difficult process i had a basing baby 3 months ago and we're a family trying to build a house here you know every block has been put against us, please let us move forward. >> public comment is closed. >> this is a good project despite the exclaims the dr requester says it's a massive square footage that the dr requesters and it is lower in height than the dr requester if there's my question about that the architect mr. learner is come up and part of the approval will be 8 and a half inches lower to take care of discretion in murray that might occur to

that keeps that in place are there other speaker in opposition talked about private views that are not protected and added concerns about impacts foundation impacts from construction for the department of building inspection and as also the builder is liable to not effect any of the adjacent properties but that's not before us there's a lot to support most of names were read so it's a huge amount of neighborhood support they've provided a 5 foot set back all the way around most of the top of the floor and the process and light wells meet the standards that the residential design team is requesting now the rear yards extension the existing property

is shorter so it is only conforming to what's there if it's taking away any of the so-called yard it was the province of this this the others have capacity into this area it's up to the zoning administrator for the surveillance but i feel that e has been appointment have a narrow lot to be able to build a house that meets the needs of the family we need to be back further and up higher the par fit is conceptual and there's questions of light and air 308 and 310 green are to the east of 312 green therefore the sun will come to them first and it's pretty hard for a property

for the north west for a property to block the light that didn't say have any impact of shadow other than the dr requester i'm very much in favor and see what the other commissioners i'm going to move to not take dr and approve. >> commissioner johnson and i agree with commissioner antonini's proposal of the project i have a couple of questions first of all, thanks for the candy's to bring their i babies it is the first for the commission to have a baby here (laughter) but i think this was great again, i agree with commissioner antonini's assessment i won't repeat first, the legislation that will be the administration process for the physical changes to a property that accounts for

handicaps or changes i know i read in the report that this building included an elevator and so my question to the project sponsor is is this elevator for accounting for a particular handicap or particular issue and to the zoning administrator if this legislation passed we'll be looking at something different. >> ascertainment was a big deal for the project my mother can't actually come into this 0 house as it stands she can't walk up one flight of stairs meier my parents a parents are european it's important to take care of them in their twilight this is important and the elevator addresses that issue.

>> to the zoning administrator you're familiar with the legislation. >> are you refer to the accomodation legislation. >> yes. >> part of that legislation will do is that relative to this case is help provide for administration surveillance and modifications for people with disabilities so without looking at specifically at the details this is the type of project that could potentially take advantage of that if it were passed. >> in my mind if that were to pass that would sort of easy a little bit of our decision making because the elevator pushes out the stairwell. >> just to be specific it will be focused on the issues for example, the elevator itself will not entirely for the project to make it more praufbl

so for the height and scale will not included. >> it is related in terms of overall philosophy that and second thing this is sort of a question commissioner president wu and i don't get the documents the city attorney is not here anywhere but i want to make sure we don't have issues because of the online. >> commissioner johnson in response to that no code requirement to have the plans or the packet linked to the agenda we do that as a occurredcy. >> and so everyone knows commissioner president wu and i reviewed the plans so and then

on the height so this is the there's a guardrail on the top a rooftop patio and i'll ask the zoning administrator do we have an issue with the height there is a back and forth on the height that changes the building can you clarify. >> two issues that were raised one is the issue the guardrail and there are certain building features accepted from the height so the par fit railing this is code compliant and the other issue if i understand it correctly the actual plan slithd marketplaces the slabs of the ground floor of the garage and would actually result in the building as drawn being 8 inches higher this is something they

have the widen room within the design to contributory negligence correct that for construction you don't have to the accurate that can be taken care of. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess the question of mr. t this is navigate a demolition do you have a comment. >> the project planner and their periphery reviewed that and determined that was not, in fact, an issue. >> i guess one of the things i understand is the liveability i've lived in a house that was literally 4 stories but yards you all around me i lived in a tower and the buildings were much turn around it felt like i

was in a canyon but there are liveable situations i see the height but not comfortable with the rear yard it is basically two intense i'll not support the motion as is can i ask the zoning administrator to make a comments i know the surveillance is within our house. >> so there are two different issues the discretionary review is over all design and the design guidelines the only matter for the surveillance is the third floor which extends roughly that 10 feet and the stairs going from the third floor to the fourth floor roof to access that deck that falls

within the rear yard as noted there are some peculiar issues it is the smaurltd parcel on the block it has not the width so the area is limited the existing building that is under is is a two-story building that has limited air in the rear of the building so it has that constraint as well there was an issue about the appropriate scale raised i think it should be interesting if you took who was permitted in the code in terms of 75 percent lot coverage that is the 35 square feet and they're proposing thirty thousand square feet it will not be more development than the code will permit

not takes into account any other design issues in terms of raw square footage permitted under the code there's specific hardships on the site that makes the rear yard surveillance perhaps for reasonable than some. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i wanted to make sure i understand my motion that allows for the reduction of the 8 inches to bring the project into conformity with the measurement in either way i believe that's something that be done administratively if anyone wants to challenge the motion did include the reduction by means of reducing the front of main floor height i believe you said 8 and a half inches; is that correct mr. learner okay. thank you. >> commissioner richards

i want to be clear we were talking about will a 3 hundred plus square footage a little hair cut would make me supportive thank you. >> the project sponsor can you ask you about that issue out of curiosity you're kind of can destructive either way i'm supportive. >> can i have at overhead plea please. >> i'll start with that right here

what i'd like to point out our building exists in a valley between the two soft story building and this surveillance is in between this you know two-story wall on the east side and this one story wall which is the fourth floor of the third floor of the adjacent neighbor on the other side i mean, if you stand up on the roof you're in shade the two-story roof you're in shade all day so we we've tucked this into the space in between the two buildings and added the open space on take off of the third floor this encroachment we're not impacting the buildings i think i've shown

you with this affirmative this outline is where the variance request is so it's a big deal to us because this house has been very poor light and this is the essential outdoor space of the building. >> well, thank you for your comments yeah. i think i think so i do not agree you have to go back you don't come out on the ground floor and you're out on the upper floors where the variance come into play that area i was referring to was the average between distance between the dr requesters rear

lot line and the adjacent neighbors lot line so that's using the planning department. >> that's supposed to be done. >> yeah. i'll agree you with you don't have to cut anywhere in my opinion. >> i appreciate the clarification. >> thank you, thank you. >> commissioner richards i appreciate the classification. >> thank you. >> commissioners, we have a motion and a second to not take dr and approve as is. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu snoemdz unanimously 6 to zero and places you on. >> close the public comment grant the variance with the

reasons previous stated. >> thank you zoning administrator and that will place us on item 14 at 2809 on polk this is is a kwe6 an abbreviated one. >> i'm carli planning staff the item before you is a request for discretionary review for building permit at 2809 through 11 possible street in a 40 x heightened district it includes a one story height and deck and 4 foot decrease on an existing 4 story this and has a configuration including an additional of an elevator the

person who royals subject adjacent to the public filed a discretionary review mr. the gentleman states he is concerned that increasing the building area will be out of character and the 3 story will block whatever light that is enjoyed by the residents the project sponsor says the dr requesters property is blocking its own air and it is respectful the neighbors to date the department has one letter of support and one of opposition both from adjacent neighbors those communications were received after our packet were delivered the request for a discretionary review was presented for review and they determined no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances by the promoted project the

department represents the commission does not take discretionary review that concludes my presentation. >> thank you dr requester. >> good evening, commissioners i'm gus and i'm here presenting the dr requester project as we have it is quite simple and straightforward but complicated too basically before

we go any further the neighborhood that met today i mean last week overwhelming rejected this project they've agreed i'm going to give you you the summary they've agreed on having him extend his property towards the rear about 12 feet and to the front about 5 feet as he actually just did at all levels this building is two stories and the front and 4 stories in the back because it is sloopz down what that does that put the neighbors next door in the complete darkness seep e especially on the ground floor and the people across the street are very much against it one

woman was screaming and i said look let's go to go the commission first. >> what we have the first one they believe in the first time it doesn't matter if you look at the photograph number one you have in front of you the okay. you see this area that is the neighbors property where the roof-deck is supposed to be beyond that roof-deck is coming in this direction is the fifth floor there's to have towards the back it is going to have a

deck in the front and back what this side the front deck is looking into the houses here and those are out to get this thing rejected the neighbors are and beyond in the the income tax be neighbors windows and some of the windows that are going to be effected you can stand in that fifth floor and see directly into the kitchen into the living room and into the bedroom some of the bedrooms of this neighbor's house right now as you can see the next issue they have above the privacy and time is going darkness they're already in by having the fifth floor here they'll have no more darkness this picture is about tech 4 three, one 43 the sun is coming

over to them there are 2 floors down this area is looking down they harder receive any light at all with the fifth floor even the little utilize is going to be that demolished as you can see this is about 315 in the afternoon and only have light about one hour those say the living room i mean thought the bedroom and basically as you can see this lymph and kitchen this is another bedroom here and this is a duplicate of the first thing now if you go to the back and see what is there basically, you know that it is 4

stories at the back and they're to pull back on this building by 12 feet going closer to the neighbor we have a lot of people that came here but a lot of the people didn't know this meeting was going to be so long they've left so they're going to close the window and if they put any more edition an top so basically, that's - and sir, your time is up. >> i just want to. >> your time is up. >> excuse me. >> your time is up. >> okay opening it up for public comment for those supporting the dr requester.

>> hi, i'm phillip i've been living here for over a decade where i live with my wife and two dates a couple of objections to the proposal first, i want to say i'm okay with them coming back i can look at the lower floors i can understand the desire to make that downstairs more useful but my objection is for the box on the top and the two decks my concern is privacy two windows that go that way and the air and light that's in part we're on substandard lots i'm not only surround by 5 neighbors to the west you have they have a full

lot so they have either side a big long yard and i have 30 houses that are directly west of me and this one that wants to go up higher and one to the west and next to the house across i'm surrounded by 5 other structures and i'm just thinking going up higher and addressing more and deck outside where our bedroom is going to be will invade our privacy and the light and air issues so i want to talk about the trend of boxes, you know, real estate in san francisco is so expensive so it makes sense to squeeze as much square

footage into 0 space or not the problem with the boxes popping up they're totally out of character with the architecture of the neighborhood and two they put what we do you squeeze that space and block the views and the next guy wants to build a box it created a lot of discovered in the neighborhood when i bought my house we have a deck off our kitchen and the original plans were to allow us to enclosure that when they did the remodel we elected not to because we didn't want to compromise our verifies i think this is something that doesn't - it's a larger issue the architecture of the box and the discovered to the neighbors that is a build out but don't go up

and create the discovered among the neighbors. >> thank you is there any additional public comment? good evening members of the committee >> excuse me. as the dr requester our representative took our time you can speak in our two minute rebuttal end. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment is there any additional public comment okay project sponsor our team has 5 minutes. >> good evening president and members of the committee i'm virginia we're presenting with the studio presenting the owner the subject property as previously stated the project is on polk street and we're here

in robbers to a dr that was filed on july 21st this is dr requester to the left of the subject property and the dr requester has made 3 points i'd like to respond to in his dr request the first was that pointed out that the lot we have is substandard and increasing the size of the building is out of character i want to point out that we've done a survey of the maps in the area there is a wide variety of the lots and the requester is the same depth as

our subject property we also have an aerial view of the google's maps this shows a wide variety of the apartment complexed on the subject lot in the neighborhood so we feel we're in keeping with the subject of the neighborhood pattern second point that the gentleman made is that the subject property is block his light and air and we can show from it this photograph he's in shadow by the structure of the existing structure in addition the subject properties is located north to the dr requester and casts a

shadow on the property and the third point that the gentleman made is that if it was more a space for a view person looking for then you'll support the variance for the edition but going further into the lot will be in contradiction to his first point which is to say the lot is substandard but to go further is a negative to the property we've been actually very counter of the dr requesters light and air we've set back the front of the property by 15 foot to allow for his