really struck me about it was i do believe that this commission did ask, actually, for more housing and more density. when i was looking over the plans, i live in this neighborhood, it's incredibly walkable, it's bikable. it's near several bus lines, i was wondering why there was three units of parking in the bottom. i am not attached to housing that is not historic. i think we do need density, and we are going to have to knockdown some buildings to be able to get the density that we need in this city, but i think demolitions should be contingent on providing the true value that our city and county needs, and for that reason, i would like to see this project come back with the park -- just echo what's been said, i'd like to see the parking removed. i'd like to see another unit, and i'd like to give you time to come back with a new design, which is what i actually expected to happen today. [inaudible]

>> president hillis: sure. >> so i hear you, and i'd like to offer the compromise with the fourth unit after the a.d.u. is completed. >> president hillis: i think you're hearing other compliments about the design, that somehow the parking is driving the demolition of this drive. >> right, but i'm saying to remove the parking and have a fourth floor on the ground. that meets all the a.d.a. requirements. >> president hillis: so i think bring us that project. look at it, i think that's what we asked -- i don't know why we're here. it was months ago, if not a year ago -- like two years ago, sorry, that we kind of asked, so i don't know what happened in the interim, but i think that's what we were more along those lines, that's what we were expecting. i think we got the same project. again, i don't think anybody

here is against dense identify this neighborhood. maximize the density. probably get four units. >> okay. >> president hillis: commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i guess looking at a project down in cupertino, a unit is defined by the building code? so if we say we want three units here, and the project sponsor wants 8,000 square feet perunit, we can say look, the building code says a unit is whatever, certain square footage because that's -- i understand how -- we're looking at 792 capp as the alternate motion was to get units in there by the definition of the building code. 'cause we had the same issue with 792 capp. >> there's a definition in the building code of what the unit

is, though. >> commissioner richards: it's about specific measurements. >> it's about what's in the actual unit, that there's specifics regarding -- >> commissioner richards: okay. so there are definitions for other kinds of units like s.r.o. units that you heard last week, so -- they're still all dwelling units. >> there's a definition of unit in the planning code. i think that's what you're thinking of. >> commissioner richards: so i move to continue this item 2 months to have the project sponsor come back with a project that matches the density but also maintains the existing building as much as possible. >> clerk: so we're at november 15. is there a second? >> commissioner moore: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion, commissioners, then, to continue this matter to november 15 with direction from the commission to the sponsor -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0.

commissioners, items 18 and b have been continued to september 27, placing us on your discretionary review calendar, item number 19, at 42 otis street. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. desmond jardines. the proposed building contains 24 s.r.o. residential units on the upper floors and 1900 square feet of ground floor commercial space fronting otis street. a second floor roof deck would

provide 820 square feet of open space for project residents, and a fifth floor roof deck who provide an additional 1,172 square feet of open space. during the public notification period, one request for discretionary review was filed by the san franciscans for reasonable growth. following the request for the d.r., the urban design advisory team found the overall massing form and daily to be appropriate given the under lying zoning and height and bulk limits and supports the proposed s.r.o. dwelling unit building. overall, we did not find exceptional nor extraordinary circumstances nor were any referenced in the d.r. application. the project represented in the section 312 neighborhood notification is the project before you today. since september 6, 2018, when the planning commission packet was published, one letter of opposition as well as seven letters of support have been submitted. all have been printed fore you

today. in evaluating the pros and cons of this project, the department found this project which includes a demolition of the existing structure also provides new housing opportunities that on balance comply with the objectives and policies of the general plan. in consideration of the housing element of the general plan, the project adheres to the allowable building height and provides 24 new s.r.o. dwelling units to the city's how'sing stock. the project provides for a range of housing needs including s.r.o. housing. the demolition of the existing building and the construction of the new s.r.o. building brings the site into greater compliance and conformance with the planning code. the existing industrial building is not currently permitted within the zoning district, so it is currently not conforming, and its demolition would include a code compliant project. the overall architecture expression of the project is in keep with the neighborhood's character. the proposed massing will be

compatible with the proposed mass,scaping, and form. the imagine meets the requirements of the san francisco planning code and does not seek any additional entitlements or exceptions. a request was received to further clarify the distinctions between what the planning code defines as an s.r.o. unit and what the city administrative code defines as a residential unit guest room. staff has prepared a powerpoint presentation to assist with that, if staff can please get the computer projected. and we -- i have printed some copies for the public, and the commission has their own copies. >> president hillis: so you need the computer?

>> he's intending to clarify what an s.r.o. is and how that's defined in the planning code and how a guest room is defined in the chapter 41 of the administrative code as well as what the different procedures are for removing, converting, demolishing these. so an s.r.o. is a residential characteristic defined as a dwelling or housing unit consisting of no more than one occupied room with a maximum growth area of 470 square feet and meeting the housing code standards. it may have a bathroom in addition to the occupied room. as a dwelling unit, i think commissioner richards was inquiring earlier, it would have a cooking facility and bathroom. as a group housing room, it would share a kitchen with one or more s.r.o. units in the same building, and may also share a bathroom. an s.r.o. building is one that contains only s.r.o. units and being assessory living -- only

accessory living space. a residential guest room is any guest room as defined in section 401 of the housing code which had been occupied by a permanent housing resident on sept 23, 1979. any guest room constructed subsequent to september 23, 1979 or not occupied by a permanent resident on this date shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 41. provided, however if designated as a residential unit pursuant to section 41.6 of chapter 41 or constructed as a replacement unit, such residential units shall be subject to chapter 41. a guest room is a room occupied or intended, arranged or designed for occupation by one or more guests. every 100 square feet of superficial floor area in a dormitory is a guest room. a guest is any person paying in money, goods or services for the use of ai sleeping facility. guest rooms for cooking shall have approved kitchen units as

set forth in section 507 of the code. s.r.o.s in the planning code, if one were proposing demolition of these units, they are subject to demolition controls requiring a c.u. perplanning code section 317 for the purposes of converting these to condominiums, that is subject to the subdivision code where new construction may be considered to be converted to condominiums. for existing buildings, if the existing building has five or six units that it's intending to condo, that is actually subject to this commission's review. four or less units are subject and required to be reviewed by the planning department. new construction can be permitted as of right or by other entitlements, depending on the lant use controls. a residential unit get room, what is this? this is a protected housing typology that after 1979 survey

of residential and tourist hotel rooms, became subject to chapter 41 of the administrative code. this is a completely separate definition than that which lives in the planning code. any removal, conversion or consolidation is pursuant to chapter 41. the process to remove under this chapter is through a permit to convert with housing inspection surfaces, so this is a division within the department of building inspection. the planning commission's role in that process is to determine

comparability as part of the replacement requirements as part of that conversion process. so the hotel conversion ordinance prevents the conversion of residential guest rooms to condominiums. in particular, section 41.20-a, it makes it unlawful to change the use of residential guest rooms, so residential guest rooms are used for low-income rental uses, changing these guest rooms to condominiums, then, would be a prohibited change of use. additionally as the intent of the ordinance is to preserve affordable housing in the city, changing residential guest rooms to condos would run afoul of its purpose. s.r.o. and protected guest rooms, new construction guest rooms could qualify as 1:1 replacement guest rooms under chapter 41 only if the following occurs, there's a permit to convert with the housing inspection services under d.b.i. this planning commission has made comparability findings. no new construction to the

department's knowledge has actually been approved as a replacement of the i think there was one attempt at 361 turk. i don't know if this commission recalls that project, but that did not move forward. that application was withdrawn. so typically, chapter 41 conversions and replacements still with two existing buildings and the consolidation of tourist and residential hotel rooms. new construction -- pardon me. same slide. so just, you know, to sum up, s.r.o.s and guest rooms, so it's similar -- similar language but very different meanings, different processes for conversions and for demolitions, different standards for the preservation of the existing units, and the housing inspection services does maintain a list of protected s.r.o.s pursuant and subsequent to chapter 41. so this concludes staff's presentation, but i'm happy to

answer any questions. >> okay. thank you for the presentation. d.r. requester, miss hester. >> sue hester. thank you very much, miss jardines, for this paper. at this time, you're supposed to be dealing with central soma. i'm glad at this time it's not here because you would be dealing with it at midnight. this case is the first one that's ever come to you that i'm aware of for a new construction s.r.o. because i made it happen.

the area plans that were adopted that govern this area as well as eastern soma were adopted in 2008 after about five years of work for each of the plans, and the housing conditions in 2008 and the housing additions in 2005 were very different from what they are now. so i am asking the commission as well as myself and the public and the staff to think through the whole issue of new construction s.r.o.s and who they serve. if you would have asked the commissioners in 2008 if new construction s.r.o.s were built in this area, which is right across the street from the planning department or in the south of market or in the north

mission, they would have presumed that you were talking about provision of housing to a low-income residential population or even working-class people with jobs that didn't allow them to have really high-end housing. what is the reality today is that silicon valley is dumping its housing and demand in san francisco. that's quite frank. they are doing buses that come to places like this and that and dumping their employees here. no real commitment by the city has ever done an analysis, what are the new condos that are s.r.o.s? the three that are mentioned in

the staff report, two by mr. bell and one by miss jardines, 83 mcallister, the old scientology, was not s.r.o. when it came through. it was small dwelling units. it was -- not in the staff report, but in the files, they were talking about student housing. they took out a condo project, and it has been sold as condos since. 766 harrison was not approved by the planning department because it was in a redevelopment area. 750 harrison, which miss jardines, can does -- the condo application was for 77 new condos. this was right next -- next to moscone center.

and those units rent now for 2500 apiece, 300 square feet, 350 square feet, $2500 a unit. that's enormous price. i ask the planning commission to ask m.o.h., what are all the condos that have been created out of s.r.o.s, how much have they been sold for? 83 nicasio's all been sold, and how much have they rented or sold for if they're inclusionary units? this building is 24 units, three units affordable housing. there are affordable units in the buildings that were approved in the past. how much are they selling for, i have no idea. how much are they renting for?

i am asking you to really think through this. we are dealing with a lot of cause and complications right now, and the cause and complications around s.r.o.s with a mess. you haven't had a report back or any further meeting on the one you had, which was a lost s. s.r.o. in the tenderloin, 56 mason. you asked staff to come back -- i'm out of time. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, miss hester. any public comment in support of the d.r.? and then, we do public comment in support of the project. >> good evening, commissioners, steve vettel on behalf of the project sponsor. the project is newly constructed, 24 s.r.o. dwelling units, each 350 feet in size,

each of which contains a kitchen and a private bath. these are nonexisting units being converted, and i was a little puzzled why the staff did a presentation of the conversion of existing projects in 1979, which has nothing to do with this project. these affordable by design units are proposed to be sold as condominiums. again, it's nothing usual about that in new construction. development is consistent with the market in octavia area plan and is principlely permitted in the nc-3 district. the requester has no problem with the project, the size or the height. jonathan perman, the architect is here to address any questions you have about the design. rather, she seems to allege that this somehow conflicts with the planning code or other city policies. that's just not the case. s.r.o. units are defined in the

planning code as a small studio no more than 350 square feet. s.r.o.s are classified as dwelling units if they have a kitchen and a private bathroom, and are classified as group housing if they do not. here, all of the s.r.o. units have a kitchen and a provide bathroprovide -- private bathroom, and therefore, they're classified as any other dwelling units. they're just small. new construction s.r.o. units have been allowed since the 1980's. but prohibits s.r.o. units being mapped and sold as condominiums. this is not the -- excuse me. this is not the first foresale s.r.o. project in the city. there was also a large project on bluxon street that has large projects that are being rented, and i think there are several

others that miss jardines mentioned earlier. there seems to be some confusion by the d.r. requester that the city's ordinance regarding the existing city's residential hotel rooms and their restriction on the conversion of those residential hotel rooms somehow has application to this case. it simply does not. chapter 41 of the administrative code only regulates residential hotel rooms that were existing and occupied by permanent residents in 1979. for that reason, there's no relationship between the -- the -- the residential hotel conversion ordinance and new construction s.r.o.s in this case. the d.r. requester also asserts that city policy also discourages the conversion of a single story industrial building in the market and octavia area plan to new housing. she is mistaken. the market and octavia rezoned

the site, industrial used are not even permit index the n.c.t. district, much lessen couraged to be retained. finally, the d.r. requester asserted? generalized againri -- asserted some generalized gentrification arguments. the hub rezoning study that includes this area forecasts the construction of several thousand new units in the immediate vicinity. several already entitled or under construction. immediately next door to this 24 unit development is 330 otis street, proposing 416 units in a 250 foot tower. there's an image of this here just this afternoon, and you can see the tiny little building immediately next door and you can see the large building -- let me see if i can

pull it up. >> president hillis: you have rebuttal, too, mr. vettel. >> this is 30 otis street in the white. our project is the little building in gray next door to it. it's 24 units next door to a 416 unit project. finally, i'd like to remind the commission that the housing accountability act applies here. principlely permitted housing is entitled to approval unless the commission finds there would be a significant health or safety impact. there's no evidence of that here. the h.a.a. was enacted by the legislature and strengthened last year. it does not allow the kind of idea logical oppositions raised by the d.r. requester when the project meets all objective

requirements. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. and we'll take public comment in support of the project. and f.y.i., mr. vettel, we asked miss jardines to give that distinction because s.r.o. is thrown around in the hotel conversion ordinance, so i think it was a good clarification of kind of where we are. i know it kind of goes beyond the scope of this d.r., but i think it would be helpful, which i think it was. miss clark. >> hey, laura, no parking, so we love it. and i think especially in light of central soma, this is a -- great to be thinking about what is workforce housing. this is exactly that. if there is a potential for affordable by design, this is that. it's not going to be very affordable because honestly, we have a housing shortage, so we need projects like this. 24 units on transit that's

going to be as close to affordable by design as possible. we need many more projects like this, and we need to make sure that developers know that they can get their permits easily for these types of projects. so the more you can ensure that these are the types of projects for this, and speed this up so that there's predictability, a lot of banks with spooked by what's going on right now and they're withdrawing funds. a lot of developers are getting calls saying we don't want to give the funding for your project because we don't know what's going to happen next. so if you guys can make clear this is the kind of project you're going to want to see, it's right in your goldilocks zone, they would very much appreciate it. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment in support of the project? seeing none, miss hester, you have a two-minute rebuttal if

you'd like. >> sue hester. i'm asking the commission to ask for information. you have had two s.r.o. projects before you in the past. you've had 355 golden gate, 755 leavenworth, which was the start of a conversion of existing s.r.o.s to group housing. eventually, it changed from that. you had 56 mason street, which was loss of existing s.r.o.s.

there is a lot of unease about how much attention people are paying to s.r.o.s, and s.r.o.s traditionally have been a source of low-income housing. ask please, m.o.h. in the planning department to give you information back. how many s.r.o.s have been approved that you have never seen? how many of them have condo maps, and those that have had condo maps, what have they been sold for? what have they been rented for? this is basic information. i shouldn't have to ask for the planning department to do this, but i am asking. you have -- because of this case, and this case being here, the opportunity to focus on what you're doing to build housing that really meets the needs of housing -- of people in the city. i would offer, still, $2500 a

month rental in the 700 block of harrison street is appalling. how much of mr. vettles' condos, not s.r.o.s, sell for? thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. so this portion of the hearing is closed. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. thank you for the presentation, miss jardines. i'm the one who asked for it, and to be perfectly clear, my issue was, the market hasn't seen a lot of new s.r.o. units until recently, not for a while. and my fear was that we would be providing an economic incentive because the market now commands the price for these types of units because

they traditionally have been reserved for those with the lowest income. i am pretty assured by miss jardines' presentation that we have existing legal controls to prevent that from happening, so i'm -- you know, that's okay with me. i actually do think there's room for new s.r.o.s. we need -- we need new s.r.o.s for very low-income place peop -- people, but we also need new s.r.o.s for higher income people entering the workforce, so i'm clark county with the project. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner john? >> director rahaim: thank you. i also wanted to thank miss jardines. i think the presentation also feeds a larger conversation that has been happening at this

commission, a policy conversation around how we address the loss and the shift of s.r.o.s, the definition traditional has been, as my fellow commissioner said for folks both of housing as last resort and for low-income folks. and i think the issue that this d.r. is trying to bring up is that we need to be sure we're clear on definitions of s.r.o.s, and so that we're making sure that we're protecting traditional s.r.o.s that need to serve that populations so we can have a combination of s.r.o.s that maybe meet the needs of workforce or maybe miss clark and i who can't afford a $1.9 million starter home but need workforce housing, for example, while at the same time making sure that we're protecting housing stock that has traditionally met the needs of our community so that our

community can stay vibrant. so as my fellow commissioner said, i am generally supportive of this project, but i think, again, i want to hammer home that i actually do think that we need to look at what is -- what is the current state of s.r.o.s in our community in tracking and making sure that we know what's happening to that housing, that we're preserving it as best as possible, and that we're putting any additional policies that we need in place to ensure that that housing stock is there. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i think what -- if i look back here and hear this conversation, what i -- we got all wrapped up around an axle about is the word s.r.o. if this was a 360 square foot microunit we'd call it a dwelling unit, and i think it's the issue for me.

i think this project meets the needs of a certain segment of workforce housing. it may not be $1.8 million, but it's certainly going to allow people to make a fair amount of money to afford. again, if there was no kitchen or bath in these moments, they wouldn't be condo-able, or financeable by a bank, so i think we're protected there. i think one of the concerns that i have, and i talked to commissioner melgar about this yesterday. i hope we never see a situation where we have a bad actor by an s.r.o. building that has a lot of development potential vertically, that evicts the tenants, and says i'm going to invoke the housing accountability, and take it to the extreme. i think we need to be aware of those and there's a chance that they may actually happen. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: thank you, commissioner richards, for that very last comment, and it

will be up to us. this is new construction, and if these units, as you say, would be like 351 square feet, we would not be hung up on the definition as the definition rightfully should make us be protective and extremely vigilant. we could basically create policy by which there is no such thing as an adaptation s.r.o., older, to a condominium. while i would not be discouraged for seeing s.r.o. microunits, it's semantics for me at 351 or 350 being another alternate tiff. eve -- alternative. it is still a huge number and does not even come near to dealing with multiple -- more than one person moving in. this is still a very restricted

type of living situation. i have a question for mr. pearlman, if i may. if you could bring your drawings with you. normally, you submit very elaborate packages. this packages from my way of looking at it is a little thin, but that may be because you want to save paper or you didn't feel like adding something slightly more rendered about this building, and i would like to kind of give you the opportunity to perhaps show a rendering of this building because we're only seeing it in black and white as one dimensional drawings, and so if you do have such a drawing, i would very much appreciate for you to project it on the screen, and not print it for us and distribute it to us. >> there are a number of views

here -- >> president hillis: mr. pearlman, speak into the mic. >> i'm sorry. there are a number of views on this sheet, and i'll just move it around. so these are the kind of aerial views, the actixonnal metric views, there's kind of a rendered metric, this is a view literally on the sidewalk, walking along otis treat strst you can see from these aerial views -- [inaudible] >> -- using a brick along the accessible sides of the building. what this doesn't also show is the nine story base of the 26 story building just to the east of us, just to the right of

this. and we have worked with them to redesign our east side of the building to -- you know, to add windows and add things because their building is set back. so we've done that. this has a lot of community -- community space because the units are small so that we have a community room. outside, we have a community deck, and then, a deck on the roof, which is set back on all sides. we're not to the edge of the building, and then, we have solar panels on the roof that can be seen over here. it is a muted building in terms of its materials. the base is concrete, a board form concrete, and then brick above, and then, the black metal that wraps the bay windows that pop out, and then, the stucco in the back would be a light whitish cream buff color, so it is a kind of a muted -- it doesn't have a lot of color to it.

>> commissioner moore: i'm glad you're saying that because the street -- it's for me, personally, a very important street. it has a smaller scale industrial character. i think the use of concrete is highly appropriate, and that particular drawing was not in my package, so i'm just saying kind of what happened to mr. pearlman. any way, i think this gives me great comfort that that building is really a good building in that comfort, if it goes north, it gets for marry flashy and exuberant in its particular progressions. >> yeah. i was going to say this neighborhood in five years will look substantially different. >> commissioner moore: so i think this is a quiet anchor, and i appreciate that, and i'm in full support of this building, and i would like to move to not take d.r. >> commissioner richards: second. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll take up the motion. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion to not take d.r. and

accept the project as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. and places us on item 20 for case number 2017-015386 d.r.p. at 838 page street. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening, president hillis and members of the commission. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for a discretionary review of building application permit 2015-0928.8194 to construct a

two story vertical and horizontal existing on an existing two story family home on a 2500 foot deep up sloping lot. this block of rhode island consists of two and three story wood clad houses set back from the street with fairly consistent pattern of midblock open space. as proposed, the rear addition is sculpted in the following manner. the first and second stories would extend 17.5 feet from the existing rear wall and are partially below grade. the third story wall would extend 11 feet, and the fourth story approximately 4 feet from the rear wall. all the above stories are set back 4 feet from the north property line and 4 feet from the south property line.

the reason for the d.r., the requester of 1261 rhode island, the adjacent neighbor to the north, concerns five primary issues. first, the building scale at the rear is out of scale with the neighborhood context. >> president hillis: i think we've swapped the d.r.'s. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> president hillis: you're talking about rhode island. we're on page. >> clerk: well, item 20 is page street. >> not 68 rhode island. >> president hillis: no, we're on 861 page. we'll pay that earlier. >> should we start with the good evening, commissioners. my name is david winslow. so are sorry. >> president hillis: groundhog day. >> the item before is to

construct a horizontal -- as proposed, the horizontal addition at the first story would extend similar to the last one, 17.5 feet from the existing rear wall, and the second and third stories would extend 11 feet from the existing rear wall. the reason for the d.r. requesters of 844-a page street, resident in the rear of the property to the west concerned three primary issues. first health, that the demolition and construction impacts may have on their small children, the secondary impacts to light and air that the project would greatly reduce the amount of sun and air to the yard and the house, and third, privacy impacts to the rear yard and back building, specifically, the deck and upper floor windows in such proximity would present privacy impacts to their dwelling unit. the second d.r. requesters concerns of 846 page street, next door and to the west as

well, include three primary issues. first sun light to the rear yard, that the expansions would reduce the amount of light in the already limited courtyard, and privacy on the second floor, will allow visibility into the neighboring rear yard, and lastly that the new addition will greatly reduce the ability to maintain the adjacent side property wall. public comment to date, we have received no letters in opposition or support of the project. the department has reviewed the project and finds that it meets the design guidelines in regards to scale and massing. while the addition may be considered to be exceptional --

planning department recommends that the commission not take the d.r. has the project has been designed as a code compliant project. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, mr. wilson low. so d.r. requesters, we have two, right? [inaudible] >> president hillis: okay. all right. you've got five minutes. >> i have packets that i'd like to handout, and i'd like to present, if possible. i apologize. >> president hillis: you've got information for us? just put it on the top there. >> thank you, commissioners. my family moved to san francisco four years ago. two years ago our daughter was born ago, and a few weeks ago our son started kindergarten at a public school near our house. san francisco is not an easy city to raise families, but we love it. the house we live in it peculiar.

it's an old victorian built in 1 1884. this shows our home and the location of the proposed project. it is in no paway a cottage bu embodies the architectural attitude of the city. while we are currently boxed in already on two sides, our courtyard still provides our families with access to warm sun light cool breezes. it's a place for our families to garden. while we understand our neighbor's desire to expand their home and have no wish to stop it, we are here today because we did not have a chance to address our concerns with the neighbors before permit approval. we did not receive notice of the project until may 2018, six

months after the project sponsor held a preapplication meeting for which we received no notice. we believe there are important circumstances that were not contemplated by the building permit process and given the impact on our quality of life, the failure of the project sponsors to include us in this process, we would like to share them with you today. our greatest concern with this project is the loss of privacy for our two small children, aged two and five, and the noise concerns that come with the deck, given the close proximity to our bedrooms. the deck would be less than seven yards from where our two and five-year-olds sleep, it would be less than three yards from where we sleep. the thought that our and our children's ability to sleep and work will be dependant on the times that the neighbors decide to use their deck feels like a most egregious intrusion into the privacy of our home. we understand we have other neighbors nearby in the front and side buildings. the difference in this case is that none of them have outdoor

entertaining spaces directly outside our children's and our bedroom windows. the abbreviated analysis prepared by david winslow does not address the privacy concerns we addressed in our d.r. application. nowhere does it respond to the analysis of the privacy concerns for our bedroom windows. the residential guidelines recognize that special situations might exist and mitigation efforts to account for privacy, and we would like to ask the project sponsors to please consider removing this deck from the existing design. the neighbors have a large rear yard and dedicated outdoor space that does not encroach on our privacy so much. the next concern involves the glass windows on the third floor. as you can see here in this drawing, as the architect conceded during or mediation attempts last week -- earlier this week, sorry, the windows do actually have direct sight lines into our children's

bedroom, and the photo that you're seeing here is from the approximate height of that third floor but it's actually going to be 5 feet closer to our window than what is shown in this photo. we would ask that the neighbors consider replacing the glass design with a wall or frosted glass as well as setting back the third floor to be in line with the 844 through 848 page building. last but not least, the horizontal extension of the third floor will completely box us in. you can see will have the front of our building -- you can see already the front of our building shown in this diagram, we have neighbors to the west and to the south. this new extension will close in completely this back yard, which is a consideration that we don't believe was taken into account. we would ask that the neighbors please consider setting back the third floor to be in line with the building at 844 through 848 page so that the proposed project steps down

into the yard. this would alleviate the boxed in feeling created by the horizontal mass of the building and bring more light and air into the courtyard. the abbreviates analysis does also not respond to the issue that our home is a two story victorian, not a three story, such that the analysis concerns our home being boxed in has not been fully vetted. in light of the concerns that we expressed above, the deficiencies in notice and the deficiencies in the abbreviated analysis, we would like to ask for a continuance of the planning commission's consideration of this issue for us to engage further with the planning department and the project sponsor regarding our concerns and proposed design modifications. thank you very much for your time. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor?

>> hi. i'm sven lavine, and can i get the overhead on. >> president hillis: there you go. >> do i have five minutes or ten minutes? >> president hillis: five. you each have five. >> so this is an aerial view of the block. most of the buildings on the block are 5,000 square feet. our subject property right here is literally the smallest house on the block at 2,000 gross square feet. >> president hillis: push that up cause 'we can't see the bottom portion of that picture. there you go. >> okay. so here's sort of 3-d aerial view. is that a sort of a way to

change that? there you go. that's better. okay. all right. yeah, so this is sort of an aerial view of the project, and we'll zoom in on the subject property. this building to the back is where 846 page is, the second floor, that's where jose is, and this building here is 848 page, where riley and barbara live. and this is the proposed addition, and so what we have is a three story, 28 foot high addition that'll bring the building up to 3,000 square feet, still just about half of what the typical buildings are on the block. and that's a view into kind of the rear yard courtyard between the two neighbor's buildings. so as you can see on this level, we've -- our third floor

master suite extends 6'10" past the neighbor, and we're setting in three edge perthe design guidelines. second floor, family room extends 5'10" past the neighbor's wall, and again, set back by 3'8". and at the first floor, we have sort of an extension with a roof deck on top. and this extends about 6 feet past the building and is only about 5'2" above grade. and i'll kind of show you here, if we go to the deck, you can see that if somebody's standing on the deck, you don't reamy have any line of -- really have any line of site into the back yard, although you do have some line of sight up to the windows here, so we do feel that privacy concern has been

alleviated. so this is kind of the thumbnail that david was talking about from the residential design guidelines. so the one on the left here is -- talks about sort of this exact condition where you have a cottage and a rear yard. and on the right here is what we're proposing. so it's very similar to that thumbnail except i think we've been much more generous in spaces, so it's in a lot of ways much more forgiving than what's in the design guidelines. this is a massing of what could be built if we were to build to that thumbnail to sort of do the full sort of buildout, which would completely box in the rear yard. instead we've done a much more modest addition that, you know, we feel is -- is, you know, just sort of suits our needs. and this is the rear of the house. so we've done a lot to try and increase privacy or to address

the privacy concerns already, i think. sort of our large rear paining panes of glass. on the side, we don't have any windows looking into the neighbor's yards, and any that could potentially are frosted. we've reduced the top of the building by eliminating parapets. we have set back guardrails, and some analysis of lines of sight. i have a -- i think the -- the image that riley put up there, the line of sight towards the bedroom isn't entirely accurate because it was taken at the edge of the sight. this is a little bit more accurate. because our building is set in by 3'8" from the side, you wouldn't have that line of sight. so here we've super imposed the photograph where the actual view would be into sort of our view out of the master bedroom. and this true pretty much

obscures the bedroom window. but at any rate, i think we're about 30 feet away from this window, and we're not interested -- >> clerk: very good. your time is up, sir. >> okay. >> president hillis: and you'll have a two-minute rebuttal. >> okay. >> president hillis: okay. is there any public comment in support of the project? seeing none, d.r. requester, you've got two minutes. >> you know, i think the fact that no effort was made to include us in this process, which was even written to us in e-mail form, the fact that the neighbors that filed the other d.r. request requested comment on their concerns back in december, and in the e-mail they sent then also mention thad they failed to include -- mentioned that they failed to include us, and there was no spops to that e-mail, either to the other requester nor to reach out to us i think speaks to the fact that there's been

no effort to involve us and why we're asking for a continuance. if i can just respond to his -- to sven's presentation. his deck view actually showed the view looking into our bedroom and said that that resolved it, but it shows that the window that you're looking up into is our master bedroom and he didn't address the fact that if you turn, you'll be looking directly into our children's bedroom windows. he also changed the fact that the r.b.g. constitutes a cottage, and it's true, but it doesn't constitute a cottage that's blocked in on all other sides. lastly, he showed there's a tree there. the tree in the architectural drawings looks much larger than it actually is. i think in mediation, we agreed that it does not block sun and light into our children's bedroom. thank you.

>> president hillis: thank you. >> okay. just in response, as far as communication goes, i'd like to note that we did reach out to riley-barbara on july 25, and they said they couldn't speak until after august 25, so they did have a month to do this. but we actually didn't have the opportunity to speak until last week. okay. and then, regarding the comment about the tree being the wrong size in the architectural rendering, the one that i just showed was a photograph super imposed into the rendering, so not from the model. so basically, in summary, you know, i think we feel -- our presentation from the get go, we strievd to build a project that was moderate and small, and we feel that we have already addressed the concerns that were brought up by the

d.r. requesters and most of our efforts of communication were sort of to demonstrate to them that we're actually sort of meeting these -- these concerns over privacy. and i feel just about every one was addressed. and because our project is already so small and pared down, there isn't a lot of room to address what we have. i think based on the fact that we really don't see any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances here, you know, we'd like to help them out, but i think it's tough for us to sort of justify killing our project in order to do that. as a final note regarding -- you know, we're not willing to reduce in mass, but i think as far as privacy goes, we're very willing to discuss screening options, you know, so we're not closed to -- to discussion over options, but definitely not interested in reducing mass because i think that we feel

that we've already done that, coming in with something that was well suited for the options that are there. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. so that closes this portion of the hearing. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: from a commissioner's point, let me say the following. the package as it is submitted makes it almost impossible for me to understand the complexity of the situation. this project is very unusual, while we have sometimes properties that have a cottage in the back yard, we hardly ever have a project that had a full fledged building in the back. we hardly have that ever, particularly not buildings of that vintage and not that particular kind of configuration. that being said, there's an obvious lack between the applicant and the surrounding neighbors talking to each other. they seem to be very -- not any fruitful conversation, nor can we require that, but it's

mostly more opportune for us to hear the dialogue between the two parties. i did not understand the project until i heard the presentation, and i mentioned it in a phone conversation to mr. winslow on friday, that it's far away to follow commission requirements to the extent that it does provide us 3-d, which makes it almost impossible to understand particularly even in the existing propose does site plan. the site conditions with described in a manner that they are basically hardly readable, so my suggestion would be that we continue this project. that one, we encourage the two parties to talk to each other and understand the constraints each of them has. it's not just one having constraints, but the other one does, too.