what occurring. well, this has not. this has come about so quickly yet we have not had time to prepare. no one has been consulted. i think this has to be up for review. there is enough activity on van ness anyway with that new hospital. i'm a volunteer there, have been for 22 years, at cpmc, but we really didn't need it. so, we have to think of these things and be mindful. san francisco is the best place on the planet. let's just keep it that way. thank you. >> thank you. is there further public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> just to clarify what we're doing, given the length of time that this project was in front of the commission 11 years ago, definitely has deferred back to what the previous commission decide. d. however, when the project is

expired, it come forward for new applications. [speaker not understood] it is to uphold what was previously done. we have the right to reconsider and that is just said for the public and while i'm respectful, it is easy to say this project is definitely better than what was proposed in 2003, and i would just say that very he simply the other one tried to be historical. i think it would be actually very bad building at that corner. the site has been vacant for many years. it is nice to see a building. i am excited about the building, but i have a couple of questions and i think they are questions which i'd like to kind of speak about a little more slowly in order to ask mr. schmalz to help me perhaps if you you have your own set of forms in front of you. would you mind coming up to the podium and i'll ask you a question? on your [speaker not understood] street elevation, you are showing a very nice engaging off the cornice line to the building to the west

looking at the filbert street south elevation. it is kind of interesting that that building on both sides extends the corners over to the property lines and engages building and you're trying to retain if i see it correctly. however, when i move to your fifth floor floor plan that particular engagement is not realized which means you would have to create a deeper flat in order to do that. the building facade are assumed [speaker not understood] which would mean that the building would have to cut back a little bit more in order for that to happen. is that correct? commissioner moore, from the third floor up on our building, where that cornice line is, we're setting our building back two feet from our property line in order to return that historic cornice. that historic cornice i think goes back about four or five feet. we he would like to return it and then crop it on our side so

that -- and we did work with the planning department on that, too, adjust that whole area to adjust the bay window a jaytionthv hethv to that corner was flush with the property line. ~ adjacent. so it didn't stick out so we were kind of respecting the facade of the four-story building next door. so, we're just trying to adjust it to the situation -- >> can you accomplish that in two feet without it looking like a veneer? the cornice with return and the hit will stay and i think we can keep that corner. i think visually it will look fine. >> if you had thought about that, otherwise -- yes, we did. >> a little bit more space for that corner to really engage as a freestanding piece. it is an encroachment in your property, however, that's the way it has been in the past and i wish it would continue that way. have you thought about it [speaker not understood] what

you're doing, that's fine. we have talked -- in fact, i was -- we worked closely with glenn on that one, yes. >> i'd like to speak about the height exception and i'd like to speak about the treatment of the roof. i believe that [speaker not understood] raised a very valid comment, and i do have to say that somehow the placement of your stair penthouses together start to obscure the roof scape in a manner that the building looks unintentionally taller than you are trying to look partially because you are setting back. however, all of these penthouses would take each other, and i do believe that the proper interpretation of the residential guidelines, as i understand them, is that roof stairs and decks are held from

the building facades and move more toward the center of the building. particularly on the north, northwest corner on van ness, i believe that the railing of the terrace is coming much too close to the building facade. and i think that would have to be pushed back. but i do believe that i would ask for another solution of dealing with the private roof deckseses because while you are asking for a variance on the common open space, it is too aggressive a gesture towards reoccupying the entire roof or private open space with the consequence of too many rooftop penthouses. if i could address that, commissioner moore. we're not asking for an opening space variance. we have more substantially more open space than is required ~. what we do want to do is have some common open space on the roof deck. and part of the reason is the

common roof deck open space which needs to be fully accessible by elevator and two stairs is usable. people can actually live on it and use it. one of the -- as commissioners, you're going to see a lot of this if you haven't already. rear yards are getting -- on these infill projects are getting, i almost say overwhelmed. they're getting designed by puc with great amount of planters. now, it's wonderful to look at, but you can't really use that very much. , and so, what we want to do is give some usable space, not necessarily only at the rear yard, but on the roof. and once you do put common roof space up there, you have to have an accessory elevator. i fully under what alan martinez said in your comments about it and we would definitely work with the department to ~ as i say, roof scape this so that it has a little more organization and address he your concerns.

because i do appreciate -- they're very valid comments. >> [speaker not understood] to understand you want to have a common roof deck, which i'm in support of because building owners or building occupants use those [speaker not understood]. but i believe that the private roof decks are an excessive requirement and i do not think that i can support it, partially because you are already asking for a height exception. by now occupying the roof, it puts that much additional space which goes beyond just the common deck. it's just asking for too much. >> if i may rehe expectfully ask, we are not asking for a height limit variance. we are not. we are within the height limit. >> the height limit is 50 from what i understand. >> no, it's 65 feet. it's 65 feet. we need to go for conditional use over 50 feet, but 65 feet is the height limit. we're within the height limit. there's no question about that. >> [speaker not understood] i

thought i read. >> yes, commissioner, the height limit is 65 feet here. under the planning code, though, you need conditional use to approve a project that's over 50 feet. but the underlying height limit is 65 feet. >> so, it's still a conditional use approval. >> right. >> and my comment is that the over aggressive private open space on this roof does not [speaker not understood] for me the intent of a building which requires common open space as it is for most of us and then starts to infringe on periphery together with the excessive building of penthouses to achieve that. that's my thought. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, are you finished, commissioner moore? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. okay. i guess i need some clarification on -- at the beginning of discussion, i think the zoning administrator, i forget who was -- addressed

this, mentioned it. this building is allowed to have a certain percentage above the top floor which is above the 65-foot limit that's allowed for stair penthouses and other things. and i guess 20% can be above. i think thats was -- this is higher than the 20%. how much higher is it? >> commissioner antonini, glenn cabreros department staff. and i'll put the graphic up one more time. the code doesn't allow for the 20%. the edit calculations provided by the architect recently demonstrated it was at 13%. >> oh, 13%. >> the planning code would not allow this project to go beyond that. the code doesn't allow for variances of height. while we're on the topic, the commission's discussion as this issue came up and we actually were able to discuss with the

zoning administrator carl sanchez, there is -- in term of the legal basis of the residential design guidelines, those do apply to districts within the rh and rm residential districts and all residential districts. however, this zoning district is the rfp district which is called residential commercial. and article 2 of the planning code makes the distinction between a residential district versus a residential commercial district. and with that distinction, the residential design guidelines does not apply to the rc district. that being said, in term of the department practice with the residential design team and also the urban design advisory team which has reviewed this project, it's seen as the design policy to shape this roof penthouses, keep them as minimal as possible because the intent of the code is it is a height exemption so they should not be really taking advantage

of habitable space above the height limit. going back to the graphic, one attempt at the department [speaker not understood] is group the penthouses toward the center as much as possible and also provide the setback. in terms of protecting its visibility from the public realm, the stair penthouses are minimized and not visible. of course, in terms of -- we talked about in the past i think roof pollution and seeing that from other vantages because [speaker not understood] of san francisco is very hilly, that is something that you may also want to consider. but i just wanted to provide that to you to guide your discussion here. thank you. >> okay. i notice those two by your graphic are sort of on the edge of the building as alan martinez was speaking to and i think commissioner moore. so, would you prefer that they were bunched more towards the middle of the building? >> that is the intent of

providing good design when they are structured above the height limit. again, going back to the graphic, this -- and perhaps warner may speak to this. this is a required step penthouse by the building code and there is a certain separation that has to be met between the two stair penthouses in order for that to provide for the fire and exiting accessibility for the entire building. the remainder of the other stair penthouses like this one and this one and this one, those are the private roof decks. so, those have been sloped and shaped to the minimal possible to just how the run of the stairs itself. >> okay. nowadays we need to have the stair penthouse -- having just a trap door is not allowable any more or not really preferable because you see all these structures on the tops of buildings now that look a lit bit foreign. and i don't think we have much

in the way of parapets any more that sometimes would hide the structure. so, those are a couple things i was talking about. but then, of course, the parapets also for those who talked about what's seen from a distance would also make it even higher if the parapets were there. okay, i think i understand the distinction now, and it looks like we're probably doing as best we can, but certainly i would hope that we can commend you to work with staff to make things as unobtrusive as possible on the top of the roof and make -- can you work on design. >> certainly we can make that part of the standard condition and it sounds like there is a willingness to work on and also the proximity of the railings to the facade, exterior facade. >> okay, thank you. i appreciate it. my only other comment was i know mr. schmalz also did the groundage at the other corner because i prefer because it's a little more contextual.

i know, you know, actually, some of the elements of the earlier building i liked having the [speaker not understood] and the windows that were a little bit more traditional, but that's not what's before us now. but i think it's actually pretty good because it's not solid glass. it's not the marlowe which i think is unfortunately not my favorite further up the street, which this is better and would have liked to have seen it more like the greenwich. but what it is is what it is and it could be worse. [laughter] >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i have to agree with commissioner moore. i think mr. cabreros' illustration shows that the two stairways that are required at this point and elevator access is there. i'd prefer if unit 61, 63 and 74 did not have roof access through the units.

that would leave unit 73 with staircases tucked in between the elevator and the mechanical tower. so, that would be my preference. i make a motion to approve the project and eliminate stair access on units 74, 61, and 63. >> [speaker not understood]. if i could clarify, commissioner sugaya. the building code, if they would allow for sliding roof hatch so it's flat to the roof, i think it allows them perhaps 3 feet, four feet. the height of a parapet, essentially, would you be accepting that as an alternative? >> we would, but then i think we would have to consider setbackses from the edge of the, you know, the railing -- >> on the extended roof decks to the end. >> to the edge of the railing? >> yeah. >> can i substitute that? i second that, but we he need

to have a commitment to the pulling deck of the building edge. >> that's [speaker not understood] by staff, i think. >> is that the substitute [speaker not understood]? >> that methodology would be acceptable. >> don't get that approval, then they won't appear. >> right. >> that's up to the dbi. >> commissioner moore? >> [speaker not understood]. can you clarify what the motion is? >> no roof decks on those three units. unless they can get -- >> a roof half. ~ hatch. >> in which case they pull the roof deck away from the edge of the building. >> correct. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner antonini? >> i have to just get a clarification from commissioner sugaya. it sounded like at the beginning you were saying that they wouldn't have access to the private -- how would they reach the private decks? they'd have to come through the private ones? >> there is no private deck. >> okay.

>> they can expand the common area deck if they want to. >> okay. so, you've eliminated the individual decks for these units? >> on the three, unless they can get the hatch arrangement. >> but if they do the hatch, they can have the decks? >> yes. >> okay, that's what i heard, then. >> with the caveat that those decks would need to be pulled back from the building edges. >> well, yeah, the decks will be made smaller and you'll have to access them through the hatch system. >> if i could just clarify the motion for a moment, just to understand. if we had private roof decks but no stairway from the private unit to the private roof deck and we had access only through the common fire stairs which i have to have, i think it would be appropriate that those individual units would have -- could have their own roof deck. but setback the way you had described and not accessed through a hatch, but accessed through the two fire stairs which are required. >> [speaker not understood].

>> i would just feel a little more comfortable with that. if you agree. >> that's fine. >> i would make a comment on that. >> commissioner moore. ~ >> mr. schmalz, with any of those roof deck, it's not just the roof deck. everybody is going to have their furniture. everybody is going to have their table, their six chairs. their planter, their this and that. so, once you have those ~ private roof decks up there, you're going to have a lot of extra things up there. and i'm a little bit concerned that this is really kind of not exactly what i want to do. i mean, one is to access the roof, to stand there in the common area with some furniture and you can sit there and take turns with others. but i cannot see five roof decks [speaker not understood] with all their own furniture and the full thing up there is

just another occupied floor minus a roofer. >> if i could make one comment on that. it seems to me if that motion carried and that was a precedent,v we'd be setting precedent where all private roof decks would not be appropriate. i don't know if there is anything ~ different about this building that would not require that. 2655 greenwich had private roof decks accessible through public stair. 2599 right across the street which is approved by your commission only a few years ago has lots of roof decks with lots of private stairs. and for us to be kind of pulled out and say, well, you can't have any, seems a little bit too limiting. we're willing to say the two common stairs can access some private roof decks provided that they're setback substantially from the exterior. so they don't provide any visual obstruction. i think that's a fair compromise because i think this commission will see a lot of roof decks coming up. i mean, this is just

everybody's -- i think even the planning department has a roof deck program going on here to create better roof gardens and we're going to have a green roof up here. anyways, i'm just kind of moding on that but i'd like to have a little more clarification. i don't want it make too much of an exception for a project here when everybody else is doing it. >> as the maker of the motion, if you want access from the two existing required stairways and the elevator and you want to then have the private decks that don't have internal stairways leading to them, but the owners would have to come up the common stairways to access their roof decks which are then pulled away from the edge of the building, that's an acceptable compromise. >> i think the project sponsor would agree with that. >> yes. >> yes. >> okay. so, that was the maker of the motion, but then to the seconder? >> i would second that.

>> okay. now i'm a little confused. >> we need to ask staff to reiterate the motion. >> staff understanding is that there will be no stair penthouse he to the private roof decks. however, part of the building code if a house is allowed to allow private access to the roof deck from each unit with the railings to be setback from the facade of the building, that would be accessible. also an acceptable alternative would be to still have private roof decks with the railing setback from the facade, but with access through the common stairway. >> thank you, mr. cabreros. >> perfect. >> commissioner antonini. >> my understanding that the motion is now the second of the two, although the makers can correct me if i'm wrong, but i think what we've decided to do is to use the common stair penthouses to access the private decks also. and i think that answers a lot

of the concerns that were expressed by the public because we're eliminating more activity that, you know, even though views aren't protected, having fewer stair penthouses probably makes for a cleaner looking building at the top. and i would be supportive of the motion as it's now formulated. >> commissioner sugaya. >> lastly, just to the audience who testified on this, i think a lot of the commission's concerns are with the actual appearance of these rooftop additions and whatnot. but you'll have to understand that the decision is not being made on blocking views. there are no blocking view ordinances in the city. we have not acted on discretionary reviews in other conditional uses where there were argumentseses that that would block somebody's view ~. and that is not the policy of the city. >> thank you.

commissioner fung. >> [inaudible] question and maybe it lends to commissioner moore's curiosity about different furniture. because this potentially could be individual suite deckses, maybe assigned to a particular unit, maybe not, ~ but through a common area, would some of the furnishings, furniture planter boxes be coordinated and purchased by the building? so there is some uniformity? >> if it is in fact common area that's divided. >> i know he from some buildings, things like window treatments, they want to regulate that ~ subject to the ccnr like they all want light tray. from a public point of view, that means looking uniform. i don't know how you -- [multiple voices] >> i realize i'm asking the question about a building that just got [speaker not understood]. i think that's part of commissioner moore's question

that's correct you know, have a thousand different designs -- >> it's an interesting discussion point just going back, balancing visual roof, whatever, providing an open space amenity when they are providing optionses to residents. >> i don't know if you would have the opportunity at 81 8 van ness, the artani that we designed and your commission approved four years ag we have the common roof deck and four private roof decks. they're all accessible through public stairs, two stairs. that roof deck is gorgeous. it's got planting on it. it's got beautiful furniture. and the private ones have parapets around them four feet high. you can't see anything. i mean, it's gorgeous and i would encourage you, i'll get you up there if you would like to see a really, really cool roof deck that does exactly what your motion says. i know we can design it. i don't know if we go so far as to be describing what furniture

you can put up there. i think that's gone just a tiny bit too far. i can't control that. i couldn't. >> okay, thank you. commissioner moore. >> at some point people need to talk about the weight of the furniture. i live in the building which has a roof deck. until two years ago people just put furniture in there. when heavy wind comes up as it did two days ago, that furniture goes flying. sooner or later if you all in the planning department are discussing what we will do with this new roof deck for the emerging science of roof decks, dbi problem ~ probably has to weigh in furniture has to be of a certain weight it does not fall over the edge of the building. >> thank you. please call the question. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to approve the project with condition as amended to eliminate independent access from units 61, 63 and 64 to private decks

unless access can be provide via roof hatches and the decks are setback from the roof edge or the private decks are accessed from the common stairs. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> acting zoning administer? >> thank you. i'll close the public hearing on the variance request and take the matter under advisement. >> thank you. i want to thank the public that's been here all day. the commission will take a quick five-minute break. >> sworn. commissioners, you left off at the end of your regular calendar and places you at the beginning of your discretionary review calendar. item 12, case no. case no. 2013.1766dd for 126 18th avenue . one of the drs has been withdrawn.

request for discretionary review. i will remind members of the public that the project team has a five-minute presentation and the d-r team has a five-minute presentation. >> first commissioner fong. >> i actually need ask to be recused within this item as it is within 500 feet of my residence. >> move to recuse. >> second. >> on the motion to recuse, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that passes unanimously 7 to 0. commissioner fong, you are here by recused. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm david lindsay of department staff. the project at 126 18th avenue includes a horizon' addition with a three-story and a one-story component at the rear of the three story single-family house as well as

a one-story vertical addition which would be setback 16 feet from the existing front building wall. the second 19 11 house is located wen lake and california streets [speaker not understood]. the lot is 25 feet wide by 120 feet deep and is within the rh-2 zoning district. the two lots immediately adjacent are identical in area and dimension to the subject property and each is occupied by a three-story single-family house. section 311 notification for the project was conducted in november and two requests for discretionary review were submitted. one request for me to adjacent neighbor. the project sponsor revised the project such that the d-r requestor from the southern neighbor was ultimate will you withdrawn. the remaining d-r requestors are neil and aaron lynch, owners and residents of 122 18th avenue, the property immediately adjacent to the north. concerns raised in their d-r

request include the following. that the scale of the project, the scale of the project is negative impact to the mid-block open space. negative impacts to the d-r requestor's light, air, and privacy. the project is not consistent with the neighborhood context and the project's form and proportion are not cot pat i believe with surrounding houses. the residential design team reviewed the project with regard to both d-r requests and requested revisions to the project to specifically address light, air, and privacy concerns raised by both d-r requestors. along the south property line the project was revised to have side setbacks to the first and second stories resulting in the withdrawal of the southern neighbor's d-r request. along the north property line, the project was revised to include a fire rated roof assembly rather than a tall parapet in the setback of deck railing from the three feet shared property line thus providing separation between

the projects and the d-r requestor's decks and a reduction in height of the one-story rear addition that would extend beyond the d-r requestor's deck. with the project's revisions and the withdrawal of the southern neighbor's d-r request, the rdt did not find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with the remaining d-r requestor's concerns. particularly with regard to light and air access, privacy impacts, neighborhood character, and building scale in relation to the mid-block open area. the rdt noted the following. that light and air access and the building scale in relation to the mid-block open area are addressed by the project's rear addition stepping down toward the rear yard. the rear addition would not extend to an exceptional depth when compared to the depths of both adjacent buildings. with regard to privacy the project is considered to be within the privacy tolerances to be expected when living in a dense urban environment such as san francisco and within the zoning district which