to downward construction. we propose to actually lower the ceiling healthy and adolescence two feet to offer all of the building current ridge line. the third floor addition in this area is setback 17 feet off the face of the facade. it will remain with a single slope here.

the subject building is 35 foot 9 niches as measured from his ridge line to above. the d r building is 8 foot below. with the cross street of bay street it is still 14 feet above the building. with only an open air entry within this space. the proposed project includes a walk out deck above the roof-deck and setback 3 feet from off the property line. there thorp as expressed

lighting issues. >> thank you. speakers some support of the project >> we could get 3 minutes. >> i have speaker cards. >> vice president wu i live in russian hill. i work in real estate and i'll i seen the project plans and i support it. i'm also family with the discretionary plans - this will be a very positive thing for the

owners. as a real estate broker in san francisco i typically come up with those types of projects. i believe people support projects like this because they will have to change their properties at some point. i ask that the commission do not take discretionary review. thank you for your time >> at the. everything commissioners i'm a homeowner in the neighborhood. i ask that i please approve the project as it's designed and do not take discretionary review.

the cross street a lawyer kin >> excuse me. people in the audience you're out of order. >> any first time support here. you have a 2 minute rebuttal. like i said i'm 85 percent for this project i like it. it needs to be tweaked. like i said, we don't know who's going to be living next door. this is a revolving frat house

where people are constantly coming and going. sometimes, we have to call the cops on some of these people for this is not okay when i live on fourteenth street. so therefore i'm asking the commission to approve some minor tweaks for us to have a quality of lifestyle. >> thank you. project sponsor?

>> i could have the screen again, please. just to finish my comments on the design of the project. i was describing that it would have a deck of 5 feet as well as a small roof-deck which is held 3 feet off the property line and ending closed with a guardrail. he was expressed his opinion about this. looking at the full width decks off the back of his building as well as the entry of the decks here these are looking directly

into the subjects property yard and will be looking at the roof as well. we're only going to be going 2 feet above the roofline. this is the story pole constructed by the projects sponsor and you can see this is the top edge of the pop out of the building where the third deck is located. between mr. thorne's lot and our lot as well as this fence it would only be is difference of 4 feet. and at mr. thorpe's request they have done shadow studies of the building and we feel like we've gone - reached out to mr. thorp

we've had meetings on 3 separate occasions. thank you >> thank you it is closed. >> maybe i could speak to someone from the d r a request eerie of some questions. in your preemption you asked for 3 things i asked for a glaigz of the windows i guess the pitching the float roof at the very end of the proposed addition and then a setback of 6 feet. however, according to testimony and what seems to be a 7 foot separation so i don't understand why you need another 6 foot

prescription. >> >> prescription. >> n from what >> i'm talking about cutting back the third floor 6 feet to the existing rear line to provide more light to come into the unit number 1 windows and number 2 windows. that would be totally blocked out >> i could agree with the pitch where it's down, however, i don't know how much light that could be base your building is to the west of the sponsors building and it sets higher than that. >> well, i'm talking about the morning light. during the wintertime the shadows that would be on that windows go from around 6 o'clock

in the morning it's approximately 2 and a quarter hours like morning sun. that doesn't really happen because the current structure is slanted it's a totally slantd roofline but if you square that off >> we're only adding 2 feet in height. >> well, it has glass your they could have a fire pit. >> i'm trying to figure out this. at the >> okay. so i've heard a few things. i don't see a impact.

i'm not sure which window he has in mind to glass >> we can go through the study if i take it your desire. >> i don't really need to do that. i think we're talking about privacy issues here which in an urban environment we don't take into consideration >> and then finally, the final issue is the pitching of the back part of the roof which would - it's basically a visible visual situation.

by i don't know how you feel about the design on the rear roof >> we've gone through the shadow studies with that portion of the roof kind of angleed. there was very minimum mall difference we found the effect mostly happening during the winter months and the effect on the windows would really be pretty much gone and 9:30, 10:00 a.m. he stood is basically gone by toeks, 9:00 a.m.

we've got 11 inches between the buildings and for the most part mr. thorpe's building being about the same level as our building. it's more a structure issue we addition have to create a beam to pick up that portion of the building and it would lower the roof of the building >> and the second pitch would par level the pitch you put on the first pitch. >> i'm not quite sure what he was talking about. i'm not advocating for that.

i don't see much of an impact >> in terms of the privacy covering of the windows there's no problem in doing so that was actually offered to mr. thorp as part of our conversation throughout the process. we know that's off the dining room of one of the tenants. >> thank you. >> commissioner and yes. i have a question for either of the tenants who testified. i assume your floor plans are basically, i denial and -

>> can you tell me where the feeling room areas are and in the back of the building. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner. >> well no one else has anything to say i'll make a motion. i don't see that much of the impact. they've agreed to take care of

the windows covering >> i think a lot of this has to do with views that are not protected. i don't know about having to change the plan to pitch the plan back there. so i move to approve with the condition that the window in question has some privacy covering >> commissioners may i suggest if you want that change you'll take the d r and approve the project with the covered windows the one in reference. >> i just wanted to remind the commission that the applicant already lowered the room healthy

on the one story to keep it 2 feet above the roof of the building. but the go height of the living room would be - the covered has been offered and didn't seem to be a issue. and what is being asked here for we might want to discuss the size of the addition but that's not what they asked us to do >> i agree i don't see anything that's a problem so we'll not be supporting the motion of d r. >> commissioner there is a motion in a second to take d r and require that is window in

question included private coveri covering. so move commissioners that motion passing 5 to 2. commissioners that will place you on item 26 d at 1 hundred 32 avenue request for discretionary review. this case is a case for discretionary review to expand a floor of a single-family house located at sea cliff. the subject site which is also

known as 1 hundred 32 avenue. the adjacent building not south which is owned by the d r requester is owned with a partial fourth story. the adjacent to the east is a single-family house. it was a large single-family house with various act actual style from the 9060s. it's a partial fourth floor that consists to a 10 foot 6 by surrounding roof-decks. they want to expand this with

that master room. the commission may recall that a perfect case was filed. 3 requests for discorrecty review including one by the d r requester of the current project that included in addition to the fourth floor a side horizontal side to expand it along the next side. in this case it approved the mode causation to some windows. this projects required side yard doing does go forward.

the applicants submitted a addition that didn't expand the addition. the current project does still depends upon the variance that were granted in 2009. since the commission packet were distributed last week and i'll submit for the record. the d r requester it is owner of 110 on the avenue and directly adjacent to the property. the blocking of views from her house the impact of her prices and the projects inconsistency

that was the results of a private agreement between property owners. the project was reviewed and decided that it don't effect the - the project would have to effect on the d r privacy since there's no with these in the decks that faces her house. if it were to be included the soil and other surrounding materials are not included in

the project. it is the size that the commission not approve the project >> thank you requester you have 5 minutes. >> and i'm going to speak on behalf of my client. the 50 year olds building the commission wouldn't be dealing with issues that are similar to 50 years ago but here we're again. i was asked to look at this project when variance and other things had been approved by other commission and i've come to see that there are issues that should been taken care of.

however, i still see issues that weren't addressed. such as when two parking lot space and one has been omit and what's remaining is a parking lot space that doesn't comply with codes. the took up roof was serving as an open space for the residents now this new fourth floor edition that's being proposed

the planning commission some e should be ending forcing was not addressed. i have issue about a planning code issue and the setback code issue. this conflict has not been address because when i tried to contact the sponsors architect he has to tell me that he is not permitted to that can to anyone regarding this project. so even though we have requests of some idea of how to propose a compromise there's no professional to talk to regarding these code issues. so let's make this very clear.

very simple members of the commission. i don't think that i'm here - 80 i'm not here to completely oppose the project. if we feel some of the projects items are okay. we'll say okay. new floor here and this is a good size apartment really and what we're asking is to reduce this area by a hundred and 5 feet. by seth the building 5 foot back from the property - from the wall against the north side - i

mean, the south side of the property line will chief this. the top floor will still get 1 hundred and 7 feet. well, a wall first casts additional shadow but the service roof the wall is eliminate it will allow more sun light to all the neighbors. the service stares doesn't need to be a fill width of the continuance of the existing residential fair way it could be any stairway thirty inches width. and finally, to assess that serve roof a man hatch is

concrete not a roof hatch this the the full length of the existing stairway >> thank you. any speakers which the d r a sponsors. >> hi. i'm the one that is asking for d r and if i just look at all the correspondence i'm here to tell you i'm not a unreasonable person. i talked to my neighbor when they first moved in she put a lot of money so that my property

would be increasing in value. i said how could that be if i build all this structure on top of the roof floor? she said i don't need your blessings i have the complex i can get all i want. but during that time i was very ill. i have a heart disease. come to my house such a such day and such and such day you have to propose.