the future doesn't require planning approval. it would designation of two units or three units and would not require a merger. it's still three units either way without the stair or was the stair. it adds convenience for my clients, but what is critical here is to get expansion pore their living space. >> okay. i think that would be any preference to take dr and remove the stair and approve the project. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> thank you. >> second. >> commissioner moore? >> this is an extreme case and i would still like zoning administrator sanchez to come back and fill us in a little bit of where some of these oversights were or where people come forward and they are not inexperienced people, we have to all admit that, come forward and point to issues in the

code, that we are either not using frequently, or aren't versed with? we're very clear about the internal stairs. mr. lindsey, director rahm secretary ionin, commissioner antonini, and all of the commissioners who have been here for the last three, four, five, seven, eight, nine years plus have gone through this internal stair thing many, many times. and we have altered projects or sent them back when that stair was not clearly indicating that indeed an additional unit was being used on its own. and this is basically the issue here. so i would like to go back and have a zoning administrator take us one more time through some of the points raised by mr. vincensi and also be consistent in our attitudes

toward internal stairs. >> i would like to make one more quick clarification, but the idea of the [kph*-upb/] communicating door. i know that commissioner richards asked about clarification to the dr requester's questions and when the communicating door concept is typically used when you have people who have purchased condos that are side-by-side and they open up one of the communicating walls between those two units. that is where the idea of the communicating door comes in. it's not through creating a stairway and a communal space such as what is happening on this project. i just wanted to clarify that. >> i would like to make one additional comment and thank you for saying what you just explained. the amount of square footage, which would be saved by taking out of stair, and the circulation space, including some of the extra closets with

the stair space is almost as large as a bathroom with two things a toilet and a tub. that is a large square footage when it comes to designing small units. so i believe that we're talking about constrained spacious wanting it make the unit larger, it should be sketched out of what the applicant has in mind? because it will alter certain things. i think we can ask that the applicant comes back and shows us what he is trying to do. i think it's very difficult to just say eliminate the stair, if you look at the space that is designated to bringing the stair down and what else it takes in terms of landing and door swing and cabinets. it's a large space. i would like to see how that alters the unit? because we're aproving a change here, which i would like to see before i put

my full yes behind it. i'm in support of eliminating the stair, but i would like to see what they are trying to do i would like to ask for a continuance. it could be a couple of weeks, if the architect already has an idea how he is going to do it it would take a very small amount of time. >> second. >> commissioners, if you do continue it will probably be into the new year. january 8th is already full of drs. potentially january 15th. >> fine. so there is a motion that has been seconded to continue to january 15th. >> yes. >> can i ask first, mr. teague

to comment on what process this has taken in the past? if we wanted to make this kind of change, is there a more maldive procedure to go to? clearly commissioner moore has put one option forward, but is there another option? >> i'm not sure i am understanding what type of change you are referring to? i apologize. >> removing the stair. >> you mean the specific change to this project? >> i'm sorry, i thought you meant a more holistic change to this project. this project specifically you are talking about the stairs? >> yes >> and if after the fact, could the stairs be added? i'm not sure if i'm following. >> i'm asking about follow-up. so if the commission said we want you to remove the stair, how normally would staff follow-up on ensuring that those design changes were made? >> oh, i understand. so generally whenever the commission takes an action on a discretionary review, there is a memo drafted that outlines

the conditions or the reasons behind the action. and then any boiling permit that was the subject of that dr is reviewed to make sure it's consistent with that. and that is a public document and obviously if it wasn't consistent with that, that would need to be connected. if there was an error in the future. >> okay. thank you. >> sure. >> and then i believe project sponsor maybe had some information about a continuance date that seemed like it could be problematic. >> i don't think we would like to have a continuance. we can take out of stair and redesign it with staff's approval and make sure there is a better solution to making sure these things aren't combined. but we do have a code-compliant project before you. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> i would agree with project sponsor. i mean, as was pointed out, they have to be approved afterward and it has to be

signed off by dbi if it's conformity with what we have asked them to do. so exactly how they do that, removing the stairs is the only thing we're asking. we don't need a redesign of closets or anything else here. so i would be answer any continue against a continuance and we ought to get this finished and let them go on with their lives. i have another question that is an important point. we're not talking about the merger, but when staff wasn't supportive of the merger, all of these different criteria came up, with conforming in the density and conforming and no renterers and conforming owner-occupied and number of bedrooms and says the new project will have three. the present unit two bedrooms op the one unit and studio in the little downstairs in-law unit. now is a studio living room

consider a bedroom or not? staff is apparently saying that it is because they are saying that the new project doesn't have more bedrooms than was the case before. what is the interpretation of what a "bedroom" is? >> i don't know there needs to be an [tp-erpgs/] on what a "bedroom" is and the department of building inspection has their requirements of what a "bedroom" is. "bedroom" you can have a studio with sleeping space in it and one-bedroom apartment with a separate area from living/dining and other area. i have to admit i'm not entirely clear on the questioning. >> when you or another member of the staff did not -- said the project does not -- is not conforming by adding more bedrooms, because you claimed that in your report, that there were already three bedrooms.

there were two bedrooms on the top and a studio room, which is being used as a bedroom on the bottom. so therefore, i thought i interpreted it to be three afterward, two before. and that is important, because we have to know the rules we're playing with. and if it was, in fact, now three bedrooms and the new version, then they do create more bedrooms, which is one of the criteria for approving a merger. >> that is correct. they would have more bedrooms now, but we're not talking about a merger. >> i know we're not, but it's an important point to make because i want to set a precedent, so we don't get misinterpretations by staff in the future. i'm not saying intentionally, but that is not the way i would have interpreted. it it may have been aprovable administratively. >> without the expansion. >> without the expansion, yes. thank you. >> you are welcome. >> thank you.

commissioner moore. >> i was asking the director as to whether or not the shift in the stair and the change on the second floor unit is substantive enough of a change to bring it back? i personally don't like verbal changes and plans and not see what it looks like. that is just me. the director seems to say, if i may quote you, please -- >> if the commission removes the stair, then what staff gets the project for a building permit, the stair will be removed. that is not what is causing the non-compliance, the non-compliance it's a third unit and it doesn't matter if it's a stair there. it's an rh2 district and the third unit is not complying. >> i &%fo that, just like when we make changes we want to see that what we are approvinge is something that we can stand

behind. i do not like to design by words and i like to see things before i say yes to them. >> commissioners there is say motion and a second to take dr. however, the motion to continue takes precedence. on the motion to continue to january 15, commissioner antonini. >> no. >> commissioner hillis >> is snow. >> commissioner johnson. >> snow. >> commissioner moore. >> yes. >> commissioner richards. >> yes. >> commissioner fong? >> no. >> commission president wu. >> no. >> that motion fails 5-2. excuse me, 2-5. with commissions antonini, hillis, moore -- excuse me, antonini, hillis, johnson, fong and wu voting against. shall we take up the matter of taking drs? >> yes. >> so on the motion to take dr and eliminate the interior stair, commissioner s?

roll call. so moved commissioners that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners moore and richards voting against. all right 18 has been withdrawn. going to item 19. discretionary review. commissioners as we now have two overflow rooms it might take time for speakers to come in, and to call for public

comment to give them an extra minute or two. >> could we please ask the sheriff for some crowd-control also. >> they were here, i will ask them again. >> thank you. so if the for members of the audience that are not in this room and are actually in the overflow rooms, when the commission chair asks for public comment, you can make your way into the room, and line up on the screen-side of the door.

or excuse me, on the screen-side of the room to submit your comment. and the order of presentation is staff, the dr requester, and then all those who are in opposition of the project, but in support of the dr request, then the project sponsor, and then those in support of the project. and then the dr requester and project [spo-epbs/]er get a two-minute rebuttal at the end as well. >> thank you. >> good evening plastic bag. the subject project is located at 461 27th street between knowee and sanchez streets in the south and southern portion of the noe valley neighborhood. the proposal to expand a single-family dwelling including raising a building 18 inch to create a full height lower level with garage extensive interior remodeling, a new dormer on west slope and

replace inkind of existing woodwinds and new horizontal addition at the rear. property is downsloping towards the rear line, which will make the structure three story overall at the rear of the proposed addition. it extends to the 45% required rear yard and beyond that a one story bump out extends it another 8' into the required rear yard as allowable -- as an allowable obstruction under section 1 36 of the code. the subject building currently is one of the shallowest in depth on this block and will be increased in square footage from 1600 to 3849 square feet. this written dimension has been corrected on the plans -- originally it had 3150 square feet.

the property constructed in 1905 was evaluated by the preservation staff and found to be a contributor to a district under ceqa. changes to the original design occurreds a result of the historic resource determination to adhere to the secretary of interiorase standards for rehabilitation. the project as revised meets all the preservation and planning code requirements and does not require further environmental review. because of the property has been found to be a resource, the property had stricter demolition requirements to retain the original cottage and thereto is not tantamount to demolition. at the time the packets were prepared, the department had received six letters in support of the project and 30 letters in opposition, including one from the upper noe neighbors group and a petition with 59 signatures. this included several residents on the south side of the duncan street and further down on 27th interest who are outside of the 150' radius for the 311 notification.

they are encouraging the commission to consider an alternative plan design by a neighbor that would reduce the rear massing. the residential design team first reviewed the proposal in march and again after the dr was filed. they determined that there are no exception or extraordinary circumstances to the project that is as presented to the planning commission and in this abbreviated format, staff's recommendation to the commission is to not take discretionary review and approve the building permit, that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. dr requester, your team has five minutes. >> thank you, geek,president wu and members of the commission i'm susan holey and i'm representing the dr requester. as staff mentioned the request is support by a petition of 59 area residents most of them within the 150' radius and othersust beyond it in the neighborhood, as well as 30

letters from concerned neighbors. i wasn't able to hear all of the last discussion because of the problems with the capacity of the room and the next item that is coming up, but i did see the beginning and it appears there are some overlapping issues in terms of mid-block open space and the blocking nature of the building, but our issue is much simpler than the one you were dealing with. we don't have an interior stair issue or merger or anything that complex. is that going to sh:the first photograph shows the neighborhood as it is and it shows the -- this is a potential historic district with a lot of contributor homes most of them 2000 to 2500

square feet and as the commission can semiconductor they stepped down along the roadway. and what has happened that is extraordinary and exceptional there was a house built in 2006, nine years ago or so, and you can see that that is this tall one here; which it interrupts the step-down nature of this street. this is the proposed house, put into the same context and you can see that the step-down nature is even more interrupted if this would be allowed. the only way this could have been considered is in the context of this house that was built next door at 455 where the project sponsor now resides. this house we suggest couldn't have even been considered. you can sea both of them. this shows the view from the

mid-block rear, the open space, which shows the existing residence and this is the proposed new residence. another view again, you are seeing the step-down nature of the current homes and the excessive mid-block rear portion of the new homes. the dr requester supported by the neighbors is not requesting any changes to the plan in terms of the bottom floor or in terms of the front of the house, it's all about the rear open space. and the mid-block open space, and the blocked nature of the construction. we had hoped to provide the commission with a rendering of the current proposal and then the neighbor's proposal to make alterations vie craw this discretionary review that would eliminate the blockiness and instructions into the mid-block space while still leaving a

very, very viable residence. the current proposal is for a 3900 square foot home, plus the 400 -- approximately 3900, i just heard staff say it's 38 something, but plus the 400 square feet garage. what is being suggested by the dr requester and supported by all of the neighbors is that this mass and again, it's not quite as clear as we would have hoped, but with the rain, some of our drawings were locked up in a building downtown without power. this is the 461 27th street building and the request is to take 10% off of that and all it is is taking 6' off the second floor and 6 plus 1 12' off the third floor. that is it. leave the bottom floor as it is and leave everything else alone. it still leaves 3500 square feet residence, plus the 400 square feet garage and it's

actually as i understand the numbers, based on the planning department's files, the house next door at 355 is even less than that. so we ask that dr be taken to save the mid-block open space. this residence would be scene not only from 27th street, but from duncan across the way. and it would comply with the city's residential guidelines to provide a very adequate home for the project sponsor without changing the character of this potential historic district. >> thank you. >> i do have copies of the -- thank you. >> now opening to speakers from the public in support of the dr. i have a number of cards, i believe these are all in support of the dr. [ reading speakers' names ]

>> my name is jan. i am speaking in support of the request for discretionary review. i live at 449 27th street, two housess to the east of the proposed project. i live next to 455 27th street the residence. project sponsor -- developer can be can't be heard. i'm concerned that the developer is using the houses to the east of the project as justification for building into the mid-block open space. mr. silverman's letter of december 3rd states that the

buildings to the east go into the yards and significant heights. this is not true. every day from my deck i look at the homes in question and they are the four victorians, 417-423. these victor [kwra-eupbz/] built in the 1890s are small and 1100 to 2200 square feet and are one-story buildings over garages. i have gotten this information from the san francisco planning department website and i made this graph. the overhead, please. with information from that map, to compare the mass of buildings on the block. you can see the four victorians here. these four victorians are setback from the street further than other houses on the block and appear to have once had front yards and this fact alone may account for the fact that the houses are procrude trueeding into this legislative said bac. other building that the

developer is using to justify the mass is 415 27th street a 6-unit apartment building built in the 1960s awn could never be built today as our block is now zoned rh-2 and it's totally out of character with the other buildings on the block. just because goes into the mid-block open space doesn't provide justification for a single-family home at 461 to do the same. to illustrate this again, i have used the san francisco property information map of r block and duncan street. this is map is also from the website and i put dots on the four victorians and a square on the six-unit apartment building. on this map you can see that the four victorians are setback from the street. i support the dr request because the project as proposed is much larger than -- and has more bulk than the majority of houses on the block. even though the front is to be preserved, due to historical significance, the rear of the

proposed project is massive and will change the mid-block open space forever. i therefore urge you to take discretionary review and implement the neighbor's alternative. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> just refer to it and sfgtv will bring it to the scene. >> hell yes, my name is andrew and my wife and i live at 465 27th street and direct neighbors to the west of the proposed project at 461 27th street. we support the request for

discretionary review filed on behalf of the neighborhood and support the neighbor's alternative put before you today. we believe that existing proposal does not respect the mid-block open space and its massing is out of context and the maybe's alternative is more considerate to the overall neighborhood. as direct neighbor we'll be significantly impacted -- as again, as direct neighbors we'll be significantly impacted on a daily basis by this proposed structure. presently there is significant open space directly east of the home as far as i can tell it's a picture, this is basically what the situation looks like now. you can see there is space there and this is what it would

look like. is an attempt at a rendering -- it's this massing and structure that is extraordinary and exceptional. it's really important for us that all of you can see the neighborhood we live in and understand the situation that we're faced with on a daily basis. hopefully this does give you context as to how the neighbors do see the space? here is one more space so again here is the proposed structure. you can see it taken up quite a bit of space in our backyards basically, visually for everybody. it's this placement in the mid block open space that is intrusive and makes this

project extraordinary and exceptional. we love the home that we live in and the neighborhood that surrounds us and believe that the neighbor's alternative allows for this project to be built with less massing and more prespect for your open space which is why we support it. it represent a more desirable project for the broader neighborhood. in conclusion we support the neighbor's alternative, because it reduces the massing of the project, allows for the context of the neighborhood to be preserved and mid-block open space is maintained for the broader neighborhood to enjoy. we ask that you take discretionary review and require that the project sponsors work collaboratively with the neighbors to re-solve this. thank you for your time and consideration, it's much appreciated. >> thank you, next speaker. >> >> hi commissioners my the name is carry lee and i'm andrew's wife and i live next door which is directly next to the project site.

i have decided to keep this short, since i share some of the same sentiments as my husband and the oath neighbors. i support the neighbor's alternative plan, since the proposed project will be too massive and not respect the prevailing pattern in the mid-block open space. it's this massive size makes this project extraordinary and exceptional. we're grateful to the project sponsors for rehabilitating and renovating the house at 461. as a mom whotines to raise my 5-year-old daughter in noe valley, a appreciate that the homes are renovated and the neighbor's alternative provides the project sponsor with a reasonable alternative that allows for the project sponsors to make a profit building a very large house while still allowing my family to have a little more light and air in the spaces where we spend most time in your home. the sunlight currently floods in your south-facing rooms and i'm concerned about the pacifics of 22' looming