too far with the magnificent units with the par units or whatever you category grizzly it. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'll ask staff when we have those cus to ask what the tenant profile is if someone that living there and try to make a decision with this i think the other thing that i've seen in my neighborhood i know that ms. swedish bring to our attention those have small units that marketed as small unit homes as whenogram comes we're not getting the clarification and we see this having this may or may not happen but that raise the equity question he move to continue the item to - let me get my

calendar here. >> jonas can you help me out april 27th. >> if you're looking looking for a date commissioner we're full on the dr calendar we've got 4 drs on every single one of your advanced calendars up to may 18th. >> so unless you want to impact another calendar. >> with a request that the feedback that the commission gave be reincorporated into the design. >> do i hear a second and yeah. second and commissioner moore. >> i was going to ask if you have very specific points please repeat them and mr. richards so

at the into the record as instruction. >> i think i heard commissioner president hillis having a come back to two full size unit more lived in by two families a real addition to the neighborhood and put it in about the fourth floor tuned down like a light house people are in the top you can see everyone from the light tone it down and my other inputs. >> commissioner moore. >> if i may i'd like to get a classification as to whether or not i want to support a guest suit on top of in an built in airbnb rental sporptsd to be a family-friendly oriented home we want to sees justification why it needs an additional stuff on

top i'm personally sensitive in living in back of a building that as a motion and a second open space that large windows in the back with bedrooms facing out the rear is difficult because if there are glazing the impacts that arises at night and say hey pull your curtains we need sensitivity to the people to the rear of the building. >> i'm okay with that, i

>> discretionary review. >> good evening commissioners. i'm david lindsay department staff. the project consists of a two-story article addition

>> the way we are going to do this is first we have a presentation by staff and then you out 5 min. if you are the dr requester and public comment and in the project sponsor so you're welcome to have a seat while the project staff explains. thank you. >> okay. >> commissioners the project consists of a two story vertical addition to the two stories single-family house that 471 hickory st. the proposed addition is within the existing footprint of the building and the partial top story will be set back 15 feet from the front façade and 5 feet from the east side property line. and will be minimally visible from the public right of way. the subject party is on the south side of hickory street which 35 weed st. connecting the canon and the good i'm bisecting the larger block between fallen over in the western addition neighborhood. the two-story

circa 1900 houses on the up slope in lot that measures 24.5 feet wide and approximately 53 what feet in-depth good apportionment existing building located within the lot required your therefore considered to be legally noncompliant. however no work is proposed above the noncompliant portion of the building. the zoning is rto. the houses considered a historical resource for the purposes of ceqa the project was issued a ceqa categorical categorical assumption. buildings on the subject in opposite block faces are generally two-three-story residential buildings during architectural styles as well as one-story garage structures. the immediately adjacent property to the west at 477 hickory is a three-story single-family house in the immediately adjacent property to the east is a good lot developed with a 12 unit apartment building that fronts on oak street and features an

open yard along the hickory street frontage. the immediately adjacent property to the reader are south of the subject property is a three-story two unit residential building owned by the dr requester. the department has received three letters of support for the project. one of which is from an adjacent neighbor and another of which is from a neighbor in the same block. since the packets were distributed last week the department has received four e-mails success in opposition to the project. i would like to note that in late january a complaint was made to the department of building inspection alleging construction without permit on the subject property. the dvi inspector visited and found no evidence of work without permit planning department staff visited the site yesterday and confirm this to be the case. the dr requester is mrs. dorothy cook the owner of 466 oak st. located immediately south into the rear of the subject property. mrs. cook's

concerns are as follows: that the project is to talk and conflicts with the block face and topography. that the proposed building is incompatible with the neighborhood landscape and surrounding buildings. the project reduces the available stock of affordable housing in the neighborhood and that the project replaces a structurally sound contributory resource. since it's a middle in 2015 the project has been significantly revised in response to direction from both preservation staff and the residential design team. the following seminal of the dr request the rdt review the project again taking into account the dr requester's concerns, and concluded that the project is consistent with the residential design guidelines and does not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. specifically the rdt found the project is a must vertical addition that's compatible with the block face in the block open space and the general character of the neighborhood.

the proposed front and side setbacks of the top story are sufficient to minimize visually impacts associated with the buildings proposed height. further the project was found via its ceqa review to be compatible with the hayes valley residential historic district to which the subject building is not a contributing structure. the planning department recommends that the condition not take dr and approve the project as proposed. >> thank you mr. lindsey. ms. cook, the dr requester you have 5 min. the other way. thank you. >> commissioner hillis and fellow commissioners, i read the planning guidelines and i believe that my [inaudible] meet the planning guidelines.

limit the height to two stories above the garage them at two stories will be compatible with the neighborhood particularly with the scale of the east-west alley. the door height being lower than its opposite neighbor which matches the topography of the block. no penthouse on the top of the historic carriage house because the lot is a half lot and it's really actually too close-yes, it's too close to my house and it invades my privacy. the house remains a single-family dwelling and the historic gabled roof is preserved. the façade of glands with the other victorian homes located along be alley. those are my request. a bit of background. 16 .5 years ago my parents purchased the victorian home for 66 oak st. which included 471 hickory. the

house was old it takes her upper no foundation get cracked plaster walls and decayed parapets and both homes and lots sold for $6000. we were the second black homeowners on the block in san francisco invisible judge raymond reynolds being the first. soon after that hayes valley became an african-american neighborhood filled with african-american homeowners and families. my family has been a part of hayes valley for five generations. we care about this neighborhood and cherish its history. the oldest black home on our block died recently at age 103. as soon as she took her last breath and construction workers were on site remodeling the house. most of the old-timers don't live here anymore unlike my family all their children moved mile away when he returned to san francisco for a visit to their old stomping grounds they cherish the landmarks. the

memorializes the history. it is important that homes like 471 hickory st. be preserved. at the time my parents were able to finance the necessary repairs [inaudible] construction company to do necessary renovations at this slightly modernized apartment house next-door set a precedent for the modernization of the front of my house. our house is on the west-our house on the east was next and 477 hickory st. in the alley was next. each group permit was singly issued by on a case-by-case basis with the issuance of each permit [inaudible] for the approval of the next permit just if this continues this commission will have no alternative but to approve other changes that will severely impact the history of this neighborhood because they will be following the guidelines. i read him

requesting that the planning commission used its power to help us sustain the beautiful historic features of hayes valley. once the aesthetics of this historic neighborhood is destroyed it will never be restored. he's in point is the historic homes and buildings in the western addition. a major part of that district was buildable bulldozed and because parts of hayes valley remained untouched its beauty preserved it has become the coveted place to live. we applaud the professionalism of the architect and the planners. however the project design further contributes to the destruction of the aesthetics of character and distinction of being a historic neighborhood. this carriage house is significant part of our history . that's worth saving. it's also in harmony with the planning department live in alley project. hayes valley -hayes valley has been declared a historic district in the

planning department and its marketing octavia study described the historic district as a collection of resources building sites or objects that [inaudible] historically architecturally and culturally significant. with the exception of 477 hickory, homes on the 400 block of hickory street is virtually untouched by modernization. according to the san francisco preservation bulletin number 11 the subject home for 71 hickory was built around 1885. it was not destroyed by the 1906 earthquake by the [inaudible] construction and the fact that it still inhabitable speaks to soundness of the structure and its character. ownership has changed a number of times. renovations of the inside has been done mostly by the homeowners themselves witnessed by me from my kitchen window to our city is growing by beats and downs. [inaudible] high-tech vocab moved in their [inaudible] certainly different from our generation. >> thank you very much. so we will open up to public

comment.. those that are in support of the dr request. or opposition to the project i will call a number of speakers. >>[calling public comment cards] >> good evening pres. hillis on commissioners. my name is carl williams. i am a property owner at 708 broadway street in san francisco where i have resided for 40 years. african-american property owners in san francisco are a endangered species. i am here in support of ms. cook and

those who are requesting that you revoke the permit that would allow this development to go forward. in addition to what ms. cook has said, i believe two other factors are important with respect to why you should revoke this permit. number one, ata four story high the building would be taller than any single-family home in the vicinity, including the grand mansions that anchor the neighborhood. secondly, the building would also be out of scale with this neighboring homes [inaudible] relation of the architect-architecture to

the city's unique topography. and there is another reason why i am here and speaking in opposition to this project. for the past year, almost, on behalf of the san francisco african-american historical and cultural society, i have been working with your city planning staff to develop the african-american historic statement. that context is statement is nearly finished and it will soon be sent to the appropriate channels for approval. i have no doubt that if that historic statement were

completed today, this development would be in manifest contravention of the african-american historic context statement. it would be in violation of any efforts that the city ought to be committed to in trying to maintain a hospitable environment for african-americans to live in this city. this development puts in peril african-american residing in the neighborhood where there is development. thank you. >> thank you mr. williams. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is

doris washington. i do up at 466 oak st. good i remember when the telephone number was klondike 20415 we played we played in the streets and [inaudible] came down the street. but my daughter who is was here earlier, she could-one of her voice to be heard, so she asked me to present this to you. it reads as follows. this is our family home and it has been held in the families possession for over 59 years. our family values dictate this home is not to be sold. therefore he must look after its condition now and in the future. the neighborhood

consists of traditional victorian homes situated in harmony and character with the other homes in its community. and this toppled at this time harmony and balance are clinical killers needed to sustain traditional family values. therefore, i am requesting revocation of the building permits as it doesn't align with the other homes in the community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is jennifer reiko and i'm here in support of my good friend and next-door neighbor dorothy cook and her family. i was born and raised in the bay area and i loved the city since i was a young girl making monthly pilgrimages to chinatown. my parents both from immigrant

families and i have worked very hard so that i can call one of the beautiful victorians i always dreamed about my own. by now you've certainly read dorothy's detailed application and are familiar with our concerns regarding conservation of historic resources in san francisco. you likely also read the e-mails from dozens of san franciscans opposing this project. you have wondered, if the proposed one is the proper size for the smaller lots that exist on hayes valley charming alleyways. then you will no doubt have considered whether it is appropriate to build a four story house for single young man in an alleyway landscape of modest family homes. or whether it is right that his should be the tallest single-family building in the neighborhood a full story taller than the mansion where the-mansion just blocks away. i come into, have wondered these things in my own answers are always, no. no, because this

historic cottage has a seven decade long history for dorothy and her whole family. these stand to lose something real and tangible if this project is built. no, because this project is out of context on its block and sets a new standard for height and massing in the single-family homes in our historic district and provides no extra density. no, because it approval of so many projects like the one proposed threatens to have a disastrous cumulative effect on the character of our neighborhood and landscape. also the diversity of our neighborhood. there are too many relevant references to conservation in both the city's general and market and i talk you land for me to list here. but here is one from the planning departments on the list of its eight priority policies that explain exactly why we should all say no to this project. policy number two states, that existing housing and neighborhood character should be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhood.

the big elephant in the room that the city a doors were making these seemingly small decisions is that they collectively have impacts that are severe and real for most of the families who live here. each time we replace an affordable family home in our city the luxury building for a tech millionaire there are ripple effects did not just because an accessible home is lost but because the resultant changes in our neighborhood businesses exacerbate the marginalization of our long-term low income senior and minority residents who wish to stay within their communities. we are in the midst of an affordability crisis which disproportionately affects families and seniors in the western addition and the rest of the market octavia plan. and we should be- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> president hillis on commissioners, good evening. i

really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening. i'm a friend of mrs. cook and i am here to support her petition. i wish i could be heard to be helped but i don't have the resources to provide the kind of help that she needs. as a matter of fact, none of her family have those resources. you are the only opportunity for help that she has. i am here to just speak about some of the things that happened in the past. i think that commissioner richards when he spoke of balance and equity touched a point that should be very important for all of us. mrs. cook lives on the edge of what used to be the fillmore district and she's in the western addition and about 50 years ago there was a redevelopment project in the

fillmore district that moved out probably 90% of the african-americans who lived in the city. although there were promises that they would be able to come back into the community and there were promises that their interests would be taken into consideration, all of you know that never happened. now we have a situation where not only has the cultural community of the fillmore been decimated, but now we have a person who is one of the survivors of that community who needs to have some sense of comfort and protection. there is a change in our community get there is a change in her neighborhood. when she tries to speak about it or do something about it,

the voices that she has to deal with our overwhelming. i am here to ask you-i can be her friend-but i cannot be her help. you can be her help and i am asking this evening that you be her friend as well. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is is esther marx and i've never met dorothy were friends before this evening but i am very appreciative of the struggle she has continued to try and protect her neighborhood and the african-american community in san francisco. and i am here to speak in opposition to the fourth floor on 471 hickory st. the fourth floor space is to be used as office space. i feel that there is another location in that house that could be used

for office space. you don't need that fourth floor space. i live in the upper market street area but i am familiar with the neighborhood because i worked on two of the three campaigns to remove the central freeway. i disagree with the staff conclusion that the vertical addition is quote compatible with block space midblock open space and general character of the neighborhood and quote. part of the charm of hayes valley are the residential alleyways. i have friends who live nearby hickory street on linden street and lily street. these are alleys that reflect the past generation and represents one of the treasures walking in san francisco. i want the-i went to the project site and i believe the fourth

floor setback 15 feet will still be visible from the street. it will have a negative impact on the clock face and scale. the house next door uphill which is 477 hickory, is three stories. however, and next door, adjacent is the garage and there's only one story above the garage. one shouldn't justify the scale and the lack of compatibility of the proposed project because of the apartment building on the corner which is out of place in that particular block. the proposed project does not respect the topography by following the downward slope of the alley. we must keep in context the homes across the street which represents the best of cottage homes architecturally well-maintained

and charming. the dr application-and i want to say it is beautiful and totally appropriate in this particular project be quote often individual components of a district lack individual distinction but as an ensemble they may manifest architectural historically architectural historically or cultural values that transcend their individual importance and quote. 471 hickory st. is part of the >> thank you ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> marquise could get him against progress at the sons of others. my family has resided at or 66 oak st. for over six decades and in my four decades on this earth i have seen this

community go through many transitions. one of the worst being the crack epidemic but the gentrification of the western addition is like than nothing from the never ending story from nothing is the same as it was good i do my grandmother's kitchen window i watched the world change. so i oppose any renovation that width one the last original families on the block from the rest of the world. i moved away from san francisco i was born and raised your i moved to georgia for eight years and when i came back i felt like i went from the flintstones to the jensen's. it was a totally different world and i was totally unprepared for it because i do not keep up with the changes as they went and because of that was unable to find housing. the place where i stayed at before which was in daly city tripled in rent and a block away from my grandmother's house they told me yes we accept section 8 but for two bedroom it's $4800.

$4800? so, i mean there are other-there are not. i wish they could be here. send me a text message that their great opposition to this developers actions who will also be in contact with commissioner against this project. the entire hayes valley is cultural resource to not only san francisco but to me that my grandson and her son-in-law and her daughter and our family across the country who come to visit, who stay there, who in times of need like me who stay in my grandmother's house. i mean it's like putting a brick wall in front of a window. you just stare out and i see nothing good so i think there are other places that it would fit perfectly good i'm not against [inaudible] but i damn against progress at the expense of others. >> thank you. any additional

public comment in support of the dr? >> hello. i am patricia grant born and raised san francisco and in that house am feeling very sad today that this is-i feel like what my son said we are being cut off from the world. and at the expense-thank you for sharing your day with me i could've went to work but your day has been interesting and i see that we have found the parts. this meeting did not feel like san francisco. everything that has to come before a board. we used to be neighbors did this is the kind of community i was raised in a household i was raised and we should-were the complaints should've been able to be talked out. my mom's neighbor,

he should be able to build whatever house he wants. it should just be an appropriate place for it. so he wants to build a high-rise in downtown for that, right? not the alley. i don't know if you guys have been through the alleys but they're the most beautiful part of the city and so the new modern at the corner like my son said, there's a new building that is so completely different than the neighborhood. if you go all the way up to alamo square it would be a travesty that you would see the travesty in building something so modern in straight up in that community because -it's part of san francisco the victorian, the beauty that houses the community and so i have a petition for people who cannot be here, 38, i believe was the last count. the people who are in protest to this project. and i hope you really

really really evaluate not just the part of the project that he can afford but also the little man in this project that are against it. okay, thank you >> thank you. any additional speakers? >> good evening. i wasn't one to come tonight but [inaudible] i am sophie stockholm from [inaudible] and of this is [inaudible] is my friend lives across the street. i've been working with someone at san francisco state university on the [inaudible] project around san francisco and i just wanted to underline that this is-as it is right now hickory street is very safe street for women to work, to walk, because it's been two streets with very high traffic so it's a nice place to

get through. and any building built on the south side, that would be-would take away so much light. it would make the street less safe for people to walk on. it's a very very sweet street with lots of units at ground level so it is safe because people are living on the ground floor so they are having garages. so i would ask you to consider the safety of the people on the street. thank you >> thank you. any additional speakers? seeing none, project sponsor, you have 5 min. >> hello everyone. i'm ben's

otto and i live at 471 hickory st. i didn't san francisco for most of my adult life. i think how to conjure to the hayes valley neighborhood by volunteering rating about history in helping take care of the block that i live on. my closest people are all here in the neighborhood and in the city get some of them are here today. i lived in the house on hickory the last few years. my intention is to continue to live there with my family over the long-term. this remodeling project prepares for that. i'm not a developer or a house flipper. i care a lot about urban design and history so as important to me do quality work that leaves the street as well as create a home for family. to that end i'm really fortunate to work with architect bonnie bridges on this project could the project upgrades and expands the small 1970s structure into a family sized home. bonnie is going to talk about i think a little bit of

the history because there's some confusion there. we worked hard with planning for the last few years and preservation and neighbors to finalize the design that adds a modest amount of space. i believe it improves the block also and i'm proud of that result. i'm going to turn the floor over to bonnie out. >> hello. bonnie bridges and support for bridges architecture did thank you commissioners for being here and staying so late. i just want to make five points number one, as you heard in the presentation this is a small lots. it was a subdivision of dorothy cook's property and it was a carriage house. it is a small lot and it's on a steep upslope. it's a unique condition in order to expand the property there is not the ability to go horizontal. there's only an ability to go

vertical. the proposed addition is within all of the allowable building areas and the addition has made significant concessions to reduce this top story based on neighborhood concerns and also rdt and historic comments. number two, this is a modest project. it's a small house in a small lot and it's not a whole lot bigger. it's 2000 ft.2 total. a little over to the addition is a little under 1000 ft.2. the top story is a little under 300 and it is an integral part of the project. one of the things that people do have to face here is by ability of economics for them and what they can do and build it so it is a three-bedroom-two bath with an office on the top story. massing and context. so i appreciate all of the previous speakers and dedication to this city, and also, the involvement of dorothy and many of her family members and our meetings could it-these are good people.

so this a really difficult situation. this is a modest house, however, and we have made a lot of concessions and we have also tried to make it contextual by adding the bait window, by removing a kind of odd small garage and creating a more human scaled entry. we've done a combination of two different sizes of horizontal wood siding to refer back to some of the patterns of the historic homes in the neighborhood. and we have at the rdt's insistence historic preservation's made the bay windows on the front. so there are family size housing components think you guys are well aware that this is going to be a three-bedroom-two bath good we did a quick survey of all the units that have been

added in the area over the last couple of years. less than 2% of them are three-bedroom-two bath good so this does provide a good size house for this area. i think-my last point is, there's some confusion about the historic and a-what it was in our environmental evaluation was deemed not historic on august 17 2016. in the application that we actually have some background information to share with you should you have any questions about the history of the property. in closing, i want to thank you for your time. >> you have 30 seconds. were 22nd >> 20 more seconds. >>[inaudible/off mic] >> so one of the concerns it is too tall to the project

actually is smaller than the dr requesters house and you can see this in this section. >> thank you. >> so opening up to speakers in support of the project and opposed to the dr. i have no speaker cards but if you'd like to line up or come to the podium. >> my name is keith potter and i live there for seven heck i purchased my house in 1989 and in 1992 i went through the same process. i built what was a 508 square foot home into a three-bedroom-two bath home. i believe there was discretionary review but there were issues with neighbors that we worked out and i want to state that and say i is approve what he is doing here at it actually

energizes the block and will be a great addition to the block. >> thank you. any additional speakers in support of the project? seeing none, ms. cook your two-minute rebuttal. >>[inaudible/off mic] i can't at this point we open at public comment but if you want to give a portion of your two-minute rebuttal you are welcome to do that. >> before i get started out one like to point out we had many other speakers who had hoped to's supporters say but due to the very long meeting time today they were not able to

get one of them is dave on cook said he had to go because he's a newly elected commissioner on sf usd board and a grandson of dorothy cook's. so i hope to give him some time. i just want to address some of the facts of this case too close to the market octavia plan already includes many new luxury box developments in hayes valley that are more than adequate single person. 800 octavia or hundred 50 hayes, the avalon, 400 grove, i 55 bolton just to name a few. but let's talk the details of this proposal. specifically. the single-family home on this block are modest in scale. they're mostly victorian cottages. one story. the addition that doesn't follow the topography of the site even without the fourth floor. you can see here, even if you were to take off the fourth story to tweet hope you will do, the roof lines are pretty much the

same and don't agree with the slope. this project sets a new president for mass and scale in a historic district and it's not 2000 years us like was just said it's 2800. just to correct the record. you can see here any four-story buildings are at the block and and they are all multifamily units from 3-20 units. in fact, even the historic mansions of the neighborhood to the-mansion at 700 hayes which many of you are familiar with are restricted to three start. so mr. lotto this project represents an amenity and not a necessity. especially, the fourth floor office. for our community-this home represents our history >> thank you, ma'am your time is up. >> thank you. project sponsored by the two-minute rebuttal.

>> i'm going to do the projector. i think there might be some misunderstanding about how big this top story is. it is 293 ft.2 and setbacks 15 feet from the front and 5 feet from the east property line. so we did a couple of-took pictures along the block answer the project. so i could share these with you. so this is the existing house looking up hickory street. this is the

propose project. so you actually can't see the top story. so what you see here is the two stories above the garage. so looking down hickory street, existing because of the large trees, we outlined it in that dashed white line. and the propose project. so the four-story is actually not visible from hickory street. we did a couple of other 3-d birdseye views to sort of help understand the scale of that third and fourth story top story.

>> okay. thank you good that concludes this portion of the hearing. we will open it up for commissioner deliberation commissioner richards >> i guess question for ms. cook the dr requester. so i don't find any basis to deny a permit here. the question i have >> that's a mistake. i'm glad you open that up. because that was misinterpreted. the letter was misinterpreted he called me yesterday-the inspector. he called me yesterday for clarification. it gone around there and he called me yesterday for clarification good i had told him i said no, that is not to get that's not what we meant at all. >> okay. i think looking forward your neighbor wants to modify the home that's their

right now. i don't find any grounds for us to say, you can't do anything. the question i have for you would be as the dr requester, what sort of-which we can't do we can't build anything or you can't what would you want? >> that's what i-okay it's one-story one more story. >> okay. that's it? >> well, well if the townhouse is a story one more story because and houses are going to be invasive because our lots are so small. so close to each other. then, you want the glass around and you know so >> thank you >> just one more story that's it >> yes. than question for mr.-project sponsor. so you're

the only member of the family reino? >> yes. at the moment >> so the question i visit your in a rto parking district which were cars in the parking minimum one not just like some your neighbors take your four-story weight. we program your tilting to have no parking and have that fourth floor not there not be an issue? >> so a couple things. one, so we have-currently there two parking spaces and is to garage that we removed one of the mentoring that other grudge into it better actions. the grade is so steeped in that lot that essentially everything that is at the crotch level of subterranean. so there is truly no-there's not a lot of give there. in i would suggest additionally it's in addition. it's not a demolition and is

existing structural support that is there that would be-it would be very different project good and unviable project i think to do that. >> okay. the architect of that? could you comment on that please? >> even though it's rto people still own cars. >> i understand >> because of the upslope lot the back half of the project is underground i can get the section back up. >> sure. >> you can see the slope of the lot here. it goes up, so in order to get daylight or access to air and light into the ground floor you have to do it looking out onto this treat and take away the garage.

>> okay. i will wait your other commissioner comments. i'm just looking-i look to the corner of ebert and no wheat and 15_foot house that was one, two, three bedrooms two bathrooms on three floors and the people that moved and actually were a family with a dog and two kids if you can believe that. i thought it was me tight for them and are doing well. the now seven years. i was one person what i considered it a big house. i know this is code compliant. we've got some issues with people feeling comfortable with the project in the neighborhood it's a small-it's on upslope. you've nipped and tucked it but there potentially could be maybe some other reprogramming for us to squeeze that 4 ft.2 in that somewhere else spears along that same line of questioning about-i think the trouble i see also is this the alley and how it works with the larger streets and i'm pretty

familiar with the alleys here in hayes valley and there is this kind of natural larger scale buildings on oak and his and you get kind of smaller and to be single-family homes in the out. i think you do a good job on the hickory frontage in adding that addition and making it contextual, but with a small lot basically, the neighbor on oak street is looking at a wall on that fourth floor whether it goes to hickory or not because it's pushed back in order to accommodate hickory. i guess my question is, in this relatively small part of your program. i get it's on the top. maybe their abuser, i am not quite sure. but it is a relatively small-i don't know when you take off the stairs in

the space you need to account for the stairs on the top floor, how much that actually is as far as it's an office. i guess, my question is, could you-and this may require a variance, did you think about or consider putting that kind of square footage above the kitchen in the natural footprint of the building instead of on the fourth floor? >> given the nature of difficulty getting projects through planning, not asking for a variance the client wasn't willing to explore a variance. it would also be pretty impactful to the neighbor, more so than what we are proposing here. there was some concerns early on in our very first pre-application meeting about the privacy issue , and so there was substantial sort of redesigned on the top story to make sure that it didn't have an ability for people to look from that story

into dorothy's house could so you can see on the backside there are some high clerestory window so we can get some cross ventilation, but that the portion of that façade that has windows faced out to the front, not to the back. so we addressed those privacy concerns. we also had a full width of the lot originally and in order to address some of the concerns about the mass we cut it back 5 feet from that east side. we also stepped that back façade-i don't know if that was another change that happened through the iteration to respond to the concerns. >> going back putting that space above the kitchen, that would require a variance? >> yes. >> because it's within the

>> commissioner, yes it absolutely would require a variance >> you money sent to the residential design can look at that as a potential alternative? the was we didn't. it was not a requirement of what we reviewed but i guess from my perspective and am a member of the residential design team it's a tight block as it is in what little midblock space there is good so i think one of the-one of the most positive aspects of the project in the residential design teams perspective was the fact that they were not adding additional bulk at the rear. >> okay. any other commissioners? commissioner moore >> i appreciate your discretion going through the possible placement or alternative basement of the

office space. i'm asking myself, given the size of the home, is that office these necessary. that is really where i am falling out. i'm very much following mr. lindsey and everybody else's concern about canopy over the kitchen can it be here or there. it can spirit we are too steep a grade as the architect said to gain any basement level space for living and with that kind of having been considered, i believe that the office space might have to go. >> commissioner richards >> so where commissioner moore was coming from if you did not have the office on the fourth floor new of three bedrooms, you be able to have an office in one of the bedrooms at this point in your life. >> may i >> yes., please

>> a two-part response to that. as of this very moment perhaps, although the house does not exist yet beyond that i'd like to suggest that my family planning decisions are not something i want to put in public record at a commission hearing but i believe they will see in the design that is designed to be a family-owned and my intention is to have a family there. i work from home so the office was importance. the office on the top story represents a deliberate allocation of space to the bedrooms all quite small and i was done to sort of make sure that there was space for an office. that talk four is a third of the addition size so this is really-i want to suggest this is sort of a critical component of the project. and, it becomes

difficult for the project work without it. unless clarified it's not an extraneous bonus piece of space and landed on their as an appendix. that's not the case. it's part of the program design deliberately. >> i do realize that and i don't want to get into a fleming 20 discretion in any way shape or form. understanding that with balancing out the need given the sites and were we've all been in everything we've heard, my sense would typically be as families get bigger, now for a house, they move so that's always an option as well. once you have your third child you go to pacific heights or rebels you want to go. noe valley and one of these mushrooms we saw the other-i'm joking-so it's another suggestion if the commission settles on not having that fourth floor office.

>> commissioner moore >> i would like the applicants and to put himself for a moment into our position here. where we discuss appropriate sizing of units and you heard the previous discussion, and we are basically pushed we can and week out against something which is unresolvable but that we ultimately fall on the side where each building and its reasonable design also decides it's open the context of where it is built good we saw a number of family members here speak to the long history of having lived in small homes and having brought up their families in small homes and is a current building is 7080 ft.2 in size, that is already for some people a home size by which families are brought up in small homes. if you decide to build a home to enlarge it and

i'm all in full support yet where it starts to get difficult for us is when the home starts to affect the context and the comfort and the livability and the next to each other in which were trying to achieve that. one possibility is to consider another neighborhood to envision more generous home by which family planning,, yes or no, gives you more for high lot more square footage than may need as a personal choice. however in this particular situation, particularly because your house and height will affect the quality of the alley being on the south side and the alley being on the north side, i have strong hesitation to approve the building which has the additional office soon on top because i personally do not see the office per se immediately a necessity to raise a family and be comfortable. as commissioner richards the nail on the head.

you start to accommodate and have an office space that becomes ultimately, perhaps an extra bedroom or you give up the car and your small office on the hickory street facing the side of the property where you can still put an office and if you need to but something has to give here. my own kind of desire would be to have a building that does not have the office on top. including a large deck which i think is not necessarily a necessary accoutrements for having an office space anyway. >> can you clarify the size? it does a 2700 ft.2. because we were counting garage. >> so that's the gross square-foot size. the reason we didn't speak with that initially because the vast

amount is on the grounds of the existing habitable space is 830 ft.2. i want to be having i like to reiterate this is a pretty small project. the resulting habitable spaces 2008 ft.2. that reach to me as a family side size h design program deliberately to work that way. there is some underground space but because of the grade it is hidden at the medlock should so the height at hickory street, i think is to the roof lines think 31 or 32 feet and is below the sun plane. the apex of the roof is still several feet below the dr requesters home as well as an apartment building downhill of it. we really believe this is-we designed this and we talked about this and we will be have designed for a couple of years but we worked with this idea that this is actually is

explicitly in scale in the block and is not-doesn't push the scale. it actually matches what's around it at hickory street. it matches the neighbor of hickory should be it is below the rear neighbors in the medlock space and so we believe it sort of carefully and, thoughtfully scales within the block >> i would agree on hickory street that it is scaled properly. i think where i'm having trouble is that we are-i mean the rear façade granted you've got a lot of room in front kind of reads as a three-story building because you're going upgrade their where contextually, most of those buildings don't. you are dealing with one lot that's been divided and this is the common condition in hayes valley on these smaller alleys

and these lots. i mean, sometimes you're the properties garage on that and i think you have that condition down hickory street. so i think that from having trouble. it reads as a four-story-a three-story massing there without a ton of room given the size of the lots and the fact that their properties are built out pretty far into the lot which now you're issuing-it's a context we are dealing with. then you couple that with the fact that really it's a small office on top there are kind of causing this effect is where we are kind of stuck in having problems could i get it. it's a nice room. i would want that room also but i think it's impact kind of exceeds its usefulness in the plans. i think that's where you were having problems and i still think given the context where that is building the block next

to you down hickory and on oak that-i still may be amenable to a variance that has that space above the first floor. above the first floor in the back which would be a great second floor because you are going up slope. so ms. cook's house is beyond that what up the slope. so it is less impactful and then to the down hickory is that building that's medlock and concept that good i don't know exactly what is there >> yes. i mean the dr requester house, dorothy's house is large but it's much larger than this house because it was the main house and this was the carriage house. many of the properties that are on oak street are larger as well. a

lot of the neighboring properties are two stories above the garage so we feel that the project is in scale with that. i think there's a couple of things that i find really interesting because we have been here for a while. one is this definition of family housing. and who gets to decide. so the city has mandated they want more family housing. what does that mean? i think it means more than a studio. probably means more than what one bedroom and then you could debate everything above that. so trying to make it-have the commissioners make a decision on this project based on a philosophical discussion about what constitutes a family housing, i think is unfair to a homeowner. the second thing just addressing the shadow that would occur on to the alley from this top story good so we did a series of shadow studies that i would like to share. so because the top stories set at

15 feet it's only about 9 feet high. it doesn't-it's shadow doesn't shadow the street. it only shadows the deck. so the other thing to note is that dorothy's house is to the south. so this project doesn't actually provide any additional shadow onto her property or onto any of the medlock open space that is shared by those properties. so you can see that in the december-winter solstice and the impact on the summer solstice. the concern about that top story shading the alley is not going to happen. >> i don't think to me the issue is-we do get into this roundabout debate on family housing and whether i think i

think alternately contextual to that doesn't fit here and that four-story for what it is is where i kind of pause. commissioner richards >> so we know for a fact based on our section 370 and average them because house is 1500 ft.2. that is a factor i hate to be after being here 10 hours on bambi the factor i know hardy of three votes. i'll make a motion to take dr and approve the project without the fourth floor. >> second. >> you're welcome to get, get a variance. we are proving the project i believe you can amend it if this passes. is that true? >> well, to get her parents they would need to go through the process with all the notification.

>> house is still habitable >> they would they need to do that regardless? can they modify the squeak >> this project, they could i modify without a variance but put something back there, correct they would have to go through the process alden >> doesn't so much amenable to that anyway. >> well, the project has been under review for over 18 months so it's- >> okay. commissioner moore >> perhaps you should call the question first. i think the project [inaudible] somehow lost in translation is the best way i could describe it. it is the grade on the side. the proper understanding of how to read plans. a documentation which does not any kind of 3-d larger massing of buildings with each other on the respective lots. on their respective sizes. so most like a rubik's cube without having

the rubik. the fact that for example, the square footage is what it is and what it's going to be on not in the package is all a lot of guessing and i have to assume that the discussion was with the neighbor says, fail to really get into some of the detail. i think the best thing is to call the question and then see what comes out and then we can discuss what else is on the table. >> very good commissioners of this emotion been seconded to take dr and approve the project without the fourth type top floated on a motion johnson koppel nay melgar aye moore yes richards aye hillis aye so moved the motion passes for-two with commissioners johnson and koppel voting against. he was commissioners that places us under public comments. >> commissioner moore did you have-

>> no. the commission made a decision and it would've been a tie there would've been an ability to make it second motion but there isn't. thank you >> commissioners, that'll places on public, good i have no speaker cards good >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> b was >>

i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to

understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san

francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come

the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting for the land use and transportation committee will begin shortly for february 13, 2017.