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 something that looks like it

came from out of space with a lot of victorians, so my compliments to what seems to be a well designed replacement residence. we move to not take dr and approve. >> seconds. >> commissioner moore. >> i think it's a suitable replacement and i think it's wonderful. what you want to acknowledge is an absolutely great drawings and it does everything that's expected and it's easy to understand and readable and i want to make a note of that, because this is good examples. >> commissioner, there is a motion and a second to not take the dr and approve the project as proposed. >> commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> and commissioner wu.

>> that motion passes unanimously 7-0. that places you on your final agenda item, number 19. i want to make sure that covered both a and b for construction, yes. commissioners, it will place you on item 19, 20.1362 d. for 362 suffix street: >> good afternoon, southwest team leader. project 37 sussex street. it's a three inch rear addition at the level. a first floor -- first story addition and second addition deck. the resident reviewed the project following the dr project saying it was consistent with the guidelines and the building wall will not impact the open

space. this wall is the same depth as the rear building wall. no setback was necessary due to the 8 foot setback for their sidewalk and it has access to the mid block. the roof deck will be set deck five feet pack and it won't have any impact on the privacy. there are no exceptional circumstances and we ask to approve this building. >> thank you. >> dr sequester, your team has five minutes. >> good evening, my name is council usef. we filed this dr because of lack of communication and

refusal to mediate with us. we filed with dr in response to address any of our concerns in the pre-application plans. on your hand down screen, there's a table of issues raised, communication and design changes. the communication issues from the beginning and we were giving a drawing and we reviewed with the architect. the architect asked what we wanted. we sent our concerns to the architect and we had no followup or any acknowledge from either party. [inaudible] next set of drawings in april of 2013 and near the sponsor or the architect understood our concerns. every change made to the issues and any subsequent changes on further design reviews

remain to the interior and nothing to the exterior. a reduction of floor to floor height in the depth of the building and we ask that the building height is lowered. the design was no response height. we commented on the next interior staff in the basement and it added to the massive. it was to relocate it and add an exterior stair. this shows the interior stair and the basement as suggested a second unit and added. the response is relocated. they have the same function and ten feet apart. there's the new and old stairs. the reduction deck was to meet zoning code so the rear exterior staircase could be add. we asked for those to the west to be increased.

there were privacy for the windows facing east. these would look directly into the windows at 366 sussex. we request for these to be moved. four windows to be added. something else to consider is this balcony will earn to the east. these properties are on a steep up slope. our house to the west is a window set low. the extending rear of our house is built into the hillside and have a setback of eight feet. our windows bring natural light into a darkroom below. the neighbors to our west did the same for us and we expected the same from the project sponsor. the sponsor documented an appeal in 2005. the sponsor eliminating the setback [inaudible] total lack of consideration. our house in

recent remodel is low at the backyard to minimize the elevation to adjoining neighbors. the sponsors has taken the opposite approach to reach the desirable height having unnecessary height increase. it will take too many light from us and create a dark corridor. this edition will not prevent neighboring to have privacy. i have talked to the replaced east deck and added windows. i would like to address the reduction in the light. you look at the studies in your packet, it shows that currently at the sussex, we have sunlight to our windows all morning. the property lines will reduce our morning light by five hours, which is all the morning sun. the winter sul sus is not better. if the proposed way

setback and lowered, it would a better impact. we would hope to see any extension climbing which would be compatible with all neighboring homes on the block. this proposal does not meet the guidelines. we would like to have the opportunity to discuss these options with the sponsor and hopefully come up with a solution that meets the sponsor's stage requirement and address our concerns. thank you. >> thank you. speakers in support of the dr, i have two cards. bosnic and daniel wright. >> hi, my name is daniel wright and i live two houses to the

east of the subject property. my participation started during the pre-application meeting. in my view of the design has been a moving target expanding and hitting along a for seeable path with limited explanations for the changes as the dr requestor elevated. the major design changes to the house along with the interpretations of the residential guidelines, things were overlooked. the first -- the pre-application plan and we had issues with the plan, it addressed regulatory issues since there was a strong influence on this project if the -- it's in response to

the emergency requirements and earthquake look. subsequent changes to the project on the 3-11 submission do not take into account the existing bedroom requires emergency access. the bedroom requires a window of the secretary size and access to a minimum of three foot by ten and neither which is shown. after incorporating the light well, the next part of the requirement is disruptive to the envelope. the building code requires direct access to a public yard from the light well. this building code administration 18 is unambiguous of this requirement and the department planning letters -- the front of the back of the house does not enter the house

is required. ab 18 does provide measures to meet this regulation, assuming the equivalent see act is approved. conforming with the alternative relationship to the size of the project, it requires the 3,000 square feet. there's also additional fire construction from a ladder. none of this is shown and probably not as tis -- probably not anticipated. a two story two way moment resisting steel frame would be required. rarely with this type of framing be employed on this nature to the high cost relative to the benefit and it's unlikely [inaudible]. assuming that the structural design -- >> sir, your time is up. >> sorry.

>> thank you. >> commissioners, i have a hand out of slides that i want to present. my name is bosnic. i am -- i live in 366 sussex street which is to the east of the sponsor's house, and i'm the owner, and the neighbor as i said to the east of 372 sussex. i'm speaking in support of this review for two reasons. one is the issue that the dr requestor made. one of the major ones for me is east privacy issue. the windows and glass door faced my bedroom, my rear yard and the cottage. the

second reason is the fact that the sponsor made no effort to engage with myself and other neighbors in responding to our concerns. i believe that if she did engage in the dialogue, this dr would have been avoided. there's simple solutions that meet requirements and our concerns, and i would like to demonstrate the few. so sponsors request is family room, two bedrooms and one of the master bedroom integrating existing house with addition and a roof turf. our issues with how proposed design meets this requirements are there's no west setback, east privacy directly overlooking my bedroom and my backyard and the cottage, added volume to the building with two added

stairs, one interior, one exterior and this is treated as if this is a multi unit building and a level three roof turf. all of them add to both the massive and the issues the setbacks and privacy. ultimate ideas that respond to sponsors requirements and our concerns move the addition to the east property boundary. that will alleviate east privacies on my side and give a setback to 378 sussex street. use stairs to connect anterior and create a roof turf at the level two, what you see in the packets and it's the existing level two turf that the sponsor has. rather than

adding existing stairs and building a roof deck on top of the new addition, sponsor can easily use the level two deck. work in the grade in the way that dr requestor responded. >> thank you. >> in conclusion -- >> ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you. are there additional speaker in support of the dr? okay. project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is marie and i'm a native of san francisco and grew up in the sunset district graduating from cal berkeley. i made san francisco my home for over 26

years. my home is a 1930 style home with high ceilings and a small room. this addition is important to me for three reasons. my dad is getting older and i need to expand so my can stay with me for extended periods of time and the grand kids can visit with their grandfather. this has been a dream for me and the family to modernize the home with a clean and simple edition. i saved up enough money to make this dream an addition. i can't wait to stand on the roof and take in that fresh air and enjoy the views and watch the stars. dreams can come true in san francisco. this is a priority for the city. third, i need to address the mold and the moss and the water proof issues. this is a single

family residential project. glen park is an urban neighborhood with wonderful character, however, it does not have any single rhyme. the character of the block will not change as the addition will be setback 40 feet so minimal visible from the walkway and the street. working with the architect, we developed the plans and the plans were reviewed with the neighbors and presented to the san francisco planning. there was issuing with the neighbors and the planning department. we work directly with san francisco planning, doug wu to guide us through what changes were needed and how to make those changes to meet residential design guidelines and code and neighbor concerns. throughout the process, we went back and forth with the neighbors, doug and the architect. i communicated with the neighbors by providing updates plans whether they asked for it or not. the neighbor -- the neighbors would provide feedback directory to the planner, doug

would diligently address their questions and explain how the changes met residential guidelines and code. i let the neighbors know i was available for questions and asked for any ideas that would make the projects more beneficial to them. no calls or ideas were received. i incurred over $8,000 cost in architectural cost doing four different designs and reduced it by $100,000. the square footage was calculated through red fin. any further reductions or major changes will make this project not feasible to move forward due to financial issues. the over head shows the outcome of the meeting with the san francisco planner, the architect and the neighbor's feedback. nothing exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. the rear yard maintains the 25 percent free space. light and privacy,

again, not exception or or extraordinary. removed all western windows for the privacy for catherine and andre. added a wall. provided a stuck co-wall. i reduced the depth of the building to match catherine and andre's rear wall. setback five feet on the second floor for the interior length. from the roof top perspective, it's not extraordinary. there's no changes to the front of the house. the roof line is less than the 40 foot height requirement. and the addition is setback 40 feet from the front of the house, so it's minimal from the street. from character to detail, it's not

exceptional or extraordinary. the home is stucco and i changed the window it match the house character. the regulatory is full compliant and meets the code. in summary, i've not done anything that's extraordinary. and it complies with the guidelines. take the recommendation by the planning department and support the project as is and deny the dr. thank you. >> thank you. any speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is kevin anderson, and

i've been a resident of san francisco for 22 years and i'm a strong believer in the right of people to enjoy their own homes. and so i've known marie for a few years. the process for this project has been under way for a year and a half. it provides abundant effort that's the neighbors were involved in the process. changes have been made to accommodate their concerns. these evidents are manifested throughout the application. the submitted letters and the dr itself have a certain saneness about them. there are consistent themes in all of the objections. two are untrue and one is perhaps unfortunately true. untrue is the repeated claim that the geometry of the plan is to the front of the scale and the character of the

neighborhood. the photo of the building facade which isn't being shown there, labeled photo demonstrates it would not be visible from the street view. if you were standing in front of that house and the addition were added, you wouldn't see the addition. you might see the top of a rail but that would be barely visible over the crest of the house. the addition is setback 30 feet from the fa sad. when reviewed from a sidewalk, you wouldn't see it at all. i've looked at sussex street, multiple photos available in the package that the planning department put together that show that there's a variety of architectural styles and bulking and so there's nothing unusual about this addition by any stretch of

injury imagination. the project itself presents a smaller image to the street than most of the neighbors additions and three of the neighbors within the block who have submitted letters against this project actually they have bulkier, greater square foot frontages than this project does. so what i would say is the residential design team who reviewed this project are professionals and they understand the materials that have been presented in this matter, and they understand the relevant codes and the objective rights of the project sponsor. nearby neighbors in the greater community, they have letters from all parties. >> thank you. >> i'm determined this project

-- >> sir, your time is up. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm mark barnes and i'm a friend of marie. she asked me to watch over this project. i've had extensive experience in construction doing high rise downtown, doing litigation and i'm kind of shocked the way it went. we started out offering the plans to the neighbors. we got back negative comments. we realized that one point that were standing in front of the planning department and they're fighting us and the neighbors are fighting us, so we decided to maintain the guidelines of the city of san francisco, and we withdraw

the extension which allowed us to make the stairs work on the interior and somehow the way that the neighbors complained and the way we changed the project to solve those problems arrived in what maric really likes so each time they required us to take something off either the city or the neighbors, we took it off and tried to figure out a way to make it a little better and we really tried to respect everybody's privacy. zarona, when you look off the deck, it's four feet. it's this high. if you stand on it, you're looking into what zarona is a cottage but it's permitted as a storage shack and this idea -- this idea is

mare is building an illegal unit and no one would talk to her. we expected all these calls and neighborhood is professional architects. they're professionals and they're going to tell you to do things. it didn't happen. it was negative. they know how to add value to a project but they know how to take it away. the idea of their suggestions, if marie does those suggestions, it adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to project. so it's like we're offering you suggests, but if you do them, you can't do the project. where do you go with that? i think that the planning department when we worked with them were very helpful. and thank goodness that there's a commission here because this neighborhood stuff, when

it's a neighborhood of architects, they got there's, but marie is not an architect, so she's kind of outsider, but she's live there 26 years. they're all new people. >> thank you. >> hey, dr requestor, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> the first set of drawings that we received looked like this. >> put it down face up. >> it's up now. that was the first design we received. we made comments that it was too high, and we made comments that it was to be setback in consideration for her and we made comments that the windows to the east that look directly into the yard and

bedrooms of 366 sussex. the response was a building that was different. it's a different design. it warranted to go back to pre-application. it doesn't bare necessity resemblance to this design or related to this first project. the response from the project sponsor was to add a deck and add more windows and add a balcony and push the massing out the property lines. we were asked for a reduction on everything. as the correspondence from this project sponsor and it was total silence from the pre-application. there were little note from her and every subsequent design review did absolutely nothing to the exterior of this building. we were asking for reduction. everything was being added on. here's a list of correspondence from us throughout the whole process that you have in

your package. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> thank you. it's unfortunate that the neighbors have been misinformed about this particular project. the phone never rang and i never spoke with any of the neighbors. i never had the opportunity to talk to them about this particular project. i never said anything bad about anybody and i don't understand why i'm getting all this an mossity. the themes that came out from the neighbors were the 311 notice. i didn't create the 311 notice and i wasn't responsible for the content. there's suggestion that i'm building a separate unit is wrong. i am not, i'm creating an expanded family home so that my father can stay with me. in terms of this -- the mid block open space and scale, it is about

exceptional. the addition matches the neighbors rear building wall and that has resolved the issue. i think pictures say a thousand words, so i'll display this picture. two-doors down at this house, this is a new addition that went up and that is massive. it's nowhere near what i'm trying to build. it's 18 percent larger of mine in terms of their addition. so in summary, the requestor has failed to prove that the addition is considered extraordinary and circumstances. i have acted in good faith and i respectfully ask that the commission takes the planning recommendation and approve the plan and deny the dr. >>