circumstances that create an undue hardship. perhaps most importantly, it is not necessary to preserve a substantial property. the sponsors say it is necessary to make the garage accessible because they would prefer a less of a slope on the ramp to the garage. there is a fairly simple way for them to have a 25% slope to get into the garage to make the grosz more usable without raising the has 18 inches. you can see in this diagram that simply by inserting the ramp further into the house that a 25% slope can be achieved and the floor of the existing garage lowered somewhat. we would urge the zoning administrator to consider that. president olague: thank you. we will call you up if we have questions. second dr requestor, you have

two minutes. >> i said most of what i had to say. just what we are asking is a modest pullback from the proposed plan, maybe a couple of feet would make a big difference, certainly coming to the edge of our house or even the average of the two houses. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. on behalf of john dibenedetti and his family, we have filed a request for accommodation in the americans with disabilities act so he can get the vehicle into his garage. it is steeply sloped. it will require a trench brain. it continues to the midpoint of the grosz. it is completely impossible to pull a car in.

the doors themselves fold in order to open. the extension to the rear maintains the same percentage of lot coverage enjoyed by the robertsons' in the house to the north. we have a tapering block. this is a good response to a tapering block. we have a building that is stepping down to the rear and putting the mass the toward the rear. we are not changing the facade significantly. they are making every attempt to maintain the historic family -- historic fabric of the house. the need to raise the house is to keep it at this floor level from front to back. as he goes to his house, it is important that he be able to navigate without a cane. if there is a change in floor level, it is a dangerous thing for him.

if somebody leaves a pillow on the floor or a jacket out, this is a tripping hazard for their dead. a family room downstairs is important to this family. the possibility of altering this and pulling back the rear projection will benefit the adjacent neighbors in the most minor way. they are not going to suddenly see something they do not already see or will not see with this there. the view is in a different direction. thank you we are asking you to take dr and approve. president olague: the public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini: the most important thing to look that is the picture that was provided which shows the north and south texas and looks down at the open space. i will tell you why in a minute. as far as i am concerned, i see no problem. there was some testimony of a

question of raising the height. i do not see any problem with that. this is making the garage accessible. i do not see where it would have any impact on the neighbors, even the neighbors to the north, which are the most impacted, by raising the height. certainly, it has been pointed out there is a reason for the size of this. there are important reasons why certain rooms have to have certain sizes. it is also important that the levels all be flat for access reasons, and that was well established. another comment that i thought was very important is sunlight is at a premium. i am familiar with the street. i know what it is like. in looking at the picture, what you are doing -- the homes there and do not face due east, but they face sort of southeast slightly. the area that would be most impacted would probably be the

lower floor of the house which is the robertsons' house and the first or second houses on the block. the ones to the south, of course, said higher and would not be impacted at all, as far as i can see. i think i heard from mr. vettle -- i would ask about making the lower floor a little bit not so deep. mr. paul, maybe you could react to that. i am not saying that is necessarily anything i wanted to propose, but that would be fine if you want to answer that. >> we have had many discussions with the neighbors. it has always been a question of what would make the specter for you. it was always either lower the

first partition so we can see over it, or take 11 feet off so it is not there. we thought if we did pull it back, we did not see how that would make any difference to them. instead, we went with the planning department proposal, which was to pull it to the side. we thought that would give them a better corridor for light. we have done studies to show that for most of the year, from spring to fall, it has no effect on their light, surprisingly, because we are facing slightly south. the sun is coming at a nice angle for those houses. they also have a big tree that shades there are quite a bit already. commissioner antonini: i am going by what i can see without actually having visited the rear yard to see exactly where the sun is coming from. you are saying even a small cut

on the family room would be somewhat of a hardship? >> it would make a big difference to us. we have made it a little smaller for them on the side, thinking that would benefit more than pulling it back from the rear. >> my request is to pick up some square footage but pull it back in the rear, which will make it much more beneficial for the robinsons to have. we would not be adverse to them going back to a 3 foot setback

rather than a 5 foot setback if the building can be pulled back in the rear. 7.5 feet is our request. commissioner antonini: that gives me some perspective. i will see what the other commissioners have to say on this. commissioner sugaya: are we talking about 7 feet on the ground floor, first floor? there was a discussion of averaging and it does not apply in this zoning district. however, we have applied it in other zoning districts. perhaps that could give me some reasons why it is in applicable

here, given the separation between these buildings is so slight. >> the rule of averaging is established in section 134 to allow a decrease in the requirement for the rear yard. in a case where you have a 45% requirement, the can reduce the requirement by averaging -- they are not in coaching the record rear yard space. -- they are not encroaching the rear yard space. they are living 32% as open space, above and beyond the 25% requirement. president olague: we have no commissioner names up and i think we need a motion, if someone is ready to make one. commissioner antonini: mr. paul,

could i ask a question? there was a suggestion made. it looks as though what you have done is you have increased the side set back from 3 feet to 5 feet. the dr representative is saying they would prefer to have some of that off the back then trade them for the smaller side set back. do you have any feeling about that? >> only that the amount of production of the projection should be proportional to the amount of setback. it is important to keep in mind that this lot is longer than the adjacent lot. we actually are meeting the averaging, based on where their rear lot line is. commissioner antonini: i understand all that. i understand the fact that 32% open rear space -- it is just a question of what little

additional light might be let in. it is 2 feet off the back and 2 feet off the side. i think it is a fair trade. if that is ok with your -- the project sponsor, i might propose making that change. i will see what the other commissioners have to say. i think it might make a slightly larger impact for the dr requestor than having the side setback. president olague: i want to remind commissioners that we have a 6:00 time-certain item and crowds of people in the hallway. if we could move along with this item, it would be fantastic. vice president miguel: i think raising the house 18 inches is necessary. i have seen that grosz and walked that slope. it is -- i have seen that garage and walked that slow. it is untenable to drive in. it was a bad design in the first

place. i think the planning department has done a good job on this. i think considering everything that has been said that it has been dealt with quite well. i would move that we take dr and approve the project with the department's modifications. commissioner moore: i would like to ask -- i would like to ask mr. gass perhaps to step up to the lectern and ask him, irrespective of the neighbor wanting a specific set back -- and have you tried to consider it in a very minimal way reducing the death of any of the rooms which lead to what i think it's a very large home, which indeed causes some form of impact with adjoining

neighborhoods -- with adjoining neighbors? there is no real rule, but i am asking you as an architect. i see a lot of storage space. i see a lot of lining up of pictures. this is not a discussion that this house needs very specific attention to clear passage, a generous ability for the applicant to live with more room and more orderly space. i am asking you as an architect, as an attempt been made to size it? this home for a single family is very large. >> we have already pulled it back 1 foot and pulled it back from the side property line another 1 foot 4.

the upper floor i believe it leaves a 42% rare yard, slightly over the 45% maximum rear yard requirement. we did do some juggling. one of the things that affects the neighborhood -- the stairs have to go behind the garage in an area that is existing where we can go out to the property line. the front door needs to be maintained, and the central corridor. there is a certain depth for the stairs. it sets of circulation in the house. commissioner moore: does that

answer questions for you about sizing and when your dimensions going in an east-west direction? commissioner antonini: i have talked to the project sponsor's representative and it sounded like the dr requestor wanted another addition, but i am comfortable with 2 ft. 4 2 feet. >> if that is the desire of the commission. you might think about asking them to move the spiral staircase to the south a bit, so it is not right in the corner. i think that would be helpful. commissioner antonini: project architect, what do you think about that spiral staircase?

>> you could have a slope at the kitchen door. commissioner antonini: you do not want to have to avoid the staircase to get up to the back. >> the dec is only 9 ft. 6 feet. one of the reasons for the depth of the first floor is to have a usable? space adjacent to the kitchen -- a useable deck space adjacent to the kitchen and family room. i am talking about the deck on top of the family room. commissioner antonini: i see. it would be wider, but it will

not be as deep. >> it makes it relatively unusable as an outburst the base -- as outdoor space. commissioner sugaya: it seems we are reaching some kind of consensus. i will go ahead and make a motion to take dr and approve the project with a 2 ft. set back from the current proposal in the rear, regaining 2 feet to the side, and moving the spiral staircase to the south. president olague: do you want to also include the steps recommendations? commissioner sugaya: yes. >> that recommendation actually is contradictory to staff recommendation. i would also like to have clarification on the height. the height is fine so you do not need a reduction on the height? president olague: that is right.

sorry about that. we seem to have a motion. is there a second? commissioner moore: i would like to have commissioner sugaya rephrase the motion. commissioner sugaya: i think we're just taking out the stuff modification. >> for clarity, you are removing the staff modification. you're putting back the 2 feet on this side said beck, but you're reducing the rear pop out by two feet, and the spiral staircase which shift to the south. commissioner antonini: i do not know if that is doable.

president olague: i am just trying to get a -- did you hear that? 6 feet from the property line. >> the spiral staircase is being -- commissioner antonini: repositioned 6 feet from the property line. commissioner sugaya: i do not want to use the property line. i want to use the deck itself. president olague: the architect, if you could come to the microphone. commissioner sugaya: i guess 6 feet from the property line is about 2 feet from where it is now. >> i believe it is 5 feet back from the property line. commissioner sugaya: i am talking about moving it completely to the other side of the deck.

>> the new are crossing over a -- then you are crossing over a deck two feet narrower, and we have a circulation cuts reducing the usable area in terms of ada accessibility for my client. you have pretty much destroyed the deck by moving it to the other side. that from a usability point of view would not be highly desirable. commissioner sugaya: how far to move it to the celotex -- how far do you want to move it?

if he is only going to move a foot, you might as well keep it where it is. >> i think there is not much that would be accomplished. commissioner antonini: i think we are getting into privacy issues that are not an impact on the adjacent neighbor so much as the earlier things we have talked and -- we have talked about. leave that out. >> the staff recommendation also included modifications on the second and third floor. i hope you keep those modifications. thus did help us. the project's sponsors will do them. it is a combination of the steps recommendation -- of the staff recommendation on the second and third floor and this recommendation on the first floor. >> one of the things we did on the third floor was to move the deck back from the property line from 3 feet to 5 feet.

if we move the lower floor deck 3 feet from the property line, we will have a post coming down to the middle of the deck. those are, together in accomplishing what we are trying to do. -- those are tied together in accomplishing what we are trying to do. on the lower deck, by moving it back, we would use entirely open railing, lowering the solid pace in -- lowering the solid railing 2.5 feet from where it was. commissioner antonini: is it possible to do the modifications the staff has arrived on with the only changes being trading the depth of the deck by two feet -- not the deck. the family room.

>> the family room could be reduced two feet in depth. the impact would be more significant to the deck, making it significantly less usable. commissioner sugaya: that is assuming the current configuration of the house itself stays the way it is. >> excuse me, commissioner. president olague: we have a motion. can you restate the motion? commissioner sugaya: i think we are trading 2 feet off the back, putting back to feed on the side. >> i would like to hear from staff if there were any

modification. >> if there was, they were not outlined in the case report. in the revised proposal, there was a slight reduction. would you like to keep the modification? >> the architect is arguing that creates a difficult situation. is that correct? >> the two are currently in line. >> the two of them were done together.

>> date is suggested that we widen the planters. the planters are 2 foot deeper than this is shorn on the plan. -- shown on the plan. >> you are not touching the spiral staircase? >> that's correct. >> this is to prove with modification to add the setback on the side and to reduce and their rear deck by 2 feet and to align the third floor deck. >> and with the planter that is currently there will be extended by that same amount. >> thank you, commissioners.

on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you. that motion passes unanimously. >> i would be inclined to grant that for the standard conditions and those that were developed by the planning commission. this is the most feasible, practical way to accommodate the project sponsor's demands and to close the public hearing. >> you now have a general public comment. >> is there any general public comment on items not on the agenda? seeing none, general public comment is closed and this time is -- and this part of the

meeting is closed. >> we can not start before 7. >> hold onto your seats, the meeting will start a seven. >> this is a special joint hearing of the san francisco planning commission and public health commission for thursday, march 10th, 2011.

i am not sure if anyone is in the overflow. if your name is called, we will give you time to come up so you can participate. because the room is crowded, let me ask everyone to turn off your phones, and the electronic devices that can sound off during the proceedings. please take your discussions outside. it becomes extremely disruptive to the process and the commissioners cannot hear adequately if you feel the need

to engage in another discussion. the commissioners will not tolerate any discussions. we ask that you respect the process and we will respect your rights to participate in the process. >> i wanted to announce for the individuals and groups downstairs that after -- makes their presentation, then there were two groups that requested 10 minute blocks of time. we will hear them afterwards. and then after that, we will hear from those who have asked for reasonable accommodation. then we will go to general public comment. >> and we are limiting the