neighborhood, the proposed third story addition is located over the existing building footprint. the addition is 35 feet from the rear property line and they joining rear yard of the d.r. requesters. the rear yards at the d.r. requesters are likely to receive shadows in their yards and existing and adjoining properties, but because of this size of the addition, and the addition to the adjoining properties, the light and shadow impacts were not to be extraordinary. it is therefore not excessive. to consider additional glare exceptional and extraordinary. nor are they seen as impacts or

invasive to privacy. private views are not protected by the planning code or the design guidelines. staff recommends not taking d.r. and approving the project because there were no exceptionally or extruder conditions. >> can we hear from the d.r. requesters? >> good afternoon. i'm here today because i believe the proposed project would have a significant impact on me, mainly the diminished to use an increase in the -- of the glare in the morning and increase of the openness and diminished property. we have a deck that is off our kitchen and breakfast room area. this is a place where our grandchildren play and we enjoy the sunlight and existing view

that is our private area. it will affect our downstairs family room and affect the loss of sunlight in the afternoon and the diminished privacy. our bedroom also faces west and will suffer the same fate and an increase glare in the mornings. these are our most favourite places in the home and we are sensitive to conditions that will affect them. there's a special condition that exists. as the homes on the west side of 26 avenue have garages and utility services, a midblock alley exists between 26 avenue and inverness drive. this is a private easement for the residents of 26 avenue. the backyards of the homes are 26 avenue and inverness drive his face each other and are separated by this midblock alley what makes this easement special is the width of the midblock alley is not fully paved. it band shrubbery at the back of

the properties. in the past, my children and neighbor's children have used this easement is a playground and basketball court. in the next few years, my grandchildren and neighbor's grandchildren will be of age to enjoy this open space. today the easement is used by walkers, dog walkers, and students going to and from lowell high school. on more than one occasion, i have seen student sitting in the easement having lunch. also being that it is music festival foundation, they use it as a shortcut to the growth. it can be annoying when backing your car out of your garage. the point i'm trying to make is this easement is used as an unofficial private public open space. the addition will affect the openness and sunlight that this area receives. not being an expert is hard to compete against software programming that is used to visual light or specialize shadows.

sometimes common sense speaks louder than science. the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. our homes are on east and west orientation. a vertical addition on one will have an effect on the other. also with common sense, the vertical addition of 10 feet and 4 inches by 25-inch feet wide requires more shadows than what now exists. a quick comment on the dimensions i just stated, a 10 feet by four by 25 feet is the true size of what will impact people on the 26 avenue property. i would like to point out the current height includes a peer made shape that is 65 feet from the rear of the property line of 20 inverness drive. when talking with the neighbor who owns the property, he said it is less than a 5-foot addition.

i also brought up to the planning department in an e-mail that the rear elevation view of the adjacent home or 26 inverness on the plan are incorrect. i felt it minimize the impact of the plan in addition to 20 inverness. not that it would really matter. what else is being minimized? what makes the rear neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhoods of lakeshore country club acre special is the very low percentage of third story homes along with a high percentage of detached homes. not only on the minor avenues and streets, but also along our two major streets of ocean avenue and slocum boulevard from 19th avenue, all the way to ocean beach. in comparison, in the sense that -- sunset and richmond district, streets have many three-story flats and apartment buildings where third story buildings are

common. i understand if the building plan needs guidelines, projects are approved. [please stand by]

>> th >> the rear of the building towards the front of the building at 20 space 20 invern. i think that would eliminate some of the shadows and some of the things we're concerned about. thank you very much for your time. goodbye now. >> any members of the nubble support of the dr requesters? seeing none, we'll hear from the public sponsor.

>> good afternoon. we did some research about this project, about the dr, and let me explain briefly. first, we did some research about the shadow using very reliable website. under the google. and this is the result. according to the research, the only time that the property at the back is shawedde shaded by w and not the second story. it's around 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in february through the year. so that property got a shadow

from the second story in january and august and november, only one hour. and in addition to that, if we propose -- if we add the story story, only one hour for one month, additional shadow will be casted on the property. so it's not that much impact on it. and also, we did research about the impact of the third addition from the front street and the

back street. from the front street, these red lines are the site that you can see. so according to this research, you can see only a bit of the building above, the corner of the building. so we dabble that you can see, you know, the third story from the front street. but we don't recognise it because of this setback. i did research about the visibility from the backyard, the alley.

and according to my research, the elevation angle, the difference between the elevation angle between the second and third story is only 7-degrees. so if we had a third story, our elevation angle differs, increase of only 7-degrees. it's not like 35 or 45. so it's not that much. so based on the research, i concluded that not much skyview is blocked by the audition of the third floor. i'm the owner of this property and would like to thank you for your time today and would like to mention one thing that there

are three story houses in the neighborhoods. on inverness alone, there are four between slote and eucalyptus and there are two on 26 avenue. the reason that they're not noticeable is that it's set up quite nicely and they're not blocking the view. so we believe that adding a third story is not going to be a nuisance in the neighborhood. thank you for your time. >> are there any members of the public here in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, you have a two-minute rebutle, dr

requesters. if the dr requesters, you would each get two minutes for a rebuttal. you don't have to use it project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. ok, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i've been looking at the plans of this third-floor addition, and i'm trying to fine the real meaning of it, because the addition proposed for this building is described as a great room, which in terms of how we norm little describe the use of rooms does not quite -- it's not clear what this room is being used for. so this third floor, it's set back from the street, 20 plus

feet consists of a great room, a stair coming up and a very small backroom, powder room. i do know see the necessity, unless someone can describe what it's used for. >> similarly, i don't know what this is. staff have any idea what that usage is? >> i have some personal ideas watcofwhat a great room is. i will allow the opportunity to the project sponsor of what the use is. >> thank you again. the reason we considered the

audition of the third story is that right now my wife and i are getting older and i' my wife is becoming to need assistance. and my daughter will be living with us. so in order for us to live comfortably, even though my daughter is a daughter, but we would like to keep the separate, private living space. and we considered adding or extending the existing first floor but that would ruin our background, which ibackyard, whs habit and she enjoys it very much and i'm sure our neighbor enjoys the backyard and the yard in the alley.

so our only option is to add a smaller addition on the subfloor without causing any layers or additional shadowing on the neighborhood and that's why we deciddecided to go for this. >> sir, i'm not clear, what usage is the great room. >> this would be the living space, living room for my daughter, yes. >> it's a living room, ok. k. >> commissioner johnson. commissioner fung? >> another question for staff in

terms of the residential design team, was there any discussion about setbacks of the rear of the addition? >> no, i don't believe there were. again, primarily, when we were looking at third-story additions, we look at them -- we look at them from both the front and back and sides. this was keepe deemed to be an t not to the ones adjacent because of the ones between those properties, inclusive of the rear yards. >> commissioner johnson. >> so i do think it's really important to understand the use of this space and i'm glad we had a conversation with the

project sponsor. just in having reviewed this and having heard from staff one do think that this project is in keeping with what we normally see and so i'm in support of the project and move to approve -- not take dr and approve. >> i'm second. i'll second. >> seeing nothing further, there's a motion that has been soutbeenseconded. (roll call). >> so moved, commissioners and that passes 5-0. commissioners, this will place us on item 11 to 2018-10 >> good afternoon.

david winslow, planning staff, architect, the item is a public initiated request for a review of public application 2018-0681-022 for a horizonal rear addition and two-story vertical addition for a total of 3430 square feet to an existing two-story single family dwelling to add two new dwelling unis at units at33 capra. there's light and shadow impacts, loss of privacy with the surrounding neighborhood character. not the building's historic resource status is a category c. the first dr requester, joshua callahan at 49 capra way is concerned with four main issues that the building is out of character and scale with the

surrounding for the following reasons, that the rear massing is not combatable a compatible r and it's incompatible with the block face and roof deck will create noise impact. the second dr requester of 222, that it ignores the historical relevance as a contributor to the residential historic district and two, that the heightheheight and bulk is out l and the determination of rear yard averaging were done and lead to a larger building footfingerprint than would be allowed and fourth, the impacts to his property, as well as privacy and noise impacts from

the roof deck. his alternatives include preserving the facade, setting back the third story an additional 12 feet, reducing building height to three stories and maintaining a shared light well between 33 and 39 capra. today the department has received four letters in opposition and eight letters in support. i'm sure more have arrived on your desk since the publishing of this packet. however, the residential design review found the property is a category a -- i'm sorry, i have to revise that. it was listed as an a due to its location within an identified sequa district. the eligible marina corporation residential historical district but determined not to be individually eligible historic resource but a contributor to

the district. although the alterations are major, it did not appear to have an impact on that district and the reservation was not recommended, nor required. two, that the adjacent four-story building and other three-story buildings enabled the massing this addition to meet the four-story height of the transition down to the two-story building immediately to its west. the shape and proportion of the bay proportion represents a scale at the street. third, the rear massing transitions from the building to the shallower shadow building to west from adjacent properties. the main rear wall of the building has been reduced by one foot, three inches to respond to the career measurement of rear yard averaging. the light well at 39 capra

appears to have been filled in with a skylight. the department does not typically require a matching condition to such lightwells that have been altered. five, did not see any extraordinary impacts with respect to light and air due to the passing of this building. the roof deck is served by one step warehouse. therefore, staff recommends not talking dr and approving the project. this concludes my presentation and i'm here to answer questions. thank you. >> contrary to what you may here in a few minutes, i'm not anti-housing or family housing. in fact, i'm in favour of these

goals and support 33 capra way to be converted to a three-story building. the project will not have a material impact on me personally, but these averrings are irrelevant. we're here to decide if this is appropriate for the block and neighborhood or extraordinary for its context, setting a par example for any future development. as proposed, 33 capra is extraordinary, it pushes the massing to code extremes in every dimension. there's a roof deck, almost no front setback on the fourth floor and minimum rear yard setback and each is this direct contrast to the precedent in the neighborhood on this block. as someone raising my family here, i believe those who have behaved ibehaved in the communin past, will forefit that and made

more urgent by 39 capra to be redeveloped by whatever guidelines that. fortunate, there are simple steps. they will bring this into an established design patterns, work with neighbors and allow it to move forward quickly. it will create a meaningful bridge by requiring eight feet here and there will be 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom family unit to go along with four unit for the lower floors and crucially, a fourth floor setback allows for additional

outdoor space on the roofdeck. third, we encourage planning staff to revisit, allowing 25 25 capra to allow for a setback. 33 is an existing outlier to the midspace. finally, i believe process and conduct matters. it has been disheartening that the reasonable concerns with harassing phone calls and threats with re retribution. rather than calling me personally, they attempted to turn this into a professional embarrassment by calling the ceo of my employer to suggest retribution including opposition to future work my employer may have the city suggesting an eye for an eye, regardless of a project's context. that conduct, like the design,

is indeed extraordinary and should be modified before the commission moves password. thank yoforward.thank you for yd consideration. >> next drp. >> thank you for allowing me to

be here today. this is what you can see here in the picture. section 1b, project is out of scale in height, weight and bu bulk.

this project will be precedent setting for the entire neighborhood. section 1c, inaccurate rear yard averaging. once this issue has been brought up to planning, it has been addressed and corrected. section 2a, reduction of the blocked open space. this diagram of block 0463-a depicts a block with an open space. the only exception is 2 25 25 c. this provides much needed light and vegetation and needs to be preserved for all of the surrounding residents.

this is a rendering of the proposal next to the only outliar which is 25 capra. section 25-b, major light and air impact. the proposed project will block nine windows on the southwest side of 25 spaw 25 capra. proposed project will block 100% of the light to the shared light well, turning their kitchen into a cave. number three, proposed project will have further light and air impact on 10, 45, 49 and 51 caprap. privacy from a ra roof deck and most are in three-story buildings. four-story decks are seldom seen, requiring an open staircase for access, further

adding bulk in height. this is an element that in reality given the san francisco weather will get very little use, but it will increase the price of the unit. this is a prime example of a massive allowed and built roof deck and it's on a third story. imagine if this was on a four-story. this is across the block and section three, in or for the project to move forward, we're asking the commissioner require the following. number one, preserve the historic facade, restoring and enhancing th intrinsic featuresd incorporate three setbacks between 33 and 25 capra. building not to exceed three story and number five, eliminate

the fourth floor roof deck. number six, preserve the shared light well between 33 and 39 capra and thank you for your consideration and uncouplin und. >> any members of the public in support of the dr requesters? come on up? >> good afternoon commissionerrerings. we own the property at 45 capra way. we listened to the neighbors and proceeded in a way that respected all concerns. we set back our fourth floor by 15 feet to comply visually with the rest of the block. we could have added a roof deck, we refrained from doing so. we tried to protect the defining future of the block which is a

mid-block open space. deny the plans for the roof deck

to not set an unhealthy rest sent for the neighborhood and muminimize the impact. have the rear setback guidelines that are consistent with the overwhelming majority of the units and protect the mid-block open space and i would like to add that we have engaged the developer to having an in-person meeting but found him to be dismissive, arrogant and sanctimonious. aheahe tried to bully his way io getting what he wants with no regard for the neighbors of the neighborhood. i hope you rule in a strong message discouraging that behaviour because there is no need for that. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> gad afternoon, commissioners.

i'm with the san francisco coalition. we're not objecting to the three units, we're ok, bring on more density, but not ok to deface a contributor to the marina corporation historic district and a mass massive scale of ths project is problematic. you can build these three units without the historic correcter. the hre itself, it clearly states that this building maintains the integrity of design and it's an authentic architecture and does have an authentic architecture. again, this is the hra statement here and has been unaltered since it's construction in 1926. with the sole exception of the

sunroom added in 1933. even the staff agrees with the hre in a sense that the subject property is a contributor to the marina corporation residential historic district as mr. winslow previously attested. so i suppose my question is, why is it that the project sponsor could not have added the vert cavertical addition by retaining the facade. we see this day and day out. many, many projects that, you know, do vertical additions and maintain the facade or even if they do make vertical additions with a new structure and new facade, they have a front setback. so that is quite unusual for us to see that this beauty, this is a contributor to the historic resource and does have its twin next door being defaced and not existing with vertical conditions that start with the

front setback. and also, as mr. frankle pointed out, it is the prevailing pattern in the marina, where you would have taller buildings and corner streets and then shorter buildings in between. so this is going to set a domino effect. if this structure will go on at the same height as the corner building, obviously we'll have more and more of this as the time goes by. lastly, i would like to speak a few words about the character of the project sponsor and the owners. the project sponsor all along maintains that the yard averaging that he was doing was correct. even though he could not use the sunroom of the adjacent neighbor, because it wasn't half the width of the lot. even the staff pointed this out to them, but they maintained that until mr. frankle did the measurement and brought that up and that's when they backed off. of course, you heard about how the owner was making

intimidating remarks and calling the employer of one of the dr requesters. this is not acceptable. please acts foplease ask for ref scale. >> any more public comment for dr requesters? >> good afternoon. my name is al brandy, a 44-area resident in the marina, in close proximity to this project. as i sit here listening to these discretionary review requests, i see a common theme. the common theme seems to be big development versus the established nakeds. neighborhoods. i think there's nothing wrong with development. i think we have to develop as a city. but when people propose the development as proposed in this case, that so radically changes

the character of the neighborhood, i call upon you to do something about this and stop it. what i think we need is some kind of compromise. there must be development but there must be a respect for the neighborhood as it exists. in this project, where the proposal is for maximum coverage, maximum extension, maximum density, the addition of 3400 square feet is no minor request. it is massive development. there could be a cro com row co, allow the development and keeping the neighbor for as it is. there was a slogan some years ago that said small is beautif beautiful. small and mo moderate can be beautiful and i speak in support

for thistie this discretionary . >> any more public comment in support? seeing none, project sponsor? a large single family house or two large duplexes would have idead a better return. it's between a four-story 17-unit building to the east and two-story single family house to west.

i'm sorry, were we given twice as much time because there's two drs? >> in this case, no. >> i'll truncate this. both of the immediate neighbors are supportive of the project and along with the western neighbor's letter of support, we have 29 off additional letters of support for the project. of the eight properties along the block face, five are four stories tall, one is three stories and with our project side in the western neighbor in support being two story, the proposed project will create three units, two smaller on the new third and fourth floors at 1500 square feet and 1300 fear quot1300 squarefeet respectivel. the project includes an horizonal expansion to the roar. rear. changes have been substantial and this is due to the request

which changes the project over five times. we've also removed 570 square feet of the hubble space. we did meet with dr requesters on may 3 and met with david winslow and josh callahan. we had a very good conversation with them. but at that meeting with david winslow, we spoke about what his concerns were and one was actually that he was asking for a setback at the front of eight feet and described to hu him tht and that would remove one of the bedrooms from the unit. we felt this requested served no purpose, especially since he lives three properties down. secondly, there has been concerns over his request about the roof deck, of removal or actually we then talked to hum about, is there a way to alter

or address the issues about the roof deck? he did say he would be willing to consider removing the dr if we made the deck exclusively to the top unit and if we set it back from the back three feet. mind you it's eight feet on one side, five feet from the other and close to, i believe, 35 feet from the front line and we described the reason which is basically because the unit is so small and three stories up from the backyard, we would like to make this of unit viable for a young family. the current deck off the living room is big enough for a dining room table.

we thought we had a deal but he removed that. hour, our clients are committed to those changes in the commission so sees fit. some of the other concerns about the scale and size, we've included that in the package to address they and there's no precedent for the setting this project, because 25 capra is extremely large. we do not exceed the height as someone mentioned here. the mid-block open space due to 25 capra again is not affected by this project. the preservation of the facade we've covered is not required to a construed member. we were not able to get on to the adjacent member's property

and his pop-out was 12 feet versus -- actually, 1'23" vers . >> i'm ron fuller and i support this because of the lack of housing. ever since they delay code projects, this makes them more expensive and makes people harder to find homes. before coming home here, i looked to see how long this project has been this andly keg witin and blue applicationwith .

we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to build housing, encouraging homeowners or developers that every time of unit to the housing stock of san francisco, not discourage them but encourage them for maximizinmaximizing density. if this keeps getting delayed, my generation will be urged out of the city. i urge to approve this project as is. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing koa lugs. coalition. we tend to not doing anything under ten units but we know the project team really, really well and we just want to express our support for knowing that they to go about business the right way. they talk to people and i understand you have plenty of support from adjacent neighbors

in your packets that indicate that they have talked to the communitcommunity members aroun. we love a situation where everybody is supportive of the new housing and that's ideal for everybody, but we know that's not the case here today. i do want to touch base about this environment and the need for changes kind of going forward. like many, we saw the 730 project put out there, the housing on community development and as ashberry is my neighborhd and we'll be encouraging the amount of density, height and homes. it will be the biggest building in the neighborhood and stand out right now and over time, it will fit with the fabric of the neighborhood and as time passes, it will be an obvious addition to the neighborhood. the city changes and the city is built, quite frankly, as a

100-year-old city with a lot of wood and that is not made to last forever. we are a city with a lot of fog and rain. so we have to change the city and went we do that, adding more housing makes a difference. adding more homes for people makes a duf. difference. we don't have a formal position on this project but we understand changes are needed and encourage you to make a thoughtful decision. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> there's a real estate processer himself going through this change and the hippocracy is the reason i came hear. the man in san francisco has been out shipping 9-1 for many years and disputing projects is

adding to the costs of housing if san francisco which, in turn, making it impossible for me to afford a home. i hope the commission listens to my generation and approves this project. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you've been a resident of san francisco all my life. i know how much we need new housing. i urge you to approve the proposed design as is. i also read the discretionary review materials and it's admirable to what the owner has done. iduring my childhood, i had a roof deck and i know how important it is. it offered a sense of unique play space for us.

i also add mayor that the building is three units rather than one or two. so it has potential to offer it to three families in a great neighborhood. we need all of the new housing we can get. thank you. i've been given texts on behalf of my supporters. >> you can submit them. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm la laura foot. this is a zoning-compliant project. i shouldn't have to say anything else. this is a zoning compliant project.

i understand why neighbors complain and after a area, they felt the response got a little arrogant because this is a zoning-compliant project. if we agonize over zoning-compliant projects like this, we are never going to be capable of producing housing at the scale that we need to be doing it. you all have sat through miserable drs today. they were not so fun. this one is not so fun. worse, they are extremely inefficient. this is a zoning compliant project, taking a one unit building, turning into a three-unit building. the rules should be the rules. if we don't like what the zoning is and we want there to be dust setbacks or different requirements on light, that's fine, just change the rule, but

agonizing over every decision in this matter and making it personal. we have dragged the neighbors into a place where now they all hate each other. this is not a healthy way to run our society. the rules should be the rules and we shouldn't have to do this. and so, it's your job to look at the paper and say, is this a zoning-compliant project and if yes, approve it. we don't need to have a big song and dance and discussion. we just need to approve zoning compliant housing. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you. ily on chestnut and my son has a

business on chestnut. so i walk passed there a lot. i think the argument that it's contributing much to the historic character is not a strong one. it's lacking some sensitivity. it's an ugly building. but i have four kids, off raised in san francisco and all went to school here and i hope the commission can find a way to move this forward and help to create housing. one of my sons is struggling so hard to fin find a place and my other son moved to san diego. if you can help the housing crisis ease by letting a project like this go ahead, it will be an enormous help to the city and children born here. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> i do support the project. i'm pleased it provides three units, three bedrooms,ing and outdoor space and units of this nature are perfect for young families. so this unit does address a critical housing need. regarding the design and massing, both discontinue and dg are propose for a site on a block that has four-story buildings on both sides of the street as depicted in the information supported by the architect. the property is a deep lot with minimal impact on the open space. from my inspector perspective, a nice job assessing the project against the city's residential design guidelines, which is the framework that should be

assessed. and the other thing i would observe is the abutting neighbors on the east and west seem to support the project. it seems the planning department was constructive in terms of bringing people together in an inherently process that we have. i just want to say that intend no disrespect to my neighbors who have concerns and issues about it. it's a small neighborhood and we pass each other so i want to acknowledge to disrespect against their viewpoints and the comments and concerns that they

have. so personally, i believe it's appropriate to approve the project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm in support of this project. we need a lot more housing in the city. this doesn't consolidate lots so it should be approved right away. and right now, in the excelsior homes are selling over a million dollars because there's not enough housing for places like the marina. so to have this proposal to increase housing in the marina

completely in the law, it should be a no-brawne no-brainer. thank you. >> thank you. >> i would like to start off by saying the public sponsor has done approximately 50 projects in san francisco in the neighborhoods, 50 opportunities for hand-to-hato-hand combat. that, plus the fact he has two additional -- has the support of his two neighbors and 30 letters to support affects volumes to his architect and his eagerness to please and work with his neighbors. there are two drs here today. this asked to remove the top

floor and that's completely inconsisinconsistent with what s talks about. look at the size of the third bedroom, look at the size of that. it's a small bedroom. the next concern is the roof top deck. despite the sponsor has made numerous concessions to this deck and roof-top decks are important to family housing and family living. the project sponsor is suggesting we can do this with cc & rs and that wasn't good enough. he went to rescene th resign the so now only top-floor people can use that deck. and he wasn't happy. he wanted the roof deck

eliminated. this deck is well-lined. eight-foot sidebacks off the property line. a stair house, recessed staircase, all block the visual line of sight between the users of this deck and these yards. there will not be a visual impact from this deck to these neighbors. now we should not eliminate roof decks just because they're a roof deck. when there's good design, roof decks should be approved, especially when there's no impact to the neighbors. thank you. >> thank you. any more members of the public