if you were building a new house that size, you might not be able to get a second space in. we are letting you know that we have supported this all along. thank you. president fong: is there additional public comment? seeing none, commissioner comments? commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: vernal heights lots are pretty shallow. that is part of the dilemma we have here. what was convincing for me was the testimony about the exposure and the fact that east is to be left in the picture we're looking at. you're going to have light coming through there all day long. this addition basically encloses the spaces around what is now the sun room. that is what we used to call it, where it is entered from the

other rooms, not a real practical passing. there are not a lot of things you can do on 25-foot frontage s, except to create some space to make it more livable. i do not feel that, in this case, we need to have it notching to take it out of there. it is a little bit problematic unless you use the entire 25 feet to make it more livable on the second level. i would be in support of approving the project as presented by the applicant. >> second. president fong: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i am not as concerned about the notch and the parking space as i am about

the requirement of yard variants. that is a great concern to me. while the building is at the end of the block, it sets a precedent for diminishing the mid block open space. i do not believe that the openness at the end of the block has anything to do with that. bragh the course of time, it might be -- it might not be now, but it might be at years in the future, buildings in this particular area would add a third story plus a penthouse. we would lose the ability to have sufficient light and air for those people who are across the way. i do think that is very much of concern to me. i would be prepared to approve the building, but i would not support the variants for the

rear yard. i think the building has enough qualities that the garden can be accessed from the ground floor. there is a lovely, open the living area within the bedroom or adjacent to it. that flow of people into the garden during the day could be achieved without the balcony and the staircase. commissioner antonini: what we have here and correct me if i am wrong, the project sponsor, mr. sanchez, how much are we going beyond the back of the existing rear of the house? >> is requiring a variance for the proposed or rear deck and stairs which encourage 5 feet, 6 inches into the rear yard. to follow up on commissioner moore, would you be asking to take discretionary review and strike the rear deck and stairs? that could be something that would be in the purview of the

condition as well -- of the commission as well. the commission has the authority to take that action and disallowed the roof stairs. commissioner moore: any creative solution would be acceptable to me. by pulling the second-floor living room back, there could be a balcony. with no need to go from the second level down into the garden. this is a very small house. just use the interior stairs and go through this very generous master bedroom, library, or whenever sitting area. whenever a creative idea comments the intent of how this could be lived, i would support that. >> the commission has the authority, separately from any action i may take on the variants, the commission could request that the stair and deck be removed. commissioner moore: i would like

to ask the architect and the owner as to whether or not you ever thought about it and to design the house without asking for this kind of variance. >> before i respond, i would like to get clarification from mr. sanchez regarding the 5 ft. 6 in encroachment. i need a refresher. i apologize for not being totally -- totally prepared. >> in the beginning of the staff report, it says that the beginning of the proposed stair and deck are encroaching into the rear yard, a 35% rear yard in this case. the second variant is related to the parking requirement. >> i just wanted to be -- i just wanted to understand that right. we have been working with sean on this house.

they're both passionate coax and they have a garden that is a functional working garden with produce and fruit trees and things. they want to be able to have direct access from their kitchen to the backyard. however, he is the commission feels that that is an egregious condition, we would be willing to back off from that. we would like to keep the deck. we would like to keep the debt at 4 feet so they could have some pasta, herbs, other things and have direct access. as you said, they could go through the house and go downstairs. i would like to hear what the commission thinks about that proposal. commissioner moore: this would be the typical san francisco 100-foot lot, i would not ask for this discussion. this is a very shallow lot in

comparison to the standard. there is 30 feet less to define a reasonable area. it is for that reason i am raising the question. president fong: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: looking at the upper level plan, i do not know. i do not want to get into criticism and self. it would seem that you could rework the kitchen and somehow for the deck and stairway in a little. inward and not have to entertain -- mr. sanchez, the rear of the house does not require a variants, right? it is just the debt and the stairwell. >> that is correct. it is just the deck and stared

extension which is providing open access to the rear yard from the common area of the home, whereas the ground floor is developed as the master bathroom, and the upper level is developed as a common area. this would provide the access to. commissioner sugaya: i am suggesting a redesign could pull the deck. in essence, it would be the roof of the lower level. >> correct. understood. commissioner sugaya: i do not want to get into design. commissioner moore: nor do i. commissioner sugaya: is there a motion? >> yes. for approval. commissioner sugaya: maybe we could condition it with, and mr. sanchez and may not take the variants decision tonight, but i'm thinking that maybe if there

could be some reworking and that could be presented to the zoning administrator -- >> it would be the commission's recommendation that the project sponsor lowfat recommendations to reduce the rear encroachment, but still provide -- honestly, reviewing rear yard variances for decks and stairs in particular, we do see that as a desirable condition to provide access to the rear yard and use open space directly from the main living level. it sounds like the commission's direction maybe to request a reduction in that. we could work as a staff with the project sponsor to look at alternatives to reduce the deck and stairs. >> we would be in favor of coming to a conclusion on this, if at all possible, just to not waste anybody's time and effort on this tiny little project

area i do want to address something that commissioner moore mentioned, he potential -- the potential impact. with the restrictions that vernal heights has, it is unlikely that will happen in this area. i know you have heard that before. if the powers that be have any sway for the next 10-20 years, i doubt we will see three-story houses in this particular part of vernal heights 3 i feel that when you do have a small yard and a small lot, your usability of your yard becomes much more tricky in terms of efficiency and that direct connection will help the efficiency of the layout. commissioner antonini: i would still favor my motion. as was pointed out, the addition is not in and of itself

requiring a variance. all we are doing is filling in the notches on the two sides. the only part of the building that will extend into what is the rear yard will be the deck and stairs. having a similar living situation, we specifically put a deck and stairs in many years ago for that same reason, so we could reach our backyard without the torturous trip down the stairs and through narrow rooms and laundry rooms to get in and out. that access is an important thing. given the smallness of the house, i do not necessarily see this as setting a precedent. anyone of these projects that were to come forward in the future would have to come before at least the zoning administrator for grants and probably before, depending on how staff looked at it, it would have to -- d.r. would have to be granted. even if they did something similar, there is very good

remaining space in the middle to allow light in. i do not think the stairs are that much of an impediment. i would still support the motion that does not take d.r. and allows the project to go forward as designed. >> i want to clarify one point about the various. the extension does require a variance. commissioner antonini: thank you, mr. sanchez carried that is not being contended here. it is the extension of the stairs and deck into the rear yard. commissioner borden: so you are saying that the debt, stairs, and rear yard is not concerned with variants? >> there are two variances.

the first is the parking and the second is the rear yard. commissioner borden: ok, there are two different ones. i am confused. i guess i did not realize -- if it were a fire escapes or of stairs, that would not contribute? in some cases, stairs are not considered an intrusion in the rear yard and in other cases they are. i want to understand the distinction when that is made. >> you are correct. the planning code section 136 establishes allowances into open areas, rear yards, etc. there are allows is for certain stairs and fire escapes. the project that is proposed here does not comply with those requirements. vernal heights is restrictive in terms of rear yards. the cause of the unique lot size here, the 25 x 70 lot, this is not considered a standard of

vernal heights lot because of the lot size. commissioner borden: how do typically treat? if there are not stairs associated with it? -- how do we typically treat decks if there are not stairs attached? >> it depends if there is a fire wall considered, its proximity to property lines, structural support, depending on the nature of the deck, it may trigger a 20 code requirement. commissioner borden: i have always thought of decks and stairs as permanent structures. to that extent, i have not been concerned about the intrusion into the rear yard. in san francisco, i look at lots

of rear yards and a lot of them are overgrown. it does not seem that people seem to use them in the way that we envision them. providing a greenbelt is what they -- the best thing that happens in san for cisco rather than being utilized, particularly as a family room, kitchen, or that kind of space. it is because of that proximity and ease of putting furniture in. that kind of thing. i am not as concerned as commissioner sugaya and commissioner moore, but i would like to see this project move for tonight as opposed to continuing it. i think that if we could all figure out what is the way to bring this project together and respect the project's sponsors the desire to move forward and our desire to see it move forward, not in general, we are

all supportive of the product -- of the project. i do not want to be in the business of redesigning people's interior space. my business is the footprint, not what you do inside. >> i want to point out that the project sponsor did not push the rear wall of his house all the way out because we felt that that was an egregious encroachment. we hold it back about 2.5 feet from where you are allowed to go. we did that specifically so that we kept an opening on the east end of the open space but allowed them to have this little space. it is a 4 ft. deck. commissioner sugaya: mr. sanchez, something you said just triggered a question. this deck is on the property line. does that mean they have to have

a firewall or is that only in cases where it is an adjacent, buildable block? >> the building department would be the final arbiter of that decision. it is on a property line, but a property line facing the street. if it was an interior property line, my assumption is that it would require a firewall. in this case, i am not sure if that is the case. there are certain other requirements, non-combustible materials and certain allowances. >> you are exactly right. when you have a stair or deck on the property line next to public, open space, it is not required to have a firewall. >> the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review

and approve this project as proposed a. commissioner borden: do we want to do that? do we have support to do that or do we want to figure out compromises? >> call the question. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes for-1 with commissioner moore voting against. president fong: i appreciate the comments of the commission and the concerns expressed in regard to the rear -- the rear yard various extension. it is justified in this case and it does provide access to the usable area in the rear part of the yard. it is also a setback from the

adjacent property to the west, which is what we have been most concerned about. so the impact on any adjacent properties is minimal, if that. i am inclined to grant the requested variances. thank you. >> commissioners, you are on item number 21. 1948 ocean avenue, requesting discretionary review. >> good evening president fong and members of the commission. before you is a request for discretionary review of the burma -- the building permit applications to establish an entertainment use to operate at a billiard hall with an accessory beverage store selling only non-chocolate beverages and will involve interior tenant improvements. this is within the ocean avenue commercial transit district. this is a revised proposal from the originally noticed project

was rigid -- which was to establish another bar selling beer and wine. the site is a vacant one-story with a mezzanine. it contains 2600 square feet and has been vacant for two years. it was previously a senior center. it would be an independently owned and operated issa abbas met with hours of operation from 2:00 p.m.-2:00 a.m. seven days per week. and other entertainment news and hours of operation from 6:00- 2:00 a.m. are permitted. that also does not have all street parking requirements for commercial uses. during the notification. for the original proposal, two d.r. requests were filed against the project. the first believes that the proposal is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to its proximity to residences,

a day care center, and a church. additionally, the first request your has concerns that the project would bring a negative noise impact and would reduce the availability of parking along fairfield way. as a result of being able to operate until 2:00 a.m. this is going back a bit. the corner property located at the corner of fairfield way and ocean avenue. the second request is the whole association, a neighborhood organization comprised of residents who live within the ingles' side terrace neighborhood, south of the project site and ocean avenue. this group believe the project would not be beneficial to the surrounding residences and businesses. they also have concerns with the

project possibly bringing unacceptable noise. loitering and security problems. by being able to operate up to 2:00 a.m. and would impact the availability of on street parking within their neighborhood. in response to the concern raised by the requests, the product sponsor has revised his project by eliminating the proposed bar which was done after the d.r. was filed. also, the project sponsor has volunteered to provide on-site security and install security cameras inside and outside of the project site. the department runs -- recommends that the commission does not take discretionary review and approve the product.

the required -- the product meets all aspects of the planning code and would contribute to the diversity in the area by establishing a new commercial use. it will eliminate a vacant storefront, which has been vacant for two years within the ocean avenue area, which currently has 11 vacancies. the project will provide new job opportunities and it is located within an area that is well- served by transit and does not require parking. this included -- this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. president fong: the first d.r. requester, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i live at 26 fairfield way, four houses north of the proposed a

billiard hall. i have lived there for 14 years and would classify it as a quiet, residential neighborhood. this is my first appearance before the planning commission for any matter whatsoever. i have been active in some of the planning meetings that have taken place regarding some of the available redevelopment areas and other activities going on in ocean avenue. although i am listed as the requester on one of the discretionary review is, i want to stress this is a neighborhood effort. numerous neighbors contributed time, funding, and ideas to discussing this particular location and many of them met with the proposed owners at the site prior to or just around the time we submitted our discretionary review. the meeting i would term as

friendly and respectful. some of the ideas we brought forth have been incorporated into changes that were brought forward here. we really appreciate that and respect that. the feeling was it was not the right fit for our fairfield way or ocean avenue corridor. the reasons being, the hours of operation, 2:00 p.m.-2:00 a.m. is really out of character with what is currently in the ocean avenue area. there is a 7-eleven that is open 24-7. other than that, the streets shut down at 9:00 or 10:00 and traffic is at a minimum at that point in time. a rally behind the proposed location is a well-is dollars and longtime day care center -- is a well-established and a long

time day care center. that would be disrupted. the increased noise and traffic in the late hours will affect the overall well-being of the neighborhood and we do not feel like this particular site is in character with what is there today. we also do not know that this site will bring a positive impact to other businesses in the area. i am sorry, i lost my train of thought. in my 14 years on fairfield way, i have seen the neighborhood changed quite a bit and a lot more children are in the neighborhood today than they were when i first moved in. i myself have a 5-year-old and there are several other families on the street with children. we do not know that this is the right environment and the right thing would like to see brought into our neighborhood. increased traffic and parking -- fairfield way is a two-way

street, but you cannot take a left turn onto or off of fairfield onto ocean avenue. a lot of people decide to do that anyway. we get a lot of traffic from the neighboring businesses. hobby shop, cannabis club, the gym is not too far away. this will increase traffic and we do not want that to happen. although some of my neighbors and myself may go to this if it is approved, we do not think it is something that is right for our neighborhoods. in closing, i want to say that having sat here since 3:00 this afternoon, i really do appreciate what you guys do. this is real business and it affects real people both on my side, as the person filing the discretionary review, and the people who are trying to start a business. we want to see ocean avenue be revitalized. i would love to see these guys

be successful. we do not know that this is the right place and the right time. thank you. president fong: the second d.r. requester? >> my name is all conroy and i am speaking on behalf of the terrace homes association. i am a member of the board of directors of that organization. i want to let you know that ingleside terraces has been very supportive of ocean avenue business writ we have advocated for improvements, including underground wires, street lights, street -- street skating. we supported the community benefits district and we welcomed and supported new businesses that serve the community. we're looking forward to new businesses that serve the community and that are compatible with the neighborhood.

it is also important that the business be compatible. this is a neighborhood of single-family homes. an empty storefront is not a reason for permitting a use that negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhood. this is a quiet neighborhood. residents need to get up in the morning to go to work or go to school. this particular block of ocean avenue is quiet. the businesses are closed by 10:00 p.m. most of them are close by 8:00 p.m. the 1948 address is across the street from our house. there are several other houses in the immediate avenue -- area on victoria. in 2007, based on the quiet nature of this block and the surrounding neighborhood,