The requesters the first, stephen chan, the jason neighbor to the west of the proposed project is concerned that the proposed height of the vertical addition is not compatible with the residential Design Guidelines. The proposed alternatives are setbacks to the third floor so that the scale matches other buildings on the block and does not block light and secondly to move the elevator so it does not to match his a little existing light well on the west side. The second d. R. Requester, a neighbor to the south of the proposed project is concerned with the proposed addition is a demolition and should be reviewed as such, and number two , the measurement of the project height is erroneous and exceeds the allowable height prescribed by the planning code and that the proposed addition is not compatible with the following residential Design Guidelines. To his proposed alternative is to limit the fourth floor. Public comment to date, the department his receipt four letters and opposition in four letters in support of the project. The departments analysis and recommendation, demolition counts were provided and staff reviewed and determined this is not a demolition of the planning code. It has provided a site survey by a licensed property surveyor that addresses the slope and the site relative to the building height. The Residential Design Advisory Team review confirmed that with respect to light impact to the adjacent d. R. Requesters side yard setback, a perfect merging alignment is not typically required but typical to allow some buildings extension into the side yard. Extends forefoot eight beyond the d. R. Requesters end wall of his side setback and is open and clear to the rear. As such, we did not see an extraordinary conditions with respect to matching of the light well. The original review recommended illuminating the fourth floor and the reduction of the rear expansion to provide a massing transition between the adjacent buildings. At this points, the proposed third floor was set back from the front building while 11 and a half feet on the setback of the adjacent neighbor. It was assumed to be adequate. In response, the project sponsor reduced the size of the fourth story and reduced the massing at the rear to the neighbor to the east but moves the third wall forward. Staff determine the size on the location to be minimally visible and allow it to go out for neighborhood notification. The topography of the site renders this massing about two and a half stories above grade at the rear because of the up sloping of the lot. Staff recommended further refinements and modifications to the third story massing to address the scale at the street and the pattern and scale of buildings as they stepped down the street. Following adjustments were requested. One, match the setback the proximally 8 feet of the third floor to the adjacent neighbor to the west, to the midpoint of the facade of the midfloor, setback the remainder of the third floor by 4 feet and set im sorry, lower the third floor ceiling height by 1 foot to reduce the massing, and eliminate the parapet above the third floor to also reduce its massing. Also illuminating the overhang of windows above the third floor and raising the parapet of the second floor to mask the massing of the third floor. It also recommends modifying window proportions to relate to the surrounding pattern of the windows. It sets a new a project sponsor responded to some but not of not all of these suggestions. It sets a new precedent and stuff i additional measures be taken to comply with the residential Design Guidelines in relation to the d. R. Requesters issues related to the building scale of the street. Specifically the measures that were not in that packet. Staff recommendation is to take d. R. And approve the project with those modifications. That concludes my presentation and im here to answer questions thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the d. R. Requester number one. It doesnt matter which one. Come on up. This portion of 26th street is a wellestablished pattern of houses that are up to three levels on the street with for third floors being a setback as noted in the d. R. They are there are seven Properties Around the subject property all the way up to douglas street that have thirdfloor setbacks that are consistent with each other, as you can see here. The project proposes a four level structure of almost 4,000 square feet and includes five bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms, two family rooms and in addition to a living room. The fourth floor which is entertainment space with a wet bar, this fourth floor negatively impacts the surrounding properties, reducing air, light, and privacy, particularly to adjacent properties in the two setbacks to the rear. It will also shade some of the solar panels of the upper neighbors. It is contrary to the zoning guidelines and would establish a new precedent. This is excessive and not consistent with the height and bulk of the homes in the area. The third floor setback requirements were established long ago and renovations in the area in the past and recently including the other d. R. Requesters home has complied with these setbacks, which are reflected in appearance today of the street. Applicant his claim the fourth floor is not visible from the street, but this is not the case it is obscured from one angle since they moved the third floor , and included a parapet extending to the top of the third floor. It is still visible from most any other vantage on the street. If you take a few steps to the right or left, from the uphill, you would plainly see the third floor and the fourth floor extending up. From the other side you would also see both of these. If the parapet was removed, would be even more visible. There is substantial neighborhood opposition to this. Currently there are 47 neighbors that have signed or sent letters in opposition of this project which includes 301 households on the same block or cross the street of the project. In the mediation meeting on july 17th with applicants, the d. R. Requester and the planning manager, mr. Winslow reviewed the file and said the d. R. Requester his had valid points and that it did not comply with residential guidelines. From his review, was unclear how this project was approved. He noted that the p. D. R. Require the project sponsor to illuminate the fourth floor. However, this was not done and it was unclear exactly how this was pushed through. After the meeting, the d. R. Analysis report appear to do an aboutface and presented an awkward partial setback of the third floor and reduction or removal of the parapet but no mention of the third floor the fourth floor. This lastminute proposed plan fails to involve the substantial problems. We were surprised to see this proposal particularly after davids comments in the meeting, so after the meeting i reviewed the record and created and it was unclear how exactly this plan was pushed through. The applicant referred to the fourth floor as the third floor, which is confusing and improperly portrays a project is smaller than it really is. The applicant move the third floor forward to the street and added the parapet so the third floor obscured the smaller fourth floor, instead of resolving the fourth floor issue , this created another setback issue which is why were here today with two d. R. On these issues. I also found in the file review a letter from the applicant sent after the meeting in which the applicant says he is seeking Legal Council and says to david, and i quote, in the meeting with the d. R. Requester, you suggested there was error that may have been made. If you plan to bring such a claim to commission, i want to see the documentation how the error was made despite the thorough review. Obviously this represents significant sloppiness and unprofessionalism on the part of the Planning Department. This would be an opportunity for me to highlight how acceptable this is. This is not have planning should be conducted. The Design Guidelines and Planning Department decision should not hinge on veiled threats from bullying applicant. It was already admitted the plan did not comply and there are two considerable issues that have not been resolved, and furthermore, there is no compelling reason to depart from the established residential Design Guidelines, even illuminating the third floor and doing a proper thirdfloor setback, the applicant can achieve at least 30500 square feet, five bedrooms, family room , and fourpoint five bathrooms as shown here. This project is excessive, negatively impacts neighbors and unnecessarily sets any precedent thank you for your consideration thank you. Thank you very much. Will now hear from the second d. R. Requester. Hello. I am the owner of the house directly up the hill. This is the photograph i took of the street. You can notice the topography. We are on a hill and every bit Building Steps down. My house is this red one. It has a setback thirdfloor. You really cant even see it from here. This house also has a setback. The proposed house that is coming in would be three floors to the front. It also creates a light issue where i have not seen the revised plans. The other thing that i think that is one piece, and as david mentioned, the light well, this area right here, there is an overlap or the elevator is encroaching on the light will. And lastly, maybe a minor issue, i will point out in terms of the parapet, there are 16 houses, 13 of them have entrances on the second floor, by revising this facade, if it is flipped, it is removed this tree is removed. And it potentially reduces a parking spot. I know that is all structured into the guidelines. It might be worth taking a look at. For me, my request is the third floor setback as is, this house will cast a shadow in the morning on my whole house and block every window on the left side of my house. I am sort of okay with that. He has a right to build something, but i am requesting that we do the setback and lower the structures as much as possible. Would be nice to see over the structure. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester his . Come on up. My name is lorraine. Good evening. I feel it necessary to speak with you in opposition. Please speak into the microphone. I am a 23 year resident and i see this project as an example of a disturbing trend that pushes the limits of height, overall size in relation to surrounding homes and Design Guidelines. The existing home is probably less than 1,000 square feet. While i cannot determine the Square Footage of the proposed home, i get it costs or four times that size. The impact to light and green space and privacy is considerable. There are no surrounding homes. This is not a precedent that should be set in the neighborhood. Indeed there is precedent for not allowing a fourth level at all. While i understand the Property Owners right to demolish the existing home and build a new modern building, i would hope that this can be done with respect for the surrounding neighbors and the larger neighborhood in which i assume they intend to live. I urge the Planning Commission to take discretionary review and not allow this fourth floor of this project to be built. Thank you. I want to remind you that i know it has been a long day, earlier in the day, you actually eliminated the fourth floor for a different request, and that was 900 square feet. Here we are just asking for a very small portion that is considered labelled as family room. This is the second family room. Families dont need to have two family rooms. If they need two family rooms, it should not be a menace to the surrounding neighbors. Just to illustrate my point, i am just putting down the section of the plan. Overhead, please. This is the before, this is how it is today, and this is what the project sponsor wants to do. You may recall that a year ago we had a similar thing, and the neighbors called it a crows nest , that fourth floor that was a very little thing on 2302 on 2302 clifford. We dont need to have over 4,000 square feet, four floors, an absolute anomaly for this part of the valley. Particularly if you ever pass by ongoing 26th street. It is a very steep street. If you get on top of this street , which his properties very close, you would not even be able to see the fourth floor. Think of it this way. This is almost 9 00 p. M. , we are here because we are trying to get you to eliminate 366 square feet. This is a drop in the bucket. Please consider admitting that and please give us the front setback that the other d. R. Requester has asked. I think it amounts to 188 square feet. Again, were talking about chump change when youre dealing with big projects like this. I wish that neighbors were more considerate in terms of when to do their buildings. Think about the people that you are going to be living next to. Thank you so much. My time is up. This is the last time you will see me this week. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is chris. Projects like these are unreasonably large. They dont take into account the character, the aesthetic of the neighborhood, and they are a nuisance to light of privacy of all surrounding neighbors. Therefore they dont benefit the community in any way. Therefore i oppose these projects. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . In favor of the d. R. Requester his . That evening, commissioners. I am an architect. I have lived in the valley for over 30 years. I took a look at this project. It seems that it is a large project. It is a large vertical and horizontal addition. The top floor is a small entertainment room. They label it as a family room, but there is also a family room on the ground floor. I think personally houses that have two family rooms are divisive for family rather than creating a sense of community and family gathering. There is some confusion about whether it is three stories or four stories. The Building Code deals with great plain, and the basement is considered a story and then the first story above that plane looks at it differently. It certainly looks like a four Story Building when you look at the facades. I think the top floor is small. It doesnt seem like the neighbors are asking for a lot. They would like to accept this new person to be a neighbor and are asking for a setback in the front to comply with the next her neighbor and protect light and ventilation, and they would like to not have a roof deck, which is mostly what the top floor is. It seems like it is a large roof deck and a small room up there. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester . Okay. With that, well hear from the project sponsor. Thank you. Im travis murdoch, thank you for staying so late and spending time with me this evening. Can you put up the projector, please . Im a physician. I work as an investor and my wife is a nurse. We move five years ago from canada. We have many relatives from canada. Many of whom are our coming to visit us. We are planning on having three kids. We have one, we have one on the way. This is a project for us, 100 , with the intent to stay in a city and stay in the neighborhood that we really love much to say about our top floor, which we have refined and diminished in size quite significantly. It is a very important space for us for the three reasons. One is it is a family room, there is a small family room in the basement which will be used by my parents when they are staying there. The second point is that it is a separated space that i can use for business meetings, and i get a further guest bedroom when our families in town. You may have heard that people were upset about the project. Many have actually written letters in support, including the neighbor to the east east. I should note i saw his note that he had a red. On the place to the east, but in fact, the neighbor who is the renter who is supportive of this project and tells us she was actually misinformed when he came back and that she wouldnt have signed the prewritten letter that he gave her had it not been for him being pushy. Another example, a neighbor across the street owns two properties and lives in one is very supportive of the project as it stands. The assertions about this fourth floor are completely are completely flawed. Others have suggested that it significantly affects their air, late, and privacy and that it somehow is a menace to the neighborhood, that is not the case. In fact, if you look at where he is, the neighbors directly to the rear, about 100 feet away, they are uphill from us, this is the reason why code 261 exists. Additionally, if you look at the plans, we are setback to maintain the mid block light. We are set back setback from the sides, as well as setting back from the front Property Line by 27 feet. None of the fourstory properties on the street were shown in the other presentation, however in fact, there are four fourstory properties that are in close approximation to us down the hill. There is another in planning with a plan to go to four stories. I suspect it will be approved. Hopefully you have seen the 3d three images we have provided to really demonstrate how this property is in keeping with character of the neighborhood. Is concerning to me that theres been so much misrepresentation there of. I am deeply looking forward to meeting this neighbor. We tried it length to come to terms with him on the front setback. That was not a walking up and down the block and discussing the character of the neighborhood. That was standing on his roof and seeing how it affected views what we propose, i tried to spend time with him last week, and it was to articulate back and provide some setback and relief for him in terms of light , will also eliminate limiting the front roof deck. What you can see is we are stepping down the block, more a 2foot stepped down on the third level versus his level to the west, but also, you know, creating some dynamic and a very positive dynamic for the neighborhood. Finally i mentioned that, you know, the actual setback of the third floor are very inconsistent on the block and hopefully what you can see here is that we have struck a balance between the rear setback that he has proposed, which is actually beyond his neighbor to the west, and the neighbors to our east. Ultimately, this relates to private views given that the proposed top floor is not visible and we are articulating the third floor back, and so we are trying to be Good Neighbors and we