situation that xoiftdz before and they've got viruses two of the best with the geotechnical engineer and a good gift i'm sure that will be done to the highest possible standards and mitigate the makings that is not of the project sponsor or anyone in the picture there were a couple of brothers i forgot in the end of the 19th century that define milled telegraph hill that was a gradual slope into a percipient tuesday slope so hopefully, we'll keep the excited homes and make them safe i'm in favor of the project, however, i want to g ask the public defender's there's questions about the deck space

and moving back the addition is it architecturally possible to save the concerns of light and air? >> hi, i'm heidi. >> would you speak into the microphone. >> hi, i'm heidi that's a tight lot we have younger people living there it is designed for more of a roommate situation not conducive for a family the kitchen is so falling small the refrigerator is in the garage not a size for a regular refrigerator not dining we changed the plan and took away a bedroom on the main level to make it a regular sized kitchen

and have a dining room and living room the master room upstairs it is just we you know when we started the project we had a 4 foot set back and we had a feeding area and upticks it was a little bit more generous for the bedroom now we have a bedroom two closest and bathroom not luxury reduce pretty tight also when i was talking with the design team jonathan gave me a specific spot holmes alley it is down the street he said i don't want to see this addition from this point i matched it in my 3-d software and showed him - that

is this i matched that exactly to show that you won't see this is 6 feet is 5 foot 8 you won't see the addition he said take off the east overhang and we're good at 5 feet and that didn't answer my question i'm assume i see you need ever bit of the spois space to make this a decent sized bedroom and bath but is it possible there was a suggestion that can be moved over the existing deck space but structurally not a elaborately possibility if it is moved to the rear. >> we have i don't know if you can show this this is an

existing light well right here our moment frame that goes all the way down to the foundation is right along here so that goes down we're stuck with this light well and then our front set back. >> that make sense now i understand looking at that your shrinking it more and it really didn't sound like that is possible to relocation any of that onto deck portion but that sort section that came out in lieu of the deck might make for a bigger bedroom and we can make little jogs but we're trying to make the house that is so small 179 feet wide it's a trailer. >> it's tiny i'm trying to let's assume we don't change the set back it is adequate but if

you could gain more space in our bedroom a by using the notched area without the light well and taking away from the deck you've added a size. >> right what's hatched in the plan we're connecting the existing deck to the new deck so basically connecting the addition to the hatched area. >> i'm getting at a point listening to some of the 09d commissioners there maybe an interest in the internal space and less deck space as a compromise might solve one of our protons to have but you have the connections you wanted to come up from one to the another but not as big because you've

got the existing within that's doable leaving the light well but making an extension to the bedroom area could be dressing area whatever you want to use it for and allow you to have gracious master suit. >> it could yeah. >> that answered my question i think that is a possibility that could you know could make it a better project i know that some of the issues have to do with the size of the deck so i'll see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> i think that commissioner antonini has an ingenious idea right now and i'd like to go over the summaries for this project the fact that one neighbor said that a set back of 5 foot 8 along the alley is sufficient

didn't create a reason why to design it customarily we hold the set back in most case as 5 feet we have gone to 12 or whatsoever i'm in support of an expansion of the building it is a difficult seismic upgrading it requires a.d. framed but having said that, i'd like to work constructive where the frames will be so i'd like to go through the idea which commissioner antonini hinted on and expanding the bedroom into the deck area is not a structural area but an issue by which the deck would be sized much more in coping a reasonable

expansion of the house can support i'd like to suggest that the front set back be increased so on the third-story opening of the stair that is the edge of the closet to how far the facade sets back on the third-story so the closet the deck part didn't disappear but the bedroom is in a northern direction and basically expands to emancipation proclamation campus the entire hatched area to the edge of the light well, so this moves in this becomes a bedroom the deck itself becomes moves back so that it matches the hatched line which is the expansion of the deck on the

north or east end i'm to have a notch for the deck to hold back it becomes a privacy issue in some form of looking back into the building the second-story is a question beyond i'd like to see the rear wall of the building to really work closely with your frame because beyond. >> i'd like to explain all of this to you. >> there are reasons for all of that. >> i - >> the building code. >> excuse me. unless i ask you to speak to me i have to have the right to express my thoughts i'll ask you when w i have a question i'd like to sit down stand there i'll ask you a question way the building is designed has

many good ideas on the other hand i believe we have to have a deadmissible line the issue about the slope and slope instieblt is not an issue raised at all in the discussion of the commission which this moved that an issue with beginning and beginning will be on this with not only a magnifying glass but a super magnifying glass anyone will have to fear this will not get proper attention this will not be part of what they're considering we can acknowledge the hardship but didn't having has nothing to do with what we're deciding, however, what we

do with the rear building how far it shouldn't be as tight in the back aside in the deck that is something we can discuss at this moment i'll suggest we move the they'll back to the edge of the stair that we expand the bedroom into the hatched area to the light well, we cut the deck back on the third-story to be in line with the hatched area on the third-story and create a notch anti out where that addition of the people's deck is there and that's another motion. >> second. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'd like to hear the architects response beyond. >> there are a lot of reasons it was designed the way it was. >> i don't understand i mean

obviously you looked at a larger set back i imagine you looked at a larger set back in the front and have expanding the building area into the deck area explain why. >> so can i have the camera on the plans can i have that, please this slide right here is the 47 percent rear yard set back that's required by the planning department right here so we are required to not build from this point to the back and our variance is for anything we touch from the 45 percent we have to get a variants we're ask them to break the rules that's a big concern not a guideline it's a rule that i could seriously and i wanted to stay away from

that 45 percent set back and provide also a decent open space for the project. >> can you tell me how many feet from the end of the addition to the 45 i mean, the 45 percent area. >> the whole sites is 65 11 so 45 percent is 26 3 and a half. >> how much do you know from our proposed third-story addition to the end to the 45 percent rear yard. >> ohoh - it looks like another 3 feet. >> okay. >> so, yeah other issue for the good on the second-story i don't want to touch the rear walls the glass walls anything within 5 photo of

the property line has to be fire rated or solid wall we'll losses our light and air on the second-story i don't want to touch mix-up between the rear yard except the safety and the other issue is that for four stores or less they need to have a window egress escape so from the third-story to the street there's a direct access to the street i can't close that off towards the street those are some of the building codes and planning code that are flying when we designed this. >> don't you show us the dr requester asked for i'm not quite sure the 3 feet by 3 feet notch is sloped to be it is unrelated

unrelated to what we heard. >> can you take a pen and draw it is impossible to read from the rear. >> can you see that. >> yeah. >> okay. >> the hatched deck new area is the 3 foot by 3 feet. >> that was before an exterior stair that went up other roof deck we're closing that ear the house had two stairs from the ground floor to the second-story and then the exterior stair from the second-story to the roof and those exterior stairs were kind of richie so we're making one stair instead of those two

sets of stairs. >> that's on the second-story. >> right. >> so just to be clear on this photo this is 26 hodge's this is thirty holmes that is the subject property and this is taken from the dr requesters rear yard so you can't see or be affected by that little 3 by 3 feet which is behind there at all it has zero effect on the dr requester. >> that's what i was trying to said. >> it's hard to understand. >> it is i guess in her light well is further. >> yeah. further that way. >> all right. >> we'll hear i i mean, i think just going back to the issue the

set back i think i'm less concerned what is did issue about the notch i don't think it has an impact if at all an extraordinary one but the hodge's street is setting back and taking some of the 3 feet if you went to the exact line of the 3 feet. >> we've added landing on the stairs it wouldn't - >> i would i'm exploring doing that more set back not to reduce the size of the deck. >> right. >> if there's noise on the deck not a function of the size of the deck necessarily cutting 3 feet is not gagging going to make that quieter. >> yeah. yeah. >> there's different .

>> could you come back a foot or two more in the front and get a better set back on hodges. >> it is not a great to have more jog in the house and we sort of had this lovely moment frame design from the structural engineer so it is not a wonderful design move it is possible, yes a lot of things are impossible but, yeah it's possible. >> i don't know about hodge's street i think that hodge's is narrow but buildings especially as i go on hodge's there are fairly tall already. >> yeah. the neighbors across

the street are a lot a lot taller than that. >> - is that building dribble across the street i mean what's directly across the street. >> i'll show you just a second. >> this is from the roof deck so you can see how tall the neighborhoods are from across the street a lot taller. >> i think i generally okay with it i remember it would be ideal to have a larger set back in the front but getting another foot or two and the building

adjacent to you on hodge's shared that light well, where's the visibility and which one. >> to the north on hodge's - south on hmos. >> do they have a shared light well what's on the one side of the light well. >> oh, it's the neighborhoods rear yard. >> so the structure you may have impact. >> we don't want to build into their light well. >> not into the light well but the roof. >> okay. thank you. >> let me ask a couple of questions about the neighborhood issues unites they're the project sponsors. >> who is occupying the building you've mentioned two people one family and one

resident. the court: yeah. currently a group of young professionals who's renting the building prior to this process we never had any complaints of problems we would have taken that seriously we're committed to having a single-family home and appropriate to the neighborhood and you know the project sponsors is wanting to get along with the neighbors if there's issues we're totally committed to addressing that we take that seriously. >> is that a rent control unit. >> it's a single-family. >> it's a single-family being rented. >> it is price control right. >> not a single-family home do we have any reason to believe that young tech group of folks

are short-term renters. >> they're not short-term renting no. >> we have questions for the project sponsor. >> no who the parties are. >> it is the renter but they're trying to have a single-family home. >> probably not. >> probably not the people that will rent the single-family home. >> mr. chairman we doesn't expect at the beginning we rent it to the friends of our family and their 3 professionals a woman and two men that work two of them work downtown but we've not expected the planning process would take as long as it has we only expect them to be there a couple of months they've

been able to stay as long as the process but once they know as we tear the place apart they know we plan on making that a single-family home. >> regardless of where we are with the building design i think there is an issue from the homeownership side you have a larger deck as christmas eve the size of the deck didn't control the size of the party but we're hearing it is obviously got a great feel a killer party spot and have a dallas of wine or whenever there's responsibility whatever this project end of it end up as see and being thoughtful to the neighborhoods but with condition i think this is a nice neighborhood thoughtfulness where the person living in the building or the landlord to be enforce full of

the rules i hope that happens commissioner antonini. >> we will - (inaudible). >> thank you i had a question for commissioner moore we we are talking about the variance situation they could go back 3 feet and took 3 feet off the front or something near that is that what you're proposal is or you going further back i'm not sure of the dimensions and i'm trying to stay within the lines of the building i have a closet abutting to the opening of the stair so instead of having the residual space with the closet you go to the stair opposing and think you have a depth of a

light well, you push the bedroom out and be reconfiguring the law of the out of the bedroom you're gaining a better space beyond the regular adding of the deck anyway so by moving out the building away from the street i think we're creating the proper set back and by you shaping the deck in the rear we're creating a deck as larger as the bedroom itself that's all i'm asking for that's answers that what is the amount of the space. >> it is a depth of the closet i cannot it is beyond this as the depth you can take the typical depth of a closet.

>> i've heard about a variance when you start moving further back beyond 3 feet you'll need a variance maybe you can answer my questions. >> because it's a rear yard the structural upgrading and expansion the building on its own requires a variance because there's no backyard any move on the building will require a variance period as to we have a zoning administrator sit here to help us make that exact determination. >> do you have a comment. >> i just wanted to reinforce the procedural if it is moved to the rear yard it will require a variance the variance grant

didn't include the third-story addition it was code consistent. >> what was before us. >> the way it was now. >> there was a variance grant by noticing not nor the third-story it will require another variance as a commission i think we should be strongly prepared to support those kinds of variances because they at least create a better setting for all instead of one building that variance on its own is not a common interest. >> okay. i think i still i wanted to ask maybe the architect and mr. julius is is this going to be workable we're making a trade we're moving space to the back and we're

taking space away from the front and i would assume the plan is an equal amount of each we don't want less space in the bedroom it is constrained will this work for you. >> i don't think it's a good idea all the letters we got from the neighbors are the first letter said it will impede my view it will impede my view and when kate connor respond it is about light that's the only thing that's regulated and everyone changed their story and said oh it's a dark alley and not enough light not enough light i really that that making us

reengineer this for a jog in the bedroom from all but argument from the neighborhoods that have been generously about view and not light 14 montgomery and hodge's they're a much taller and higher than this building i think that is a quiet a punishment to this project to have to push that back to accommodate that the arguments i don't think that have basis. >> it sound like it is feasible to do it though that's actually my question commissioner moore do you have something. >> a planning the purpose of a planning commission is i'm speaking to you as an architect to hear the public voice of what is concerned and as.

>> might not know we're the facilitateors of public comment your sensitivity to work with the conditions as they are and try the best in the knowledge of your professionalism to meet the larger common objectives you're trying to tell you would be encompass on you i'm a little bit taken back by your attitude those changes are easy and whether it involves structural engineering is not an issue at the time those drawings come to us we're talking about ideas of buildings and you if you don't get commission approval because the commission denies the project altogether all your calculations and everything is basically