prepared to let that motion take its course. president fong: sorry. >> on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. -- no. comissiomer sugaya:aye. president fong: aye. >> that motion passed 4-1, with commissioner moore voting against. commissioners, you are now on item number 20, 8 through be. -- a through b. the zoning administrator with your requests for variances. >> diego sanchez. this is discretionary review for building permit 2,010.08 0.2

0.9282 for an expansion at the rear of an existing single- family dwelling. -- 2020.08.02.9282. the proposed debt and still require eight rear yard variance -- their rear yard variance. the combined visible floor area of 200066 square feet requires an additional of street parking space. the proposal only requires one additional space. some in the department believes that the proposal fails to

minimize adverse impacts on light and air and privacy for the adjacent property. the residential design guidelines recommend the setting back of the upper floors to properly articulate building mass. in addition, one of the purposes of the planning code is to provide adequate light, air, and crevices. -- privacy. we have seen this a combined total of five times. the result of the deliberations -- staff believes we could allow a reasonable rendition with overarching goals of respecting the prominent mid blocked open space pattern and preserving privacy, light, and air, as practiced throughout the city. specifically, the department proposes one of the following alternatives.

if i can get the -- the first would be a 5 foot 7 inch southwest corner on the second floor of the building. the second would-be a 10 foot 7 inch by 3 foot -- if i can get that. there we go. that would be a side set back on the west side of the building at the second floor only. the department believes the modifications maintain an adequate level of access to light and air and maintain privacy to the adjacent property while allowing for a reasonable rear extension to the subject property. the modifications respect the existing myung-bak open space pattern, yet allow the -- made block open space pattern, yet allow the expansion.

this concludes the presentation. i am available for further questions. thank you. president fong: rh--- d.r. requestor. in this case, it would be the applicant. so, project sponsor. >> hello. i am the project sponsor. i have been a resident in vernal heights -- bernal heights since 2000, and have owned this house since that time. i am an engineer who owns a small business of about four people. i plan on staying here and continuing my business and contributing to the city.

as part of the response to the planning department question, i have brought in a -- bonnie bridges, and architect who has been helping me develop the project. -- an architect who has been helping develop the project. >> hello, everybody. basically, sean has a house that sits at the corner of -- i am sorry. it is up at the corner of massasoit and franconia. i am going to show it. you can see from this aerial

photo that this particular part of the colonel heights -- bernal heights has a muriatic of streets and hills -- has a myri ad of streets and hills. in addition, this particular block, which will be able to see on this diagram -- which you will be able to see on this diagram, has both the west and east and open -- end open. by not having houses on those ends of the block, you have adequate opportunity for light and air to flow through. the proposed addition the applicant has for a little area on the west of the property would have no impact on the

light and air. in addition, in this parcel, you can see the applicant and the next-door neighbor -- the whole bloc faces south. the proposed addition would have no impact on either of these houses to get adequate light and daylight. the neighboring parcel, to the left on the screen, currently is used as a covered area service porch, two stories high. it has no windows looking out to it. it has one door that is solid. the neighbor has written a level of support for this project, saying they would prefer to have a solid ball all the way to the property line, to continue privacy to their service porch area.

in addition, the applicant lives in a small house with elderly parents and visitors from vietnam, which is the heritage of sean's partner, who come and stay for a length of time. they want the flexibility to turn that corner back into a bedroom. if we have to do the proposed notches, it would prohibit the ability to turn that corner of the house back into a bedroom. i believe you have received all of these letters in advance, but i could to kill lee want to point out the neighbor -- but i want to particularly point out the neighbor.

he does not consider it to have any negative effect on his property. i am done. >> the staff get a rebuttal on this? president fong: is their public comment on this item? -- there public comment on this item? please, sir. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is terry mill. i am a member of the east slope design review board. you have a letter in your packet from us. we had two meetings with the project sponsor. looking at a little variation of his design, nobody showed up at

either of those meetings to express any dismay or disappointment about this design. in one of our in one of our letters, we mentioned that the notch that was at the neighbor's house directly adjacent has no windows. this fill-in piece would not have any effect on privacy, air, anything like that. despite the fact that it was a little addition to the house that might not be permitted by the planning staff, we thought it was ok, that it fit in with the character and context of our neighborhood. we also thought that it, because of the structural considerations, the variants for not having a second parking space, because the houses on those blocks are extremely little. 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 seac