going in there. and because there has not been anything for a while and that building was never an attractive building to begin with and this block of lumbard suffers because there is not a lot of other businesses on there and there is a place next door which used to be a nice seafood restaurant which is now like a bar and then there is, a spot of a massage place that has been cited for issues and a lot of drug dealings. i used to live for six years i lived two blocks from this spot and so i know it well, in terms of parking a car, we never had a problem parking the car, especially since up the hill everybody has garages i know that the people have to walk a little further. but, along lumbard there, and at nighttime there is street parking because of the meters. so i am fine with the parking situation. i would really would like the staff to continue to work on the design and i would also say that we would want an active

ground floor because this block is really struggled and it would be great if we could find a nice retailer or restaurant tenant that could bring in the vitality to that space. because i think that that is a real need here on this block. >> commissioner moore? >> i am generally concerned about arrogating lots, the building is smaller and unless this project works harder to create an architecture which is smaller and is also a smaller grain and i have a very difficult time approving the project as it is in front of me. i find that the architecture less than mediocre. and i see that unfortunately since there are new buildings along lumbard street, the residential buildings, which are already remarkable, this project falls short of it and helping it to become a better

street. i appreciate the promise that the (inaudible) will provide better windows but the tools that the planning department has in lying in and seeing a looked out window and wall section, by which it is clearly detailed what intent and what quality level the owner is trying to engage in a commitment. a shadow, and recessed just does not do it for me and i am not prepared to approve a project with that rate of information. and it used to be in the past, standard and also the department, and to require window and wall sections to see what intent the structure is indeed doing and i do not see, the name of the architect or at least it is not eligible me and i do not see that it is the architect as he had designed and consulting and i believed that this needs to be techically worked through in

order to have the guarantees, for this project to come forward. and i am at this moment, with that not available and not prepared to approve this project. >> let me add a couple of thoughts that might be along the same lines. i think that i may have had my first real (inaudible) here, and at the cafe. but i am not sure that this is absolutely ready, i am okay with the parking variance, i think that the facade could be better and contribute to the existing block and the look to the neighborhood and the street and it is highway 101. and i think that maybe all of the more reason it should have that nod to the existing neighboring buildings. and i think that with that, maybe that design that the light rail might be able to be expanded a little bit to consider those two small windows and i know that we

don't have the right to protect light but if it is going to be a second pass of this, and taking into consideration, and expanding the light well. and for those small windows. those are my thoughts, commissioner antonini? >> yeah, a question, about testimony regarding the easement. is that to the east side of the building and i am not quite sure what happens? or there was a comment that i guess that they own the property where the seafood restaurant used to be next door and there was, there is or is not going to remain an easement between those two buildings. >> td easement along the south

side of the property, in the back. there are starting from the section here along this profile and coming back out from this empty lot and existing. and so now, we have and we solve the easement situation by providing a private corridor that the next door neighbor can come in to the privately secure corridor and come out to a secure exit door and one that will lock and come out to the street with a safe path into our common area. >> okay. i think that i understand what you are saying. perhaps i could have staff comment on that. it sounds like if they are bringing things out to just trash or something out of there, they are going to have to bring it through your building to get there.

>> no, this is only a fire escape access, this is not to be used for bringing out trash. this is only an exit. >> let me ask the staff about that. >> i honestly don't know the nature of why the adjacent neighbor needs the easement. whether it be trash or not. most properties do provide some way to get trash out without needing an easement. the easement as this sponsor said, has been relocated so it no longer goes around the property, to now where they will be able to, sorry. to be able to access it to their own private corridor, walking corridor. and through the lobby of the

building to vanness street and it will be a one way locking door and so nobody can actually get into their easement from the building. >> all right. >> thank you. >> i think that answers the questions. did you want to comment on that? is that the answer? you brought the question up about that. >> i have had conversations with the owner of the property for the easement and my understanding is that they were going to be here to be able to represent themselves. i am not sure why they are not. but they did know about this and they knew that we would be able to hear their comments. >> okay. >> actually, the easement is a historic easement from the 1906 pan pacific expocysing, and the easement also goes all the way up passed mrs. solomen's house and it goes up the hill as well as comes down the hill. and he bought the whole

easement except for bob hollant of the famous edward the second. so he has it behind all of the buildings, in order to make sure that there was a safety and secure route there. apparently, there are some humming fixtures down there. and i am not sure if they are who they belong to, but the big question is, is it going through someone else's property. and it is the easement belongs to the salmas there is a gray line in here that i think that we should look at, just to see what is happening, on this. and that is why i brought the subject up is how do you, this is an unusual, very unusual case, all the way around, in a lot of ways. and i have just never seen an easement go through the lobby of the next door neighbor's

building, the building itselfs this building may be it is going to be a spec building or a condo, more than likely, and i did not hear anything for affordable housing by the way. i have concerns about drawing the line whether the city is going to be sued, who is going to be sued over this issue, and because there is a gray line of who owns the easement. and where it should be, and where it should be put. >> okay. >> and there is a gray area in here that i can't answer. >> thank you. >> all right. i got your comments. yeah, i am just confused on this. i don't need any answers from you. >> possibly have the staff and it sounds to me like the solmas own the rear easement but they do not own the property where the building is being proposed. and if they don't own that they don't have any control over that other than being able to reach, is there another access point to that rear easement? other than coming through the

building? >> this is where the access... >> all right. >> this is the access on the street coming out. >> yeah, i see it. >> yeah. >> so it is out there. and privately used from this building, and the building access from here is not from all sides. >> that is the other side. >> yes. >> okay. so they can get in from the other side they don't have to go through your side. >> no. they don't. >> okay. >> then i have already spoke with the neighbor about this situation. and they are in consent about our changes on the easement. because we have letters pretending to the easement information, that the ownership has the right to alter the easement to just provide access on which we did.

>> yeah. okay. thank you. >> i think that has answered it. and my only final comment is on the design. and you know i know that it has been pointed out that there are small reveals on the windows, but in addition to that, i mean there appears to be no moldings and it just looks like there is sort of, no kind of treatments to kind of soften them at all against the finish whatever it is and it appears that it is going to be stucco and you know, we want to keep it from having the appearance of being just real stark. >> commissioner moore? >> i am in support of what president fong said. i am very concerned that we really don't have a policy, where the older buildings lead to new world and relative to the properties. and since, we are iidentifying here without looking at the older building stock and the

small studio units for example, force people to put their bed in to a closet with non-operatable windows that we are basically starting to effect the livebility in the way that we have never really discussed. i live in a neighborhood where the people live literally three feet away from each other, but because of the layout of the units which were considered a different time from today it would make those units unlivable if they were a a lot and would align the properties and not provide it was typical for all older buildings and i caution and i support what president fong said to respect the light of increasing the light and i urge the planning department to very thoroughly study that issue. >> commissioner hillis? >> so, would i just echo out of the concern that were raised about the design and not

having, i don't think that we have adequate information to review or approve this. i mean that i suggest that we continue this item. >> that would be a good idea and come back with more detailed design and have the staff review it. so we can approve. >> could i just... i do need some clarity about what you expect from the design. >> better. >> you can't have bay windows. >> call transwill not allow you. >> not having five different kinds of windows on the same side. >> so you don't like the variety of windows. >> no. >> that is fine. >> that is the type of information. >> somebody else might. that is just my opinion. >> so the moldings around the windows. >> clarity in the architect would explain to you that you need quality windows, they were not provided does not guarantee that and promises are a dime a dozen and the cost and engineering are going to bring that first and to t have been

integrated. >> and just quickly, commissioner hillis was that a motion? >> yeah. >> second. >> motion to continue. >> do you have a date? >> september. >> and end of september. >> and practical date might be? >> well, considering that it would be a redesign, the next available hearing date would be september 19th. >> okay. >> okay. >> if that is enough time for that. >> sponsor to redesign the project? >> start there. >> give more direction, about the facade. >> if i might i heard a couple of things, one is the types of windows, that the reveal on the windows. and also, i heard concern about the uniformty of the over all mass in wanting to have more articulation than the over all mass of the building to reflect the smaller lots and three part

articulation and >> could i say what the reality. >> and clarify of the materials. >> this is gray looks like. >> better. >> i get it. >> better. >> sorry. the windows, i think that when we were looking at the issue of design, we were trying to have been more minimum attractions to the recess of the windows to create the depth that we want. that is why i think that the trim was left to believe that it would be two (inaudible) by having the big trims like the classic kind of look that is why we have, we moved that element from that design. >> that is fine. we will work with you on that. >> what about the mechanical in the basement? >> right. >> not in the basement. rails well as consideration to

>> yeah. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i have two things, one, to support your addition or the insertion of a light rail, for the other windows on the building. and at which i think that commissioner moore also supported. and then, to staff, is there an affordability? i am sorry. >> yeah, the sponsor has elected to pay the fee. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> and while i don't believe that project sponsor and staff has already given the allowance for the parking it would be helpful because we heard a number of speakers from the public talking about the parking deficit and look around and see what parking is available in the neighborhood and you know, bring it up to the possibility that the buyers

of some of these condo units could avail themselves or maybe as part of this thing to find the off street parking that is not part of the building. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to have staff pursue some kind of a discussion with the assess or of what we assign the easements really means. i happen to live in the building where there is an access easement on the adjoining property, however if that will be altered i could not exit in case of an emergency, i would like that to be answered more clearly than having decide that had we have decided to switch it is a much larger issue. as to whether or not replatting or reassigning is possible. i would like to have an answer to that please. >> commissioner sugaya >> okay. so... >> wait. something else just came into mind. >> this does not have, and this is not a project comment.

in the past when there have been pdf's available of the agenda item, if you clicked on the new one, and i mean if you... since this is going to be the same number, right? >> so this is... >> this is the same case number and previously when we have had continuances and you clicked on the new one and obviously you got the new project materials. 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

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 commission not take 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 project manager. 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