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 contention 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 siding to provide the wood to prevent wood earth contact and lastly the stair foundation actually not lastly the stair foundation and the trees must be removed to allow repair of the decay to the property this is this photograph this entire staircase has to come out so he can get to the property and fix it so this and lastly the reduced soil level may affect the set back and that's up to you to interpret whether or not the

section is adequately depicted by the soil level to be considered is 17 or 18 inches lower than it currently sits and the also the inner permitted patio that was built there, there are to unrelated issues in that the soil fill that was the recent fill a f-3 and the stair and stair foundation inflict additional sewer surcharge that's the first part of the presentation shall we move to the other one or stop and consider. >> no please go ahead. >> okay.

>> i need a moment here please excuse me. on the roof deck there are 5 issues for you to consider we have the same orientation for to particular dr we're looking at the front outline in blue and the penthouse on broderick the first item permission to build the roof deck was deleted numerous times why denied or withdrawn doesn't mater that and the roof deck was built 3 times over the expressed objections of the naebz there's 7 of which take it out e.r. don't put it in and we'll look at three of those

in 1990 a delete was written on the plan you see in the graphic at this point they were he trying to get a mefrt bedroom 4 story built and this was not permitted in 1995 when owned by the hawkins replace the decking and the most deck was illegal built by mr. skais i didn't himself in 2008, he had an approval for a reroof there's no indication he built a roof deck but he did anyway and he didn't rebuild it the way it was he extended it to the north side and the issue before you today is if you want to

approve that roof deck that's fine but some of the neighbors my may object he encroached across the property line into the neighbors property this is also from the gentleman's graft it's a good graphic a two inch gap between the buildings the assumed property line is halfway between them they have to gap nobody knows the property line so you don't encroach on someone's property, however, when this deck was built the column the

corner post put on the edge of the roof and covered with first lap siding and piece of trim the trim has been taken off to the encroachment is three-quarters of an inch long. >> thank you yourself time is up. >> thank you is there any public comment? in support of the dr requester? i believe there's one public commenter >> we obituary the house on green street. >> which shires condition tigz property line with the kc lot and the gentleman's i'm not here with any ax to grinds not specifically involved

in this at all i want to say as a neighbor express a concern payroll a number of things went on in contradiction unpermitted the roof deck the surcharge of the rear yard. >> i don't know about the roofline stuff but i think if you approve southern things here today that we're not permitted and not approved that would have con sooefbl been caught the planning department would say this doesn't work as a neighbor we want to see the community work the way people go through the proper process and completed their work with permits eye i hope this can be resolved in a way to be enabling we've lived there 25 years and before

that on broderick street by the way, wisp involved with the initial writing a letter which we didn't want that roof deck because living on broderick street and casey upstairs house we looked at the golden gate we didn't want that elevation between us and the bridge it got built without a permit again i don't have an ax to grind i get my information second-hand but want to see if you can help us thank you. >> thank you. okay project sponsor our team has 10 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners i'm greg on behalf of the casey family pardon me we too want to

see this roasted that's why the case by case you didn'ts in spite of the con conduct helogically built a desk he had a permit to reroof the structure and replace the decking as was there are two permits here if approved legalize those illegal structures the rear stair was built under a permit that was approved and issued, however, the permit extraordinary without the required dbi inspections that rendered that stair illegal the subject permit legalize the stairs as built there's a slither difference in the lapd a

furrier number of riserers that may be make a right angle turn working with dbi we filed a applicant and new modification permit on that permit and have met several times with dbi plan checkers and inspections to make sure we meet the building code we were confident it met the building code the current staff supports the project and haven't found extraordinary circumstances and brought this to you as a abbreviated dr now back to the roof deck 20 years ago the owner of 26 broadway rake filed a permit that include exterior modeling and property the roof deck and the stair penthouse the project sponsor remo