preserve 20 years ago. this is a rendering and a photograph that you have in your packets. the photograph on the left is the house as it is today from across the street on the sidewalk. the rendering on the right is truly what the addition of space that would contain the elevator and the third story edition would look like from the public right of away. and with that, i'm going to ask david to come up and continue presenting. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i might run a minute or two over, but i'd like to to request that time because the two gentlemen

who spoke did not identify themselves as the project sponsors, but indeed they are. with that, i'm passing out to you copies of the categorical exemption for the project which i understand one of the commissioners did not receive. i'm not sure which commissioner, so i'm handing them out to everyone. secondly, i'm handing out a recent letter from the project sponsor to the planning commission. it's dated march 19th last week and the reason i'm handing it out to you is i'm going to read from it. if you look at the sentence following the first paragraph, it says we request your approval of the proposed project. so we have the staff's recommendation not to take dr. i noticed on the agenda, we're

the only one that's recommended as abbreviated and we have a letter of support from the dr requestor for the project subject to 6 conditions which i'm happy to address if you'd like. the first one is moved to elevator by six inches. i don't think we can do that because the size of the elevator. number two is constructing sounds around the elevator and the noise from the elevator comes from the motor and the pump and that's located in the garage which is thick concrete, so this is just a -- it's not necessary and it would also create the need for extra space which we don't have. number three, you asked for solid wall railings.

i think you mean solid wall around the deck, which would really take away the reason for a deck. the next one, four refers to the door and window on the top floor edition. obviously we'd rather not make opeg windows where there's not necessary. there's no side windows on the house. number five, remove the proposed decks. we don't agree to do that. decks are very common throughout the city. and the final one is completely unrelated to the project so with that, i'll be happy to answer any questions, and of course you've

met our project architect mark english if you have questions for him. thank you very much. >> thank you. opening it up for public comment. any supporters in honor of the project sponsor? >> why don't we switch the microphone. thank you. can you hear me now, okay. good afternoon, commissioners, my name is anise arther and i thank you for making

richard's home accessible. we worked together. as a matter of fact, my career has kept me in that field and i'm currently working to insure that disabled people have an equal opportunity to receive services and resources. my family and i have celebrated many holidays and birthday parties and celebrations at richard and pete's home at 18 vicksburg street. it's difficult for me to visit them because of pain. and my dwarfism makes it painful to climb steps. when i visit them, there's 37 steps from the street up to the front door and i am carried. carried, up these 37 steps to the main entry and then another 15 up to the

primary living area of the home. this is not only uncomfortable and painful, but not to mention dangerous for me. however, the situation can be remedied by making this home an accessible one which is what richard and pete would like. just to give you a picture of the entry, each of those 52 steps is the height of my mid thigh and you can't see me, but you have to take my word for that. i ask you, when you would go and visit your friends and climb 52 steps, the height of your mid thigh, how would you feel? would you feel in pain? the first thing you probably think about is what can i do about that to make that better. the city and county of san francisco has always supported accessible housing for seniors and people with disabilities so i urge you to support this project and

insure your long term residents, richard and pete and my friends, the opportunity to continue to live in their home and make it an accessible one. i beat the buzzer. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, members of the planning commission. my name is andre. i'm former director of transportation, civilized department and the american's with disabilities act program. i've practiced here in the city providing guidance to access to public and private programs. i'm here to support the previous speakers, comments on supporting this project and i'm here to support richard and pete's continuance of this project and to insure that they

can live successfully at their current residence. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my husband and i own the house across the street at 21 vicksburg street. and i really am just here to say that i want to support what i felt was a really good process that richard and pete did in terms of letting us in the neighborhood look at the plans. i live across the street. i found nor did my husband that was anything that was going to break this beautiful sense of ascetic for the houses on the other side of the street and i thought that their request in terms of making their residence a place where they can stay in there

for a very long time makes sense. it's a very close net neighborhood, so i'm uncomfortable that i'm not supporting the other neighbor, but i did end up feeling in terms of looking at the plans and caring deeply about what the neighborhood looks like that the plans as they stand are extremely reasonable, and i think really appropriate for people to be able to stay in their home and age in a city like san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is bobby witler and i'm standing here in support of the project. pete and richard who have been friends for us for many years and we share occasions with them and as we get older and older, it gets harder going up the stairs. i appreciate your help.

>> any further comment? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. dr requestor, you have two minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you president wu and commissioners. ryan paterson for the dr requestor. as you've heard, this is basically a good project with a few rough edges that needs refinement. we're completely in support of the accessibility parts of this project adding an elevator, but apart of the project that has nothing to do with accessibility and lots of privacy for the neighbors. we ask that you do address. this is the -- the diagram i'm showing, they're the four decks that's apart of this project. you have a deck here, here, and a deck here, and a deck here. some are handicap accessible, this one

here. the primary deck we're concerned with is this roof top party deck here. it is quite large. this is 225 square feet. in total you have roughly 1,100 square feet of deck in this project which we believe is unnecessary and has a serious impact on the privacy of the neighbors. these decks including this elevated illegal deck here and mr. vascuwich can speak about this. it looks down into our clients property and into the rear cottage. we ask that this deck be required to be legalized and the windows that look straight into the cottage bathroom and bedroom be owe pate. the elevator should be quiet. it shouldn't be quiet

to meet a sound standard like this and you'll see the remainder of my time. >> very quickly. we have records in 86 that shows the deck in the rear yard. a pronounced configuration. this was a fire and -- >> thank you. >> the deck was rebuild and the deck is largely illegal. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you, mark english, again. we have a small lot as was mentioned before, and the decks in the front which are not really decks. they're actually a stairway built with landscaping materials, landscape walls has a series of landings. that's an entry. the rear yard is so small that the deck that was just referred to is the ground level. it is the rear

yard where you can be outdoors. the upper two decks, obviously pushing the third story back from the fasod creates a space that's between the facade and i don't think anyone sees that space. you have in your packet, several renderings that we did of the before and after of the view from the back of what our deck looks like from -- not from anyone's home, but from the backyard. its impact is minimal, and for that reason, i think that you should go ahead and approve the decks the way we have developed them. thank you. >> thank you. the public

hearing portion is closed. commissioner moore. >> i think this is an interesting project. what is remarkable about is, the building recon figures itself in its massive and size in a manner that's comparative with its neighbors. there's two things that i'm not very comfortable with, and one of them is what was addressed as the rear deck over the grade room. if this situation with the ground floor deck can be classified and it's illegal, i have no ability to comment. i would go to the zoning administrator. i would suggest that the deck be removed. i have a question for the architect? and i'm asking for a clarification on your drawing

83.3. if you look at your plan, do you have that in front of you, please? >> drawing 8.83. >> yes. >> you're stepping out of of the bedroom and you're stepping up. that means the door where your client is showing with the lower part at the elevation upper part of the deck, that door sits lower, and i think there is a [inaudible] there. >> the door would sit lower, yes. >> thank you. that's all i wanted to know on that one. i think the other -- it's a lovely house and has all the right things

and i love the accessibility and i don't think the elevator won't impact how the building appears but i cannot support this deck over the great room. it's too massive of a building as it expresses itself. there's privacy concerns. i would like to hear what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner antonini. >> how do you feel about removing that deck and making it smaller? >> i would want to have a quick conversation with my client, but you think that -- it's very important for their enjoyment of the property to have the deck whether the size could be reduced, i think is probably an open conversation. >> so i think there's a

possibilities, yes. >> i take direction from commissioner moore if we could put a deck on there that isn't as large as this one, it may be more acceptable to the commissioner. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i have a different comment. my comment is not directed at the project, my comment is directed at the analysis and in particular, i'm the one who asked staff to pass out the exemption and if there was a historical evaluation report which i did not receive. thank you, mr. silverman for providing one of those documents. and under remarks, it says historic resources and goes into the existing residents which burned and i do not believe is in itself a historic resource at this point, but it is in what could be a historic

district and we have no information about that. there was no analysis of that and i would think that this building would not even be a contributing resource to that district, however, i would think that there would have been some consideration given to an analysis of the impact of the proposed project on the historic district itself. or a potential historic district since i understand this is not a recognized historic district, but under sequa the city does use the word "historic"" all the time. it's just an observation. thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> do you want to talk about the deck? i don't have a huge issue with the deck, but if you set it back from their property line, it may be --

>> i think the greatest impact is if we pull the back of the deck forward towards the street and we're willing to basically reduce it by six feet. >> i don't understand. you'd put the deck rail -- >> pull the deck rail back six feet from where it is now towards the east. >> towards the street. >> yes. >> that would be acceptable. so they're moving it six feet from the rear property. >> commissioner antonini. >> if i looking at 822, you're 24 nine and bringing it back 18 nine. am i looking at the right deck there. >> the deck at the back at the top of the sheet, you'll see a rectangle, that has an existing sky light. >> so you go from a 16 foot

five inch deck to an 11 inch. >> we would go to ten feet. >> the other one, okay. that sounds pretty good. >> six plus feet. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'd move to take the r and reduce the deck as specified. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i think it is not -- i'm sorry for asking you to stop one moment. this is not just we're pulling the deck back. the deck sits on top of a grade room which is taller, that's when you come out of the bedroom, you have to walk up five or six stairs to go to the deck and it's a massive tall room below and there's a deck on top which makes it awkward because you have a building which is on the up slope, and

that's why the thing looks overwhelming in the backyard. if this room is a great room, it would be lower and it would be a regular floor size and you would walk out level out of the bedroom, but you don't, but it would be a separate story and it's going up five stairs which is a lot of space to get to this thing. >> may i address that. >> it's still lower than the height of that edition. >> correct. >> i want to address a couple of things. again, if you look at the renderings, if you imagine the back wall moving six or seven feet forward towards the street, it's barely accessible from anyone's rear yard, so i don't know where the idea of massiveness comes in. i would say this, and this is an architectural concept, that great room has a room and it's a beautiful volume and we have to make trade-offs between neighbors and so forth, but i think if we move the wall

forward, the deck edge, don't sacrifice the beautiful space from the city. it has been published and people love it for no clear reason. i think we really should go ahead and maintain that volume and pull the deck back, which will solve the problem. >> commissioners, there's a motion and a second on the floor including a condition or as amended -- reduce the deck floor to ten feet. on that note, commissioner moore. >> no. speaker: commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner president wu. >> no. >> move commissioners, that motion passes 5-2 commissioners

moore and wu. commissioners that will place you on 18 a and b for case numbers 20.13 and 2414.093, d. 439 alvarado street. discretionary reviews. >> good evening commissioners. michael smith planning department staff. you have a discretionary review for a single family dwelling between nowy and sanchez street. it contains three bedrooms and approximately 1680 square feet of habitable area with no off

street parking. the replacement building will provide one dwelling unit of habitable area with a two car garage. it's a sound structure, but in need of deferred maintenance. none of the deferred main maintenance is due to the current proper owners. this project began as an alteration, which proposed to raise the building five feet to create a basement level garage and construct a multi rear edition. after the department review, that the project would result in the demolition require a variance and possibly exceed the permitted height limit for the district. instead the sponsored pursued the demolition. and no separate dr's were filed on this project

-- a neighborhood that is characterized by one and two dwelling. this would be dislocate tenants. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any comments or questions. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time today. my name is david armor and i'm the architect for the project. a photo of the home as it currently stands right now. as michael was saying, the project was a renovation and demolition. after considerable effort was made and the building permit filed to expand

and improve the house. to seek a permit was -- it has increased the project cost, but the owners feels this is the most sensible approach. the owners are local restaurant tourist and they have three children and desire a family home to accommodate multi generation as their family ages. the house was appraised for $1.65 million. there's a copy of that appraisal. it's difficult to read. and the owners asked me to design a renovation that would be sensitive to the history and patterns of homes in the neighborhood and this is the original lead proposed design which michael said included lifting the existing building five feet and expanding it and adding a

garage and ground floor living area for the grandparents. so we followed the applications and as we got a categorical evaluation from sequa and talking to the contractors about the cost and the feasibility of lifting a building that's touching both of its immediate neighbors, it became apparent that the taller building to the west is maybe not super clear to see here, but the building to the left is leaning over the property line and pinning it in place. and this is going to trigger additional demolition to free the building which is where, as michael said, the building is a full demolition. and it would be a lot of undermining of the structure and a lot of costly and mitigation measures to left the building as well as rebuilding the

demolished building and floors and complicating the construction. we talked to michael about what was going on and the owners decided they would seek a demolition permit and seek to build almost the same house we originally tried to do as a renovation. there's an image of the proposed design. the modification to the front, we had a roof but that was going to trigger a variance because the house is in the front and raising the structure would be above the height limit, so the new building design to not require a variance and we set the roof back with a hip roof. there's the before and after subject property in the center, taking it from adjacent structures and window patterns. and michael said, the immediate neighbors provided letters of support for the project.

the neighbors to the east wrote a letter supporting the project. they're considering a rear edition and we work with them and looked at their preliminary designs to factor in their hopes for modification with that. and the neighbor to the south directly to the rear wrote a very enthusiastic letter and he's been concerned about the condition of the property for a long time and he's happy to see something is going to happen. and at 443 alvarado. we worked with them to reduce the foot print of the roof deck at obscured glazing and ultimately they were satisfied and

didn't have any further comments. no objections to the project have been brought to our attention as a new construction project or renovation project. as michael says, the department supports the applications and the owners are excited for the vision of their new home and ask for your support. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> this is a remarkable job. when i first looked at this, i was confused and i thought what was the before and what was the after because the after looks so much better than the before was and it certainly and completely in context and style of the entire street shows it can be done despite what we hear from buildings and putting someth