light to the neighbor on the east the western wall didn't match the lightwell of neighbor the adjacent homeowner to the west has four windows facing a blank wall despite an abundance of light shows northerner 16 windows facing east and it number that should be reduced asia privacy glass eliminated and the gentleman showed studies hostilities the significant walls at the fourth store on the east and west proposals at the height of summer the 6 windows facing south and ante east and currently enjoy direct sunlight most of day in allowed did proposed building is shade those windows by midday on the west side the 3 residential units have 9 windows that face east that will have direct sunlight and those have considered solar panels but the showed studies the potential for solar that can significantly impacts as you can see he seeks to maximize light and while depriving the neighbors of sun this proposal is executives for this narrow lot we ask the commission to reject it and the following modifications remove the fourth story are require the gentleman to eliminate the unused space reserved

our design provides lightwells that open freely to the sun i would like to note our neighboring believes have heir rims to the lightwells than our building those romance are hero and here and finally we additionally incorporated of foot earn setback for the neighbors non-conforming skylight near the property line and the 6 for the setback we've created for that level and after that meanwhile we made the following changes to the plans we removed the northern corners shown in orange and matched the lightwell to blue and offset matched opposing to the south and other changes in august of 2015 plans were you distributed to the one and 50 foot neighbors and got additional remedies we addressed in 2017 most significantly we completely removed an aurp deck there was a - we setback the front of upper level go 18 feet from the front bay and all points 15 feet if the building face and increased the depth of the lightwell by 20 percent on the eastern side in january 2015 we met with 3 neighbors to see the - we held two more open hours in 2016 with 6 to 8 neighbors to talk about the plan modificatio

units we're on the second floor and the light at the center part is one hundred and 73 foot square lightwell the proposed construction will add 11 folded wall to the west and blocking 9 light and as well as to the south as you may know the sun is lower in the sky to the south this reduces the amount of light into our living space the kitchen and diagram that's where all the natural light comes from and it effects the large structure and the light in the garden and again, the garden on the north side of the building. >> the affordability is not necessarily part of code it is an important topic for the city was happening by removing two residents from the property address a significantly expanding the scope and call of the building were moved at least one of the families with small children from the city replacing the people i've spoken to that manage the real estate will go to over $7 million this is a significant increase the my mind petitioning in that will open space and in the backyard of those buildings are low and transparent the fence about the size and structure what you see front of

it is still goes over the lightwell to the width felt prompt you think this is awkward with wall i'mpared to entertainer to entertain to - i'm not opposed to those in the alleys but they have to fits with the aggressive roof deck on the third floor this is not working for me. >> commissioner antonini. >> see i'm willing to accept some of the suggestions by proposed by commissioner moore i think they've got a couple of tests to the roof deck above that it not necessary i need a little bit of clarification we talked about the setbacks on the south side of an is second floor and third floor i'm not sure is that what you're talking about a furthers setback think is terrace is that what yours talking about. >> i've not said what needs to be done i'm trying to have the other commissioners look at, this and see that two aggressive i've not - not making design adjustment but the building is two aggressive i understand what you're trying to do we still have great abilities the design is fine it needs tweaking and more sensitivity on where it meets is be neighbors and again, the roof decks is

back partially because of the fact that the - this creating a proper core and avoiding substandard lightwell type of opposing rather than the code compliant courtyard the issue we have the project that has an alley on one side and a street on the on that creates different conditions from what we normally have when that comes to code required open space in order to avoids open gallery corridors which are remnant of subsidize housing of the 50s and 60s not confront in san francisco it is mighty and coming from the lobby and going through the rain this raised a question the commission sent it back in 9 to 5 and it took a long time with the proper units this project i'm not talking about the previous architecture there 0 would have been improvements but this project is coming back the site as sold a nice and scheme how it need to come back and pencil out what this project does in a 50 foot height zone in order to get the required or projected stories there is a cu which may estimates this project necessary and desirable that's a very high bar so when somebody comes and makes a statement they're

and add to their properties so overly aggressive and ambitious we're still not following for the lightwells the residential design guidelines that's siding to be done follow the guidelines and we're not following the rdt retained request to religious the length and the promoter it - we need we can accommodate that and still meets our neighborhood requests by moving the garage to the odds either using tandem parking or an elevator to leverage the use as for any potential i may or may not yes i'd like to do something i don't know that i will, in fact, this project makes me wonders i might go backgrounds not impacting my neighbors i've talked about a link of a study in immediate tinges and most importantly do not for today, we're talking this project and the residential design guidelines this city has i'm asking you, please look at the project in isolation and the flat in front character the defining feature it feels i'm surprised this went through and wanted to raise and feinstein mr. butler put forth a fair question about the second review and a diversity opinion therefore shouldn't be a pro

impact like nob hill don't own cars and lou gehrig's disease an expansion with things like overhangs lightwells and maybe a small expansion into the rear yard will make projects feasible that are not feeble right now. >> thank you, mr. hogan. >> so excited to be in front of you again, i want to draw your attention to two of the 25 percent reduction and retail space those are important we need that this bit more extra space and a few points about making sure we remove the adu's allowed in some of the buildings if you're in a dense neighborhood to add as much housing as possible and moving forward with those proposals and hopefully merge into something great and supportive of this and look forward to seeing that with the board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul wormer in general support of concept of adu's of accessory dwelling units that the in-law unit part that puts in to support family members we're talking about here is not the conventional historical adu and that's a concern looking at some of the planning staff recommends

back partially because of the fact that the - this creating a proper core and avoiding substandard lightwell type of opposing rather than the code compliant courtyard the issue we have the project that has an alley on one side and a street on the on that creates different conditions from what we normally have when that comes to code required open space in order to avoids open gallery corridors which are remnant of subsidize housing of the 50s and 60s not confront in san francisco it is mighty and coming from the lobby and going through the rain this raised a question the commission sent it back in 9 to 5 and it took a long time with the proper units this project i'm not talking about the previous architecture there 0 would have been improvements but this project is coming back the site as sold a nice and scheme how it need to come back and pencil out what this project does in a 50 foot height zone in order to get the required or projected stories there is a cu which may estimates this project necessary and desirable that's a very high bar so when somebody comes and makes a statement they're