tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 10, 2019 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
hearts and souls of individuals but what facts you have on the table. these violations were deliberate, planned, premeditated. at the end of the day, those are the violatese violates violatio. how could this have happened? in the past i have asked for a permit history review and he will give a clearer picture about the history, about details, about the documentation and so forth to justify the path that this project took. but absent of this information, you have to look at the facts, the violations stand. what kind of penalties have they imposed on projects similar with similar violations? it has asked for the building to be returned back to its original state.
look at what was decided last august, that was dr, not a conditional use. it was asked to be returned back to the original state. use the same standards. i'll use the great gatsby again. at the end, would there be justice? would the system work to bring justice or not? and if not, what does that say about us in a time that we live in? thank you. >> thank you. i would like to summarize. we made horrible errors in judgment and made some really bad mistakes and when these came to light, we have been as
cooperative as possible with the process that stands for correcting those mistakes. there is a process in place and we feel we've been cooperative in that and not pushing against everything that's been asked from us for planning staff. we don't know what more we could do. this has been an incredibly detrimental process, a huge lesson and hurting us financially and stress levels, everything else down the line and i understand that there is a drive and a desire for the commission to render further pugpunitive action and as to whether or not how we got here as merit, i'll leave that to you to decide. we do think it has merit and think it speaks to something we don't have any neighbors opposing this, that no neighbors, are were no actual
complaints from the neighbors during the 311 process. for our own self-ish purposes and for the greater good of the process, we don't want the economy's power to be hijacked by some sense of re retribution. at that, i will leave it and thank you, guys. >> commissioner moore? >> i just have a couple of questions. my understanding of units from 3-2 or 2-1 and that results in a cu and not a dr. why is this project coming forward as a dr? i'll be reading out a couple of questions to let the rest of the commissioners roll with a couple of questions because this project is so full of questions that i considered it highly
typical. there's to accurate project description and looking at it more closely, i have a hard time believing that it is a completely verified environmental review as well. the biggest question for me as a commissioner and that is speaking to the consistency with which i have to look at all projects, not just this, but projects that have issues, issues brought to our attention on projects that did not map. we didn't havhappen.where are accompany, so that the claims on the amount of new work and difference in unit sizes are valid? where are the as-built plans? without as-built plans, i am incapable to take anybody's conclusions to be guide for me to d do what i need to do and tt is to objectively compare not
just apples and oranges and pears but what i do week in and week out. this is a more time-related question to what planning staff did. whether the notice of violation is written in early may of 2018, as you are detailing, was it done after construction had been completed or was construction still ongoing? and what actually transpired over the entire last year for may 2018 to 2019 other than the discussions with this planning staff. i personally believe that design build is not an adequate excuse for permitting or regrettable work beyond original approval. this sounds a little bit biting, but i will say it anyway. your window and public testimony describes you as an expert in design-built with 20 years
experience at the time when this project started you were already 15 years in practice. it is kind of a little bit difficult with 15 years in practice as a licensed professional, contractor for the city and county of san francisco that you would not know your way around dbr and the planning department to do what we here have to look at week in and week out and to decide on the facts. i'm just saying that because i think it begs the question. when it comes to the building itself, the little things that we know about the existing building, when i look at the fact that you raze the roof for accommodating two dormers no one, are these new skylights about the height limit?
i heard you say because they're not visible from the street, it shouldn't be really any concern. i want to leave those questions hanging in the room and see how my commissioners pick up on some of these things. >> did you want to -- >> sure. good afternoon, corey teagues, zoning administrator and to your first question, as mr. horn mentioned, the illegal was removed before the requirement for a conditional use to remove unauthorized unit was in place. at that time, the standard was to get a building permit to remove the illegal kitchen and unit and those are generally approved over the counter. again, if that was coming before you today, that would require a conditional use authorization that they proposed to remove that. but because it was in 2014, it was a different time in terms of the regulations in place at that time.
a little bit more information to provide in context. mentioned that the plan department issued a notice of violates lasviolation last yeare and there was essentially 29 days after that appeal period passed where action was not taken by the project sponsor and so penalties did accrue during that time before they essentially filed a permit to correct violations and that resulted in a penalty amount of about $7200 and they did pay that fee. they were subject to about $6,000 in time and materials, to work on the enforcement case and just to have that information out there, that the project sponsor has been subject to a little more than $13,000 in fees, relative to the violation. >> thank you, commissioner koppe electrics.
koppel. >> we find ourselves hearing something we don't know where we're looking at. there's so many violations, i'm overwhelmed where to go first. just a question for staff, there was 880 yards excavated. >> that's the calculation provided. the project sponsors, there's a section, one of the sheets they actually did a fairly good job of showing at least the side profile of the square of one side of the volume removed. by from the ground floor, that was new, excavated to the depth of the building and the sec secd floor or upper basement was education ska investigateexisawe property line. none of them individually
triggered our typical threshold is 50 cube cubic yards and none appeared to be in violation of that standard. >> thank you. so you've yards would hav 50 yak and they went for 880 towards. 880 yards. i did the math and that's nine semitrailers full of dirt. >> 50, to clarify, it was just the standard to require the vi. the department would have analyzed on the proposal. >> from 50 to 880 is quite a jump. i have more questions to ask, but i don't think we can answer them. i'm wo wondering this many violations and that much overexcavated and the project was able to complete?
i'm just baffled. i would feel more comfortable. in the past we've had dbi come to give us a run of where it started and ended and that helped to clear things up for us or at least for me. i would be really in favour of having that happen again. i don't feel comfortable making any type of decision on this today. >> on that point, this friday, last friday, the dbi were invited to speak today and the supervisor and chief inspector were not available this thursday. >> before i stop talking, thank you both, mr. horn and mr. winslow, this is an extremely complicated and i'm sure time-consuming so thank you for your help on all of this. >> commissioner fung. >> mr. horn, a lot of the
violations could have been approved by the department if they had bidded it properly. >> everything before you, except for the portion seeking the variance, which is still approvable, just with this next level of hierarchical approval, everything is something that could have been approved, theoretically, just maybe not through section 311 or over the counter but more discretionary or applications would have been required. >> so the question, at least for me is whether the penalties that have already occurred, meaning the carrying costs ahead had, te expanded costs and all those things, is that sufficient to
overcome the fact that these things were not properly permitted? i know that the planning commission has in the past on a couple of examples required them to the developer or permit holder to return it to its original condition. i'm not sure whether that in this particular case that it creates more issues in terms of the neighborhood, in terms of the construction tha than is warranted. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i just follow up on some of the questions from my fellow commissioners. was there a notice of violation
filed by dbi at all during this process. >> there were a few in regards to the construction and i can't speak for dbi, but they were all abated and not followed through on. we went out there and saw permits on file and referenced the permits as reasons not to further enforce. >> i think on the issue of the removal of the excavation, i mean, i'm with commissioner kop particulakoppe also,l, how did ? >> that's one -- where serial permitting had the most benefit and a set of plans are shown to excavate a certain amount. new plans come in and show that
on the plans show as an existing amount education c excavated ann incrementally add more and more and different people reviewing the plans don't notice the similarities on the project site, yes. >> but i mean, the question i have, the family room on level one, which is the level above the garage, right, that's all underground. that's correct. >> as far as the plans that we have seen, most of it appears to be underground. >> but in the original permit, when that was approved, right, because this was routed -- the planning approved the permit, also. >> ha wathat was approved by plg and i was looking at that today and it could be hard to show the true amount of excavation and
the shape of that form. >> but if it wasn't, wouldn't that have triggered a variance? >> i can fill in. i have briefly reviewed that permit and my recollection is that it was shown in the existing condition to be kind of like an open storage area below grade and they just pushed that -- exis excavated to extet back and they didn't close it into a habitable space and there was some amount of excavation to make it deeper below grade but that was ok for the code because that was underground. i'm not sure at that time if it showed a huge amount of education ska vacation anexcavan inhabitable space but an open storage area.
>> i mean, that's where it gets confusing, whether this was, you know -- because you would have to excavate more than 50 cub 50c lots. i don't even know how that got through the process. >> the excavation isn't tied to the variance, necessarily, but again, the plans i saw, a lot of that area was showed as exiting to be excavated out and an open storage area below grade and so, what was proposed on that permit was taken -- >> was it an open storage area? >> that was was represented on the apples. plans.i don't know if it existet that time. >> i mean, i agree with commissioner koppel's comments. what to do about this, one, i'm
glad we have the policies we have that would prohibit this project from being approved now. i mean, i think one, we should codify that, waiting for the demo or unanimou ordinance but d be approved similarly today, if not for the flat policy. i mean, you need to remove the unit which is good, so we made strides in the right direction but miss rahm is right, this should be a three-unit, this is a single family home and an enormous unit and in the demo -- it's a classic kind of two-flat building that's then converted to a -- it's marketed and converted to a single family home. i would like to see it be a three-unit building.
it would be continue it to a team discussion between dpi andi front ofront of us to how this d happen and for everybody to look at the existing conditions at this time, there must be a set of drawings which verify that and take it forward and to whether or not the results, i personally do not believe rebuilding it to the existing condition is a penalty. that is necessarily the only way. there are other ways. this building as is shows so many transgressions, it needs to be pulled together in a reasonable story by which under particular circumstances, this can be approved in whatever form
but as it is, i cannot partially, because we just don't have all of the tools in our hands to have a clear -- full disclosure of what happened. so i'm making a motion to continue it and i would ask the department, perhaps under the leadership of our zoning administrator, to kind of create a team between dbi and planning. mr. winslow, mr. horn and your counterparts in dbi to bring this forward as a discussion including reasonable ways by which this project could be modified and taken forward under different kinds of scenarios. >> thank you, commissioner. >> second. >> i was going to weigh in, saw. sorry. i agree with my fellow commissioners and i also agree with commissioner fung that thie adopted earlier of asking folks
to it back is not the best thing for this particular project. that being said, you know, the $6,000 and $7,000 they paid in feigns to me is not a sufficient penalty for something this egregious. 50 cubic yards triggers it, so that would be 15 different permits to get to 880. that's a lot. [ laughter ] >> so i'm sure how we got there. i have a lot of questions for dbi, as to what point did they not think, oh, we should refer this back to planning because they're not doing what they said they would to. 17 different times, that to me is just mind boggling. but aside from that, as to what we do with this project now, i do think it is highly speculative in nature. i'm looking at the comps.
there's really nothing comparable in value so i think it was a project that i think you were trying to get the most profit for what you were putting in and, you know, that's not illegal. but i'm in the sure that is something we want to reward in this housing crisis right now. so i would be supportive of having the strategy that's been proposed by any other commissioners of enforcing and, you know, trying to see if we can get a three units, at least, out of this property and i think it's a good proposal, thank you. i don't know how easy it would be to do and i don't know if you're the ones do it based on because have said on your financial situation, but i would not be open to takin approving s
project as it is either. thank you. mr. teague? >> thank you. a couple of quick things, just to clarify on the 50 cubic yard issue because that can be confusing. that's a trigger for excavation, tand if you're doing 5,000, you trigger sequa review and that may trigger a geotechnical report, et cetera, so in in case, there were no permits ever proposed that showed more than you've squaryou'vesquarethan50 . this is a pretty edegree gist
example and i want to make it clear that it would continue too units and using that in a different way would be a violates of thviolation of the . >> i'm sorry, can you explain that? >> sure. if you have two units and you illegally merge them, that would trigger conditional use to it back. if someone has and existing two unit building, we can't require them to get tenants into the second unit. but we also -- it is not permitted to essentially connect them and merge them, either. so to that point, there is an elevator proposed here and i know that, at least for the variance, if those were to be
approved for different lots and different units, just to help with that issue, as well. and i'm also supportive of continuing the case to look at alternative scenarios, but kind of separate from that, i can say that the proposed variance for the front setback for the wall and the glass railing -- the wall actually make sense relative to the context, but i'm not supportive of the glass railing. it's not a hardship that requires them to that fairly opaque glass there but i'm open to a continuance on the variance, as well. >> commissioner hillis? >> a broader question to the director. again, if this project came or something similar -- i get the unit that was illegally there, that would require a cu in the flat policy, but would we want this to be a three-unit building
or would staff push if it was brought to the commission today in. >> as a new project that was coming forward, yes, absolutely. >> but there's nothing in the code, right? >> no minimum. >> that requires you to build. that's an issue we grapple with but there isn't the tool to require that. it's outside of the scope of this project. >> there's one required finding of section 317 cu that you have to make a finding that the project meets the maximum density of the zoning. >> but it's a criteria for review. >> right. >> if they are maximizing, but to the point, this was not in front of you as a conditional use because the illegal dwelling unit was removed before the requirement, for cu to remove it came into place. but yeah, if from day one, say 2014, when this project started, if they would have had two legal units and one unauthorized
dwelling unit and wanted to remove the unauthorized unit, that would have required a conditional use organization. >> is there any we should do to codify the flat policy? is that in supervisor peskin's demolition ordinance? [ laughter ] >> a previous iteration of it? >> i don't think it is, but i'll look. [ laughter ] >> commissioner moore? >> i understand you correctly, you were not categorically asking that it needs to be three units. we left it open as an exploration what we would like both teams to talk about. since we have a deep excavation, the basement unit would be something to giving a thought to. not to say that it would have to be fully disclosed to us. so there's no pre- dispostion on two or three, except it can't be one. >> i would like us to explore
ththe three unit option and i would encourage you to look on skill low abouatzillow on that t because it's nice. >> on three units, though, does that trigger code -- i don't know if the floor principa plan- >> you have a third plan, it will require more open space and that would have to have adequate exposure and building code requirements. so the sure answer is yes and it will depend on how it's proposed. >> very good, commissioners. do you have a sense how long you would like this to be continued for? >> mr. winslow, what do you think? either one of you, sorry.
>> this summer, july, maybe, to coordinate with dbi. >> july 18th. >> very good. there's a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to july 18th. on that motion, commissioner fung. (roll call). >> so moved and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. >> i will close the public hearing and continue the variance hearing to july 18th. >> very good, commissioners, that will place us on your final item today. item 17, case number 2017-0 is 3328 drp, for 28 filbert street,
discretionary review. >> good afternoon. david winslow, staff architect, the item is a public initiated request for discretionary review for permit building application 2017, 1013.1247 for a four-story vertical addition and three story horizonal to the front rear side to the adjacent neighboring building walls and a one-story pop out at the rear into the required rear yard as allowed by section 136 of our code for 5855 square feet. this single family residence is a resource and there are four dr requesters. it's an across-the-street neighbor concerned with three many issues, park on the uphillside eliminates one on-street parking space and one street tree. second, that the fourth story
that extends to the side property line is wider and higher that the neighborhood pattern and the rear pop-out and decks compromises the open space. the proposed alternatives include retention of the existing location of the garage consistent with the topography and no wider than the front facade -- i'm sorry consistent with the building height of 25 feet and no wider than the existing building front facade and deleting the pop-out addition. and fourth, placing floor-to ceiling doors to wins away from the street. there's howard and carrie delmar, neighbors to the immediate east are concerned with five main issues. first that the massing created an impact to light and air to the neighboring properties at the rear yard and second, that the addition at the rear will
cast additional shadows on the playground and that the proposed mass and scale are inconsistent with the neighboring context. the material and design features are inconsistent with the neighborhood character and the project extendeds beyond the 45% rear yard lane by using averaging which is inconsistent with the guidelines. it's worth noting that part of the design guidelines had not been adopted by the planning code. the proposed alternatives include reducing the proposed building height to three stories, reducing the rear extension to be within the 45% of the rear yard and incorporated five-foot side setbacks at the rear addition. the third dr requester is nancy levins of 2719 filbert street to the north and she is concerned with three main issues. first that the project does not meet several design guidelines
with respect to the rear yard, the height, and the neighborhood characters. as a result, the project is out of scale with the neighborhood. her proposed alternatives include angling the eastern wall at the front to reduce light impacts the adjacent neighbor's bay windows. second, reducing the size of the fourth floor and sizing and proportion to be more in keeping with the neighborhood patterns and maintaining a rear yard, to preserve adjacent neighbor's windows. fourth dr requester, mr. and mrs. pierce to the west are concerned with three main issue. that the rear extension to the block c adjacent window's neighbors and their access to the mid-block open space and second, that the fourth floor is out of scale and sets a bad
precedent casting shadows on the playground. and third that the rear deck pose privacy impacts to the rear yards. their proposed alternatives provide five-foot setbacks and limiting the year yard line and eliminating the rear deck. the public comment to date, the department has received eight letters in opposition and no letters of support. department's recommendation, the project is subject to the design guidelines, the residential design advisory team reviewed the project and requested five-foot side setbacks to alleviate issues related to the building scale at the rear and mid-block open space. brought forth by these neighbors and this is typical request in similar circumstances. staff review amended this request base on the other hand thbased on the limitedaddition r
and firewall, the neighbor to the east. the proposed addition incorporates a five-foot side setback to the east and at the fourth story and the third story incorporates a three-side setback from the property to the east. extending the building to the regular shaped side lot line was not deemed to provides a billion out obuilding and that was a tyl lot, a range of lot width and since it is against an interior property line or blind wall, it does not impact light or air to the adjacent properties. additionally, the fourth story addition set back 12 feet is limited in height to a fairly minimal height so it wasn't read as an intrusion to the scale at the street. with respect to the height, they did not find anything exceptional or extraordinary by the addition of that fourth
story. the project sponsor has proposed some modifications to respond to the neighbor's concerns and these include number -- i'll read off a long list so be prepared particular thanks. one, reducing the passing of the northeast corner of the second floor by providing a 12-inch by 24 emergency notch and reducing the second deck by pulling the railing back by three feet and removing a solid parapit and providing a glass or metal railing. (please stand by).
under c. the threshold there is 50% of the vertical walls, and 60 5% of the horizontal element. the horizontal elements are described and defined as the roof and the floors, not the foundation or the slab, if it is a slab on grade. so what we look at first is the calculation, in this case, it happens to be this project, this exhibit was provided by adr requester, which overlays the proposed project. we look here -- looking solely at the horizontal calculations, we will do this graphically rather than numerically.
this is the roof, the third floor, the second floor. these are the floors in question you can see graphically, that they don't exceed 65% of the horizontal. since the code is written as both of these conditions have to be met, more than 65, and vertical, more than 50, this is already not a demolition. essentially you can remove, and we will go to the next item, any or all of the vertical portions of the building and still not have this be technically considered a demolition. in this case, here are the calculations looking at the diagrams for the vertical elements of this building. you can see they are pretty much all gone except for maybe one sidewall side wall and a portion of some others. that is the way we have to look at these things and recalculate them. sometimes, often times, this comes in and everyone says, this building is really gone, it is a demolition.
the onus is on the vertical walls that are missing, how do you support the horizontal? there are ways of doing that, but we have to make sure that the contractors' means and methods or supporting these things and keep them in place in the same position for it not to be considered a demo. so that is my spiel on demos. staff recommends that commission take the d.r. to incorporate these proposals by the project sponsor and approve. thank you. >> thank you mr. winslow. so we have four d.r. requesters, and the rules say we have to give the project sponsor the same amount of time, so that would be 20 minutes. >> not quite, they get up to ten minutes. >> after ten minutes even though there are four of them? to my question for the d.r. requester, is if you will be coordinating your presentations in any way, or if you each want
to speak for five minutes. is there anyone who can get up and -- there you go. >> good evening. i'm here on behalf of one of the d.r. requesters police. i believe we -- each one of them wants to speak their piece and take their five minutes. we have not coordinated. >> you will take what we allow you. >> we will take whatever you give us. >> there are so many of you, i will allow you three minutes each if everyone needs to say their piece. >> we haven't coordinated. >> that's fine. we will have everyone come up, and each of you will get three minutes. are you the first? >> yes, i'm representing one of the d.r. requesters. i'm not sure i can immediately cut my presentation down to three minutes, but i will certainly try. you are suggesting i just bring a hard copy?
i represent the family who you have the building immediately next door to the west. the department's review and analysis of the site missed a lot of important facts. first there was a notice of special restrictions recorded against this property, that as exhibit 5. and it limits the property to just being a single-family dwelling, although it is an r.h. two zone, and the second thing they missed is that there are currently nine unfinished, on finalized, uninspected permits on this building. it has never had a permit finished on this building, and i talked to the zoning administrator scott sanchez and i spoke to joe duffy and he said an application should never have been accepted into these parents are resolved, and i attached all those unfinished permits for your review, so one of the big issues these informants --
unfinished permits because the square footage. the assessor says the building is 800 square feet. the project sponsor says it is 4600 square feet. and that is the starting point, so are they getting double the size of the building or triple the size of the building, moving it to nearly 6,000 square feet. that is what you're getting us to approve. a 6,000 square-foot single-family home and went the center one of the most historic blocks. if it is approved, it will be the largest single family home in the area, and i attached all of, as exhibit 8, all the square footage is an unit counts for all of the buildings on both sides of the block from the assessor's office. it is simply way too large. the memo that went out in january of last year gave incredibly specific directions, and it is attached to your analysis. it says do this, were you are not in compliance with the residential design guidelines.
they didn't do it. they didn't do any of it. they spent a year ignoring the department and then lobby their way around it. the department asked for very specific 5-foot setbacks, and that is what is needed for the building, because they have these historic windows that have been on the side of that building for 100 years, providing light to those flats, and now you are being asked to build over them for the 6,000 square-foot single-family residence. we are in full agreement. this commission should respect the organization and its findings. i attached all of the letters as exhibit 2. and this is in the accepted part that is in the planning code. it says the 45% line and salvage those windows on the west side building. that is what we are asking for. it is what we have been asking for for more then a year. >> okay.
>> thank you. >> thank you. next d.r. requester. do we take a moment now or after i guess after. okay. >> hi, we are carrion harrowed, weightlifting eastside of mr. higgins. i'm going to abbreviate -- we live to the east side of mr. this remodel, a huge remodel is going to dramatically affect our house, and also the neighborhood the other remodel from the block have kept the former home's envelope or been respects -- been built to respect the guidelines. the project sponsors have been many studies regarding our privacy concerns and concerns over loss of light. but since we live in our home, we feel we are best to judge what affects this rebuild will have on us if it is allowed to be built as planned. how is it fair to the adjacent neighbors to allow one person to build out into the rear yard pass past the adjacent neighbors rear wall blocking light, air,
and privacy so that they can now enjoy this very same benefits that they will be cutting off from the neighbors. the proposed project is not about quality of life for the sponsor, it is about maximizing square footage. if we are to go by studies alone as the project sponsor is doing, and then we wonder how much square footage is required in the home and that is for two people. we are not the only people concerned over this project. many interested neighbors, including some on the board have written letters expressing concern, and also signed petitions asking that the plans be paired back. contrary to the project sponsor 's claims, they have cut way back on the project square footage, the plans of only increased in size since a pre application meeting in october of 2017. i will skip over our concerns. i want to talk about the concession that the project
sponsors want to make to ourselves and the other family. the project sponsor has recommended a few small one by two or 12 by 12 notch areas on the side of the rear building. after considering these factors, we believe they don't do anything for anyone. our compromise will then be not to ask for the whole pushback as stated in the guidelines, but here is our request, please push the first, second and third floors back by 3 feet, please also push the fourth floor back by 3 feet. this request would help to provide more light on both of our homes, and also reduce the invasion of privacy in the current home plan. this requests ask for a reduction of less than 300 square feet from the project sponsor, allowing him to build a huge home of 5500 square feet. surely this is amplified for two people.
-- surely this is an ample size for two people. we know mr. higgins will build a new home. are small requester compromise in the design the gives and the ability to build the home that he wants to build while taking nothing away from the livability of the residents. we're pushing less than 300 square feet to appease the neighbors is the right thing to do. thank you. >> thank you. next d.r. requester, please. >> good evening and thank you for your time on this project. i'm irene homes, i live directly across the seat -- on the street on the south side of filbert street. this is the building. can i put this on the overhead? there we go. that is the house as it currently appears. this is the proposal with the little green square that represents the expansion that was put in, which actually would stretch 8 feet over the façade
of the neighboring building. this is one of the modifications that the developer has agreed to because the rendering that was originally given to us like that is accurate and you don't have that extension over the neighboring property. this is in fact, a piecemeal demolition, although with our little tutorial here on 317, which we are very confused about , and as mr. winslow said, the foundation isn't clear. this property, they are going to cantilever three floors over the west of the existing foundation, which is 100 years old. they will rebuild that it will be rebuilt, and the garage going in on the uphill side is 2 feet below grade, so there will be excavation on that side too. those things are exceed -- excluded from the calculation, and i suppose a week asking for
separate permits to do those three buildings and excavations. as was mentioned earlier, the various notices from the planning department required -- requested or required certain things that still are not in the plan and basically they are simply told by the developer that they are not doing them. the 5-foot setbacks have been mentioned, the landscaping in front, which is required by the better streets plan which still isn't part of the plan, and in the setback for the neighbors' privacy and light in their garden was also refused. the planner said, tell me this -- they said this isn't tantamount to a demolition and then there was a long exchange between the planner and the developer about how they were going to replace the foundation wall in order to quote unquote avoid the effect of 317, that was the exchange. i would like to make one more point swayed don't use up all my time, which is that one of the big issues here is the space.
it goes from five to 8 feet between the two buildings. those spaces are completely characteristic of this neighborhood. if you walk around that block, there are 11 homes, 11 spaces in which the homes have these spaces between the homes. nobody ever builds out into those spaces, i don't think it has ever even been proposed. if you said this -- that this is a precedent, you have this problem over and over and over again. it is simply not neighbourly. please take d.r. and we ask that you also not approve the project thank you so much. >> thank you. finally, the last d.r. requester , please. >> my nave it is -- my name is david bancroft. i have been deputized by the
d.r. requester to present her comments. she is out of the country. the first thing i should say is, in reality, my name is nancy lovins, i live at 2729 silver street right across from the subject property. a licensed architect was retained and has reviewed the demolition plans, and has determined that these plans, in fact, or tantamount to a demolition under planning code 317. those calculations have been provided to you. the plans from the project sponsors are to say the calculations differ in seeking to avoid this being found to be a code demolition. we have asked the planning department to review these calculations. number 2, the plans ignore --
the architect his also increase the square footage on the fourth floor. they call for a 15-foot setback from the street. the 311 plans call only for 12 feet. in addition, the plans expand the southern bedroom west, removing the open space setback that was shown on the directive. we asked the commission to review these increases in square footage and reject them. the plans would create an outsized building. information provided by a website called shot blocker, is that with one exception on the block, all single-family homes in this neighborhood do not exceed 4,000 square feet. the one exception is 2736 filbert, which stands on a lot home of 30%, 29 send to be exact
, bigger. so we have a 3,436 square foot versus a 2688 square foot two lots. one of which, the proposal here, is to have a home that is relatively, incredibly larger than any other home on the block i took a comparison of a two property -- of the two properties in my notes. 2758 filbert street proposes an increase in square footage to appoint -- to point no longer compatible with the neighborhood we have reasons that have been signed. we have a huge increase in square footage, and disregard for right and privacy for a neighbor, noncompliance with the guidelines, ignoring the unauthorized demolition. we request that the planning commission reject this project
and granted the d.r. thank you. >> thank you very much. do we have any public comment in favor of the d.r. requester his? >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners. i live in the neighborhood. can you hear me okay? a block from the property of discussion today. my family has lived on baker street for five generations. i'm also on the board of the neighborhood association, and a member of the zoning committee which works with neighbors to ensure home renovations or reconstruction of a home are in compliance with the neighborhood design guidelines. in the dozens of projects my colleagues and i review annually on the zoning committee, we are able to work with the project sponsors and neighbors to come to an agreement to avoid
arriving at this point where the planning commission has to spend their precious time on these issues. i'm here today because the project sponsor and neighbors have not come to agreement about the proposed construction and four d.r. his have been filed. the proposed plans can be revised to meet the neighbor concerns about light and air while also enabling the project sponsor to build a larger home. when i am reflecting on what it means to live in our unique neighborhood, and to share --
the proposed plans can be recite reside -- revised to meet concerns. these neighbors would play tennis, excuse me, and enjoys tennis company, and at the end of their lives, they donated their property of the block to the city to be made into a playground. i have visited this playground as a child. i took my sons to this playground when they were children, now they are in college. all of the neighbors, and many families throughout san francisco have enjoyed this playground. this gesture of neighbourly shared space, of the generous donation of property for all to enjoy, this juxtaposes some of the current thinking in our city , and i would argue in our country. i am not opposed to renovations
of building large homes, i am mindful what it means to be a good neighbor and to care for those around us, and to take into consideration our neighbors ' concerns when we build or renovate homes. in the spirit of the design guidelines, i request the commission to ask the project sponsor and the neighbors to work on a compromise, which would respect the nearby neighbors' light and air. the zoning committee has written several letters which document the areas that i have identified thank you so much. >> thank you. any other public comment in support of the d.r. requester? so we will now hear from the project sponsor. you have ten minutes.
>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is bill higgins, and this is my wife patty. i have lived in the neighborhood at the same address for more than 25 years. if you have reviewed the pictures of my house, it is in sore need of repair and renovation. the project will need to have improvements on the streetscape for the neighborhood. and lived there for many years to come. i will let my team, my architect go over the respond -- response to the d.r. arguments but i want to thank the staff, and particularly, those who spend many spent many hours working on with us and trying to reach reasonable compromises. a lot of time has been put into shaping this project.
we have responded to our neighbor's recurrent -- concerns i am not totally happy with all of the concessions that have been made, but we can live with them, and we respect david's expertise as the department's architect and helping us get there. at this point, we just want to get back to living our lives in the neighborhood. we are asking the commission to support the staff recommendation and please approve the project with our listed concessions. thank you. >> planning commission, i'm jeff gibson of gibson architects. we are pleased to present this project to you and the compromises that are already built into the design before you today. we are handing out copies of the project modifications suggested by the planning department. there is a print cop t