which does add to the cost of the housing and the price of the housing and the relative affordability of the housing. i also suggest that to reduce the square footage, it could be simply done, i'm thinking, by moving into the house from the light well that's in the center. so as you start on the ground level you bring the light well down to the ground. it doesn't go to the ground now. and you push it into the garage. there's a bonus room and a bedroom. there's certainly space that could be facilitated to enlarge the light well at that level and then work your way up from there and still have a reasonable size house, reducing it by four to five hundred square feet, that's my suggestion. that would bring it more in line with the existing housing. the site, the different square footage on each level, the garage level is 713 square feet according to the plans. on the first living level there's 1213 square feet. on the second living level there's 1060 square feet. let me talk now about another reason to do that and that relates to another part of section 317, which has to do with the design and the style of the house. this house would be the only house on the street that would have three levels and not have a peak roof. so if you set it back or if you create more space on duncan street or along the eastern wall, you will have a house that fits in better. in the brief i show certain pages from the design guidelines that this house looks like now so i don't think it meets the design guidelines and i don't think it meets those other sections of 317d3c which are section 6 and section 7. i could show you all the exhibits i showed you in the brief. i don't want to bother doing that. i will show you, though, two houses that sold recently in the last year because i think they are, represent existing housing and affordability. this one here is within 150 feet. it cost, square footage is 1,175 square feet and it cost $1.5 million, almost the affordable number, but not. then there's another one on duncan just up the street from the project that was 2,3 85 square feet and that sold for $2,325,000. i guess i'm trying to make the argument, and i guess i'm hoping that you will add to it, is what is the relative affordability? this is relatively affordable. these houses are under 4,000 square feet. i'm not saying they are affordable, i am saying they are relatively affordable and that's what planning code requests be protected, relative affordability. i think it's an important part of the planning code. it's linked with the demolition. in order to get approved a demolition you have to fill in this form. you have to meet these criterion. i don't think it meets this criterion. i think this is an important criterion because, not only because of our issues of affordability overall, as everyone talks about, but because it has an impact on the existing housing. and i hope that you'll consider it and i can talk some more later about the relative affordability of this project. thank you. and the planning code. thank you. >> okay, we can hear from the project sponsor now. >> good afternoon, jody knight on behalf of the project sponsor. bear with me, i'm working one-handed today. if there's a little bit of dropping of paper i apologize. we're here today, as you know, on appeal of a building permit and demolition permit. just to kind of give you an idea of what the site looks like currently, if i could throw that up on the overhead, you can see that's there now, it's essentially an eye sore. it's a hole in the block face. there's a concrete slab, a carport and then in back is a ramshackle home. and what's proposed is to take down that ramshackle home and build a single family usable home. the apellant addresses the issue of relative affordability. in this case the home that's there is really not usable as a single family home. we're looking at the city policy in favor of contributing usable housing stock. in this case the project will do that, it provides a relatively modest home, under 3,000 square feet, but a usable home compared to what's there now. what's there now is an undersized single family home. it's unatrack tif, as you saw. the roof leaks, the floor joists are rotted, there's a family of raccoons living there. the project would dmraulish the uninhabitable building and build a 2,986 square foot two-story home. it creates a consistent street wall along the street front. this project started out larger but there was some concerns from the neighbors and the project sponsor has changed the project consider bli in response to those concerns. most significantly they agreed to remove the third floor level. this matter did go for discretionary review to the planning commission. at that point the project sponsor agreed to remove the third floor so that was a pretty significant concession. there's also a very large light well on the east side of the property, it's 5 feet by 14.25 feet, and so that was a large clung that -- chunk that was taken out of the home in response to neighbor concerns. the roof parapet was reduced a minimum of 6 inches. based on these changes the project did receive planning commission support. it received support of the planning department and it is consistent with the other houses on the block. in contrast to what the apellant told you, there's a wide variety of building types on that block which you can see from the photos that were submitted by the apellant. in this case there's a fairly steep slope, the project as proposed steps down with the slope of the block and especially with the third floor taken out, it's completely consistent with the block, the stepping down block face. it would remove an unsightly off street parking space next to the sidewalk, the parking would be underneath the project in a garage, and essentially it will replace a neighborhood eye sore with a usable single family home which is really desperately needed in the city. we actually have the real estate agent who sold the property here today who would like to speak about the condition of the property and the consistency with the neighborhood. and then i'll take any questions. thank you. >> good evening, my name is kathy schade, i'm currently with zephyr real estate. i had the honor to represent the owner of the property, to sell his last asset of value, he no longer resided in it, it was actually uninhabitable, it was actually a health risk. there was, as you saw in the picture, great overgrowth in the front of the yard with a large amount of debris that had been dropped there over years and years ever deferred maintenance. there was a tree from next door that limbs were on top of the roof that were breaking through, there were a family of rac ks coons nr it, the house was left overnight with everything still in it, sing full of dirty dishes, linen, everything in total disrepair for many years. his process, he just wanted to sell it and get on with his life. he didn't want to do anything else, he didn't want to prepare it, he wanted to sell it to someone who would turn around around use it for a higher and better use. as pointed out to you, there is a great lack of usable housing in noe valley and this beautiful idlic street is located in a rather rambunctious notoriously famous neighborhood of noe valley. as much as it would like to be painted as a quiet street it's in one of the most rebust areas of northern california. as such even when a home of a million five sells, you can pretty well know it will be upgraded because that's an entry level. (inaudible) supply and demand, the lack of demand is what drives up the price, not the value of the property. this is the third time that we have come in here to show that it is not only livable, it's actually idlic for what we're looking for in noe valley, which is affordable housing for the people who want to buy and live there. there are homes going up, when i bought noe'll, it was $340,000 in 1994. yeah, what a blessing but do you think i'll sell it for 3 85? no, who would? you wouldn't. the property values have gone up because of a lack of supply. this addresses that and it addresses it by doing all of the concessions that need to happen. there have been countless neighborhood meetings about this and now to come up with the fact that it has to be demolished, of course it has to be demolished. it's an eye sore. it's a health hazard. it's not worth walking into, let alone living. so there has to be an adjustment and work has to be done. august, 2011. it is now march 2015 and we're just now discussing whether or not it needs to be demolished or not? i think we need to move this project into its final phases of completion so it can hit the market and maybe it won't hit it 12 or 13 or 1500 square feet if we don't do it by next year, but next year the housing market is not going to be contained because this house is delayed or not. we need to put more affordable housing out there for the people who want to pay to live in noe valley. thank you. >> miss knight, did you have anything further? >> nothing further unless there's questions. >> i have a question, counselor. so what was the original square footage? >> the original square footage was 3,972 square feet. >> and i probably should ask the realtor, but how long is this property -- is this property vacant now? >> i believe it's been vacant for some time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department staff, welcome, commissioner swig. the property is located within the rh2 zoning district. the subject prompt underwent neighborhood notification last april. during this time there was one discretionary review request that was filed. in addition there was a mandatory review because of demolition and construction so a mandatory discretionary hearing was required. the hearing for this was held at the planning commission last july, there were two hearings, one on the 10th and one on the 24th. on the 24th the planning commission approved the subject project. in that hearing they removed the third story. most of the arguments that have been raised here deal with the question of relative affordability and the requirements of section 317. section 317dc3 lists not just one criteria but 16 criteria. we review it not just against the requirements of section 317 but also the general plan, the priority policy findings and we look at this as a review on balance. so does the project, on balance, meet the findings? and of the 16 criteria, section 317, the planning commission did find on balance the demolition proposal met the requirements of 317. actually in the finding for relative affordability question, we actually stated at that time based on the information that we had that it did not appear that that criteria was met. certainly if they were to have provided something along the lines of a property analysis that would show the estimated value of the property and the current value of the property, that may have led to a different conclusion, but that was not provided at the time. so in regard to the apell and's argument that this is relatively affordable housing the commission has already assumed that in their decision and found on balance the project as a whole warrants justification for the demolition and the entire findings, all 16 findings, those criteria are contained in the apellant's brief for reference. in reviewing this, the planning commission and the planning department found the project complied, the new construction complied wtd residential design guidelines. we have reviewed by our internal residential design team, applying the residential design guidelines, they found the project complied. further, through the course of the hearing process the project was reduced in size, that third story was removed and we do find it is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. it is a more modern design perhaps than some of the adjacent properties but for the context of the neighborhood it is appropriate and so the department recommended approval and the commission approved the project. so, with that, i'm available for questions. i think the important issues raised by the apellant regarding relative affordability, it does not include the size of the new construction as something the commission would consider. it's there to the extent that neighborhood character is addressed but in the residential districts there is no far limit on residential uses. we look at setbacks and compliance with residential design guidelines to determine the appropriate project. so, with that, i'm available for any questions. >> mr. sanchez, are there any variances that are for this project? >> no, this was a code compliant project. >> thank you. inspector duffy has indicated he doesn't have anything to add unless you have questions, commissioners, for him, we can move to public comment. is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> first of all, this is what the house --. >> please state your name. >> my name is laticia gonzalez and we are the adjacent neighbors on the east side of the house, directly impacted by this house. it's just my mother who lives there right now and myself. this is the house that they have, that's actually there. they seem to always show pictures of just the front end of the house where there's nothing but some garbage and things like that. that wasn't there until they moved in. there was always a lush green beautiful yard in the front until they came and they bulldozed everything down and they left a bunch of garbage there, then they ripped off the top of the carport. the place, what they call the story post, the story post now, which are right here against our fence, these are the story posts that they have placed next to our house. in this short time this is what it has done to our fence. it has -- this used to be at one time parallel to our deck. as you can see now it is up leaning against our deck, causing damages. our fence has been also, is no longer stable, it's been weakened ever since this happened. also, too, on the front part of the lot is also a beautiful willow tree that is about 60 years old. that house was also inhabitable because one of the brothers of the project sponsor was staying there, so there was somebody living in the house for quite a while. and i find it very hard to believe that they found the house in the condition that they say they did when we know the gentleman who used to live there. he was a very clean and neat person. i really doubt he left dishes and dirty linens and all the things that they say that they found in there. i really find it hard to believe that that was there. okay, we are, we want -- what we are upset about is we don't even want the house built in the front. we want it built in the back of the rear lot where it's at. considering all the things that we seen with the damages and considering that the noe street up at the top is considered land slide area, you can see how sense stiff -- sensitive the hill is. for those reasons we do not accept them to build a house, we want you to deny the demolition and not change the location of where the house is at, at this point. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> my name is celia rose, i am the oldest daughter of mrs. gonzalez. that was my sister who just came up to speak. my viewpoint is that light well that's coming in, the last time we looked at the plans there's very big windows facing my mother's, one of my mother's bedrooms. if those windows could be made with some kind of glass that was maybe a frosted type of glass or something so that they wouldn't have direct view into the area, we also would like the light well to go all the way down to the bottom. my mother has had privacy for 60 years and we're just concerned that with all of this, our privacy will be greatly reduced. the back decks will be actually looking into our garden and my sister showed you that there was some damage already to that cement retaining wall with some stakes that they put in there, which is now sitting flat up against our deck. this house is over a hundred years old and we're worried about any kind of architectural damage that could be done to it because of the size of the building. it's also going to go in very deep with the cars going underneath it. so those are my concerns besides what they are talking about which also i was raised there and that house -- i lived in that house at one time and it was livable until it was taken apart. and the man that lived there, they came back and forth from santa rosa there, it was kind of like their weekend home. but my main concern is that once this project is underway and we experience something we don't like, are we still able to talk to any of the people that, the architects or anyone that's working with it? and that that main window there, it's 3 huge windows look directly into what used to be my dad's bedroom. and on top of that, the house will be painted black. to look out that window to a big black wall is another concern of mine. would it be possible to just change the light well and make it lighter with another color and continue with what else they are going to do in the front? it's an awful thing to look out a window at a black wall. and also that window. those are my concerns. thank you. >> miss rose, did you and/or your sister attend the planning commission hearing? >> we have. >> you have? >> we have, yeah. >> did you raise the same issues? >> well, this part about the windows i haven't said anything. it's the first time i bring it up. we went to the planning department and we saw the new plans and the plans before that had little small windows going up the light well and now there's this big huge window with 3 big panels. and the front of the house also, our window is here and their window is going to be here, which also shows directly into the living room. so that's our concern is that my mother has the rest of her time in quiet enjoyment. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> good evening, commissioners, i am petra jana paul and i live with my husband and 3 daughters at 348 duncan in our amazing neighborhood for nearly 15. thank you for hearing my testimony. i'd like to reiterate my neighbor's comment that 437 duncan was far from an eye sore, it was a lovely garden maintained by the neighbors since they moved up north. a number of family and neighbors have lived in the house off and on for years. i have to question if the project sponsor is telling these stories as part of their argument why it should be approved as it is and when i know these stories have no truth behind it, what are the other stories behind it. what georgia, miss schuttish, explained from the beginning, we are looking at the issue of relative affordability. obviously san francisco is hardly affordable in the normal context. it is your job to decide what is relatively affordable. the idea of reducing the square footage feels very appropriate to me because of the ability to have a house that fits within the neighborhood context. obviously google maps can show you and the exhibits georgia put in her brief show very clearly while it's not a perfectly consistent neighborhood, there are primarily peaked roofs. right across, right next to it, it's like 8 on each side, practically. so the idea of putting a big modern box to add to that and to say that it's consistent, the subjectivity is so strong. so i do not see it as consistent. i understand the planning department has worked with them and there have been compromises, i appreciate that, but i still feel like the roof deck, the flatness and the massing both at the street and especially on the east wall, are not truly kupb sifrt stepbt with the neighborhood context. i think what about the gonzalezes will go through if it's built and it seems like there could be a better solution. i know georgia's idea of enhancing the light well is one option. the other option, to try to stay with that peaked roof context. we live in san francisco for a reason, to try and have that victorian charm that we could just get rid of the roof deck because not everyone needs a roof deck in san francisco and they can get a fantastic master suite with incredible windows that still get that view. so i'm not saying that they can't make money, i don't want them to fail in their endeavor, i think that they have a great house at the end of this. but i would like you to consider the fact that this house as it is currently proposed is not necessarily in context, the roof deck, the location of the roof deck, it would be fantastic, it's only 5 feet back from the front of the house. if you have to keep the roof deck, at least consider pushing it back. roof decks are not an absolute necessity in san francisco, a peaked roof would really be much more kupb sifrt stepblt with the neighborhood and i appreciate you hearing my testimony, sorry for talking so fast. >> any other public comment? seeing none, then we will have our rebuttal starting with the apellant. >> the thing about the -- this was astoupblding -- astounding to me because in their statement they said the property was sound and that's in your brief. they said never anything before about it, they assumed it was sound and they said it was sound. no one talked about the surrounding housing. what i wanted to talk about was the roof design and the residential design guidelines. if you put the overhead on, that's what i was talking about. the project is going to be like what's in the design guideline there, with this square house right in the middle of the peaked roofs. not different styles. relative affordability, i think the issue there is how you protect it and it's the impact of the project around the existing housing that's around it. what impact is it going to have? what is it going to mean down the line? i know it's not, there's no such thing as affordability in noa valley any more, but in 317 they talk about that. yes, they say -- i don't know who said it's not relative affordability, i think that was the planning department that said that, but the project sponsor said it would protect the relative affordability. um, those 16 criteria, what ways mo