condo unit where we reside 49 seward. please see the photos i have brought here for your record, showing the subject homes on seward street. the project sponsor response to the d.r. application goes on about the space their family has. between what the project sponsor wanted to do with their home to purchase it, what i expect seward street it look like when i purchased my home in 2018 i have the stronger argument. why? because the residential design guidelines are availably to everyone to review before purchasing a home.

one doesn't need to hire an architect to come this conjunction. yo-- conclusion.you need use yo. please review to my d.r. application. interestingly the project responser wanted toen that nearby buildings means all the buildings on secured street -- seward street. indeed a row of six yearly yeary identical homes stand occupy comprised of nearby buildings. case in point, have a look at the painted lady in the last photo that i spitted today --

submitted to you today. on one end does victorian mansion that looks nothing like the painted ladies. other end opposite corner are large apartment complexes. in fact, guidelines say that existing incompatible do not free the designer to sensitive development. the project would destroy the composition of the streetscape of mediterranean two-story homes. the project will be outlier in the existing visual context. if permitted to proceed, one has to wonder when the next owner of the home in the mediterranean style homes on seward street will decide to make their home

plain modern cube to maximize space. it could be viewed as arbitrary. i urge the planning commission to exercise its right of discretionary review and modify the project sponsor's plans suchs result of home remains consistent with the adjacent five neighbors. >> president melgar: d.r. requester number two. >> afternoon commissioners. i'm alyssa fitzgerald. we resize 49 seward across the street from 50 seward.

when it was for sale in 2015, we walked through it. the layout in the house is outdate the and awkward. any new owner will want to gut the interior to create more useable floor plan. we would like to make it clear to the commissioners today that we do not oppose renovation and we acknowledge that the house needs lot of work to might it useful for family living. the debate is about the scale of the proposed renovation. when our neighbors introduced their plans in 2017, we were shocked see they created a design to build to the maximum extent on the property and to dramatically increase the square footage of the building to approximately 5000 square feet. we as well as other neighbors who are here with me today, provided our input during the process in 2017 and afterwards including a meeting we had last night. our specific concerns with these plans are outlined in our d.r.

application which hopefully the commissioners read. i will sum up these details in one sentence. the proposed height and mass the design is greetin greet completf scale with the other homes. we kept the real estate agent's flier from the sale of 50 seward back in 2015. i got it on the overhead here. let me read the first sentence to you. you wreak valley home views located in eureka valley sought after blocks. 50 seward offers sensational views from this classic 1920 resident. city childre -- views are featut marketing of real estate and refer real value with the property. with the addition of the floor,

50 seward will gain additional views north and east. he complained our objection to the plan is based to the property view. i must point out the obvious. 50 seward available floor will look over adjacent 54 seward. the city planners do not care. views what will happen here, 50 seward have seize valuable asset from their neighbor's property and add it to their own home. the huge building will block light, cast large shadows and to the homes on carson street which will be five stories below this property. our neighborhood single family homes are being swallowed by real estate development and turned into huge luxury homes. in the past few years, five houses on 19th street have

been transformed into $4 million to $6 million luxury houses. ewe submit data which i have on the overhead here, data that we gathered from zillow to you now. eestimate that 50 seward willed become another 5 to $6 million home based on the proposed increase in square footage and its new panoramic views. they claim the scale of the building is certainly for their -- essential for their family. we ask the planning commission not to rely on that statement. people circumstances change. no one can say with any certain who will be living in 50 seward in two years or ten years.

one thing for sure, the 50 seward building will be here for decades. the question is, what do we want our san francisco of the future to look like? do we want to be filled with a bunch of giant box homes? i see tour guys leading visitors toen a walking tour of our neighborhood. they are here see interesting building. the building of san francisco is the beauty and appeal. 50 seward is no striking victorian, it is part of the group of mediterranean style villas that give the street its character. everyone in san francisco rings their hand about lack of affordable housing. the city planning department continues to allow one luxury development after another. more huge houses. when is the city going to start adjusting its permitting policy to be compatible with the claim support for affordable housing?

we ask the planning commission to consider the changes we have requested in our d.r. application. >> president melgar: thank you ma'am. we'll hear from d.r. questioner number three. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident and i property owner on carson street. i'm here representing kenneth hillman who cannot be here today who actually wrote the discretionary complaint. i'm here representing the other might bees on seward and carson streets all whom maybe negatively impacted by the egregious remodel of the property at 50 seward street. to 50 seward street is part of group two-story single family homes all designed and built at the same time in the 1920s.

street frontage gives away to interior spaces which is some of san francisco's best downtown views. the street frontage has been preserved for more than 90 years while homes have been remodeled by successful owners. each who worked together collaboratively with the neighbors to find solutions that respect the neighborhood's characters and esthetic. the proposed changes are both exceptional and extraordinary and must be changed significantly in order to preserve the neighborhood's design and character. there's several complaints, there's four i'll walk through all where it makes sense. the first one is neighborhood character. the proposed sudden step up in the height of more than 25% on seward street is not modest. it's disruptive to the building pattern, higher than any other home and switches the entry side

of the home. the draa basis for determining that such an increase in height could be considered compatible with the scale and without merit or support. the drdg indicates that developments must be built on a common rhythm and elements of architecture expression found in the neighborhood. the proposed remodel neared responds to the topography of the street, the site itself, its position on the block, nor the placement to the adjacent block buildings. the second issue is the site design. the front set back should be treated in a way as stated about the rdg, that provides a pedestrian scale and enhancings the street. the proposed changes impact the front setback. the insertion of a three-level vertical building block changes the pedestrian scale and jarring detrimental way in eliminates

such an existing open space setback along the street. it's inconsistent with the r.d.g.'s guideline and should be considered unacceptable. the third sauche is -- issue is the scale of the building. the key is to design a building that compliments other buildings on the block and does not stand out either while displaying individual design. the current proposal does not accomplish this goal and we all are asking for you to please go back to the drawing board and help fix the issues. it's also critical to respect that the existing pattern of the building entrances and the entrance to all of the homes is consistently located on the left hand as you'll see in the figures that i've given you. as noted in the r.d.g. the proposed project must respect the existing pattern of the building entrances which it does not. as such, it is a failure to adhere to the r.d.g. guidelines.

fourthly, this is regarding light. there has been a disregard to any of the residents on carson street regarding a formal and thorough light assessment. i personally will be affected by the building of the additional structure as well as bill george from 25 carson street and #she melvin of 35 carson street also oppose the structure. we appreciate the proposed structure at the rare setback attempts, they don't go far enough. the project sponsors and the architects failed to adequately consult with the neighbors nor furnish assessment for our review. it's shocking that the planning

department would consider approving this proposal without the assessment. carson street neighbors demand thorough light assessment be conducted and proud with follow-up modifications if they fail to do so, i can assure, we will all continue to contest project and we will seek legal counsel. i like to mention one more thing. >> your time is up. >> president melgar: do we have any public comment in favor of the d.r. requester? >> i'm robert mack. i'm 26-year resident of seward

street. i'm speaking in opposition of the proposed construction project on 50 seward street. i would like to make it clear i'm not opposed to construction and remodeling or projects currently going on on your street. they all within the envelope of the current houses. what i opposed is the major changes that this particular project will bring to our neighborhood for all the reasons already stated. i ask you to consider that. thank you. >> next speaker please.

>> good afternoon. i'm the youngster on the block. i only lived there seven years. my name is peter. my wife and family have lived there for about close to 35 years now. our family has had the property for seven years. we live at 54. if you look at mr. hillen's submission, i concur every word that he wrote. if you go to page -- the back of the full page 2. you'll see the six properties that everybody has been talking about. by the way, we have wonderful

neighbors. it's a great neighborhood. it's not easy to come and oppose a neighbor. we live at 54, which is a budding property to the left. we are undergoing a massive remodel of our property. we have stayed in the envelope of our home. if you turn to page -- the last page of the submission. that's a photo taken from carson street. our home is the one with the decks in the darker facade.

the subject property is to the left of the picture. using that as a reference, if you go back to the second page on the back, you'll notice that from seward street, we are two-level property. we're four-level prompt, so is the subject. they can do within the envelope without punching through the roof. if you look at the picture that i'm referring to, all six of the homes built by the same developer, you'll see that we're all even. this is going to be a bump up into the higher level which throws it all out of kilter. if you go to page -- melgarside

your tim we have a very long hearing ahead of us. thank you very much. >> sir, your time is up. >> president melgar: we understand. thank you very much. any other public comment on this item? please come up. >> i'm at 71 seward street. i been in neighborhood 35 years. i mirror from everything you heard. i love the idea of people coming in and remodeling. that's required. it's wonderful to do that. these houses are old. i remodeled my house within the envelope and the constraints of

the design that i bought into. it's a beautiful mediterranean neighborhood. i invite you to come visit it. what these people are proposing is actually altering the feel which will set precedent that will create a canyon-like feeling in carson street which will become -- you won't be able to see light at all. it will make it like any other city street in san francisco with no character what so ever. i looked at the plan really carefully. he's correct. these people could take the existing envelope and dig out the ground floor that is their calling the basement the drawing. have the six or seven bedrooms they want to have. i also invite they should have another parking space in this

project. to have six bedrooms and one parking space is ridiculous. we have to fight for parking space everyday. i drive around and walk three and four times. how can they put in six to seven bedrooms and have only one parking space? i strongly recommend that the commission please request an extension of this. i'm asking for a full-scale 3d virtual mock-up of this project. putting a story board or netting so you can determine the impact on visual living, sun light and air on the neighbors. i also wish you would consider the precedent that will be set by this and begin to ruin the feeling of the mediterranean neighborhood that we live in. i think pictures of the carson street impact were not included.

was purposeful. i suggest you look at that. the carson street people will be living in a cage. thank you. >> president melgar: next speaker please. >> my mom house is 35 carson. it's 11 house houses on carson, 350 feet long. seward and carson street, i grew up there my whole life. it's a great neighborhood. most of the folks there are friends. as i grown up, i seen fences built. i've seen large buildings built.

from the viewpoint of seward, it's all level but my viewpoint it's a four stories. these houses are huge. the idea putting another story is an egregious affront to what's decent. my mother who's 80 and not here and my siblings grew up there. it's really out of the bounds of what's agreeable or necessary. the houses are incredibly big. point being, my mother's house is end of a block. it was slice land built in 1913.

her backyard is what she has now to enjoy. it's 8 by 15 feet long. it gets about two hours of sun light. not only does she lose her sun light but the rest the houses on carson street from from her, the few hours of sun light they have between 1:00 rai 1:00 and 4:00,l be gone. i'm not a lawyer. i'm not a great presenter. i'm here some kid who grew up in the hood. these are all neighbor i grew up with. we're here to oppose. thank you. >> president melgar: next speaker please. that's it for comments supporting the d.r. questioner. we'll hear from the project sponsor.

>> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to introduce you to my family and share why we're speaking to expand our home. kyle and i moved to the bay area from the east coast in 2012 and we moved to seward street in 2015 when our son alexanders an infant. our second son was born in july 2017 few months and we have submitted the plans for the project. our extending family are still on the east coast. we learned yesterday that kyle's brother, matt along with his

family is transferred to london, england this summer. we started this process over two years ago. we have known these family developments were possibilities for some time. for this reason, we have always been thinking about this renovation in the long-term context. not just how to meet the needs of our family but how to meet the needs of our family as we hope to raise our children in san francisco and potentially accommodate the needs of our family members who may move here. for example, cristina is interested in pursuing career in applied theater in the bay area. kyle and i are the eldest children in our families, we are mindful we may need to closer to us. with this context, we consider how to adapt our home on seward street it these needs. we love our little street. it is a wonderful mix of city homes, accessible on foot to parks, playgrounds, restaurants and shops.

we have tried to be good neighbors through this process by inviting people over to our home to review the plan and to solicit their input and knocking on doors to get further input. this is our first time going through this process, we hope our last, what we have complied with all notice requirements, we have come to realize that not all of our neighbors felt heard. we regret that. however, i am pleased we were able to meet with each of the d.r. requesters to talk through the differences. we appreciate the time they have taken to speak with us as well as deep consideration they have given our project. through this process, we feel and we hope our neighbors do, we love our street and we're trying to be sensitive to each other's perspective. to better explain how we tried to incorporate all the feedback we received from the city and our neighbors our architect will

go through the technical aspect of the proposal. >> thank you. i wanted to stay that this is unlike what some of the neighbors have portrayed, this is not for a developer. this is for a family that wants to stay in san francisco. there's a second unit that's being installed. the building program consist of expanding the existing three bedroom single family shouse into -- house into 3000 square foot 4 bedroom house and restoring a two bedroom 1200 square foot unit. it's not at giant single family house. we did look at trying to stay within the existing envelope and mind you, we would have prefer to stay within the existing envelope. space requirements, especially given that we need to do three

bedrooms on one level given how young the children are, only solution was to go up the floor. the original submittal was unfortunately messag--much larg. we lowered the sloping roof. we removed the rear facade back on the fourth floor, 16 feet 6 inches. we voluntarily cut out the existing third floor by 7 feet. this is existing profile here. the original 311 submittal is shown in purple. the proposed project with flat roof with the third and fourth reductions are shown there in the green. this is the rear facade looking towards one would presume carson. due to the existing house having

two floors low grade. would seem like a natural fit put in two bedroom unit. it allows kelly and kyle to rent this out and gives them options for the future. lrealized, it was defined as a second unit. you just heard from the three d.r. requesters. we were pleased that we were able to connect with them after with planning and question about if we were meeting or not. in general, we believe they feel that the project is their fine with construction as they say. they don't want any changes to their neighborhood. they believe this would be --

this project alters the character of the neighborhood. we understand their passion. we do believe seward is a special area. we also think that opposing change does not recognize the need for kyle and kelly to accommodate their family needs. there's a second unit that needs to be restored here. the first d.r. requester, we discussed with him the new addition, told him that it's only 6'7" higher than the adjacent property with three stories properties to the right and 5'" taller than the one on the left. since the neighborhood is a mixed visual character, the project was in compliance. he disagreed. we wanted to argue this case in front of you. lisa fitzgerald, second d.r. requester, kyle and kelly met

with them last night. they discussed questions about is there a elevator penthouse, all those things. we're pleased they were able to clear the air in some respect. we do know that we did do -- her d.r. request was about sun effect. we.ed-- we did do a sun study.wh her. her unit is literally a story above the proposed roof. the effects of about 15 minutes on the summer solstice from 5:4 morning. lastly, let me see, they also asked us to remove the front addition because there was claims about privacy. we were confused by that. the new addition, the children's bedrooms are going to be facing her unit and again, her unit is one story above.

[please stand by]

i did review the project twice. there has been lot of talk taken rumor around the neighborhood. we heard about opposition on carson. i have friends who live on carson. there was a concern about light. [please stand by].

>> good evening, commission. my name is lucas eastwood, i live a couple of houses away. i want to say, i am here for a couple -- a different project, but i think these guys are really earnest in their outreach they were really forthcoming and willing to accommodate requests

that came up early. i think they did a great job with outreach, and i am in support of the project. >> any other comments in support of the project? >> my name is pat, i live further away than they do. i have been in opposition to projects that they have designed , and the specific opposition. they responded and did it, and i went to that sense study with a fine tooth comb and it was correct. this is an individual that when he says he has done this, i believe the numbers are correct. in the case i was involved with in vermont, it was down to the minute and i was able to justify it independently. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment in favor of the project? okay. you will have your turn. with that, public comment is now closed. you each have two minute rebuttals.

you can come up in turn. >> the amount of discrepancies in everything that has been presented is laughable. on the one hand, the project sponsors talk about how they want to create all this additional space for their family, on the other hand -- and that is in submissions, too, including the submission from them on may 23rd. on the other hand, they talk about there is an additional unit as if to imply their project is going to somehow add additional housing stock to san francisco, which obviously we need, but this project has nothing to do with it. everything they are saying does not comport. i would not trust their sun study, either. they may have done a sun study last minute, which tells you there is may -- there is maybe something we are to there. let me have the projector, please. i don't have this chart, because i never received it. this was in the meath 23rd submission. i am seeing it for the first time. this is from the project sponsors. this is exhibit 5.

interestingly, according to their own center and study, which is only done at one point of time, at one point of day, in a rush, my light on this unit right here, that is my unit, it is completely blocked out. no one ever told me, no one ever sent me a sun study, no one from the project sponsor side had the courtesy of telling me this when we discuss the project with the first time last friday. i find that ridge, too. they mentioned that we talked through our differences. we didn't. they explained with the project was, i explained why i didn't agree, and i told them it was not personal, i hope that they get to do construction, i understand they need to renovate , i'm not opposed. everything i have said to you today, but what they are doing is completely out of character with the neighborhood, and does not minimize impact on light for adjacent homes. as that chart of their own creation shows, my light will be apparently completely blocked out by their own sun study, so

again, i strongly request the d.r. discretionary review be passed by you. thank you. >> thank you. next d.r. requester, please. >> may i have the overhead, please? i would like to point out that lucas eastwood who testified in favor of this project is a developer who has worked with john on the house at 461,219th s just around the corner from us. you can see here this is a report from d.b.i. lucas eastwood, and the address is 4612 19th street. i would also like to put on the overhead, this is the photo submitted with our d.r. application, in the top picture here is the view from within our living room, standing 10 feet away from the window, we are not at the window, back from the window taking this photograph. you can clearly see the roofline their contention that we will be above their next story addition

is not quite right. we can see the top of their roof , and we can see the top of the second-story windows. this bottom diagram with the black box is our best effort to scale with -- what the new addition will look like. you can see we will be looking directly into the windows at the third story of the additional story, and how much that roof will stick out versus the adjacent buildings. we have offered several compromises in our application, and we have discussed them also with the project sponsors. all of our suggestions have been rejected as being not possible. i am not an architect, so i don't know if i am being told the truth or not, so my request for the commissioners is we really do need an impartial assessment of compromised options. we are willing to compromise, but we need to know what is possible. thank you. >> thank you. last d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> i would like to readdress the light issue on carson street.

although i do appreciate the last-minute effort to do a light assessment proposal, i received it at 10:00 a.m. this morning, and if you look at the data, which i will show you here, they took this assessment for one day of the year, which was december 21st at 11:30 a.m. that is one minute of one day of an entire year that they are saying there is not going to be any issue with any light. what happened to the other 364 days of the year, and how the light rotates throughout each day of the year? that is completely left out. it was also an assessment that was only done to the front of the house. it does not incorporate anything for the back of the house. i also would like to call out that this is melvin who carry spoke about, who is not here today, she recently suffered a massive stroke, and she was not

able to contest or be here today , but the only thing that she looks forward to every day is being able to sit in her backyard because she cannot leave the house. we have given you a photograph of her sitting in her backyard, and to take away the only light that she gets is really going to compromise her health, and i ask you to pleas not take that light away from her. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor? you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. i just wanted to say, of course, the sun study would have been delivered to the people on carson if we had known. we were just informed on monday that there were these concerns. however, just to capture some things here, the sun study that james just showed is actually showing it at 6:00 a.m. in the morning. so he does lose about 45 minutes

of sunshine. this is on the solstice, and that's where we -- why we normally do the winter and summer solstice. in his case, the summer solstice is not affected at all. that study was shown for the summer solstice and the winter solstice and there is no effect at all to this property. in regards to lucas eastwood, at least he was a contractor, he was not the developer of that project. her compromise is consistent with not expanding the envelope of the building. i don't think that is a reasonable request for a compromise. in regards to chris, he just mentioned, again, we were very concerned about if there was a fax to light. his house gains 45 more minutes of light in the winter because we have cut back the existing building seven -- 7 feet. in regards to the adjacent neighbor directly to the east,

the one who is infirmed, and also my friends who live next door to them, there is no effect because the canyon, or the existing buildings actually block all the light, so there is no additional shadowing that we can see. thank you. >> thank you very much. okay, commissioner richards? >> can you go over the sun study for us, please? >> yes. we would have wanted to have sat down with the neighbors to show them the actual video, but. >> could you put it on the screen now? >> yes, showed on the screen. what we did, for ease of everyone's sake, we took snapshots of what where -- where we could show the effect of the sun. in some cases, for example, for the people on carson, in the

sunshine, there is no effect at all. >> in the summer? >> in the summer there is no effect. >> okay. , please. >> excuse me, folks. >> i'm sorry, they have not been able to -- >> do you have the video on you? >> do you have the thumb drive? okay, i'm sorry. >> can you show us the snapshots , then. >> yes. >> not this one, but this one on carson. >> walk us through this, okay? >> exactly. so what we wanted to show that, for example, this is chris' house here, and this is the existing situation at a certain time in the afternoon. the majority of the time in the winter,. >> and chris is the d.r. requester? >> he is not, he is representing hillen helen and duncan who live here. they had expressed concerns about their yard.

their yard is completely shaded all the time in the winter, i'm sorry, that is incorrect, it is jaded -- there is no effect when we look at our model in regards to the amount of shadow, or the lack of light, but we wanted to show in this one image here, that here, on chris' house, there is more sunshine on his roof, but there is no sun on this façade, in this case, because we have cut our existing building back, we are giving more additional saw -- sun on this façade. this also does not acknowledge there is a giants -- giant tree. the sun study is not acknowledging that. >> okay. and this is on december 21st? >> yes. >> can we go to the next one? >> we actually don't have the summer because there is no effect at all to the properties. we are fine with giving this to you later, i'm sorry. >> no problem. when i looked at the existing and the proposed, it appears to me that the existing building in

the back is four floors high. >> that is correct. >> in the building is going to be five floors hi, but floors four and five are set back more. >> yes. >> what i was trying to figure out, with the angles of the sun, if there will be any impact on the garden of the folks down on seaward street. there is a photo from that yard looking up, and that building is very tall. >> it is. what is interesting is that by cutting back the existing façade , we are improving the sun access, even though as i said, because of the angle of it cutting back, and the fourth floor is said parallel to the next property. >> when i went over and asked the staff folks if they could send me the h.r. e.r., i wanted to make sure that the building is not historic, it was gone over with a finetooth comb, both front and back, there's nothing famous that happened there,

there is no significant architectural style, it is somewhat cohesive, but it is the and unit in a mixed style neighborhood. i liken this sewer street to when you go up to upper terrace, or some of those, in the way the actual building is positioned. as you come around, i live not too far by,. i am too old these days. but when you make the corner, it is not a cohesive set, and we have had historic districts in the valley with six houses that were cohesive, but in this one, it is not cohesive. i don't think that -- i think the façade treatment gives a treatment in the neighborhood. when you go to upper terrace, you will see this building actually is, to me, it blends in with the type of buildings on the street, the fact that it is adding another unit is a really good thing.

i think it is sensitively done, 1200 square feet on another unit is a good-sized unit. he gives them the incentive to rent it out. i don't see any extraordinary exceptional circumstances here in terms of impact on the neighbors from the existing building of the property for the new construction. >> commissioner moore? >> what this project suffers from is a lack of definition of what describes demolition. the existing building basically does not have the required 25% rear yard setback, so it creates a building that sits very large in the lot. it is a huge footprint building, and what you are doing here, his you are extruding that building on the existing facts that we are not calling it a demolition, and that is the problem. i think what commissioner richards summarized is the building under the current rules

is a correct interpretation. the only issue i have with the project is that if i direct your attention to the drawing, if you wouldn't mind putting that drawing up, i believe that on the south facing wall, there is a serious impact on privacy on the adjoining building. the south facing wall, as is, does not have any windows at all , however, by adding windows, you see the south facing wall there were those two buildings meet in that notch, in the existing condition, it is a blank wall, and by adding these windows, you are creating privacy issues, which i personally believe should not be supported by this commission. >> we are proposing those be obscure glass, so it was nice to have property line windows that are not invading someone's privacy.

>> what do you mean by obscure glass. >> you can't see through it. you get the natural light because it is facing south, but you can't see through it. >> are those fixed windows? >> they are. >> how about that balcony on the third floor? you have a balcony there. there must be some form of exiting onto that corner balcony , or somebody could stand on the edge of the building and look over. >> i believe we have provided planters on the side because we knew that this would be of some concern, but also, just to point out, the existing building is being cut back, so we are reducing the impact, we believe, to this neighbor, because it actually affords them a better aspect. >> i see what you are trying, from the aspect of the building you are building, and i believe that in an urban condition, that looks too crowded to me. they're there too many windows,

and too much it obscured glass, too much impact on translucent glass, still having lights behind it, with potential impacts on joining people. you do not want to look on -- at a frame -- >> these are set 3 feet back from the property line, too. >> it doesn't matter. >> okay. >> they are too many windows on what is currently a blank wall and i think that changes the livability for those people in the adjoining building. no one has commented on it, it is kind of a complicated situation because of the angularity of it, but i do not believe that is a situation i am very comfortable with. i happen to live, myself, in a situation where an adjoining neighbor has punched an illegal window into the building, and i suffer from the consequences of that, and it is very similar to what i see here, and i basically caution you to not be sensitive to that. >> we definitely -- >> otherwise, i can support the building, and the roof -- those

would be my comments. >> okay. can i ask a question? commissioner richards, so when commissioner richards was talking about adding a unit, i saw staff shaking her head. were you shaking your head as something else? >> it is a reinstatement of a unit that was taken out at some point in time. legally on the lot, there are two existing units. there are no new units to this property. >> i looked up this the low report, and it was sold as a single family house, so it was illegally converted into a single-family home? >> at the time, the three r. report, the legal record of the number of legal units on the property are two. we are not sure at what point they were taken out. there is no permitting history to show the location of the previous unit, so --

>> i have one other question. which is about the garage. so, i imagine that there is a reason why we would want consistency of where the garages are on the street. is that a safety issue? >> it is a smaller street, and there is no particular reason for us supporting the design changes, it is just, it didn't have any significant impact to the residential design guidelines. >> to the residential design guidelines? >> yes. >> i am looking at this, and i'm imagining, if i were coming out, turning right, where just on the other side there is a car coming out, turning left, that it might be, you know, i don't know why

we do this, but i imagine there must be a reason. is there a reason why we want consistency mean where the garages are placed on property lines? >> excuse me, i think in this particular instance, it is just a pattern of development. >> so it is for ecstatic reasons not necessarily for traffic -- safety regions -- reasons? >> no. i will also add this was reviewed under ceqa purposes. if there was a reason, if there was a danger, i think there would be comments by our traffic analyst. >> so we may be able to hear from the project sponsor if they want a wider entrance. we typically will only request a 10-foot curb cut. in some instances, they request a larger curb cut for turning radius is, but in this instance, they didn't request one, and we often look at whether or not a net new parking space would be removed from the street parking

when adding a new garage space, but it is an existing garage space. they are just moving over the curb cut, and they did not take the movement of the curb cut -- it does not remove a street parking space. >> okay. thank you. did you want to say something? >> the reason why we moved the garage over is that because right now, the street starts to dip, and they bottom their car out as they try to get up from the garage, so with children, they wanted to have a minivan that could allow them to get in the garage and unload their children inside versus having to park outside. >> okay. thank you very much. so i actually agree with commissioner moore's comments. to me, this seems pretty excessive. given the positioning of the lot , next to the structure on the downslope, you know, i

understand folks wanting to renovate and having more space, to me, 2500 square feet, four bedrooms, seems like quite a bit it seems like you could excavate and get more room without having to go up another story, and, you know, the privacy issues that are created by the two structures coming up so closely in the back, but i would like to hear what other commissioners have to say. commissioner richards? >> you agree with commissioner moore on the windows on the side plus the open deck? >> yes. >> and you have an issue with the fifth floor? >> fifth floor. >> okay. >> commissioner moore? >> i wanted to comment on the garage doors. having garage doors all in the same spot is very typical of

tracked housing. it facilitates repeat construction and cheaper mass production of housing. on smaller streets, you actually alternate garage doors so that when you back out, you are not in a blind slot with a car from the side coming out, but you can see in the rearview that somebody is coming out, and adjust accordingly. that is just the basic rule of safety, but it is not codified anywhere. it is just common sense of how you look at these kind of things that is my comments. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> so the top floor is the fourth floor, it is 437 square feet, and it provides one, two, three bedrooms, a walk-in closet , and a laundry room, then there is a skylight. and then we get onto the third floor, we have the great room, family room, a living room, a perfect -- breakfast nook, and a

kitchen. there is a lot of social square footage. and that floor is... i'm sorry, i can't find it. the third floor. when you look at the front page. hold on. 1210 square feet, that is the third floor. >> commissioner johnson? >> so, you know, i think what i have appreciated about the commentary today is that it sounds like everyone is united with the belief that this is a beautiful neighborhood and this is a place that you cherish, and this is the place that you want to enjoy and want others to enjoy. i think so often when we hear these cases, we hear both sides

of everyone being concerned for their quality of life. the opportunities they might have for their families, both now and in the future, and you hear us going back and forth because we hear and recognize the complexity that this is your life, and this is a complex situation. i think, you know, the news or the information that this was originally actually two units, and at some point it became a single-family home, and that this might go back to two units, it is appealing, and at the same time, i also recognize that, you know, this is -- there is already a significant square footage within the house, and i think it is workable, and that is -- i am just saying that to say that this is a really difficult deliberation for us, and that's why you can see as going back and forth