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 given the fact the hill is

steep the sun will be blocked as it moves across the sky the neighbors behind you yap of two many times the capitalization of one floor addition will have a significant shadowy understand the project sponsor has agreed and i assume as part of the case report to make 9 second floor even with the dr requesters building mr. lindsey. >> that plan has not been simpleminded. >> we'll have to take dr but i want to say the architect present of yeah. hi dr requesters have talked about the phelps of the building it has no real significant impact

either way although they get a little bit of a separation between their yards and the one story addition but there is a structural reason why that is different to do maybe you could explain that. >> it has to it - nooechlz a steven it has a lot to do with the water that anything rats through the hill it has been augmented when the client bought the building a wall was placed through there but it runs to the year a lot of times there's active waters coming through the garage and goes through a drafrn onto the sidewalk the consideration the dr applicants to place a staircase away from

that wall was in response to understanding there is great deaf living space that has to do with the calibration process out into the yard and up through the house and water that is there we'll have to employ the water drainage mitigates measures and finish inside the wall. >> were there a significant impact you might consider asking that this happened i think the impact is minimal at best we live in a urban environment we're talking about a generated not too much the second floor of the houimpact is in the raider. >> as they exit the building

are close to one another approximately 2 feet is correct. >> thank you. i have a couple of others observations clearly as you look at the site this is the shortest house of any of them that's been pointed out have additions or built larger to begin with extremely deep lot one hundred and 37 feet 6 nechz which is allows this addition to go out a short distance into the backyard but not a an influence on the rear yard open space there's a huge lot in the back i don't really see it only adds 6 hundred plus hundred square feet it's a modest addition the other thing mr. lindsey you mentioned we'll have to take dr to make

the second floor and talk about the donor messengers being removed is that part of the plans we have. >> the doris messengers are still part of the plan ape there's certain donor messengers they're talking about. >> in decision with the neighbors part of the compromises to have them not request dr to have them move the donor messengers as well as bring them back in reline the second floors that's part of the conversation throughout the 5 times we've met with them. >> you're okay the alignment. >> so absolutely. >> the is that you with the

doris merry situation and yes. >> commissioner richards. >> help me understand here the distance between the ground floor i'm sorry the base of the addition how many feet. >> i have a picture if we could turn on the screen it might be in the packet as well i'm sorry that's small. >> you can zoom in. >> we can zoom in? okay. thank you so we're looking at the draw deck open the left-hand side of the skreeven and the section on the right we set a tape measure from deck to deck and

approximateed that from the ground where they are deck is to the top of retaining wall where the folks were >> so an additional 10 or 11 feet from the building. >> correct. >> okay. so and can you tell me what it is like on other side from the yard to the top of the retaining wall. >> do we have that information? >> it's here. >> at the small inside.

>> yeah. i can't quote that dimension without inadequacy but it is a little bit taller it's higher than on the side. >> so the reason i mean it's kind of a neat design our proposing and switching it around the issue with the water and this displacement are interconnected. >> so the patrol they have is the same square footage the same thing. >> well, it gets the same thing on paper but it is quite a poor design in terms of the staircase in the middle of the space and as it turns it's an awkward use of square footage. >> my one concern the wall their face with it should be closer to a retainer wall that's

a 5 foot portion of the building but 10 or 15 this concerns me. >> we were thinking that the drawing has not put you much thought into the landscape by the fence will run along the property and visible cut down the visible wall. >> and the fence is 10 feet high. >> i don't know that hopefully, the neighbors will cowboy talk about that. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm a little bit confused about the many images i see which were pre11 notification and then another version the version in addition to seeing drawings 8 point a-1.1 which indicates compromises, however, with all of the dimensions being talked about this drawing for me

didn't quite dpebt the changes that the applicant is suggesting am i correct. >> this drawings with the pink sections indicates the. >> it shows the location of doris messengers, however, when it comes to the next or to the left of the draushgz i mentioned indicated there sings since you're showing rooflines it is not clear of the lines it is the building facade so i believe somewhat from my prospective there's a piece missing either something we take dr and you

forward to the department to take the verbal comments which are being made and the drawing has to be simpleminded that clearly supports that at this time i see a drawing that doesn't indicate that. >> we officially submitted drawings to david's group that include the pink elements the compromises that were offered in discussion. >> could you refer to the names. >> what is officially filed with the san francisco planning department is this drawing without the pink shaped. >> so mr. lindsey and correct. >> and this exhibit was meant to illustrate the conversation that we had with the dr applicant not meant particularly to you know change the official

filing but our client remains happy to change the design. >> excuse me. since the commissioners themselves are not in the middle of discussions with mr. lindsey i'm confused your repeating what wore memo the same kind of confusion i still i did not know what our supervisor kim to. >> it would be. >> excuse me. >> of course, yes. >> what is what the city. >> what you what was dred and before you as a project what is defected on a-1.1 must the coloring portion. >> it's the big thing. >> yes. the whole thing in the commission wishes to take away the two doris messengers and the 2 1/2 he section of the rear

they would the commission needs to take dr to do that. >> i'm asking you the 2 1/22 foot 6 inches is that the line the compromising line of the rear walls. >> letting take a look at it. >> this is some of the contenti contention. >> why don't we. >> it's okay if i look at sheet 82.5 you're looking at the second story proposed the matter of the bedroom you as you can see the orange or the color shading on the left-hand side of that room that would be would be

removed from the project sthits not part of the official plans so if you're wishing to do that you need to take dr to do that. >> okay. thank you. >> it's actual volume building volume. >> i'm interested just to hear mr. butler acknowledging there is a compromise together with the combination of drawings other than shifting the building which is not discussed. >> i went to the department and copied this in july it was submitted as a revision to the preapplication it shows the rear walls the uphill to the south and the proposed addition are now at the same depth relative to the front property line the preapplication drawing showed the 2 1/2 feet set back so the

preapplication was 2 1/2 feet back 311 they added 2 and a half feet and you're considering to bring it back as a preapplication 2 and a half back. >> you're here acknowledging that today, the mr. president, is asking for the 2 1/2 feet and based on the same drawings. >> correct the applicant is willing to take back what they added. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> councilmember sharp. >> i may have a question for whoever wants to speak for the dr the other part of the dr remove of the doris norz not sure what impact the doris messengers have on the property. >> they're not the concern he

was concerned about the privacy issue not the doris merry or the light effects. >> so there's not an issue i don't see a reason to take them out they add square footage and mr. butler if i let the architect i want to talk to the architect for the project sponsor. >> i'm happy to make a motion and go back to 6 feet but the doris messengers add square footage am i correct. >> that's exactly right we received a letter which indicated the doris messengers were of concern the privacy element that mr. butler representatives is specific in that document we were looking at things to change in the project to make the folks happy that's one of the things they were

willing to compromise on we didn't get into how or why but they're willing to go without. >> in this case i'm going to make a motion to take dr set back the second floor 2.6 feet. >> 2.5. >> it looks like it's 2.6 here. >> well 2 and a half or 2 and a half 2.5 is the same as 2 and a half 2 feet 6 inches from the drawings that are shown on a-1 point one and they're all the same thing is shown on the drawings that showing you shows the bedroom forward in here anyway, that's what i propose as

a motion. >> commissioner johnson. >> i will cancel it you a commissioner richards >> question for mr. butler. >> is indeed the doris merry not an issue doris merry was on the list of things that were of concern one of the issues that i from my client it was a privacy issue would the mass of doris messengers be amenable to be in the plan they wanted to removed from the plan but primarily our southern was with the plummet of the addition. >> commissioner moore. >> i find the doris messengers somewhat different to consider i assume everybody has gone through the commission to add did doris messengers didn't

makes sense to me it's a bad idea and i think we should approve the building take dr and approve the building with the suggested 2.6 set back and call it a day. >> so i want to confirm that the doris messengers are in the proposal of what is in front of the department currently but they were discussed in a compromise that's not what we have to discuss right now. >> that's very correct. >> that's correct. >> commissioned a motion and second to take drn and remove 2 feet 67 inches from the rear of the proposed second level. >> are we leave the modification. >> unless it's amended by the

maker of the motion. >> sir can you repeat motion. >> the motion as i understand commissioner antonini to remove the 2 feet 6 inches from the rear of the proposed second level and it keeps the doris messengers in place. >> yes. that's the motion because the plan before us now has the doris messengers in there although their mentioned as a possible compromise it didn't seem looets at least i don't feel they have an impact for remove that's my motion to leave them in there. >> that motion has been second on commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner johnck's san francisco commissioner fong and no. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that passes 5 to 2 it places you on the next

item at 2655 street those are requests for discretionary review although the addressed are the same there are on two separate this by the same person my recommendation we call them together and provide their time of totally of 10 minutes. >> for both the dr requester and the sponsor. >> that's correct. >> i'm not sure i understand that but. >> are you the dr requester. >> i'm representing them. >> your representing the dr requester you'll have 10 maintenance total. >> i have a power point overwhelming to be presenting. >> good evening, commissioners david lindsey of department staff the case are a request for

discretionary review filed against two project these broderick street the commission needs to take two acts it is a 3 story family house on the west side of broderick case 2014.1497 d a request for discretionary review of a building applications issued by the department of building inspection to look at a penthouse and to modify and add a par fit wall along the side of the property deck case next is a request for discretionary review of a building permit application filed in response to a notice of

violation to novice the second story deck originally constructed under a 1985 building permit application at the rear of the house both requests for discretionary review were submitted by the owner of the apartment building open green street immediately downhill of the subject site the planning department mass not received any corresponds in opposition to the project the deck permit are as follows: the penthouse were critiqued without permit and the rooftop deck encroaches on the property it was look at by the design team they said it is consistent with the good morning, supervisors

does not create extraordinary circumstances and would not create an adverse effect on the defense lawyers property noting the public defender's is taking steps to legalize and correct the top features with the architects plans shows all the work to be detain with the existing penthouse proposed for legalization about the blinded wall to the adjacent property to the side and the increase of par fit wall will be minimally visible from the street the department represents you not take dr and approve the project as proposed the dr requesters concerns with the deck is as follows: the features create a drainage problem and the rear stairs was built does not comply with the planning code the rear

staircase project was reviewed by itself residential design team they say it meets the guidelines noting the project sponsor is taking steps required by dbi to legalize and correct the rear deck and stairs to grade originally built almost thirty years ago the rear stairs proposed are loud as a permit obstruction within the planning code and the stairs are proposed to be legalized of the dr requester they ask you not take dr. >> approve it that concludes my presentation. >> dr requester our team has 10

men's. >> thank you for your stamina can those be sdrntd i'm to take the rear stairs which is 48 and second will be the first one i'm picking up i paul cox a civil engineer and i represent the dr requester rear stair issue i'll be bring to your attention the items and that 3 of which will require our considerations and mention two other items that are action items handled by the building inspection. >> can you speak into the microphone. >> it's on one. >> okay. thank you.

>> there you go. >> go ahead. >> can i precede first just to make sure we're oriented correctly this was written by the consultant for mr. kc the owner on wraud restrict a couple of years ago just for our orientation 2701 green is outlined in green on this slide and 2655 broderick is in orange here's an exterior affirmative of 2701 green the property line the issue before us on the rear stairs has to do with the property line issues to the front of a 8 foot high retaining wall a light well so

for the first issue the property line of 2701 green has wood decay due to the contact with recent fill we'll laboratory mr. shirz that was taken adjacent to the light well retaining wall if you look at this slide from the bottom to the top there was bedrock and sand and to fills a f cuba sub one and two and another one next to another issue not before you today you'll notice a f go sub 3 is the target you'll see it is higher than the adjacent retaining wall and placed so that it rotted out the wood wall that was mounted on top of retaining wall a f sub 3 is about a foot deep

if i move to the next item the height of the stair foundation as built is an additional cost of wood architecture contact and looking at mr. shirz this geological it appears to be correct i need to correct the retaining wall on the right-hand side there the actual foundation is lower than shown in mr. shirz report and has redwood lap siding it causes decay user the response that is this photograph in our staff report if you look at the lower left-hand side you'll see clearly the siding is buried in soil and it's not just in that

location behind the stairs it moves all the way to the back of the building here's not view of the back of the building and the property wall is buried in this a f sub 3 soil a recent fill this next photo which is not in our presentation this other retaining wall the lower portion at the bank property line so the bottom portion of the soil is decayed rotted out and so is the flying framing the gentleman needs to get to the soil the planning commission needs to declare it needs to be removed 6 inches to the