but if you wanted to see the old one and you went back, to that date, that particular file, also points to the new material. it should not commissioner, we have divided. >> i think that i raised that about a year ago. >> we have corrected that problem. >> yeah, we have. we are simply adding a c1 or a c2 depending on the number of continuances and so that the hyper links don't confuse with one another. >> okay. >> the comment that i would like to make on that one is any good architect would say this is what i heard you say and what i did and this is what i am doing now, so i suggest that indeed, there is a discussion about how we elaborate on a design and that is not anything vin dikive on our part, it is just to add intelligence to the communication. >> if there is nothing further commissioners there is a motion and a second to continue this matter to september 19th. on that motion, antonini?

>> aye. >> borden. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> and president fong. >> aye. >> so moved, that motion passes 7-0. >> and places you on your final item, number 1 9. 2013.0825d (s. lai: (415) 575-9087) 3871 jackson street south side of jackson street, between cherry street and arguello boulevard; lot 020 in assessor's block 0990 - request for discretionary review of building - permit application no. 2013.03.11.1942 proposing to replace an existing second floor rear deck with a two-story horizontal rear extension with a roof deck. the proposed two-story expansion will measure approximately 15 feet deep by 29 feet wide and add approximately 870 square feet of habitable space to the existing three-story, single-family home. the property is located in a rh-1 (residential, house, single-family) zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. staff analysis: abbreviated discretionary revie >> good evening, i am david lindsey of the department staff, case number 20130825 d is a request for a discretion review of a project that replaces a deck with a two story horizontal addition of the rear of athlete story over a basement single family house

located at 3871 jackson street. and the horizontal addition that will extend the house's basement and first story will measure approximately 15 feet in depth by 29 feet in width. and its roof will be occupied by a deck accessible from the house's second story. and the subject property approximately 29 feet wide by 128 feet deep slopes downward such that the basement level is at grade. the entire block is zoned rh 1 and comprised of large houses several of which feature 1, 2, and 3 story additions. in its current state, the subject building extend five feet beyond the neighbor and covered the second story deck and the western neighbors including the rear deck currently extends 28 feet deeper than the subject building's existing deck. the dr requestor is bruce armstrong which abuts the

subject property of the rear. and mr. armstrong's concerns include the following. that the project disrupts the mid block open pattern that the project effects the dr requestor's privacy by proposing the windows that look into the property's bedrooms. and that the project, and that the project would require a geo technical analysis due to its slope which the dr requestor believes is greater than 20 percent. the residential design team followed it and made the following comments. more than 100 feet of the mid block open space would separate the proposed rear addition in the dr requestor's rear law and so the project would not create any exceptional or extraordinary effects to the dr requestor's privatecy or the mid block open space. they noted that there is an

existing pattern of real additions on the subject block including at the rear of the dr requestor's house. and the project does include large window and sliding glass doors on the rear addition and the residential design guidelines allow a lot of flexibility with respect to the design of the administration details of the building not visible from the public right-of-way, and it is understood that the home owners wish to maximize the light and view from the windows into the open space. found that the windows were appropriate. and the subject properties rear property line appears to be no more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at the street which 128 foot deep lot would be approximately 15 percent grade differential and not triggering a requirement for the geo technical report to be submitted during the planning department's review. and that concludes my presentation, that the staff recommendation is that the commissinoe discretion

review and approve the project as proposed. >> thank you. >> dr requestor? >> good evening, i am bruce armstrong, and i am the dr requestor, i live at 2974 washington street which is just to the south of 3871 jackson. and my wife and children and i have lived at this property for almost 20 years. we have seen a lot of remodels in our area. and we have never had to come before this commission. we have always figured out how to work with our neighbors. we were, we had a meeting after some confuse about the review process with mr. navy and the project manager and we requested that they come to our house and we hosted them at our house to review the plans. we had our neighbor with us as

well who is here and has the comments as well. to review the comments as well. we raised a lot of concerns about the size of the remodel and as they were stated earlier, it would dramatically change the mid block open space and infringe on our privatecy in a large way, my daughter's bedroom is on the rear side of the house and so the large open windows would pier right into her bedroom and we are not comfortable with that at all. it did not seem appropriate to have a long discussion at that time, we had just met our neighbor for the first time and so we wanted to respect that he was in our home. and so we said that we would outside of our concerns, we would like to get back to them and compromise if possible as we have had done over 20 years almost, now with the rest of our neighbors. and we heard nothing from that point on. we were shut down completely by the whole process, by the

and we were told do a discretionary review. i did not know what that was and i had to find out what that was and go through the process and so we found that to be distasteful and we were actually upset that the staff was not able to help us in this regard in the recommendation, and we would ask for this commission to reconsider that aspect of it. i know that there are other comments that my other neighbors would like to make, we have 7 supporting neighbors and we have never had to go and get signature and weed to get the signatures from 7 supporting neighbors who would also like to see a compromise in this case, the two neighbors who supported the builder, on the one side which is on the west, which is the long property completely out of character of the neighborhood and built before the zoning laws were in place.

is a absentee landlord and thes a party house and we have not been able to figure out how to shut that down and the neighbor on the east unfortunately the parents now have both died and the mother recently died and the children of the home were very berevied and not sure how they supported this, my own presumption is that they plan to sell the house we worry that this will create a cascading effect into the open space and ruin the character of the neighborhood under 100 years as the people have held the line as they have done the remodels. >> those are my comments. >> asking for speakers in support of the dr? >> prodel. >> mr. armstrong's neighbor and

also partially adjacent to the proposed project. and we have asked or told to file a discretion review because we have no action from the developer who was processing it and told us to get lost. politely. but the request before you, is to ask what role does the rear yard open space play in the design review, and the residential guidelines and my house was built, and i live on a 100 built block, and almost all of our neighbors to the north have remodeled over the last years and they have held the line and here we are confronted with the first one that is pushing in, deep in because of the adjacent neighbor that builds or built

out to 75 percent of the lot. and so the letter of the law. and we were asking for a compromise to try to keep back the historic line and the point of the dr really is to ask you guys to take a second look at the what precedence a 100 year old rear yard sets and what role the design guidelines should take or the position that should take. and i would like to show and this is out of the packet of the arial view. here is the party house that he was referring to because i think that it is an ab&b rental that pushes the deepist into our rear yard. and the rear yard and the west side of the block. and it is a really gracious

open space and i am sorry. this is illustration in the exhibit b in your packet and it will give you a sense and it is hard to see if you would like at exhibit b in your packet. and it is a really gracious historic open rear yard that we would like to have you take a second look and see if that or what role the design guidelines should play at preserving 100 year old rear yard open space because it is just going to keep getting being filled in, the more that we push out, it is just going to keep getting filled in and that neighbor who unfortunately passed away, and their house is going to get developed and they are going to push in and the next one is going to push in. and we have had 20 years of people holding the line, and we... >> time is up.

>> thank you. >> are there any other speakers in support of the dr requestor? >> okay. and if not, project sponsor, please? >> good afternoon commissioners john kevelin on behalf of the sponsors the project proposes a very modest rear expansion of a home to provide space for a family. i would like to have the sponsor speak to the goals of the project. >> i am not very comfortable speaking in front of people, especially in english, so i wrote out a few things i wanted to say about my family.

my name is (inaudible) and my husband is (inaudible) and i have made san francisco our home for 16 years. when we decided to have children, it was important that we do our best to try and replicate the multigenerational family structure in which we are raised in japan. while raising our children in san francisco. we want to create a home where our parents can stay comfortably for extended period of time. to build a relationship with our children and to teach our children about our culture. and on behalf of me and my husband, i thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> so once again commissioners, the proposed a very modest project, a 15 foot addition at the basement and the ground foot levels and it will replace

a deck at the second floor level and only 5 feet deeper than the existing deck and incorporates several recommendations in the residential design guidelines and set back on the upper stories so the top two stories are not moving out whatsoever and not being touched. and it also does not maximize the permitted rear yard. and the rear yard required in this district is 25 percent. and they are providing a 40 percent rear yard and so they are not maximizing the rear yard that is permitted and in addition they are providing open railings on that deck to help to reduce the look of the mass of the structure. now with respect to the mid block and the addition is not going to stand out on this block. if i could get the projector, please? >> and thank you. >> and so as you can see, as you move down the block, we have got the structures that are generally in this area and as you move further to the east you will see that you have structures that are because of the way or the way or the diagonal and the way of the front and rear lot lines and we

have the homes at the very east end of the block that are far deeper than at the west end and of course you will see the one building, but it is relevant and adjacent to the building. it has been reviewed twice by the residential design team and no modifications were ever required. and in both adjacent neighbors are in support of the project and the most impacted and the east neighbor conditioned the support on maintaining a firewall along the property line and so as it was explained by her, it will provide a space for the multigenerational family from three to five bedrooms and as you heard, they have two young children, and they also have two grandmothers that will be spending extended periods of time with them because they live in japan so we are going from three to five bedrooms and very appropriate space for a family of this size. they are actually disappointed that they have been unable to satisfy their neighbors and

purposefully designed a modest project from the start to avoid the opposition and responded to the rear neighbor's concerns with pry va sit by proposing a hedge along the property line. thank you. >> you will see at the very rear of the property line they have got to put in a hedge that will be 30 feet tall and as the staff mentioned there lindsey mentioned there is a good 100 feet between the rear of the project sponsor's property and the dr requestor's property and that is a picture from the rear yard, and this, the lots are also sloped down towards the dr requestor's lots and they are also, several feet lower than the project sponsor's property, so you add that with the 30 foot landscaping hedge and they will not be able to see this project. and the privacy concerns have been adequately addressed here we believe. i don't need to remind you guys that the city has made the creation of the family sized housing a priority in the

newest housing element and this is a great opportunity to create family housing for an actual family within the existing housing stock and we believe that the rear expansion of the property that expands five feet behind the deck and recommendations of the residential design guidelines does not rise to the level of exceptional circumstance and we request that you follow the staff recommendation and not take dr. >> speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> if there are any. >> okay. if not, dr requestor you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> we certainly don't want to be hostile or advercerial. >> the five foot extension of the existing deck which has now been torn down seems minor and the deck itself was very small and very lightweight and this will not be completely filled

in, this is a huge additional volume behind that house. and so we still feel as if it is inappropriate extension to the home. and we wish that we would have been more engaged in a compromise process, we were not. i have never been through this process but i was told that this is the only way to have that kind of conversation with this developer, i certainly don't fault the new owners in any way. this is a developer problem from my perspective. >> you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. >> again, commissioners, just to speak to the out reach of this project and they did have the dr requestors did not come to the preapplication meeting but they did agree to a project meeting at the dr requestor's home to discuss these issues and they had three or four week e-mail conversation back and forth about the compromise over this project and ultimately leading into an e-mail from the dr requestor saying that they are not willing to compromise

on any expansion on the envelope and considering the fact that the goal was to provide adequate space for the family and the grand parents, they did not feel like this was something that they could do without expanding the envelope of the building that speaks to that issue. >> just to emphasize that a few remaining points. the proposed addition will extend five feet and we have the landscaping in the back in addition to the 100 feet between the two buildings and the drop between the two buildings should take care of any privacy concerns, and two rear or two rear story pop outs are actually quite common on this block if we could get the projector. and well, if you see that the rear of this, dr requestor has, and there you go, it has the similar additions on the back of the homes as well. so again, both neighbors are in support of this project and who will be the most impacted by the project and again it will

provide adequate space for a family who actually desires to live in san francisco to stay in san francisco. so not only is this project not rise to the level of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances it also appeals to the major policy of the city and we request that the city follows the staff recommendation and not take dr. >> thank you. >> the public hearing is closed. and opening up to commissioner comments, commissioner moore? >> looking at this project, i do believe that there was residential design team's analysis is completely spot on. i think that it is a minor addition and where i found interesting is that looking at this map, which really kind of gives you the foot prints of what looks like a regular rise block between jackson and washington. and internal platting of that block is actually highly irregular and which seems in this particular case that the and the additional distance between the building which is just trying to project the

minor expansion in the building which is owned by the dr, and by the dr requestor and it is very interesting to see the platting because the building is set back on the jackson street side are all receding including an increased depth of the mid block open space and the fact that the intrusion in code of the building is really only 5 feet does it not each bring it in any kind of sweat of depth as from the party house and it is for us to comment as to that is appropriate that meets the guidelines that is analyzed by the residential guidelines. and this is modest and appropriate to the circumstance and i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i know that the number of statements made by the project

sponsor, i just want to verify that this is a talk about it going only five feet you are going 15 feet from the back of the house and is it true that the existence between the house and the house of the armstrongs at 3974 washington is 100 feet? >> and that is what i estimated it to be, yes. >> and so basically we are still leaving... and the 85-foot section there, so i am not sure, i would like to, you know, see what i could do something on these instances to always see if there was anything that you could do to help the dr requestor? but i can't see where the impact is that great given the amount of space that exists between the two houses. >> yeah, 100 feet away, this subject property is on the north side of the street.

and not blocking the south light. and this used the term holding the line and i appreciate that and i think that is what we try to do here. and i just don't thing this one crosses the line. and it is not a huge volume that is being added or proposed. and so i am as well, in support of the project. commissioner sugaya? >> yes, i have one question for the dr requestor? you keep referring to the project sponsor as the developer. i am curious as to why you are using that term when the project sponsor has been identified as this family? >> (inaudible). >> well, okay. thank you. >> i will support the motion, i don't see anything extraordinary in it, as a matter of fact i think that it is kind of nice that there is actually a family and it is an extended family who is committed to living into san francisco when we are seeing so many fleeing the city for other

places. >> commissioner antonini? >> yeah, i am to the points that were made about somehow this addition causing other additions to occur? what is only, this is the only thing that is before us today and any additions that might come in the future, will have to be evaluated on their own merits and just because this addition is allowed does not mean that there is going to be easier slating for anybody else that would do a larger addition in the future. >> commissioners if there is nothing further, there is a motion and a second to not take the dr and approve the project as proposed. >> antonini. >> aye. >> borden. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye >> sugaya. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> fong. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners that motion passes 7-0. places you under public comment, i have no speaker

cards. >> i have to make a comment about something that was said, recently because of the circumstances totally beyond my control, i have had the privilege of last two days, walking down lumbard street and they are not 24 vacantcies. and i have done this study and i was not finished because i did not put it in the packet and look in your e-mails as soon as i finish it tomorrow block by block there is a lot of rentals that have happened in the last three months and some things that look vacant aren't like the old blue bore location and it is a dental office and it is a very good office. so you know. >> and i think that we will just do it block by block and take pictures and show you what is there and that is the most honest fair way of doing it.

>> okay? >> to tell you the truth, i am tired of hearing conflicting things all the way around. and for me to have to walk the street a fourth time with witnesses. and i am not very happy. and 14 blocks on a hurt leg does not help me. bye bye, have a nice evening. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> closing this meeting in memory of alice kay. thank you.

>> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> the instructor in training i can never be too prepared put this gps to be perpetrated. >> oh, yes sir, there are a milln things to be prepared

for. listen kid being perpetrated is simple. try not to terrify next week

>> we're prepared. >> malicious animal release. i'll drive us home >> i've never seen such a cockamamy and i told i before everyone can be prepared if they have a good game plan and communities can be stronger. >> i taught that stuff. >> looks like we've got an

emergency on hands. we're going to go back >> well, this can't be good. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> oh. >> dots authorities know the seriousness of the situation folks are told to stay tuned. >> what about the lady with the dog. >> oh, rose she's the last person i'm worried. we know it's important to keep basic supplies near our officer and home >> you also have important ap