >> in the current revisions, relative to 311, we already did remove one step and allowed that the whole building to come down a little bit. so removing another step would have the same outcome which would allow us to lower the whole building another 6 inches. >> if he went down to that, those two steps in the back as you come off the back bedroom,

and down if you went down to grade at the level and carry that through to the front, you would actually would that entail a step down into the entry. >> it would >> that was confusing to me at this site. to your point, my sense of the beginning it had this large space to accommodate a parking mechanism was driving that height. it's not. it's the step you actually have a step down >> the sinking up to brussels street with the first floor and then all of the subsequent floors. and a stack on top of that. >> were not matching the light well affected by the garage. not bring the light well to grade. that's my understand were some of the issues. is that correct? >> it's not the lowering of

the light well. it's whether or not it's aligned versus offset >> assume for a moment what would happen if the light will stays offset and needs to come to grade how would that affect use if you could run to that quickly? >> so, again showing in great is the existing light well. the proposed light well. it's roughly aligned with the bathtub is shown. so taking the existing light well down to grade basically we have to diminish the garage a little bit on this level. then on the upper levels, obviously, that would [inaudible] on upper

levels, it basically necessitates whining this high room, pantry room elements forwarded by >> is no point in doing at the garage level. because you're in the neighbors garage which does not have light well anymore >> right. any lowering of the light well floor [inaudible] were not exactly sure the goal >> right. there's no light that comes from the ground >> you could say to match that at this level here. you could

bring down and lose some space in the powder room. try to make them consistent but i agree, i don't know if there's a fairly huge impact. >> this is a photo taken from the roof on 60 russell. illustrating the existing light well and offset. so, this is 60 russell light well and roof and you can see 64's roof is a little bit higher and it's this kind of well. so, what were currently proposing is matching the windowsill. with our floor. any additional lowering isn't going to add more like to that window. >> it's not a question about light. it is a question of feeling more spacious. you feel in a basement when the light

well bottom is literally right next to yourself. you don't feel like you're being in a space. you feeling left over and that's what i have a hard time with. in these older buildings, which are by benefit of being small and kind of rambling, there'll given enough for spector each other by the non-code and unpredictable things they do. by not respecting that at least at a minimum living the symmetry as it is and bring it down to where it needs to be, i feel that we are just putting too much benefit into the application in front of you. >> bring it down to the same level as the neighbors play well >>[cross-talking] >> just the last points. just

thoughts on illuminating that step which would give some-odd asleep it's a trade off your we start making the building i think look as kind of traditional in proportions correct as we start to scrunch the cornice and the step. others say it's a trade-off between giving some height reduction to the neighbors back on union street and some changes to the façade that are positive. if you have thoughts on that? >> i don't think it's for lack of better term a threshold issue. >> i cannot hear you. >> i don't think the loss of the step is a fundamental problem, major loss to the store character and contribution of the façade.

>> okay. >> commissioner moore >> i did to engage commissioner hillis in the discussion but the rear section. either rear section drawn by the alkyl applicants were drawn by the dr requester as a modified version. i personally believe that the 16 foot, 8 inch vertical excursion over two floors of the bottom affects the quality of everybody who lives there. it's tenement housing at its worst. i think by relieving the second floor as well as the third floor in the step back version is the only way how we can address this. it's not a question of privacy. it's a question about equitable life. all your privacy, visual pricey seat at such a good does anybody live 16 feet from the living space. there's a lot of people in this room. if you would you would not like it. yours is a

side setback that is not these are the main façades the main living rooms the main bedrooms. it's not property line windows. these are the main windows of san francisco flat. i personally believe over four stories were three stories respectively does not work. >> ominous step in again. if two motions on the table. one for continuance with the flipped version because we want to see this penciled out and have plans in another in the takes precedence on any other motion it love to call the question because even without the plans i'm doubting we can vote on it tonight because we don't understand what we are voting on. like to call the question on the continuance. please >> very good commissioners. what date would you like it continued to snow in august

they next week will be too soon and then you're on a three-week break. the hearing schedules are very impacted. september 22 ? anyway, you guys >> commissioner moore you made the motion >> september 22 >> on emotion than to continue this matter to september 22, to investigate it with design, antonini nay hillis nay wu nay moore aye richards that motion fails 2-4. i will also remind you after your break probably can be down to five commissioners. >> why? we have to get to a decision here first if there's a second motion on the floor.

can we call that one? >> is a motion by commissioner moore that i seconded on the flip design. >> we were told to the non-completeness of plans was difficult to do. >> instead of approving the project with a plan in front of us, what options do we have? >> we have some potential changes. this prediction of the stare at the front which would reduce taking the changes by reducing taking the parapet changes that were proposed by the project sponsor. there is bringing the light well down to meet the bottom of the neighboring light well. >> and take the offset configuration as currently is. not matching the light well. >> yes, i would second that >> is that a motion? commissioner hillis >> i don't understand the

offset. because we don't have the offset drawn in here. the offsetting light well. again i'm not sure of the offset of the >> deeming the light well? it's beyond me as well. we always ask for matching light wells. >> perhaps you could ask the dr requester? the reason for asking the light well >> dr requester affected by the light well can you state why you want something that's not something we ever require in any other project? >> you need to speak into the microphone. >> i pulled this from the

residential design guidelines which i took to mean it does require offset light wells in or recommends it. this might currently offset light well and you can see the existing light well they have is larger >> staff can you comment on that residential guidelines? it's actually quite the opposite. raskin them to be matched >> if i misunderstood it then that's my bad. the other thing that you will note, the existing light well is larger than my light well. it will provide some better light in the privacy something i was concerned about like to have some frosted windows you can see through them and i don't want someone looking into the were my friends going to the

toilet or using the shower etc. the other thing on the light well i had asked the sponsor to consider if they were aligning it by the way when they said to them i was happy about the light well, the configuration the was the light well at all at first. i was happy they did put a light well in. that is good. i agree. i did ask if rigidly was looking at a wall because it did not go down and had lowered it to the windowsill one of the things that propose if they went from a double vanity to a single vanity that you could actually lower that for the light well to the floor >> we propose that. >> okay. >> thank you. esther foster, tbs for matching light wells and one of the rooms on the other side of the light wells is a bathroom betwixt do we normally do that >> is that of privacy issue? >> it does not speak to that is agnostic >> okay, thank you. we are getting close.

>> that could be a motion >> that is for approval based on raising at the parts of again >> reduction of the height of the building by reducing the front step on russell. >> which brings us down by my calculation 231.5. >> it was taken the permits off as shown on the side of the building and reducing the height of the parapet on the front of the building. as shown by the project sponsor. it was bringing the light well down to the same grade as the neighbors light well. >> very good. do i hear a second >> second

>> commissioner moore >> i believe we have a responsibility to the building section from the very beginning in the first go around, second go around. the applicant has never brought the project properly into the context of discussing the real issues and that is as i say over and over again the issue of privacy and sitting on close on top of each other. while the ground floor it would have to be okay i have to see a gradual stepping back because the application is still a relentless insisting on the size which has not really compromised anywhere along the lines of seven units being seriously affected by this. if it would be one, you would be exaggerate. that's not the case. we've seven independent homes which are basically saying this does not work for us. very sensitive to that loud of a voice without asked us taking responsibility to modify that. so i'm expecting you

would in some form or another support stepping back of that we are elevation in order to create a little bit more elbow room >> what we talk about quantitatively? >> so far, the dr requester has, as you see here, the building which comes straight out of the rear extension to the second floor. the ceiling height and then it does a minor set back on the third floor. >> how much is that? >> it's about 5 feet and 5 feet. this is my understand. this small loss in square footage. it's a very large house. as complicated site conditions. i'm in support to getting them but i'm really asking for us to hear the other parties. i've not seen enough kind of like sensitivity towards wanting to compromise on those issues of privacy. so

come i basically would ask that we consider stepping back on level ii and three by the proposed 5 feet leave the rest as modified by the motion that commissioner hillis has put forward >> would you like to amend your motion with a friendly suggestion? >> the third floor setback is a .6. the distance between-i think the third floor is the most important. the distance between the buildings on union street and the third floor of the propose project is 25 feet. 25 feet, 6 inches. >> it would be another, 1.5 feet for what they have. it would be 26.6 by their proposal.

>>[cross-talking] >> the dr requester is a disk asking for an additional 1.5 feet on that level. that's the more important level for the dr requester because the second level is actually almost solo the first living level at least some of the homes i was in, we were other things on the first level. >> how much is stepping back on the third floor? >> yes, therefore only. i will second that could

>> just a foot and a half at the rear >> maybe a small setback on the middle floor. how about another 2 feet or three. three, okay. so 3 feet on the middle floor 1.5 feet on the top. project sponsor, i'm sorry we have to get this thing done. you find something in this clan. >> so was 3 feet off the top floor and 4.5 feet >> no. what's proposed only taking eight foot and a half more off the top. from what already is proposed taking 3 feet off the midpoints. >> authority brought it back. >> i write the applicant architect and dr requester's architect to come to the left turn and draw on the joint drawing so we are clear and that can be the record of the motion. >> excuse me, i ask to women to come to the desk. thank you.

>> so, if you step back your adding the two together on the top floor. 1.5+ blowing and is it 3 feet in the top floor is stepping back for a total >> 3.5 from where you are now. >> understood. >> here we are on level ii.

so, that is a 3'7" bringing main bring our main living space less than 10 feet wide. >> i like to see the notion developed over the section drawing of adjusting the dimensions in either direction and having that to spend what i like to see that in a section drawing and discussed over a plan. would you take the dr requester's, trees. it seems to be easier to read and we translate that back into the applicant strong. drawing.

>> 1.5 on the top we are going the opposite direction. the hard part about this is their proposal shows the 5 foot setback. we're saying it comes with a 3 foot setback. their proposal was already out too far. good. >> the next step over we are going

>> so 1.5 back from where we were, right? yes. >> okay is that a friendly mood amendment allowed on your motion? >> sure >> second >> so we have a motion and a second. i would love for you to call the question commissioners we have a motion and seconded to ddr and approve this project as proposed with modifications reducing the height of the building and reduction of the parapet. the light well matched the bottom of the neighboring light well and the setting back of the top floor 1.5 feet from the existing proposal at the rear and 3 feet at the midsection. on this motion to mr. antonini aye hillis aye johnson aye moore >> staging the technology of a stacker into low-profile

elevator >> i did not hear that in the motion. i don't know what those are >> we have use them. is there a possibility we could consider that? would you speak to that, please either of you speak to each other about it >> what you're describing sounds like the system we are proposing. is there a difference in mechanical your understanding because >> the second car sitting on top of the lower card. >> that's the system have >> is an elevator. it's much

less intrusive. it doesn't really alter the height and potentially allows you to look carefully at your redesign of your height in that area. >> yes, that i think that is what we like to have in the project. >> no. no. >> no more. we are calling the question. please sit down everybody >> this is been absurd. >> commissioner moore aye wu aye richardsons do so moved the motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> we will keep going. i think we can get done could we have three more projects. over the next you are not the controversial in the last project sponsor has limited her commenters to 10 at 1 min. >> item 17 commissioners case number 17 3880-382 19th st.

>> commissioner hillis is asking to recuse himself because he did not watch the video. >> we lost the koran. >> we lost the koran. >> will take a 3 min. break. >> good evening to welcome back to the regular meeting of the planning commission for august fourth 2016 kier we left on items 17 >> good evening commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is a part initiated request for discussion or review of

3880-3882 19th st. existing two-story over garage two-family dwelling on july 28 the commission heard public comment on the project between the matter to allow for the product project sponsored to allow for simulations of the project you shed for the sanchez street stairs allow staff to provide additional analysis and policy relate to the attention of public views. hard copies of the case report have been provided to you just now based on the quick turnaround from last week's commissioned the report has two attachments. the first is a you study. this was apparent by the project sponsor and contains seven photo simulations from different locations on the stairs. second item is two maps from the urban design guidelines. they are titled, street areas important to

design using quality of street view could on these maps 19th st. is the sense the effect of public open space. [inaudible] 19th st. and sanchez streets are considered to have excellent quality of street view. however these are both in relation to view down street corridor and the project has no impact to the views of view sheds provided by a long 19th st. were sanchez street. planning funds overall, the project would not adversely affect was significantly diminish the use of excellent street corridor of public open spaces, or views of the downtown skyline from the sanchez street stairs. the code compliant addition is modest in dimension and former compared to many of the existing buildings on 19th st. and sanchez street. the edition is not unusual or out of feel for 19th street. the stairs may be compromised at some angle but

views will remain available from higher locations along the stairs and therefore the addition is not prohibitive of access to the view shed a site visit by staff found notified seeking or resting area along the stairs and benches that may at one time existed at the midpoint landing of the steps have been in infill to be used as planter boxes. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor do anything you like to review with us? >> if you find it appropriate i can go briefly to the photos >> would you, please? >> as mentioned by jeff, we took seven points from the very

top of the stairs to all the way at the bottom get those points are indicated here. starting from the top, the green box highlights the proposed addition vertical addition to the green outline shows the existing and the rest the buildings all around. here the trees and the streetlamps is pretty much covering most of what would be blocked. coming down to the middle of the stairs to my actually, in the middle of the steps not quite on the landing, the trees again the green box shows the alignment of the proposed addition and the view is not impacted at that point. on the

landing, judging it is the landing matters most to the dr requester, the trees are in the way. is a very small segment in between buildings that i guess takes a sliver away of the view of the downtown skyline. as we go down i think the impact again gets diminish because the property is to the east. this is again in the middle of the stairway. at the bottom landing, here i guess this really no impact to speak of and it goes without saying from the street level there's no impact at all. >> thank you very much. taking public comment on this item?

>> the dr requester should probably- i apologize. dr requester. >> where is the dr requester? >> [inaudible] >> you have 3 min., the please >> i just want to reiterate the general plan. as is written, the general plan is spreadable sectional views route doesn't. the lost heights would be [inaudible] extensive session about protection of the general plan entitled, special characteristics of standing and

unique areas. the heights which include these 19th st. stairs is only one of a five san francisco neighborhoods designated under these headings as an outstanding, one of only five. there's many references to protection of the use just a couple. on the general plan protects section fundamental principles for conservation. it states that in section 1 c the binoculars can be diminished by building. in section 17 talking street views of the bay or distant hills or the parts of the city as we just saw in those pictures can destroy an important characteristic of unique setting and quality of the city. dolores heights is one of those unique's settings and deserves the protection the general plan of forms. in the section entitled, conservation and street space, this policy 2.1-2.9 in which it says care

should be taken to review proposals for giving up street areas in terms of old public values that streets afford and with care to avoid obstruction or diminishing a significant view were elimination of a viewpoint could finally, let me just say that under the urban design section of the plan, it states that san francisco's environment is magnificent and the city is a great city. unique relationship of a natural setting and man's past creations are extremely fragile. this constant pressures for change could some for growth and some for dk. but some make this point for dk a decay that can never be restored. it's a decision that little by little would impact our lives diminishing the quality of life in san francisco and the decision that can never be reversed. thank you. >> thank you very much. speakers in support of the dr requester? any speakers and

support the dr requester? no. okay. project sponsor we have already heard from. any speakers in support of the project sponsor someone seeing none, this portion of the hearing as close >>[gavel] >> commissioner moore >> i appreciate the investigation to let us understand what this building does and doesn't. ultimately i'll be referring to commissioner richards who lived in the neighborhood who used to use the stairs but from my perspective i believe the study that's been presented is conclusive that to the effect that while their minor impact impacts are not such that the views are completely disappearing. we cannot look at protection of views as a static can never change thing. it's a question of degree. i believe this building cuddles well within this still intact larger

overall view and from that perspective i find the disclosure on the different levels very interesting but indeed not harmful to the objective of protecting views good so i am very satisfied with what i see. i've a couple of other comments but first interested betwixt great. i've said this but, as senate. in this him. make sure everybody realizes that we take everything you say seriously. she we decide for or against you were somewhere in the middle we've heard you. i was the one that was resistant to approving this project last week without seeing what we saw today the project sponsor provided. given the amount of you loss i don't find it extraordinary or exceptional for us to take dr and approved this project. it does shade some of the view but it's not exceptionally large. it's actually kind of minor.

commissioner antonini >> i went out on friday the 29th, the day after the last hearing and was a beautiful sunny afternoon. was around 3 pm. one reason why i had not noticed the stairs was the project is located about half a block to the east of the stairs. i went over to the stairs and i started from the very bottom and i worked my way up to see what you could see and on the lower most levels you go if you stairs and there is a landing not too far up. you can't see anything on the bottom. on a first level all you can see his cathedral hill because the buildings at 98-3096 and 3894 other buildings right at the very end of the block next to sanchez block you out for seeing anything out to the east so that means you're not seeing

anything from there. then you get to the middle and you run into some huge buildings that 3872, 3866, and 3856, block out anything you're going to see to the eastgain you don't see too much. you can see a little bit over them and begin to see the skyline of san francisco. then when you get up at the very top you do see the skyline. you see the downtown area but your view only goes as far as 181 freemont which is one of the two high-rises starting to climb to the sky. anything southeast of that is blocked off by 3876 and 3878, which are very large buildings much higher than this building is going to be. so the incremental increase this building is going to add is

going to be very slight. i don't really think it would change the view because when you get to the top look over this building and you look over the existing buildings that are taller to the east and that's about all you're going to be will to see. when you that's only the extreme west end of the landing at the top. as you move to the east you blocked off to the buildings on the south side of 19th st. and by the trees which could be trimmed off but even so those buildings on the south side of 19th are blocking you from any view. so, i don't see virtually no impact from this. i am going to move to not take dr and approve the project. we already established last time we just station of the unit >> commissioner moore >> i just want to acknowledge the request for the living area on the ground for has been modified introducing the separation between the bedroom and the garage. however, on the

plan for unit two, drawing number a-six there is a terrorist suggested. however, when you look to the adjoining building the terrorists overshoots the bay on the adjoining building, which requires for reasons of privacy for us to pull the cars back to a depth of 8 feet. when you look at drawing their offer-when you see in the photograph with the actual situation is in for reasons of privacy and primary reading rooms on the armory building that particular terrorists for unit two on proposal level ii has to be shaved to back >> do we need to take dr then >> that is correct. that's a minor adjustments for the

privacy of the adjoining. we have to take dr and shave the terrorists back to a depth of 8 feet which matches the edge of the adjoining bay window. >> are you entertain withdrawn >> i withdraw my motion. make a new one to take dr and is described by commissioner moore, level to propose unit two we are bringing back from i guess it would be the rear of the property we are bringing the deck back to a depth of 8 feet. >> second. >> you can call the question >> thank you. on a motion to take dr and reduce the terrace deck at the rear 28 feet-sorry. i'm brain-dead but reduce it to 8 feet on a motion commissioner

antonini aye moore aye bedrosian aye richards aye so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 4-0. that will place us on ida making for case 2015 at 259 of the illustrates discretionary review. >> >> good evening commissioner department staff. at the july 28 hearing you continued this case one week so staff to determine if the ground floor room behind the garage which contains a kitchen facilities as well as the bathroom and shower constitutes an unauthorized towing unit that

would require conditional use authorization to remove the kitchen facility and incorporate the space into the single-family house. to be considered an authorized one unit removal is subject to conditional use authorization the spots need to cry two. must have independent access to the street and be separate from the rest of the house and there must be documentation that the space is actually being used as an unauthorized unit. in this particular case of of the room behind the garage needs the independence criteria, in that it's independently accessible through the garage has limited

separation with the rest of the house, our research includes the space does not need the use criteria. a search of building permits by the property does not show any evidence the space was a drawing units there's no history of dbi or planning department complaints were enforcement actions regarding the space being used as a drawing units. the rent board has no documentation of evictions for the address and finally the property owners who own the property for more than 20 years@an affidavit stating the space has not been rented to a tenants. i am submitting to the commission secretary copies of this information as well is some additional letters that have come in. >> thank you. i'll open up for public comment. >> sorry. i was just addressing last week. i still have to address >> thank you. >> yes. since the space doesn't need both independence and use criteria is not considered to be unauthorized unit and removal of the kitchen facilities and incorporation into the rest of the house does not require conditional use authorization. i will now move on to the dr portion of the

presentation. the project consists of minor façade changes interior renovations and construction of a third story above the two-story single-family house at 255259 of the local streets. that setback approximates that 15 feet from the existing front wall and the subject property currently features a 34 foot deep we are yard and this would be retained. the subject properties on the west side of a villa street between beech street and capital way in the marina. second 1925 houses on 527 foot wide 100 foot deep block zones r-h-one and registered. the liens on the subject in opposite block faces predominately two stories in height constructed in the 1920s and not what referred to as the arena style. six of the 15 properties [inaudible] the

majority of which are flush with the lower circuit on the opposite block face the majority of third stories are set back from the street wall. the two properties immediately adjacent to the subject property are two-story single-family houses. other than the dr requesters submittal that apartment has received no communications of objection to the project. the department has received 21 letters of support from neighbors in support of the project copies of which were submitted to you just now. the dr requester is patrick mulligan who is the owner and resident 3606 scott street to the west reader of the subject property-sorry to the west of the reader property loan to mr. mogan's concerns are as follows: the project violates the open space tight destructions of the project is flanked by two-story houses and is therefore out of character.. the projects big scale is double

the existing house and the project will illuminate the dr requesters some good the phone was a submittal of the reset until design team review the project light of the dr request include the project is consistent with the residential design guidelines does not contain any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. specifically the rdt's found propose a vertical edition is appropriately scaled and consistent with the existing rear yard passing pattern and midblock open-space pattern. they also noted the subject house is currently separated from mr. malkin's house by approximate 70 feet and the separation were not change as a result of the project. the department supports the project as proposed and recommends the commission not take dr and approve the project. >> thank you. er requester, you have 10 min. >> i know the hour is late.

seven hours last week, 11 hours today. i appreciate it's your goodwill and thank you for making the effort. mr. lindsey through the chair, i'm not sure if you would like to spout about i might suggest there might be other sources than building and a few other areas you might look at because the number of residents have occupied the property since 1979 to the current owner has occupied since 1993. so, i'm not sure that her research was sufficiently adequate but let's leave that be. i saw something on [inaudible] on the rooftops of paris and ongoing, hey, maybe there's symmetry in the rooftops of the marina of san francisco. the marina is very unique because was built at one time you could really get one big project and the midblock

open-space has one specific word that i think has been neglected and it gives priority to midblock open-space. when you have an east-west configuration as i have mr. antonini has a north-south separation i heard him say earlier when you east-west all you get is morning sun and settings on. so i'm going to be deprived of 50% of my son. the rising some get a religious experience to some but noted in poems by everybody. if i can have-that's the sun coming up over the subject house. any morning there is no fog. that disappears. i'm been made a bad guy here good i don't want it in my own backyard but this is just one individual responding

democratically to saying somebody else want something am going to get less pumps was to be happy about it. i didn't go around and organize 29 people friends and relatives to write in. i understand the squeaky wheel gets the grease but i also understand your very fair and i watched you for 18 hours and i appreciate your indulgence. so, maybe at some future point we will find out the roof tops of san francisco in the marina should've been been better appreciate. i like to beat into the record something that wasn't appreciated at its time. the cable car. east coast shipping tycoon elected on a platform of efficiency and progress have all the sentiments [inaudible] lucius and charles craig wrote the 1951 book cable car and

carnival in this january 1947 annual message to the board of supervisors the mayor demanded the market street railroad cable cars which the city had acquired in 1994 immediately removed the diesel buses. in retrospect we know that was dumb and one of the most cherished aspect of san francisco today. if it wasn't for a popular vote among ladies would still be doing with the diesel buses coughing their way of the pills and we would not have the cable cars. so am suggesting possibly the might be something to that. i can before you over a year ago and i spoke about monster homes in san francisco. basically, the problem has not gotten better since the problem remains.

specifically, the legal basis for it is section 311 c-one of the planning code provides residential design guidelines shall be used to review plans for all new construction and alterations. the construction of new residential buildings and alterations of existing residential buildings in our districts shall be consistent with the design policy and guidelines of the general land. is that 10 min. p.m. >> you're only at 45. i made a mistake. >> 20 seconds left. >> off look through the pictures. that's out of my bedroom window. >> speak into the microphone, please >> this is out of my window. you see for houses they. this is another view. is that it?

that is it but you of a two-minute rebuttal. you have seven altogether. that was my mistake. i thought there was 10 >> when there's multiple dr requesters. >> you have an additional 2 min. thank you. again my apologies it was my mistake. thank you. project sponsor. sorry. supporters of the dr requester. any public comment for supporters of the dr requester? seeing none, project sponsor you have 5 min. >> good evening commissioners. i am the architect four 259 available street. the project

contentious part of the project is the third story addition that's 27 feet wide, 41 feet .25 longer we will 15 foot setback in the from. the rear wall since above the first and second floor of the existing walls. you come up with a design i just want to say the owners are very concerned about having to project those permissible went to the extra effort of setting up the application meeting and planning staff and out of that meeting some valuable recommendations regarding input character historic preservation and height and massing. all the recommendations were addressed and incorporated into the design. during the pre-application meetings with labor some concerns were brought up about shadows and in your packets of the review was shadow study we prepared but particularly pertinent this is a 9:00 am condition. we have

existing on this site and proposed here. for this bring equinox the summer solstice done winter solstice is superposed project addition here and this is the dr requesters site. as you can see, none of these conditions are we catching shadows. this is at 9:00 am. this diagram we have an image of the neighborhood. this is the proposed project at 259 of the low. this is the dr requesters house. in yellow where buildings which are three stories or higher. if you measure up the midblock open-space video footage, buildings which are greater than three stories or greater make up more than 55% of that

perimeter. another thing to note the owners opted not to expand into that midblock open-space. they could've gone in a few feet and they didn't and thereby preserving the footprints of the midblock open-space. you can also see from this diagram buildings that are three stories or are predominate in this neighborhood. this is an image of the midblock open-space looking where the addition will be towards the dr requesters property as you can see this two-story homes here but there's also quite a bit of three-story and higher buildings there. this is the dr requesters house yet. as

conceived is quite a few two-story homes both adjacent to his and across the street directly from him. yet even higher than that. regarding the proposed project configuration, again this is on of the love street looking across the street there's a development with new remodels. the existing two-story buildings with third story additions above setback in our project conforms to that pattern. this is the proposed project site and again is very many three-story buildings existing there. back includes my presentation. the owners are here. jocelyn and donald kinnard

as well to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. any speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, dr requester you have 2 min. >> this is looking west. out to the bay. this is looking south. the architect showed used the and of the building. he did not show you the center of the plot. this is an analytic start but 27 min. potentially, so this is like this project is being bulked up 1400 ft.2 to 2200 ft.2. this is

like a fighter booking up on steroids 293% in bulk and 62% in height. over what he's got and he still wants to fight is a lightweight. that's totally disingenuous with what's shown here. i've lived in that house for 32 years. i know everybody pretty much on the block although it's changed a lot recently. you need to focus on these are the city wills. i'm not here for financial gain. if they're all going to go up read it happen after i'm gone. i'm not here pushing a financial point of view. i'm pushing a philosophical point of view it's not my guidelines being violated. if the city guidelines. your representatives of the cities we have to look at you. you

decide. >> thank you. project onto your 10 min. if you choose to take it. very briefly, the owners have lived there for 22 years. they're doing this work because i have a mother-in-law that comes quite often. they have two daughters to our there may need more space. they been living in a small space for over 20 years. >> thank you. this portion of the hearing is closed >>[gavel] commissioner antonini >> a very familiar with vista. i went of course to check this out and have some friends actually who added a floor at 44 of the look about a year ago i went to this blog and i noted among others 236, 224, 218 242, 269, 237, 275, that was a quick

run, and i agree with the map that was shown by the project sponsor because over 50% of the homes on available had third floors. it's totally appropriate for a family. the houses are okay but a little bit small and one level over a garage and [inaudible] an additional floor on and this is been done in a tasteful way. it's been done to carry out the architectural details on the addition including the faux tile roof. as far as impacts, there's no rear yards because the not intruding into the be your yard. as his picture showed, there's no shadow impact

. the dr requester is 70 feet away. i can understand the sun still rises bit ill rise a little bit later. it'll be out little later in the morning when the sun comes over the additional floor of this building. word if you move to a different angle you unsure you can look beyond that and see the sunrise from a different part of the house. i don't see any the just may see further requested i think this has done been very well come in a move to not take dr and approved it second >> commissioner hillis >> i just want to note one of thank you for being here. you walk around the marina and see residential design guidelines and ability in that 15 foot setback is a house a couple

doors down on both sides of dumbest third-floor addition right one right up to the front and one that setback 15 feet. i don't know when we made the change but as you walk through the marina you can see the evolution of how we've treated these third-floor additions and how it works so much better with setbacks. just to note on supportive of the project >> just want to say to the dr requester the intersection between what's allowed and the philosophy and we absolutely heard you but given the situation at her father's extraordinary reason will not let the project sponsor do what they're about to do. i appreciate you saying we are fed. i heard what you said. not going to vote for you but i understand where you're coming from. >> there's a motion and seconded to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. on the motion are antonini aye hillis aye moore

aye wu aye chairman richard's aye so moved the motion passes unanimously, 5-0. commissioners that places us on the item 19 the case for 73 haight st. discretionary review >> good evening members of the planning commission. planning department staff. item before you is a public initiated discussion review of building permit application proposing interior and exterior alterations to legal nonconforming medical cannabis dispensary in retail use. located in approximately 1000 131 square-foot ground floor commercial space at 473 haight street. whose previous the occupied by an ncd and retail tobacco store is goodfellows

smoke shop. the planning commission approved following a mandatory discretionary review hearing in november 2006. they're proposing to continue the ncd and retail use. the scope award under this building permit application includes interior modifications to expand the existing ncd use with the change in ownership from 41 4 ft.2 to 517 .5 ft.2. interior tenant improvements and rooms in the commercial space for modifications to the existing storefront and read regarding the existing atm walk up facility which was approved under a conditional use authorization the case number 25.0 817c. project sponsors have also filed two other wording building permit applications for new business signage for the canopy signs

for the project. the public initiated initial dr request was filed by mr. khan of 453 haight st. the adjacent tenant directly west of the project site. the dr requester is proposing that the project be disapproved and it should be denied on haight. further details is in your case report and were presented from the dr requester. to date, the department has received over 100 letters and petitions of support to the project. also has received additional letters in opposition to project including a petition over 100 signatures. also, the lower haight merchants association

estimated letters of support based on the memorandum of understanding. as far as the background of the retail use the existing land use was established the planning code on in 2006 under case number 2005.08 17d adopted conditions were to the operation of the space. the conditions are stated in the case report. as far as the new owners they're supposed to comply with previous conditions to make the operation and the existing retail space. in the interim i guess probably the hearing the project sponsor was issued a health permit from the health department. it has not been appealed. it has been appealed but they were operating under the previous conditions. there was a complaint that the planning department received regarding the operation not meeting the conditions. enforcement staff went on site and found they were still

operating under those conditions. in addition i just want to note that the planning department staff also contacted the northern station police department and there's no specific reports that were made in the change in ownership for the last couple of weeks. so, the planning department recommendation is not to take dr and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. i'll be able to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. dr requester, you have 5 min. >> you can submit them over the bar. the secretary. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> sir, you have to speak into

the microphone, please >> your time is running. >> on behalf of the 400 block 1618 merchants signed against it strongly against it and they submitted a letter against it. i want to point out this has been to the board of appeals and preliminary findings they actually deemed the operation it legal for the period of time unlawful ncd for the time they operated because of mistakes the health department and i want to point out that i'm

actually requesting continuation of the dr based on the error by the planning department and several occasions that i'm going to point out really fast. i requested dr for the entire project. not just the building permits and i talked to scott sanchez also in he said [inaudible] substantial conformity so here also i actually requested-you have the paper-i said how much time to haggle for the referral so sharon young, she actually pulled up the [inaudible] depending on the approval of the building permit but right after that, she sent approval to the dph referral approval to them and they conducted their hearing but she did not let me know shari approved [inaudible] clearly stating conditional use