stry try to present or negotiate that as a way of ended up with something that is just a farce of a negotiation the proponent that will across the street will ludicrous view the street at 31 feet is skrukd in such a way that randell street a down sloped those houses that are south of that are two and three stories below garage those houses are imposeings it's house downhill as additional set back so i ask

you to support this project that's a reasonable project for a family in the neighborhood. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment okay dr requesters you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> first, i'd like to noted that nobody in my of our comments said anything about the intentions of the owners as far as where thaip they'll live there or not that was mentioned is twice in the presentation i wanted to show first of all we didn't say the house should remain the same we mentioned that certainly i mention this is within the code i understand that and people can say it's within the code i get it our house is shorter and one the

reasons for the set back to average some of the rear facing things at least on the third floor as you can see on the eastern side to our side that's what the set back dozen as well paul was saying a balcony with a thank you pens view we're also not begrudging the wish to be on the same floor as the of the rest of us have floor plans that allows us to do that the upper floor can be articulated more so the impact on our light and air coming into my upper floor will be certainly be affected by the height and location of the stairwell and the backyard will be really affected this house

bludgeons forward and back it's within the guidelines but could be improved. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi i suppose at the time good to lead who's being disingenuous we're neighborhood i don't look at against development that's not come up i've never asked for the dr or the neighbors my issue is my view but we have a 3 level home across the street i didn't build someone else did those are not factors to me, you look at the project maybe it's under 40 feet but the neighborhood skylight and the nice victorians and

through a monolithic power point on top of that is unreasonable of under the 40 feats imperfect suitable level that comes up to the roof or use a hatch it is used in the neighborhood successfully i got back to the owners and say we can shave a inch off the power point that's my rebuttal i think i've asked for the dr. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi thank you, again i wanted to reiterate that my original dr that you probably got last week or too weeks ago i asked for i really wanted to come down but my citizens came to me people

live in the city and want bigger homes i know they can go up higher i'm asking so we as pedestrians and the drivers going down the street can driving drive along and have a set back so in my packet i encourage you to look at the 13 examples and almost every house in noah valley that's as an edition has 8 to 15 feet please los angeles county the packet the person gina is not a neighbor and may have 2k3w5r7bd support because she has a proposal for a 3 story rear edition that maybe why they're supporting each other thank you so much for your time and hearing the projects it seems

like small bones he appreciate our effort this is our home. >> project sponsor up to 6 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners briefly only one of the dr requesters here today lives adjacent to the proposal remaining two dr requests live across the street and if you look at the houses or in the block and the slope of the randell street one of the speakers mentions it's pretty clear they like to preserve their views otherwise the project is not impacting them in any way as far as the set back

it would not be in context with the neighborhood i'd like to note that the dr requesters acknowledge that they will at 3 story houses but they don't want the project sponsor to have a 3 story how is it doesn't seem fair one item that was focused on by mr. park the stair penthouse now it is not been acknowledged by any of the speakers that the stair penthouse is within the space of otherwise that is occupied by a 4 story the stair penthouse is modest in size i believe has been reduced as much as it can be and sloped so it's not that boxy structure that

appeared in one of the dr requesters drawings the stairwell penthouse is not extraordinary it is a common place structure throughout the city and you know there are people that dislike them but you know a deck in san francisco is considered common place and in fact can be a permit can be obtained over the counter you have to have a stairway to reach the deck so christian can explain but you know if we're going to have decks we need a way to reach the deck as for the final speaker there was one at 140 randell mentions

there are impacts to the vegetable garner but the speaker lives 3 doors away no impacts to her house i'm not sure those two are consistent in my evident i didn't hear if the dr requesters or speakers in their support that mentioned extraordinary impacts that's what we are here to discuss, of course, some reductions of light to the adjacent structure that's what happened when you build, however the impacts would have been much reinforce if the building was well to the buildable envelope the sponsors have done quite a bit to keep

their proposal modest but again, i'd like to under the influence the horizon is set back and we've spoken about that thank you very much for your time. >> thank you with that the public hearing portion is closed. >> commissioner richards i think this is a great project pinch me i actually saw in the real estate section the house is 152 randell is almost 4 thousand square feet four and a half million dollars i have two thoughts how to make this a better project taken this and asked myself going through any

grandmothers basement and wondering how this will work one thing i'll come back a modest set back a 5 or 8 feet is one hundred square feet or i really think the pedestrian streetscape will look better than this is a modest how did this is the only thing i'll support in the dr situation here. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i agree i happy to be going that way coming from the shell station and crossing mission and is an josie noticed the change in slaeths what quite a bit hire than the places on the north side of randell i don't see the impacts to the neighborhood on the south

however i do acknowledge there are some impacts on the property and 136 randell, however, their plans as they stand right now are 4 feet 5 inches lower than the proposed estimate the paeblgd house on 136, 10 feet below the zoning site and as far as the rear edition still i don't really staff may be able to help me one of the two compromise with the new plan 3.76 set back on randell is; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> they changed the top 69 penthouse. >> they designed it to angle as

a stairwell. >> i'm fine i'm listening to what has been present as a possible set back for the front i don't see where it needs happen 136 does not have set back oh, they have set back. >> i'm not certain i'll have to pull it up. >> i don't know. i certainly will entertain that although i've looked at the planned where the bedrooms are and 94 none of the bedrooms are huge the two on the front is fairly small i can range a 10 by 12 and 11 thank you 13 not big bedrooms and couple of bathrooms you have to look at the space because

something will have to be cut to some degree that's my only problem. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask the project architect the person in the presentation said a hatch was not doable where they require hatches in spaces i think those stair structures are awe notifying. >> i can speak to that. >> when there's a roof deck you need a stair that's code compliant and need handrails a hatch didn't allow that a hatch works if mechanic equipment or spates space on the roof. >> we've used hatches before why is this different that a

hatch won't work here. >> i honestly can't answer that why a hatch wouldn't be feasible as opposed to the bulk. >> can i ask the architect so if we were to minimal a hatch that's an opening in the envelope at that location we'll be required to build a par pit so all the way across the extension of that hatch we'll be compared to zero to 7 feet and that flattens out to exit the stair you'll have the horizontal wall at the property line and closer to the skylight 42 inches in height frankly there's no way

around that of i found a exemption code for the roof says that the par fit will make the shading worse. >> i'm not sure about that. >> compared to the zero to 7 as opposed to 12 feet 40 inch wall. >> blood staining explain why you need the 40 feet wall. >> fire opening it is less than 5 feet if the opening. >> to me i don't know if i commissioner you want to add it that. >> if i may in those places we asked for hachdz the hatches were in the roof on the property line and in this case you can and dbi allows it to come with a hatch right through the roof so it will go to a deck by

different in situation. >> i'm concerned about the staircases we've seen proliferation and the roof deck there's a lot of open space in the proposal between a deck and significant backyard. >> to me that's the more troubling i don't believe the set back in the front can do anything the 5 foot set back can do too much on the street 10 feet and start to lose a lot of square footage on this floor so those are any thoughts. >> it would be very difficult to maintain the children's bedrooms if we went 5 feet into the back. >> okay thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> was a 15 by 12 foot deck on

the main living area i question that as large roof deck on top of the roof didn't quite add up for mow me and so i kind of are in support of what i commissioner hillis is a asking why is this large roof-deck is it code compliant there's a exception i've been to one room is this deck too large and if it requires a build out slant penthouse i'm kind of wondering this the too much for the project. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm questioning maybe i misunderstood commissioner

moore you said they have a deck somewhere else and on the first floor living level. >> oh here it is that deck; right? >> i acknowledge that the other thing that was brought up i can ask the architect the possibility of putting a small deck off the master bedroom you'd like to take a little bit off maybe play with the bathrooms what kind of dimensions to make a a liveable room. >> it's more of a - my concern about reimbursing and set backably the the master bedroom you have 6'6" of bed and have 2

2 foot bedside tables i'm getting 2 feet left over so i don't have- there's not 0 whole a lot of room we did try to make reductions and being straightforward with the master bedroom and kids' room. >> there's a possibly you have an edition a horizontal and vertical edition of the top two floors only; is that correct. >> we're at the 45 percent line we have not asked for a reduction rear yard. >> there's a reduction. >> no two foot 2 stories high or a 4 story in order to get the program to work. >> that is - you'd have to come

out another 3 feet but not off the master bedroom you'll be going out on the deck to the first floors. >> yeah. and again making the impact on some maybe lessen some. >> and make american people impact on the neighbor next door. >> we've been trying to balance this problem by being in sync as far as the massing. >> i don't understand the problem i don't side an opportunity unless you shave the bathroom. >> there's a main deck off the

roof-deck and looking at many of the projects i know it was 427 on one street that will solve the penthouse i'll support asking for the roof deck to be removed. >> commissioner hillis. >> i mean he support unless you can help us with a solution on the staircase there is a cell phone tower and the roofs that had structure i mean clearly i think people across the street the issue was a view issue the space that get so much utilized. >> there's a precedent for roof deck on the street there are houses some of which at the residents of the dr supporters

that have roof deck we're innovating not trying to claim something. >> we're really to to minimize the impact the he knows of the roof deck and the railing or more importantly trying to get - >> just to be clear the railing is transparent it's opposite there's an inhabitable roof deck. >> so to the stair. >> to the stair i mean - i have - if it's a habitable roof i have to be able to get people in and out safely and that's the building code. >> i don't know if i can fought a way of a hatch i can i'm going to have to raise that wall and

can the studies we've shown it is going to make a greater impact on that skylight first of all, which is the only instance where light has been effected the neighbors to the north they're not impacted by the roof enclosure. >> okay thanks. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i agree with some of the commissioners i don't like the stair penthouse in this case you've got something that is well below the height and essentially the same height alters the existing building the neighbor to their west i believe and you know, i just don't see an alternative other than

removing the deck entirely i'll make a motion to not take dr and approve the project. >> do i hear a second. >> commissioner richards. >> i'm supportive of removing the roof deck and that in support of commissioner antoninis. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to architects to consider if you're not having stairs up to your penthouse you'll be arriving at the north side with the stair opening but you'll have a stair to step into to come into the roof facing the option direction and the stairs will be a 14r57bd form that

opens in the center of the roof would you then be able to get a hatch based on the description what we can do we have done that on quite a few of the projects and have shares that dbi because of the cluster of space has hatches. >> if i'm understanding correctly right now we have a wrap around stair rather than wrap up that around continue the leg to the northeast so on the third floor we have an 8 foot floor plate we have let's see. >> we have over 4 feet of rice we have to make i'm going to basically cut off my hallway.

>> can you relocate a stair i don't have is paper i don't know what those are can you find a way ramp the stair in the northern direction e.r. bending it in a double way to the east to get up to the roof that supports the project. >> i believe i don't have the headroom. >> could you make the headroom. >> it will mean a whole redesign the floor in terms of the not getting access to the hall to the bedroom. >> i was kind of waiting for you to say i'll try. >> i will do my best.

>> (laughter). >> it sodiums the issue is not the deck such as the access to the deck it will be in our power to say you'll take dr and approve the project with no staircase and if it's possible to use a hatch to proceed in that direction in not there will be no opposition. >> thank you. >> (laughter). >> i'll second. >> commissioner richards. >> and do need a formal motion. >> motion made. >> we have a motion and a second unless the maker and the person of the motion. >> i mean, i'll propose

especially an amendment and the amendment has to be redesigned in a way to have a hatch beyond the scope i'm going to go let's see what everyone else says. >> call the question. >> what is it okay with the seconder. >> not maker of the change was not. >> okay. so on the motion to not take dr. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis no commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore no and commissioner richards no and commissioner president wu that motions fails two to four with commissioner hillis commissioner richards and commissioner president wu voting against. >> commissioner richards i make a motion to take dr and approve the project with a roof hatch if not possible not a roof-deck. >> second.

>> so there's a is there a motion and a second requiring a roof hatch for the roof-deck if not possible eliminating 9 roof deck on that motion commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places you on item 12 for case d at 435 tenth avenue this is a discretionary review. >> this is an item for a request for continuous that's not supported by the that project sponsor. >> let's take the issue of whether or not to