perhaps comment more but it was pretty amazing to be on the roof and the freeway you couldn't sense the impact. >> i actually was supportive because of the building right next to the bay bridge i've not noticed that personally i was thinking about the ventilation i know what you're talking about that is more appealing and the seating is away from the highway and you're not breathing in the highway air. >> and so i want to let the arithmetic talk about that one for the record we're going to be filtering so the roof decks you're asking about again i'll

let the designers talk about it i will continue to look at the dimensions between the roof deck we can do a lot of things with the design and as a potential resident as commissioner moore was interested in moving in if commissioner moore moves in we'll be happy the choice to have a roof deck it feels different not being able to offer that amenity but there's a lot of things the park is across the street and courtyards that people will be free to use rather than depraif of another amenity the street side nice south facing we think those will be well-used and appreciated

amenity and you know we can do what we do given the site - >> before the architect comes up i think you've answered my question the roof deck or no one for building b or c i'll say keep it it adds to the kraks of the building and where people are and the community this and the block i would say that i start noticing that people are not using it going back to my comments put a fan up there or something to ohmmeter those responses. >> i appreciate the comments that is a good comment and suggestion to think about we're as far away the rooftop are 50 feet away from the roof deck it is about a variety of open space

with the public and private envelope i think it is tough to do much more in particular from the freeway so most of it will fall closer to the freeway we've done what we can in terms of placing those roof decks. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm going to move if i can an intent to adapt the sequa findings. >> the motion to intent to approve would be better with a coupled with a meeting in january. >> there's a motion to intent to approve the authorization and also my motion to continue to continuance to january 8th, 2015. >> second and commissioner

richards. >> i think you pretty much hit a home run i like the 3 architects i wish scott wiener we had larger projects that had this confluence of design i like the amenities the courtyards are setting a standard what i look for in large projects in the future this is a wow. standard i like urging the local firms for hire i have a question on the rental affordability i know when we have affordability maybe director ram or staff sir, you, help refresh my memory. >> they've agreed to pay the affordable housing fee if on site they'll have to have a hawkins agreement in place as well as the affordable housing agreement and the only option on

site the hallway sins e kins agreement the city grants them exceptional zoning congressman's or amenities in zoning because of court rulings at the state level we certainly can't require that but they have the restrictions in providing on site unless exceptional amenity the city is providing for them thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> well, i would add i've worked open parcel c without you dividing it up it's been interesting drooefg by and seeing it go up i think i did a better job that one look good also but thank you - >> we have the scaffolding coming down and owens look more

distinct than did other one change the facade and make it look different without it backing b.c. being a different building you go the next step its a project when we do larger projects thank you to the d dog patch. >> i want the department to hold is an additional discussion on the western facade i'm not talking about the chronicle - when you see it ten times we can add a tweak of something else i'll deeply appreciate that the building separation you're doing with caution is not particularly

deep so there is still the feeling when you drive it is just one building think about it one more time and expand the conversation i'm not quite sure we have all the makers the motion. >> yes. i'll accept that a suggestion to work with staff on. >> is that amenable. >> thank you, commissioners. >> you want to pasture make sure does the gentleman have questions. >> i think i understand work on refinancing the highway facade that articulates the 3 distinct mass and that could be subtle it can be not in coloring i leave

that up to and discretionary and with conditions that the project sponsor continue working with staff on the design for it the freeway side continuing to january 8th commissioner antonini arrest commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and place you on our discretion. >> we'll take a real quick 5 minute break. >> december 18, 2014, i would of the public and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners we left off in our

discretionary review calendar item 14 at is that stein street under the discretionary review. >> again and again good evening i've david lindsey of the department staff this is a discretionary review of a building permit application that proposed a two-story in addition 2 1/2 story over garage family house the third story and the addition the project will add approximately, six hundred and 60 feet of space to the house located mid block on steiner street between back to the drawing board in the pacific heights the subject block faces slops laterally north and south

the project compiles with the planning code and consistent with the guidelines and the notification neighborhood notification was initialed on september of 22 the request for discretionary review was submitted by the owner and resident on sterner streetcar north of the subject property the department received four letters of opposition if to the project 3 from vallejo street and one prove or disprove on steiner street since the staff analysis was distributed one letter from a neighbor in addition to the letter of support from the neighbor in the

24 hundred street of vallejo street the dr requesters concerns are the project creates a shadow and impacts on the property and not respectful of typography and didn't respect the projects floor deck exceeds his and incapable with the middle block pattern of this block and following the discretionary review the project was reviewed by the residential design team it was a reasonable expansion that sets up to the light of dr requesters property are reasonable and that project privacy is minimal the project is not creating extraordinarily

circumstances and approve the project as proposed. >> dr requester our team has 5 minutes. >> jose as may we have the screen on and leave it on for the duration of 5 minutes. >> good evening commissioner president wu and members of the commission i'm joe butler an architect since march our team has their family room are set back from the common property line downhill and to the north of the sponsor the 311 plans

property to extend a green house edition on the property line i advised them to read the residential guidelines he quote to me the residential guidelines address the common guidelines of residential design all permits must imply with the residential design guidelines and they having must comply with the principle one principle says place the this on the site to respond to the topographic i didn't those quotations suggested to him that the microphone might negotiate an young and old model we presented our they have in issue with the design in spite of wavrn the

sponsors the lot exceeding 20 percent that might require additional environmental review our 3-d model graefg utilizes the center image of the forms of envelopes the existing at the top and the permit application at the bottom and our compromise in the middle it casts shadows into the cigarette butt as you can see from our exits the envelope is the same square feet and accomplishes the same program as their preapplication plan on loots that looerl step down the hill it should minimize the impact open the downhill principle additional depth against a gasping and have first floor

wall not over on the property line looked the first and second floor of the set back understanding windows at our first meeting in june the sponsors architects prepared a recession that moved the rear edition to the second floor it was a pro tem start it showdown flexibility before i left i ask would we meet again and in july the 3 envelope backing became larger we reached out to the height is association and presented our envelope our envelope flipped the same size first floor and employed a bay window reducing the feet beyond the blue like that the

rear walls form a nearly western edge to the middle block open space planning staff use this blue line and evaluates the code radiation the pink area the second story is on the line but the first floor becomes the first addition break admittedly within the envelope are typically approved because in their no different than a 10 foot fence but it excelling exceeds the lateral sleep the zero lot line placement to my clients yard sponsors brief proposes a return to the envelope it is described as a generous offer to the

neighbor finally both sides agree this commission should take discretionary review why? because tyler a offer has not been filed without the dr their general reiterate goes away when changes would make the best upper design we urge you to take dr and respectfully suggest our compromise envelope be adapted as the site envelope i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you opening for public comment in support of dr (calling names). >> hi, i'm karin and i live two doors from the sponsor house on the downside the - on the design doors down from the

sponsor i have a problem with my eye and light i highly be object to the property plan the sponsors plan to build his basement is on the downhill it's my affordable units they're not going to have set backs if this is approved i'm afraid it is going to set a precedent on a direct impact on my property then 2728 steiner if he wanted to sell his house the new owner can initiate a project that will have a devastation on any life

therefore i respectfully request you do not approve that project as simpleminded. >> my son is an architect based on what we told me and according the san francisco guidelines one has to respect the typography of the site and the surrounding areas it's apparent if the project sponsors precede with the construction that's being as being proposed their violating the san francisco design guidelines best way for sponsor to proceed with the addition to build the addition on the other side of the property on the uphill i've lived with may late husband for 28 years this is a truly

neighborly friendly place we have quarterly parties and discussing issues all the neighbors know each other and respect one another the last thing we want to see is tension with the neighbors as much is a as is neighbor i don't wish to get involved with those kinds of issues but the san francisco residential guidelines should prevail. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> hello, i'm isabel i'm a high school junior and the daughter of the folks all i want to say those neighbors they moved in we were welcoming to them and want them to enjoy their house and the expansion all we are asking to move it over to minimize the

impact it has on the neighbors that's it the only reason so we can keep as karina said before keep the relationship we had before that's my one request thank you. >> is there any additional public comment seeing h seeing none, project sponsor your team has 5 minutes. >> hello, i'm david i'm here on behavior on behalf of brian who are the project sponsors and want to point out that the dr requester has not notified that i extraordinarily facts and circumstances after 5 meetings with the neighbors some

compromises were made changes to the project to try to accommodate some of the concerns but some were not able to be and the moving the project to the other side was considered but the problem is that on the folks property 3 and a half years ago they had to do a considerable seismic foundation upgrade to the side on the north where this work is being proposed not such a foundation on the seismic foundation it will cost a considerable amount of money we're looking at other things this is a map in our package you'll note that the project sponsors property is the only one that is not extend as far as properties on the other side the dr requester extended to the

south further and the other neighbor further down is extended fallout one the modification was to set back the second floor 2 and a half feet to be in line with the just a minute dr requesters we've stepped back 2 feet you all note the sleep between broadway it is incredibly steep those are huge and you'll see the vegetation it creates shadow than will be coming from the folks home i should also point out that this the study it was done and

presented by itself dr requester a truly hypothetical and only considers two buildings it if consider those normal circumstances it didn't consider the context of the building it on considers two buildings adjacent to each other all the contextual there is only the shadow will be minimal at best i which the studio point out there are other questions to be made there were things going to be added that might have been intruding those have been removed the designer reviewed this and if you would, found it eligible to deny the dr but we've made those improvements i want ask the gentleman to speak

for himself. >> thank you commissioners thank you for the opportunity to discuss this this is request i'm proud to be a fourth generation san franciscan this renovation is going to allow our family to be good members of san francisco as my family i believe has been the core of that dispute with our neighbor is to move the extension to the other side of the yard as mr. syncot said the challenge we purchased the home we made a significant investment in the seismic and foundational work by moving will force us to upgrade much of the investment we want to meet all the important in the city of san

francisco we finally made a number of attempts to reach a compromise we met them with 5 times most recently to bring in the back of the homes awe like that on the is it correct story with his home as well as changes those were rejected i ask for your support many our remodel and deny the request for dr. >> the architects are available for any questions you may have about design. >> thank you is there any public comment? in support of project sponsor okay dr requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> thank you, joe butler i'm concern if the gentleman had a problem with the shadow study he

would have produced his own he particularly eyed summary shadows when they're most likely to use their deck and yard and the sun is high enough in the sky the context will not have an effect if i could have the gene in 2011 co-sponsored to the dbi records a foundation was put underneath the north side of the importance i'm sorry the south side of the project sponsors property they've accurately a foundation there were no plans created but the written description of work any concrete foundation to cappa foundation two feet thinning thick as a tow at the bottom to create the four

story this is plenty plenty strong to carry is 2 story wood frame structure when we designed and compromise envelope we made the stair down two feet off the property line go past the foundation i want to show one more thing i'm going to leaving to our hands the 311 drawings shows the back corner the preapplication drawings show that to my client showed a 2 and a half set back from the corner so today or in the brief they've offered back what was the original plan it actually got bigger the slope is exemplary i think you have all you need to make the best inner design decision.

>> thank you. >> project sponsor you have two minutes. >> thank you i want to point out that the grade between those two buildings that was mentioned by the project sponsor is only been measured from the rear yard he didn't mention there's a difference of two feet so the impact of the higher building is really again much less than presented i can show you the additional shadows this is a view of the area this shows the shadows how long how long they're coming from the south and east they're coming from this area they're already blocking that area and again, we

are expending out to the same legislated that the adjacent properties all right. are i appreciate our time but no reason to find exemplary and extraordinary circumstances if you wish the architects are here. >> with that, the public portion is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i visited the site yesterday and got a a chance it was overcast but i would doubt the impact of the property building could have much of a effect only shadows its only 10 feet in height there is an elevations height of another 10 feet the folks homes the backyard section is above even see