brief and although in the response brief the project sponsors have submitted revised drawings, the primary questions concerning proposed height above the allowable feet, or aabove the allowable three feet, and proposed depth, greater than 12 feet into the rear of the yard, remain unanswered. and two, given the placement of the new addition in the rear yard, the approval basis of this project, is planning code section 136, c26, and this is the language of that here and it refers to the garage, and it is not specific about that, it does not say a room, or a studio or a living room it clearly says a garage, and to me rntion a garage is purely an

uninhabitable and we feel to use that without the public notice and without the public review, is questionable. in stream lining we review this approval as part of an ongoing effort to put more projects outsides of the purview of the public review. and the decision is fundamentally at odds with the traditions of the development in san francisco, and with the stated intent of the planning code which is to create the openness, transparency, and to foster harmony the construction along the property line and this is standard and encouraged by the design guidelines that the new rear yard additions be set back from the side property line, this is a remedy that has precedent and your board has used it and the planning department uses it

frequently and thus, we are requesting you to follow the recommendation of five feet and we feel that it will enhance both properties. thank you for your time. >> good evening, larrc, costelo and i am the conducting arborist, i have a phd. >> there was no time left. >> there was ten seconds left when he left. >> oh, we are done, okay. unless the board would like you to stay. >> i just have a question about the impact of the proposed or permitted garage. >> there are four trees in

question and one of substantial size and a cypress >> this is one where there is time on rebuttal. >> okay, actually let me just hear it on rebuttal. >> okay. >> thanks. >> so we can hear from the permit holders now. >> i am the architect actually, i do have 30 years of experience working in san francisco and i was actually the initial architect. >> sorry. >> ann fuseron and i have my card here too. and so, we designed the initial house, for the clients, who then came back to us because they had a larger family and wanted a little bit more space, and in the process of studying the feasible study for the potential of remodeling the

house and doing the addition, it was clear to us that it was clear for the site having worked there before, that an addition that would be horizontal and would go up would probably block a lot of views and be quite disruptive to the neighborhood as well as to the existing house because you have to do a lot of work to the existing structure. and so, we suggested to them, that the easiest way might be to add the piece in the back, and they have a steeply sloping site and so it would be underground but they had an existing courtyard that would bring it down and then we checked with planning and knew that it would be a garage and no way to access the back of lot and they were looking for an office/study and we called planning and directed to scott, the zoning administrator who proceeded to tell us that as we thought that we could use section 136 c26 and it does state garages but there is an interpretation allowed by the planninging code that allows other use and in this particular case, they felt that

an office/study would be fine and we send them to david lindsey at scott sanchez asking and they were sent to david and he is the head quadrant of that district because they thought that it was special enough and he confirmed that we could do that and for this particular jurisdiction we did not need a 311, so we did not need neighborhood notification or anything like that, but of course, he suggested that we should do out reach to the neighbors, which andrea and peter did do, they talked to the neighbors and talked to them about the plan and specifically this neighbor and showed them the drawings and which have not changed i will cory address the issue of it being too tall and we have drawings that were approved and shows the natural grade and how the addition is no more than 3 feet above grade and it is invisible to everybody and it is literally an underground room and i think that is mainly the two things that i would like to say, thank you.

>> if you have any questions. >> i do. did you consider the five foot set back that is being raised. >> it was hard to do that because we also had the needs for exiting and there was also an existing patio, so really basically the building is not on their side, there is, you know, on their side there is a stair that comes up. >> it is their side. >> there are two property lines. >> property line to property line, on one side, really we had to put in the staircase to be able to exit out and that is what they have on their side. >> yeah, it is hard to study five feet, it is a very skinny lot. in all of these cases these are all deep lots too, so the issue of being within 15 feet of the end of the lot is impossible, the lot is a very, very long lot as are all of the lots along that street. >> does this addition conform to the rear yard requirements. >> yes, it does, it requires the variances and was reviewed by david lindsey and they

issued an over the counter permit because it did not require a 311 or anything of those things. and we have all of the e-mails and the rest of a few things. >> did you work with the arborist? >> yes, and we were told to go and get one and make sure that there were no concerns, they hired their own and they have their own report that states that there should be no damage to the tree, particularly the cypress. >> okay, thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. >> and sorry? >> structural engineer for the project, in addition to all of the elements that were just discussed and the feature and of course we are going to be taking all of the precautions in regard to the excavation and the shoring and there are concerns by the appellant that our excavation will effect

their patio and we have the report that describes the soil conditions and the top layer about that 21 inches of soil, and it was plantable soil and the rest is walk and so we will be able to remove the soft area on the top, condition and make sure that we analyze and review the roots of the trees that the parents are concerned about and so are we, we are concerned about the health of those trees and we have retained the services of the arborist that will be on the site during the exposure of the roots that are encroaching on to the property and any of the premoval of those roots will be done in a manner that will be acceptable to the arborist and we will be happy to engage the appellant's arborist. and in regard to the additional excavation, and and the water proofing will be the top on the addendum but the package that will be reviewed to the dbi.

>> thank you. >> how do you handle the drainage that is exterior to the structure? >> we have the permit water system and a membrane and it will have a series of drains, below the slab that will be connected to a sump pump and it will be a permanent watering system and we will make sure that the walls are designed for the build up of the hydrostatic pressure and the drainage will be collected under the slab. >> on your property? >> correct. >> thank you, commissioners >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, cory tea gue, this is a rear addition to the existing building that is primarily

below grade and it was approved by our department on october 8th of this year and it did not require 311 notification, because it did fall under a permitted rear yard structure under 136 c26 as mentioned the project sponsor did work cooperatively and proactively with the planning department early on to make sure that the design would meet the planning code, and the existing interpretation for that section. and again, to meet that, the new structure in the rear could not be more than three feet above the existing natural grade which this project does not and it could not be in the last 15 feet of the rear of the property which this is well far from. and again, this specific text of the code, does state that this is to be provided for the garages. and but it is for the slope lots and in the rear yard, and

this the zoning administrator has consistently interpreted that this provision can apply for structures other than garages because he looked at how the structure was being used and the impact on the massing and the rear yard is the same and you are basically working with a structure that is less than three feet above grade, just for additional context, generally, anything that is going to be three feet or less, within the required rear yard, whether it is a patio or something to that effect, generally does not trigger the rear yard rements or 311 notification, it was referenced that this project should be subject to section 136 c25. kind of what we called the pop out in the zoning district, the rear yard requirement is actually a little larger, than some other districts so we do allow for an additional pop out in the rear into the required rear yard. and up to additional 12 feet. and it could be property line to property line if it is one story or five foot set backs on

property lines if you do two stories and that provision of the code does not apply because this is falling under 136 c25, it is our entertation that this falls under 136 c126 because it is primarily below grade and no more than 3 feet above grade and additionally the roof of this feature will be used as usable open space, so again, reference to that section is not relevant for this property. and this project, providing the rear yard tree, and issue with the roots and any potential impact that is proposed in the development may have on those trees, the planning code and the residential design guidelines are actually completely silent on the issue of individual trees, and rear yards and property line issues and this is generally something that is worked out between private property owners, during the development process. and that concludes my presentation, and i am available for any questions that you may have.

>> mr. teague the za allows certain types of uses if it is a certain height, above the limited height above the natural grade, is that a written interpretation. >> no it is not a written interpretation. >> how would people know about it? >> well, some, we have interpretations that are or have just been through practice and have never been put into the written interpretation and some of those are in the process of being written and putting into the code, and interpretations over time, it could be a little one wildy and we are actually working on improving the interpretation and cleaning them up and adding more of these that have been practiced over time and have not been put into the code and i can't give a specific reason why this particular one has not been written into the code, but

it has been practiced >> previously or this one? >> this one. >> it does extend beyond 12 feet and just to look at it from this angle and if you wanted to apply the revisions, it would be only four feet too deep if it was subject to 136, 25 instead of 36. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners just as you inspect the building permit under the appeal, we did issue the site permit, on 22nd of october, 2013 and the addenda was submitted and it was partially through the review

and so they do not have a permit yet to start the work and so no work has started as far as i can tell. >> and i am available for any questions? >> thank you. >> >> is there any public comment? >> step forward. >> is there a way to show this? >> i have been. >> my name is michael barerman, i am the neighbor who looks at this addition and i came here not planning to speak, but in listening to what has been said i feel compelled to speak.

we have lived in this property my wife has been there since 1967, i have been here since 1975. we are 25 feet from the property there, and there is one house between us and i found out about this for the first time two weeks ago. i mean, we were not notified and tell me because it is underground we don't have to be notified and there was a meeting of the neighbors and i was not notified about that. and that meeting was in april. and i found out in the last two weeks. since that time, i have talked to mr. lindsey and several occasions, and my wife and i visited with him and we looked at some of the plans some of the three feet that... and he said that three feet and it is now five feet. and, i am really unable to understand all of the permtations of 116, verses 117, those are not the right

numbers, and i have not become familiar with them. and i need more time. and i would also like you to story so i can see the extent of this addition, this is a view from my bedroom window and let me show you what my interpretation of it. (inaudible). >> who told you that it was going to be five feet rather than three? >> mr. lindsey. >> by the time that they get done landscaping it and everything else, it is five feet. >> i don't, i am not sure of that. but, i have heard that. >> and i would like to get more information and i request that

the appellants request be granted for more time and study to be granted. thank you. >> yes. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, we can start with the rebuttal and the appellant has three minutes to rebuttal. >> i will just work with this and take the time. okay, again, my name is larry costelo and i am a conducting arborist and i am working with the appellant and the question that i am here to answer or to address at least is will there be an adverse impact on the trees from the project?

and in my estimation is yes, there will be there will be an significant impact, here are the trees and there are four trees that are all along the property line. and one is a large cypress and 49 inches and you can see it and i guess that i could point to it here. and again, two other, or three other smaller trees, and 9 inches, and 14 inches and another patsha and these are all along the fence line, the project is on the other side of the fence. >> in terms of spacing, of the trees along the fence line, the rectangle here is the project. and so, these are the four trees, this is the back of the house. and these trees are spaced right along the fence line, and in a series right next to the

project. if you apply the standard methodology for identifying critical root zones for trees and in terms of protecting trees, during construction. that the out and the large red circle, would represent the critical root zone that would be protected under the standard conditions, that would be the optimal protection for a tree that size, the interior blue line is where you start to get into the structural characteristics of the tree. and you can see both lines come across where the project will be, and so excavations will occur in that zone and this holds for the other trees as well. this is the next tree along the line. and again, the red circle, and identifying that zone, and it overlaps the construction or

the excavation site, and the middle tree, the glossy privet does so even more so. so the question as to whether there is going to be an impact, there is going to be a very high impact on two of the trees, a high impact on the second, or on the third tree and, then the cypress we don't know because we don't know where the roots are and nobody has established that. they could have done a letter of determination, david lindsey recommended it, and they didn't do it. there is no formal interpretation written down that says that the garage can be a living space. >> okay, we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> for the project and as the zoning administrator, clearly

stated, the planning is filing when it comes to the property line trees and we are not, we are going to take all of the precautions when it comes to the excavation, we have an arborist and they have their expert and my client is perfectly willing to invite their experts during that excavation, and we know a great deal about this site. the building, was completed in 2006. and we have pictures that clearly describe the cross section of the soil, and the 21 inches of planting soil, and the rest is bed rock, and the roots are on that surface, and on the top layer. and we will be doing the excavation, very cautiously, and we will have our soils engineer and our arborist review the conditions of the encroaching roots and this is not a planning issue, this is a issue of implementation of an excavation and my clients are going to a great deal of

expenditure of hoping to be good neighbors, and we are doing a horizontal extension, and as the commission fung just asked me how would you water proof that? very costly, exercise. and they want to do that to insure that they don't effect the light, ventilation and natural exposure of the backyard, they are doing it underground, perfect example of no good deed could be punished. >> could they have gone above feet? >> and apply for the variance? >> okay, so it is not... >> okay. >> although it is a fairly, long lot, i am not sure. >> okay. >> wait, i didn't ask, if you what to speak to that question. >> we could have built up the house, over the existing house, very easily. >> no i am talking about the in the rear yard, where the trees are. >> well what the trees are we could have done another kind

of, yes, we could have done an addition in the back that is not where that one is that could have been 12 feet up. >> would it have to have. >> closer to the existing house and we did look at that option, but decided that was not as good, for, and there are very nice views for everyone around and a lot of the houses are set in different ways and we could tell from doing the last project how important it was to maintain the house pretty compact on the site and so even the initial, design would maintain compactly on the site and that is why this time, again, we thought, okay, if we can go under ground it will really have the minimum amount of impact of effecting not just the next door neighbor and the neighbors uphill. >> as well as your client. >> of course. >> excuse me. i didn't see, is there a topographic survey?

>> i do have, and when we submitted the project to planning it actually had a survey that showed the relationship of the building to the existing survey. and some of these red lines that you can see here and is that going to work? sorry it is not very clear, so actually the existing grades of the site relative to the addition, you can see how close it is and how it is deeper than that three feet and at some point the building in the back touches the grade and that was included in the package and that was... >> and you are saying because i can't see anything. >> do you want me to pass it to you? >> that is okay, i have got that. >> any rebuttal? >> good evening, again and i just wanted to quickly touch on three foot, and five foot issue in terms of above grade and based on the plans that were

approved, and a maximum of three feet above grade, at the roof line. and the proposal is also to landscape and actually put grass and other veg taive materials on top of it and we don't regulate the height of the vegetation, whether it be trees or bushes or whatever and so if you include that height it could be five feet or higher to the vegetation, but that is not what the requirement is, it is to the roof line of the actual structure itself which is no more than three feet above grade and so i wanted to make that clarification and i did want to touch on the point that this is a very deep lot for the code and they would have the additional room to construct a horizontal and or vertical addition on the rear, and still be code compliant and then on top of that. >> without a variance. >> without a variance. >> and on top of that, beyond that, another 12 feet, for the 136, c25, pop out, that was referenced earlier and so there

is the code potential to actually do a horizontal and vertical addition in the rear that would be much more massive that is without looking at it within the context of the residential design guidelines, we would have to review that, i cannot say that would be approved to full maximum build out but there is potential within the code to build within the buildable envelope without going into the required rear yard and this proposal would be much less visible and less massive. >> it would be shorter, though, the addition? >> which addition? >> if you do a pop out t would be lifted to 12 feet. >> 2 would be lifted to 12 feet in depth but that is 12 feet beyond the rear line. >> 12 feet beyond the 45 percent? >> right. >> and which right now this proposal and the underground portion of it goes about, 16

feet, and beyond the required rear yard line, and so, it would be... >> and we referred this to on the other commissioners that the pop out will be a little bit shorter and it could be two stories depending on whether you want to read it. >> it would not go as deep and it would be four feet less deep into the property but it would be potentially much higher. >> can could be. >> sure. >> okay. >> something else that was mentioned is a letter of determination. >> sure, i mean any time that there is an issue with the planning code that someone wants a determination, they can file for a determination to get it from the zoning administrator, and there was a statement that david lindsey, recommended that the sponsor do that, and i am not aware of that recommendation, and i have not been told of that recommendation and i have not seen it in the e-mail and i cannot speak as to whether or not that was a recommendation or not, obviously we felt comfortable moving forward with the permit without a letter of determination because this is an interpretation that we have

used consistently in the past. >> your department would feel comfortable making a letter of determination, had they asked. >> theoretically, sure, if they asked if they could do the permit that got approved, then we would have said, yes. >> okay. thank you. >> could you address the issue of the trees on the property, line, and the fact that it was represented that the code is silent as to the implications of those trees? >> all right, so the planning code and related policies that we may have kind of in coordination with dpw, we really only protect trees that are street trees or significant trees which are generally within ten feet of the public right-of-way in the front. or the landmark trees, there are a small number of trees in the city that have been landmarked by the city because they are large and significant trees beyond that and the planning code do not offer any protections or any guidelines, or guidance in general about how to deal with the trees in the rear yard. and as you can imagine, this is

an issue throughout the city, where we have the trees that are on or near the property lines and how the private property owners deal with that situation, and it is generally, left to them to figure out, because we just don't have any guidance, or any controls in the planning code or the design guidelines. >> just a technical question, the three feet measurement, above natural grade, occurs through the top of the wall. >> yeah. >> in the rear wall? >> yes, to the roof line of the structure. >> the roof level or the rear wall? >> with the three feet above grade, it is kind of like we measure the height of the building and we measure it out of the roof line in terms of the height above grade. >> their section shows top of the wall is not the same elevation as the roof line. >> the top of the wall? >> it is higher than the. >> yeah. you mean, the, there is a fence.