little sleepy when you get off castro. commissioner moore? >> that also means you can take your wine bottle from the restaurant and up on the roof. i don't think this is quite the same, so i want to be careful of how we take your analog and support that. i believe that generally because it is a more quiet area, 10:30 is kind of like when you have a special kind of allowance. that's basically in a primary residential area, you take people off the roof deck. >> all right. >> 10:30? >> yeah, 10:30. >> i don't know if this commission would want to consider, we had other conditions on other restaurants. there were days that they had other restrictions. pink saturday, so i would ask the commission to entertain an additional couple of nights of

the year where we actually have celebrations going on in the street. >> and but remember, you have an unsurprispervised facility. i'm okay with that, but you're going to be basically prepared to get complaints. >> but you said there was an innkeeper on-site? >> yes, and there's also keyed access to the roof, so after a certain time, the key just doesn't let you up there or let you down. >> what happens if you're up there? >> out of the parking garage, my bedroom was literally across the street, all i heard was pounding on the door at about 1:00 when they realized they couldn't get their car. >> 10:30, 10:45 if it's a leap year and a full moon? >> so for the motion, i'd give the project sponsor to give three nights of the year where they're open later. you just define what you want

till midnight. >> that's great. thank you. >> sure. >> just pick three nights, pride, castro street fair, whatever. >> we can enforce that if we speak with the project sponsor will specific nights that we could note. >> as long as you reserve a table for him on those nights. >> actually, i'm going to go to molly stearns and get a bottle of wine and go up to the roof. >> book a room at the hotel. >> all right. so is that amendment okay with the seconder? commissioner koppel? >> yeah. >> very good. there's been a motion and a second to include the motion with amendments to include the hours limited to 10:00 p.m. and the project sponsor to pick three nights that they are open until midnight, that external air handling equipment to be minimized and working with

project staff to minimize appertanences. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners that'll place us on item 12 for case number 2016-1028872 cua, 47928th street, this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. nancy tran planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use permit for 479 hate 28th street. the project will result in an approximately 5,000 gross

square foot struck where with two dwelling units and two off street parking spaces. the property is located within the rh-2 district. [ inaudible ] -- the department received a letter from the neighbor adjacent to the left. this neighbor proposed opposition to the proposed scale and is now in support of the project. copy of this is available for the commission's review. the residential design advisory team reviewed the project and the staff is in support of the project with modifications such as providing a full 15 foot set back at the building back of the third floor. the department recommends approval with conditions specified for the following reasons. the project proposed to maximize the density in the residential district. it will result in a net gain of one unit and provide two family sized dwellings. the structure is not a historic

resource or landmark, and the project meets all amabpplicabl requirements of the planning code. i this completes my prejudice, a -- presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. project son or? >> good evening -- sponsor. >> excuse me. conditional use permits -- they're not speakers after that, i think. >> my name is pretsch pasch, along with my husband, patar,

and i'm also the architect. this project was a joy for me. i was able to do something that helps my family and my two children. it's been a really amazing experience to apply my architectural skills to create a physical environment that expresses how an american family integrates indian traditions into modern living. with my mother having her own bedroom for full use, our children will get a close up experience of indian traditions that are being lost more and more. they will also be able to experience our little bit of faith will affect them via the small room that will be about the size of a walk in closet. the home provides an at home office that allows me to work from home and spend more time with our children. the second unit will be rented out to help with the mortgage.

and this is my mother. she's going to be living with us, and she'd like to say a few words. >> hi, commissioners. my name is lata tubati, and i'm a mum. i sold my house last year in chicago, and i'm very excited to move with my grand kids. i'm also moving to san francisco because prata has her office right up stairs, so i know she will be around if i need help. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good evening. rick gladstone. i wanted to put the project data up first because i wanted to show you the f.a.r. as we know the residential threshold f.a.r. rules were considered. the point of the architecture here is to act if they want adopted. under the proposed guidelines, there was going to be an f-a-r of two units of 1.8. the lot area here is 2850.

if you multiply 1-8 times 2850, you'd get an allowance of 5130 square foot, but the project's only 4432 square foot total, which means the f.a.r. for the project's actually 1.55, not as high as 1.8. originally, the project had six bedrooms in two units. your staff asked it be increased to seven bedrooms in two units, and it was. the -- the upper unit will be -- was originally proposed at high as 3624. your staff asked we reduce it by 700, which we did, and increase the lower unit, the second unit, by a similar amount, which we did, so the second unit is a little more than one half the size of the upper unit, as we understand the importance of making these

second units larger. and in fact, the second unit is now three bedrooms. the -- the -- what i want to discuss mostly is about the idea of taking 12 feet off the rear and -- i'm sorry. additional area off the front and rear. i do want to say that 12 feet has already been taken off the rear at rdt's request, and we've also changed the size. but today, the staff, even though no neighbors want this done, wants to takeoff an additional 5'8" at the rear and set back the first floor at an additional amount. my later drawings will show how that affects the inside so poorly. let's start off with the front of the building. would you put that on? staff asked the massing be reduced. already, the client has taken off this bay window here to reduce the massing and has changed the colors, and the clamp reduced at the rear of

the top floor, as well. the facade of the building from which the bay window projects is 4.5 feet from the property line already, and the top floor is 15 feet from the property line. staff wants an additional 4.5 feet cutoff at the top, but we're going to show additional drawings starting here, number five, that will show that the pedestrian view from downhill -- from uphill first, shows that we can't see that top floor. six, please. this is a view from uphill, walking down, and again, we can't see that third floor that's behind that building. number seven or eight -- eight, is it? even closer up from the same view. this is the floors we see, but behind the foliage and coming close, that third floor is hidden by the existing foliage. we respectfully ask that it not

be set back anymore. number eight, please. so we show here how the front bay window and a cornice that's been put here has hidden the top floor from pedestrian view. as you see from pedestrians walking this way, that top floor is pretty minor and set back already. again, there's a permanent cornice here meant to hide the view up toward it. as pointed out, there was -- the uphill neighbor did have a problem with that top floor and wanted it set back. the neighbor, shown here, now supports the building without that top floor set back. downhill neighbor support, no top floor set back, additionally. the planning staff, as you required, 12 feet back -- next slide. 12 feet's already been eliminated right near in green. the code allows us you to come

back here, the rear set back, but it's been met railroad. the additional of the 4 foot cutback at the top is pretty serious. this area is how you get from the combination home-office-bedroom to the stairs going down, you have to pass around the light well. this would be cutoff, which means the light well would be cut. the light well can't be cut. it's minimum dimensions down to the building code to allow light down to the lower unit. without this minimal light well size, the bedrooms in the bottom become illegal. so with all due respect, this is a very important piece here for access around the light well to the stairs. next one, please. this shows how much has been eliminated at the back without doing an additional 5'8". you will see to protect the

midspace open space and these buildings, you can see this has -- the top floor has been removed, and the bottom eave has been removed. let's point to -- let's go to number 14. we're going to skip. i want to show what's been cutback already. this is a side-view. to protect those areas of the building, this green area cutback already protects those windows without doing an additional cutback of what's shown in red. what gets cutback additionally besides the green already cutback on this floor means that we cutoff about a third to a half of a bedroom which would eliminate it. next, please.

cutting on one floor down, we see what's been cut already. cutting additional red would cut a third into the living room, which would make the walk-in closet temple not possible anymore, and would make it a small living room. one more down, please. this is the next floor. green has already been cutback. by the way, that's where the rear pop out is allowed already to there. what's shown it if you cutback who are more, that stairs go into the bedroom. that eliminates a third of the bedroom, and we probably lose that bedroom, so there's some significant implications here. the square footage, what planning wants to eliminate is a total of 306. that's the total of three bedrooms of 11 by 13. now, we hope we've shown that those additional cutbacks don't help the adjacent neighbors. the adjacent neighbors on the corner are not seeking those. next, please. this shows how the yellow would be the cutback rear.

it really doesn't benefit the people from whose windows this rendering is shown, but most important, if you'd move onto the energy efficiency, there's a passive energy system that is very important here, and it depending on a vertical shaft going straight through the building. the vertical shaft has to be direct, totally vertical, and by cutting the building at the rear, the vertical shaft would no longer be directly straight up. it would wander back and forth and basically make the system not possible, as it's important that the air flow directly up the shaft and the shaft would be negatively affected. if you wish, we have copies of the shadow studies. your packet has two times a year, but we can provide you four times a year, if you wish. thank you very much. >> all right. thank you. any public comment on this

item? go ahead, if you're ready. >> hello, commissioners. my name is karen decker, and i live close to this family, and i would like you to approve this project without cutting any more out of it. this project has received 16 signatures, 40 letters of support, and no one is opposing. this is from jacob and judy lehrbam. >> our neighbors purchased the house next door to ours in the hopes of building their dream home for their family. we believe their desire to build this home comes from a place of strong family values and a wish to be a part of our beautiful noe valley community. while we are sure that no one

ever wishes to live next to a construction site, we are positive that they plan will only better the neighborhood and have taken steps to minimize impact to their neighbors, while the majority of the building in noe valley is taking place under the care and dollar of contracting companies, they are actively engaging in our community and want to raise their family in noe valley and san francisco. we hope that your office has given great consideration to allowing this family to build. they are good people and good neighbors. thanks for your time and consideration, jacob and shady lehrbaum, at 475 28th street. this is from monica and ph phil malone. our neighbors two doors away reached out to my husband and me regarding their pending new construction. we appreciate their keeping us informed of the progress and

changes to the project, and the fact that they have made efforts to reduce the scale and height to accommodate the requests of our neighbors. while the planned home is much larger than the existing structure, the size of the proposed building is consistent with other newhouses that have recently been built in this neighborhood, including two right around the corner from us that back up onto our yard that were just completed less than two years ago and many others within just a block or two of us, and as far as i'm aware of, none of these particular homes included a second unit, so their construction provided no benefit to san francisco's housing inventory. we have no objection to this project and a request for no further delay. and finally, from ann grady at 467 28th street. i live at 465 28th street, i support the replacement of a one bedroom home with two family sized unit. that is solar powered and meets the high construction standards of a passive energy home.

thanks for your consideration. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. lawy laura clark, yimby action. i hope you received my e-mail about how similar this is to the first project that caused me to lose my mind and come before you repeatedly. this project is really almost exactly the same. it's an architect couple who are looking to build -- you know, build a largish home for themselves and add an additional unit and be able to have live-work space and be able to live. and i think -- i hope you all are thinking about the consequences of the decisions that you make when you scale back these kinds of projects and make the rules apply differently to different people. you're watching the planning department try to figure out w

what exactly is too big. the planning department has watched you try to scale back various projects for indeterminate reasons, and even with the neighbors not saying this house is very much too big, the planning department is shaving off another 12 feet. i don't -- i don't think that we're thinking through all of the consequences of this project by project decision making where the rules apply differently to people who are able to make different emotional arguments, and this is a really sympathetic family. they came up here, and they showed you accou showed you exactly why they deserve housing. but if a polyfamily came up here, are they going to be able to prove to you that they deserve that extra bedroom. are they going to prove to you that they out themselves? i think the answer is no, and if we have the rules repapply

differently to different people, we're going down the wrong road. these pima alloeople deserve tn the house that they designed, the house that they can practice their religion? and -- relation in, and i hope you make less random decisions. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here actually to support this project, and i actually also want to read a letter from a neighbor who was not able to make it today. it says -- the letter says, dear commissioners, my name is 234 adia, and i live in noe valley. my family went through a renovation for three years, and i know for sure how inconvenient this can be.

the 4 feet has very little impact on the uphill neighbor, but will eliminate guest space. in fact i'd like to read you a letter from the uphill neighbor who was objecting and now is supporting, and this is a letter from ann marie anderson. i think you guys have a copy of it, as well. this is to nancy and the planning department. dear nancy, this will serve to let you know that i've met with the couple regarding the 279 28th street demolishing and construction project. they've taken time to review and discuss the particulars of the project with us. this proposal is currently scheduled for planning commission review on thursday, march 1, 2018. we'd like to express our support of their plans as submitted with a 4.5 front set back, and a total set back of 15 feet from the property line on the top floor. thank you for letting us provide comments on the proposal. additionally, thank you for the time and courtesy. again, i would support the

project. i think it's a family that needs housing, and that's essentially it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> nina singh. i've lived in san francisco for 20 years. i've been friends with these people for at least ten, or not more, and i know this family would be an amazing asset to this community. i'm speaking in support of this project. i'd like to share how hard it is to make the decision between staying in the city and moving out. logic dictates moving out because of the high cost of living here, the difficulty with school lottery, the difficult in approving homes. the process is costly and long so many people can object. the number of times they can object, and it goes on and on.

personally, i have a family and have owned a home in the city 15 years now, and we're weighing these pros and cons our ours. we don't have enough room in our house. it is a factor of considering were we should stay and improve our home or leave the city. the commission, in your decisions, they affect families that want to stay in the city, and families who contribute to the community and contribute to life in san francisco. whether or not we're going to stay or go, and it also ultimately affects the whole community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is mala, and i've lived in san francisco for about 11 years, and i've known this family for as long as we've

lived here. i would like you to consider approving this project for them. as a family, it's very hard to live in the city, have enough space, especially if like us, you have a lot of relatives coming to visit. it's something we struggle with as we want our children to have those deep connections with their families, but it's hard to do so in cramped quarters for months at a least. the cut they want to make, it wouldn't make an impact to the neighbors, but it's going to make an impact on the family. i like the idea of having a green space that can house another family, as well. i'm really worried about how much of the house has already been cut and how much more that they propose cutting. i hope we can keep the patels here in san francisco has they have done a lot over the years

to connect indian families and create a community and long lasting friendships. these are the kind of people we need in our cities 1k3 we should really do more to not lose them in the suburbs. they've lived in san francisco for a very long time, and they should be able to renovate their homes so that they can stay. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is puja, and i'm speaking on behalf of magna, who was here earlier, and this is what she was going to say. i have lived a block and a half away from the patels. as someone else who is also going to be rhenvating our home, i'm heartened to hear how hard working they have been working to get neighbor support for the project. what i do not understand is if

they have all this neighborhood support, what the controversy is? they had a neighbor who was opposing and now supports them. the other three down, his neighbors also support the project as well. i'm not sure why planning wants more significant cutbacks in the building after all the cuts they have already made. i am concerned about the message this sends. as points out by mr. gladstone, all the foot i can't imagine losing is the equivalent of losing two bedrooms. in terms of loss that is extra deep, what's wrong with giving them an extra 5 feet, and it is not really triggering a variance, and there are no impacted neighbors objecting. i urge you to approve their home as presented before you today. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner moore? >> mr. washington, could you

perhaps explain to us the reasoning behind rdt asking for further reductions on the rear and as well as the front facade? >> i'm going to defer to nancy to also participate in this conversation. primarily the residential design team is looking at the -- the air play with the subject property and the adjacent residences, and we want to have a level of consistency. granted, there are those situations where in this particular case, there is no real neighborhood opposition in the immediate, but again, we have a tendency to take a very conservative view on this. you as the commission do have that discretion, and you can look at the particulars of this design, this site, and its interplay with the neighborhood, and nancy, if you want to add, please feel free. >> so at the front of the building, they're asking for a full 15 feet from the front building wall. that is because of the context of the block face. it would be one story above the

adjacent neighbors, so usually, for vertical additions, that's one story above, they ask for a full 15 foot, and this one is just shy of 4.5 feet, and then, on the other one, it was the adjacent open space, and for the neighbors to have more access to the adjacent open space on that block. >> thank you for that. what's really difficult to emphasize at the moment, since we do not have a 3-d that puts it in context. it makes it a little bit harder to put it in context to understand that we are not destroying a house and making it not livable. the second point i like to make is that there are a couple of technical issues with regard to the particular design which may warrant a look at it again, and that is with the lower basement

unit which requires a light well that is basically open to the air. however, unit two, as it sits above, has a 48 inch railing around the light well with a sky light above. and instead of -- the code requires that it is a shaft, and a shaft is a solid element, like a light well, which goes from top to bottom. it is not basically an opening in which the upper unit participates with its living space, and then, you have, like, a window on top. that is a misinterpretation of the code here which somehow redesigns the project in a completely different way. the second point i'd like to make is the entry to the second unit, all that will be currently occupied by a family with two parties to it is very obscure, and one could talk about the equity between unit

sizes. the equity is not as large as -- there's -- if we are chairing it chairing it comparing it to a 900 unit and 2500 unit. we are in between. but any ways, the garage doesn't work. the angle of the garage is to steep that the second car actually has to park on the incline ramp, and that is -- and on this, that is a conscious decision that really doesn't work. that is not a workable garage. the -- when you look at the section drawing and look at the dimensions, there is a little problem there, but the biggest one is really the fact that the opening has to be a shaft all the way open to the sky in order to allow access to light and air and exiting for the lowest unit. are you aware of that?

mr. washington, do you see that in drawing a-103, the right hand drawing indicates that there is a 48-inch railing and a sky light on top? what needs to be, basically, a fully enclosed shaft? that may, indeed, cause the architect to reconsider it where the stair is, where the light well is, or how to bring light and air to the lower unit. i'm pointing that out because it makes a plan as it stands not a workable plan. >> we have architects who will respond if you would like them. >> i would first look to mr. washington and then after perhaps they could engage in a conversation on that. thank you. >> commissioner moore, this

code should be up to building code standards in regards to light and air, and it is up to our current department standards for light and air as well as exposure. we have to check with the building code, though, and the building inspector to see if in fact this is consistent. again, this is kind of based on the architect, and i think he might be able to lend that. because as i've stated in the past, we are not building inspectors, so we really have to defer to them and depend on them. >> if i may respond and let the architect do, as well, is that appropriate? >> yes. the building department and commissioner, the building department did raise the fact that the sky light may have to be removed and may have to be open to the sky, and in response -- >> would you speak into the microphone because i didn't quite hear you. >> yet. we anticipated that question, and pridi met about this very

issue. if you'll put on the chart with the building code, building inspector suggests we may require that that sky light be open to the sky, and if you're going to -- if we're going to do that, it means that railing into the sky light has to be a closed wall. >> good. >> and pridi will tell you they're prepared to do that as a closed wall so there's no railing looking into the sky light, and she's design it that the system would work if the sky light is not there. it's an open shaft. i'll let her talk about that a little more, and i think she's showing that more. pridi? >> so this is something that i had several conversations at dbi, commissioner, and the reason we're -- why we're still showing the sky light and then this gray thing down below here is what the plan checker that i was speaking to said is because

there's air going down at the bottom of the shaft, and there's circulation, that i have a chance of talking to the inspectors to see if they would allow that. if they don't allow that, the opening has been designed with these half walls, but these half walls could easily be converted to exterior walls, and they won't affect the design of the building, and we could remove the sky light so it is open to the sky. >> i'm just saying to you if you would like to consider the plan. >> it doesn't affect it at all because the half walls can be replaced with full height walls. >> well, the commission still has to look at the fact that the second unit is underneath the garage. it has very limited access to light and air because of the layout of the building, and while we like secondary units, there's some quality of life issues on this thing.

i'm curious what other commissioners have to say. >> i mean, i could start. one, i appreciate that the -- i mean, you're doing things we've asked other project sponsors to do where they're developing -- demoing a single-family home but developing in an rh-2 district. you've got two decent size units that i think sizewise work. i can't say i know exactly what's happening with that shaft and the light well. it's unusual, and from a design standpoint that we've seen that, but as far as massing on this, which i think is the most important sort to me, i think is fine. i think what you proposed works in that context. it's somewhat of an unusual context. i was a little puzzled by the recommendations coming from planning because i think

conte contextually, there's really one building we look at, which is the adjacent home. there's a large, boxy home, and then across the street is a massive complex. i'm fine with it as is, and given the fact that the neighbors seem to be fine, i'm fine withe massing. you might have to redesign some of the interior spaces based on the interpretation of tbi's interpretation of the shaft/light well, but in terms of the massing, i'm happy to let you have that massing and figuring out the internal. commissioner richards? >> i guess several things. we have zoning. we have probably 200,000 parcels in this city. not every parcel is the same. we talked about 28, 43 k diamond street on this little triangular lot at the board of appeals. all these things we make decisions on have to be put into context, so it's not a one

size fits all. we're going to jam the same thing on every lot in this city, otherwise, we're going to have something bordering on dystopia. if this wasn't a cu coming as a demolition, it would be coming as a staff related d.r., because clearly when we have d.r. that are code compliant, they meet the rdat recommendations. this doesn't meet three of them. i just want to get this out on the table, that we're not treating this family different than any other family. we do this week in and week out. it's contextual. so that being said, first thing, our residential expansion threshold was on gross square footage, so you're on 1.8. it's not 1.5. can you show us the shadow

study on the equinox? i never see them like this, i always see them december 21, january 21. >> just pull that mic over so we can hear you. >> this is a january shadow study that i believe you have in your package. >> january 1? >> january 1. >> okay. >> eight, noon, and 4:00 p.m. this is april 1st. >> so could you -- i'm looking here at -- is the building articulated to minimize impacts on light to adjacent properties, and planning checked no. can you show me how it doesn't

affect the ability of light and impacts on neighboring properties? can you walk me through this, please? >> okay. well, this is at 8:00 a.m. on april 1st. it looks like it's casting a shadow on this building. >> the subject property, can you point out -- >> this is my property. >> okay. great. >> and this is the -- this shadow is very short, and this is sort of the longer shadow that it's casting. >> okay. >> it would be roughly that same. >> excuse me. so the building that you pointed out first, the one second up from the bottom -- yes. so that is a single-family residence, and is that -- >> it's a five unit apartment building. >> it's a five unit apartment building, and that unit in the back, is that covered -- >> it's a concrete pad, and there's about 25 feet between here and there, a little over

25 feet. >> so the impact of the light would be on the -- some of the units that face 28th street, in the back? >> yes. >> okay. >> at 8:00 a.m. on april 1st. and then, you can see by noon on april 1st, there's not a very big impact. >> okay. >> and then, at 4:00 p.m., they cast a shadow on us. >> right. okay. >> this is a shadow study for july, and basically, it's -- our building has almost no impact at that time of year. >> okay. >> on any of the neighboring buildings. >> okay. >> and then this is october the 1st at 8:00 a.m., and again, in the morning, because this is facing north, the sun is here, so all of the buildings cast a

shadow that way. this is at noon. there's no shadow being cast. and then, this is at 4:00 p.m., and again, they cast a shadow on our building. >> okay. and december 21st? [ inaudible ] >> okay. >> i don't have that. i have january 1st. >> so the interest -- thank you very much. that helps. the interesting thing is when -- you know, when this box is checked, i just would like to see hey, the shadow -- impact of the shadow starts at such and such and september 8th and lasts 15 minutes all the way through december 1st, whatever, just to understand the impact because they're visibly calling out the light issue. thank you. you've answered that. the other question is can you

show me the roof plan? >> sure. >> i didn't see the roof plan in the packet. maybe i missed it. because, you know, i don't want to say my fear would be. you already really have five floors. >> it's a-105, the roof deck. >> can you walk me through it. >> it's basically a flat roof that's proposed. this may become a sky light, right here. >> that's it. >> yeah. well, we have a light well here because this neighbor has a little eyebrow window that we're daylighting. >> okay. got it. okay. you see it? >> yes. >> i'm sorry. i missed it. i apologize. you can say i have all these little tabs, but i missed it.

okay. and i guess the other question i had maybe would be reducing the building depth by 5'8", how perseptible would be that. i know we want to keep the pattern of the open space. like, 6 feet, how perseptible would that be from the adjoining properties, in approximayour opinion? kind of where i'm coming from, this is -- >> this is from -- [ inaudible ] >> sure. this is from 2103 castro street. this is the second building in, so you can see if 5'8" was cut, it would reduce this, all of this. >> and programming of that portion of the house is a deck and stairs?

>> well, it's a deck -- just a deck up here. this isn't part of the pop out, but this stair -- what would happen, down below, this stair would move into the basement floor and the ground floor. so on the basement floor, you would have to move that kitchen and dining area into one of the bedrooms. >> okay. reason why i'm asking these questions is as i look at it in context, we're looking at a change of 300 square feet on a building of almost 5,113. that's both recommendations from staff. i'm trying to understand. it seems like such a small amount to make it work. there's no way to take 300 square feet and nip and tuck to come up with that? i think mr. gladstone said 300 square feet was the total that staff was looking for in changes.

>> well, taking off about 300 square feet would basically eliminate two of the bedrooms. so up here, this is all around the top floor. it would just tuck this bedroom in 6 feet. >> but couldn't you reprogram some of the other space, not make the living room so big? we do this every week. you push the kitchen over, you respace the dining room, you come up with 300 square feet. what could you do to come up with the 300 square feet to make this work? >> you know, i think it would be difficult. i tried to comply with the whole laundry list of rdac documents, and even the front set back, and this is where we just couldn't meet them to meet all of our own problematic needs for our family. so if you look at this one, it

cuts the living room down by 5.5 feet. >> and so the dimension -- >> the thing that makes it really difficult to make it work is the light well, but we need to have that light well to have the two bedrooms in the basement floor, and we really would like to keep a three story residence, three bedroom rental. >> so there would be no way to get that light and air other than that, five story light well. >> i did look into that, about maybe pushing the living room towards the back and having the bedrooms in the basement level up here, but i think that would just -- i think that would be just so unpleasant. you know, nobody wants to live in an apartment where you can't see out side. bedroom spaces to me are much more private space does and toe light is really nice. but i think when you're sitting in a dining room, i think when you're sitting in your living room, you want your kids or you

want to be able to use the back yard, which is -- this apartment is at garden level. >> so the building -- the buildings on either side of you, how far back do they go? so i think what you're telling me is other than the pop out, there's nowhere to get light and air, there's no you can't put a window on the side. >> no, not on the two, because the two levels are below grade. we have two three over two basements. >> other than carving a light into the hill. what is the dimensions of the shaft? >> 5 foot by 14 foot. >> so that's -- one second. the five by 14 -- all right. 70 feet times five floors. there's your 350 square feet. that -- i mean, there's your

solution. that's what i would do, but i leave that up to -- any other commissioner comments? >> commissioner moore? >> would you mind taking us through the rda's attempt to reduce the building on the front a little bit? i'm more concerned about the front than the back. i understand your argument on the back is not as visible as impacting, we have a 950 square foot building that's being demolished. that's a small building, and we're putting a very large rk solidly massed building on the street, so would you mind ta taking us through that. mr. gladstone, perhaps you could go through that with us, why that doesn't work. and rdt is here to instruct us in terms of what the rules they need to apply for everybody else, at least we can form our own judgment, but i'd like it

to be taken apart -- >> yes. sf govtv, please. >> thank you. if i heard you right, commissioner, you asked me to address the effects of this not cutting back 4'6", and i wanted to explain. so this stair, the top portion of this stair is here, the bottom is here. so we looked at this. if we cut this out, i asked the client, what if we take the -- a quarter, eliminate this -- the depth of this bathroom -- a portion of this bathroom would now be a corridor to take you from here to the stair or from here to the stair, but it was pointed out to me that there's a drop from where the toilet is, the elevation there, to that of about 9 feet. to put a corridor there, as opposed to keeping the corridor here, we'd have to reverse the stair, where this is the top of

the stair and this is the bottom level of the stair. that would cause a reversal of the stairs on all the floors. that's -- that was the answer i had when i asked why can't we, you know, deal with the corridor to the stair here? when you reverse all the stairs at every level, the stairs eliminate where the front door is, and if you eliminate where the front door is, that has repercussions on the bottom two floors. so unfortunately, when i asked and we looked into that, it just wasn't possible. you know, if there's a compromise, perhaps it's to cut out -- set back more here, but keep this portion, the four-six here, eliminate here, so you can walk around the light well and into the stairs. the light well cannot be smaller than that, commissioner richards, or if it is, you eliminate two bedrooms in the bottom unit, and it's a

one-bedroom unit. by the way, that unit in the back has one bedroom facing back in the garden, so i hope that answers your question. >> yes, it does. thank you very much. >> commissioner richards? >> what about the parking. i think we had this design problem at 437 hoffman, saying parking's got to fit in the neighborhood. >> okay. so there's not two independent spaces. there's two tandem spaces. >> but push everything back. >> you're suggesting we take this and push it back into the garage. >> yes. >> take this area, push it into

the back. i'm going to let the architect speak on that. they're better than me, what the affect of pushing all this, cutting back at this level. >> and again, kbropt i don't w say you have to push it back, redesign it with one car parking. >> i'll let pridi address that. >> okay. >> so actually, i did look into that, commissioner richards. the thing that was really hard to make work was a decent bedroom layout because this building, even at this level at the back, it's partially below

grade, so it was trying to make the stair work with the down stairs unit, trying to make this whole access into the upstairs around the light well. it was hard. >> but it can be done. >> i mean, i couldn't do it. otherwise, that would have been an easy solution to not having to have, you know, such a big light well throughout the whole building. >> the question is, what does it do to -- does it eliminate bedrooms in the rear bottom unit or ruin in some other way this floor and the one below it? if you take this living space, and you put it where that car is, what does it do to the floor below, and does it eliminate a bedroom or two in the lower unit. for example if the bedroom is now in here, where do you

relocate this stuff? >> is that what you're saying, commissioner richards, to put the bedroom where the garage it. >> -- is. >> i'm not trying to redesign the kblg. >> it's not the car parking thags ae the issue. it's trying to take the stair circulation around the light well, basically, trying to get two windows -- two bedrooms that have good windows for egress onto this level and trying to make that whole light well and stair circulation work. because if you look here, we have to -- >> it's true. it's the light well causing the work around these issues, but again, i don't know what we're trying to solve. like, we have neighbors -- >> absolutely crucial to make it a three bedroom on bottom and not a one. >> right. it's two decent size units.

if you're going to get two decent size units with a light well. i'm trying to -- you don't gain anything from it. >> it's not easy to meet the guidelines and get three bedroom in a substantial unit which is what the commission wants. it's very hard. i've challenged the client to look at a lot of things and ways to do it. it is a challenge on a down sloping lot, and with all due respect, i think pridi, i've challenged her to try and do it again, and i just haven't seen a way. >> commissioner richards? >> i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> all right. i did. >> if there's nothing else, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded, and if

i understand the motion to be correct, to approve with conditions as proposed. >> absolutely. >> on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> i have a clarification. is it the conditions -- >> as proposed. >> as proposed. >> well, the conditions that were -- >> it was as -- as the project sponsor proposed. >> without the additional -- >> yes. >> very good. commissioners, that'll place us on your discretionary review calendar for item 13,

2015018225 drp. please note on december 17, after hearing public comment, you continued this matter to january 11, 2018 with commissioner christine johnson being absent on january 11. without hearing, you continued this matter to today. commissioner johnson, you were not a commissioner at that time of the original hearing, but in order to participate today, you'll need to being acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> i have. >> great. thank you. there'll first be a staff report, but then, this being the third second hearing, three and one. >> yes. three for both sides, no reb t rebuttal, and one minute public comment. >> good morning, i'll keep this

short. [ inaudible ] -- the commission continued the item with the feedback to explore addition of an accessory dwelling unit on the property and reduction in the roof deck size at the front. the plans included in your packet dated february 12, 2018 have responded to both of these comments by substantially reducing the front roof deck and incorporation of an adu at the first floor. these are my comments. i'm here for additional questions. i'll hand it off to the project sponsor to provide more details. thank you. >> we typically hear from the d.r. requester first or are you both -- >> okay. hi. okay. so hi. i'm claudine. i'm speaking on behalf of the owner at 171 juddson. >> are you the -- you're the project sponsor or you're speaking on before of the project sponsor? >> i am.

>> we need to hear from the d.r. requester, so the person who filed the d.r. >> so staff actually noted that the d.r. requester may not be in attendance, so unless they make themselves known. >> do you know is the d.r. requester here, the person who filed the d.r. >> no. we are just responding to it. >> go ahead. and we'll here -- is there any public testimony on this item? seeing none, okay. then let's give you -- you've got three minutes as the project sponsor. >> okay. thank you so since the family has extended members that live with them, primarily the grandmother it was recommended by the planning commission in the last hearing that the ground level be turned into an accessory gelg unit, so we suggested that since the grandmother lived with the family, would give her privacy while allowing access through a communicated