Adjust the thirdfloor addition to align with adjacent living space at 2537 greenwich which is outlined in the pocket in front of you. We have a letter here sent by over 20 nearby residence supporting a proposal including the sport of two homeowners directly across the street as well as the neighbor on silver street was directly behind us our calendar. Thank you, your time is up. Second dr request, please. Hello. Speaking on behalf of. You want me to read a letter. Steve is not able to be a good dear pres. Fong i commissioners awarded a threeyear dr requesters im expecting to receive an official communication via email from the city related to todays meeting. Unfortunately, even though this particular date was apparently confirmed in october, i was never notified. Was only last wednesday, december 2 became aware of the state courtesy of an email from christina that primary dr requester. Unfortunately due to the lack of notification im unable to attend todays meeting that to provide this letter instead. I did reach out to ms. Mary woods of the Planning Department on thursday, december 3 she notified me as follows. Ive attached emails from your neighborhoods christina and lincoln also dr requester proposed project at 2545 greenwich st. Regarding the hearing and other matters. Theyve indicated all concerns are being represented collectively as demonstrated in the attached email. While the president is are the primary questioners knew the child separate and have been individually noted in fact peter and lisa cella, the third dr requester also never notified the citys hearing today. Pres. Fong i respectfully request a continuance based on the fact that having never been formally notified ive not had enough time to alter my work commitments to attend todays meeting. Respectfully. The third dr request if there is one. Okay. Thank you. Speakers in support of this threehour requesters, in support of the dr request . Pres. Fong commissioners name is brooke member of the zoning committee. The cal hall would design thats would have to buy the Planning Commission in 2001. They assisted in determining expansion of an existing building is visually and physically compatible with the neighbor character of. In this case, existing pattern and rhythm of the nearby buildings as seen from both the streets and from higher places is critical to this case. In the adopted section of the guidelines, i have a copy here tonight if anyone cares to look at the section, ivan and a building envelope roofline, three questions are asked. Justin case in point, heres the subject property. This is dr request one, dr request two and three. The three questions that help define the roofline pattern are, number one, is there an identifiable pattern to the roofline of buildings on the block space. Yes, there is. In this case, its become from the east we have multiunit buildings that were built right on the front Property Line. As we start heading west, here is that second and third dr request building. You can see this some setback here to address some in the light, air, and view. The eyes at a property here but many setbacks that assist this building and emma in this case, without the addition on the top these are proposed and permitted but not built. Again, allowing for your views to the west familiar vistas to the bay, lights and air in the area. What choices are there to respond to this pattern . Essentially, not constructing the fourstory, which is called third story on the plan and creating this blank wall that will impact the neighbors from the east. The impact of unavoidable disruption to the pattern be lessened . Yes. Again, its been articulated as to the post compromise that was presented by the association in a meeting with the project sponsor and architect. Pull back the front building wall of the upper story, the proposed fourth story, 12 feet. Infielder 3 foot setback and illuminate the roof deck. This is a for story roof deck just for reference. Good evening. I wrote myself some notes. I lived directly across the street and the building to the west of that. Ive lived there for over 30 years and the other gentleman who signed the letter, i think he was born on that street. Hes about my age. Soon a pretty good idea along that we have lived there. The streets remained pretty much the same except for some superficial changes. The buildings have been the same height. Thereve been some new glass maybe some new make it look to modern but the residential quality of the neighborhood is still mostly the same buildings are still there. This is like a proposed fourth story which makes it much higher. It seems to change the whole character of what i moved into which i thought was a residential neighborhood. This is not a question. It just a comment. But i converted my building condominiums after being in the lottery for seven years i had to sign a paper saying that i would not go up any higher number 35 feet high. I was restricted to this 35 foot height with three units in the building. So, i dont know. The rules seem to change for different people. Anyhow, thank you very much. Any other speakers in support of the dr request . Hello. [inaudible]. Any other speakers and support for the dr request . Not seen any, project sponsor you have 5 min. Good evening resident fong i commission. David settlement on behalf of the project sponsor. America spend time on the request for continuance. Except to provide to mr. Iona and for the record, the dr request did file a complaint with the dvi which was dismissed on the ninth. I was at the property yesterday inspecting it with mary woods. Assume she gave a report to mr. Lindsey which he can discuss with you if necessary. Project sponsors are reaching and mark fong. The proposed to alter their twofamily home at 2545 greenwich to add a new upper story bill be set back go. 5 feet from the front of the house. The sponsors have also provided a 3 foot side setback on the east side of the house which is the side adjacent to the dr request. I like to show a picture of that. [inaudible]. They did mr. Silverman, you need to speak into the microphone this is a 3 foot side setback provided by the project sponsor. Theres a additional 3 foot side setback of the dr request. The 12 foot setback from the side is rated. You can see from the rendering here this kind of a wedding cake sort of pattern down into the middle of the block starting with the seller house which a place you tired that no we are yard. The entire lot coverage. No rear yard. Only this sponsor in the sponsors neighbor to the west provide a rear yard. I note this edition was recently approved to believe no dr and caldid not participate were sent in any letter for that one. The adjacent continuous homes to the east all have some scheduled the same height substantially larger messing than the proposed project. Due to their operative line to Property Line homes. With the adjacent home to the west at 2551 greenwich that is this one. We received a Building Permit very similar vertical addition to the one thats before you. The plaintiff bar and staff designate this case as abbreviated review and is recommended to the commission that the project be approved as presented. We concur with the departments recommendation. Please note, all of the dr request are located to the east of the project site. They will continue to block light and air to the sponsors home regardless of whether the edition is built or not. We dont see much merit in their argument about blocking air. As i said the addition of setback 12 feet from the front. Right here. In contrast, both of the dr buildings on nonconforming and that they cover their entire lot. When reviewed in context, the post addition if approved will result in a building goal remained quite a bit smaller than the three buildings to the east. Thats this one this one and this one which is a multiapartment building. Both of the dr request vertical additions with decks. Yet they asked the commission to deny the project sponsor a deck and a much smaller upper story. The dr request does not meet the minimum standard of demonstrating exceptional or extraordinary circumstances as the Planning Department staff concluded. It is true they may lose some partial views from their deck. The using, as we know are not protected by the planning code. We cemented six letters of support from the neighbors did the project sponsor incorporate a number of good member gestures that are numerate it in our submittal to conclude, there are no exceptional circumstances here and the dr should be rejected. Speakers in support of the project sponsor . Im project architect so i can be to the second the chair provided 5 min. We can extend that to 10 whether multiple dr. Okay. Take 5 min. Architect with thedid i want to go vertical as good as was said earlier on image with to core this project about a year ago one of the first things we did was look at the residential Design Guidelines the couple Good Neighbor policies made some modifications to the drawings. He removed the stair penthouse was previously shown to be steamed back on adjacent neighbors. The new 3 foot set book along the east provide some minimizing impact to adjacent properties. Repository had a 12 foot front setback as noted it were matching light wills the property to the west and were also maintained that setback in the rear of the property with another adjacent setback. Rather adjacent light will. Heres a diagram of the block pattern blows existing block pattern approved addition to the west. As you can see the two dr request of the largest property on the block. The proposed project is here in the middle. This a project without proposed addition and is a project with the addition so perfect diagram as far as the residential. Guidelines go. Again want to go over a couple other images that sort represent the building step down. The two projects to our east but the dr request are five stories over a garage. Five stores get this project is asking for three stories over a grudge. Again, this a diagram that could be straight out of the residential Design Guidelines in terms of setting back and stepping back from a copy in terms of him matching light wells, in terms of transition between adjacent properties. User mentioned a couple times during the meeting that views are directly north to the bay, to the which are not going to be obstructed up properties at that addition is that not only 3 feet on the Property Line, but its also said that 12 feet from the street. If anything its been blocked the view of the adjacent rooftops they adjacent properties, not the view of the golden gate or the bayview beyond. Theres been some discussion about privacy. Privacy is not proposed budget the privacy impact from the existing properties. As a couple of large windows that look out onto the properties. This couple of adjacent large text that look out onto the property. When viewed towards the proposed project we were very careful not to put any windows directly facing the property. Do not create any privacy issues. We were careful to set back our stair access to the roof 3 feet from the Property Line. Additionally, the roof of accessing the roof is set back another free fee. So as you enter the roof is 6 feet off 7 feet off the Property Line. Again to minimize the impact of any kind of privacy. Again, look at the sort of natural diagram of the block pattern, stepping down to the project sponsor, the dr request larger property and think its a very straightforward project that we did extremelyi mean we were taught with our clients to get in addition that works well for their family the familys needs. And give an honest thirdfloor addition to work with her family needs and be respectful of the residential Design Guidelines, beer circle to the adjacent neighbors, their privacy, their light and there i think we get up pretty good job of this. Be available for any questions. Thank you. You have a question or a bottle . Rebuttal . Hello. Just want to respond to a few of other things of personal island make it clear that this project is not similar to what we have or the other people requested dr could get a chance to look at the photos you will see how dramatically impacts the interior light was am sure yall know in San Francisco with his dont spend much of our guys on our porches. Its what were doing inside in that light and air that is significantly compromised. Also one or sponsor the fact that we have tirelessly attempted to find a resolution with our neighbors. The other two applicants of as well involved in the spot. The association tried to help with us as well and the items that identify the coins not accurate to say from the first thing we had there was no discussion of the penthouse. If marty removed up. Id also like to point out the views that they showed on the progression along the pockets. Block very large buildings as well as the other structures which are being used as multiunit so i think thats an important distinction. So, the only thing i would add is the term of this b theyre going to have over 1000 more square feet in our house. Its not a modest addition of over 4000 ft. 2 per singlefamily house which have been using it and continue to use it. I think that when you look at it weve attempted to find a resolution. Again its a long day but unfortunately, our neighbors have taken a very obstinate approach and we appreciate your time tonight and we hope you take discretionary review based upon our considerations. Thank you. Project sponsor, youve a twominute rebuttal. Hold on. Theyre passing on rebuttal to your project sponsor twominute rebuttal project total project square feet would be 3000 the total project would be end up being about 3600 or so. 34 ugly. I know there in your pockets as well. Just also addressed when the concerns or questions or comments brought up in terms of working with the neighbors i think our office has a pretty good track record of trying to work out and come to resolutions with neighbors when issues like this, Good Samaritans they suggested this edition were to move the addition of the roof deck on the property. Thats kind of the extreme nature were doing with the stars negotiations. I think we were pretty far in terms of some of the setbacks we drove even we set out before notification. I believe it was mentioned earlier that from summer conversation the neighbors we went even further within the elevator penthouse. I think thats good. Thank you. The public hearing is closed. Ive a couple of questions for staff. So, these are pretty germanic setbacks for both dr request. Your request one, two, entered the soon to be voluntary exchange setbacks whenever that was done. Whenever they were built or remodeled. They are sent back, more than staff they voluntarily went back further. Right. Also much deeper properties with no rear yard, correct . Gmail were these built in coordination spiritual request building one and two with it both at the same time . I dont know the answer to that. To neighbors here share the same front door with thesoftly are requesters have the same front door possession of Property Line to mitigation that happens further back so they were in coronation with the addition went on. Both of these are for luck covers who have probably got a your yard variants provide open space of the front. I believe the property was previously a structure in the back with a grudge by front. About 10 years or so they want to spirit. [inaudible] the mighty questions. I disappointed out its pretty extreme unique situation that setback so far. This is entitled here. But not yet built. Correct. I guess the question i would be without building also in the minds fill the guidelines wiener . Thats an interesting question. On that property in this property. We were not necessarily directly involved with his first notification came out on a project. And with the 311. Would cal hollow taken issue with its . When the project that were talked about today came toit was stated to be 39 feet in height. That was part of the preapplication notification. Is a lot of discussion at the meeting wide 39 feet in height for the structure and is it necessary and articulation to set back but then it wasnt clear at the time to the project adjacent was going for. So we will look at different context. In terms of matching the dr request it does not match that. Thats the building walls that i think have been discussed. This is the master bedroom. This wall, which is the proposed third story addition on the subject property will change the pattern coming down. It is not clear if the building for the west will actually build the permits out. Its been over a year. So we dont know what is going to be the pattern in the future. Another question at is that in the appendix or guidelines adopted. When other, and i have and understand the dr request one should know if there is a canyon would be have some type of a vista to the side looking west but their so far back that the addition on the project sponsors would have to be really significantly cut back or eliminated for the light the Different Things theyre asking for. Yes i know. I think that 3 foot setback is a purpose initially to try to protect the lights and air into the home. And actually, it works against the eyes that is. Because the privacy. All of a sudden youre having the ability to peer into their bedroom and master bathroom. Rather than protect against that it actually added to it. So, instead of having a setback to the east, this would be filled here. This front Property Line on the supper story would be brought back 12 feet to line up with the light well of the reciprocal light well of the two properties is of the property and the property to the west. Then, in terms of the upper deck, this is the deck on the newly added floor, which essentially if its story, we requested that it be eliminated because this front deck now will be increased if the if the front building wall is from back 12 feet allowing a lot of outdoor space at the front of the property that would be a 24 foot setback from the front . Correct. How many feet would that be . I would have to defer to the architect on that. We did some rough calculations production on the 3 foot side setback and bring this back. It would reduce but would also allow for a larger deck off the front. In terms of the privacy issues from the fifth floor or the roof deck on this vertical extension, essentially, its a much what happened at 2720 lines too good to be the opportunity to peer into the master bath in the master bedroom. Just overhanging this railing. Even though it set back 3 feet. So, this is the real concern for that upper roof deck. The rear portion of the upper deck and how it impacts the bedroom and bath. Thank you. Commissioner antonini we received a letter early on that the was some talk about the pos