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 nothing we're trying

to help you modify the building that is appropriate to the state in which you are here in front the commission you're telling me i'll lose my structural engineering doesn't mean anything i'm sorry to be rough i've never heard anyone that speaks gating quite the way you do i have to be clear you're probably emerging on a successful practice and next week time you'll knows where you are which when you are at this stage this is annoying. >> i'll continue. >> to commissioner moore just i think what we're trying to do i'm getting the rational for making this move staff recommend it be approved as designed they seemed to be fine but you feel

for visible purposes it is better to have a set back i'm not quite sure what we're getty need the rational for the set back. >> for the simple reason if we set that back you don't get a reasonable closet so your two common lines by which you agree that is a reasonable project and we have a variance to push it out and gain the extra space your lou gehrig's disease or gaining the space. >> i understand it seems like that makes sense but you'll gape more in the back than the front if i'm reading that correctly i'm supportive as long as no net loss of square footage and the other question of the variance how will that be handled if we approve the motion by

commissioner moore with the modified project that requires a variance does that have to go back to the zoning administrator for a different hearings on his own separate from us. >> yes. a separate hearing gastric to the zoning administrator bus the variance was not needed that's why he is not here. >> we can approve it today and the other hearing with just the variance. >> yes. like he normally does. >> not involving the commissioner. >> it appears about 3 feet before the rear yard that wouldn't trigger a variance there could be an expansion of the bedroom space without encroaching. >> i'll be more in favor of limiting it to 3 feet but if it didn't work they get less bedroom space that will be

better off to go back and take the chance with the variance. >> i'm prepared to go driver's license i'm using the edge of the light well because architecturally it's easier to do and that's all it will do so whether or not we want to you hear you secretary allen i would look for the gentleman that has more experience since he is coaching a colleague. >> i think there is no question we'll agree to a set back autos your prototyping in the front a push back of 3 feet we've got 3 feet of flex room not to get a variance it is you think appeal it is a small variance we wanted to limit that and go to the absolute back a thought set back line and pull that back 3 feet

that's a great compromise and we're ready to do that. >> i'm prepared to work for that and leave that within the zoning administrators app. >> commissioner richards. >> at this point the hearing is closed we might have a question for you. >> to commissioner hilliss point eave sat on many many projects and questioned the size of the roof deck it is more modified as 6 or seven hundred square feet past the roof so pushing it back to the end of the light well causes more spites we have more light in the alley and actually a better project for all that's why i've seconded the most. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm fine i was going to suggest a set back to the

variance line the roof deck is different the only open space we've seen a lot of roof deck and decks and backyard i'm comfortable with the size of the roof deck taking the rear yard so i support that motion and i make a motion to take dr. >> i'm sorry there is a motion. >> oh there was a motion i mean - >> are you. >> i amended the motion based on the idea of staying within the set back line and not requiring a variance. >> in your oriental motion you had another thing on the second-story. >> no, no that never went anywhere only the leaving the notch on the upper floor third-story roof deck and cutting that back and cutting the roof deck back the walkable occupyable part of the roof deck

to the yes, ma'am of that hatched line by which you have a perception of the large roof-deck but the roof deck starts at the edge of the deck. >> commissioner moore you're talking about the north side strip the new portion of the deck. >> you're right. >> i'm not sure - i don't quite understand that second part of the motion i think know that this set back. >> the now portion commissioner moore is suggesting to pull that back to the corner notch dimension so there's is basically a set back from the north side of the building of approximately 3 feet from the

neighbor >> what. >> and you want the roof deck set back. >> okay 0 so i wouldn't be supportive the dr requester asked for a notch i think we're kind of randomly taking off portions of the deck no one asked for i don't know if it's a noise issue i support moving the building back but not the notch. >> as you know the notch is currently for the existing stairs which means the existing building is had has an open stair in what is the notched area instead of filling that in i want to encourage to have it partially filled b in but have

the last portion be cut back again so you're not having too much of an expansion into the property line. >> i'm not sure i know where it is. >> it's that piece they can share that. >> it's west. >> this is where the deck would be. >> it's up here. >> this portion here is this what you're take the opportunity. >> no, no, no, no. >> third-story. >> right and exactly where mr. jennings is pointing.

>> this sliver. >> no 3 feet on the corner. >> no, no. >> it's the part that is - >> it's where the current stairs are. >> we're saying not fill it in do you have the drawings? and the existing stairs are on the north side. >> sfgov if we could get the overhead

overhead. >> he the drawings we have this is - >> yeah. >> is that little piece. >> okay. >> so this is right here and even if we agree to leave the deck all the way out here i want to pull the deck back to here if we cannot get consensus i ask this piece stay open and this piece comes back. >> again, i get it now i don't who wore trying to help the adjacent neighbors who owns the property and didn't take the request. >> this is the vallejo neighborhood. >> she want a 3 foot by 3 foot cut out. >> that's part of the proposal.

>> to keep the roof no deck on 3 by 3? >> this is out of the ordinary do you have a drawing of the request can i put that on the overhead for a second. >> it's really small i mean, you, do whatever i want to do but it will help holmes and help me. >> that's essentially what commissioner moore drew. >> it that what commissioner moore drew she understands it. >> you want that on the second and the deck. >> the second-story is the deck if you - yeah, it's - what is is stairs are here existing they

want to in fill beyond 3 feet i'm saying doesn't do the in fill outside of stairs if you get 3 feet fill we'll get more light there's a misunderstanding this picture we do get light. >> put that open the overhead. >> there's not a light here we get the light streaming through here because of the cliff we get the light two ways through the light coming in here that reflected to the light we will and light streams that way so it comes both ways it is tricky i have a 20 feet cliff and one last thing did you follow what

commissioner moore drew. >> is that right. >> i thought i drew what you have been pointing out. >> yes. in fill up to the stairs. >> we're going sideways. >> just for clarity commissioner moore was talking about reducing that number of the deck not the second-story. >> the third-story it is this wall the roof deck open the third level not the second-story in fill. >> that's correct. >> i'm not sure i understood that. >> commissioner moore thank you. we'll ask if there's any more questions of the commission. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> just to clarify we're moving the living spates back to the line a that's allowed without having to generate a variance

and then american people appropriate amount is being taken off of the corresponding front and the deck the notch where the stairs now exist on the third-story deck level is not being filled in it goes back as far as it is drawn and if this is what the motion is i'll support it. >> i think we need to clarify we're talking about not living spates on the second-story but bedroom space on the third-story. >> i was talking about the third-story and some days i have a hard time when motions are repeated i would ask secretary allen to repeat motion. >> the way i understand the motion is to increase the set back at the third level of the master bedroom area the same excitement that can be increased

to the rear and rear property line approximately 3 feet to the right. >> ; is that correct commissioner moore so for that portion of your motion that that dimension to me appears probation officer to be 14rig9 less than the depth of the closet. >> the architect will probably tell me it is more than 3 feet i would say 3 8 or 4 given the width how wide is our bathroom then there are dimensions going on there. >> the four foot quarter or something like that . >> the abruptly. >> the third-story bathroom.

>> is 8 feet. >> no, i'm not talking about length but width. >> it is 8 by 8. >> i don't think that is 8 by 8 that's impossible. >> it is is the bathroom or the closet. >> it has to be more clear so it is the angle to the bathroom. >> it is 2 by 8. >> is that about a 4 feet closet? >> the criteria move it so you can close the variance. >> sir i'm working with the stair opening we can't fix it i would like to have the front come back to the evidently.

>> understand it commissioner moore so the motion is 0 reduce the third level by eliminating whatever the dimension of the closet up to the stair and then increasing that same level up to the rear yard you'll go within the variants. >> that would not require - >> the problem is the closet length is probably not 4 feet. >> right you're losing about a foot. >> at this level of drawings didn't show the walls even though it is difficult to say i'm sure we can skillfully have a late out they're not effected there's enough creativity in the expansion that the architect can work without. >> commissioner hillis.

>> because we're getting two detailed i'm trying to eliminate the closet she's got a two foot closet i'll give them the flexibility of designing it and moving it under the original motion to the line take that same in the front and let them design does we are trying to design the landing to the stared as no, i'm not i'm trying to leave the stair into the building design unchanged that's the most important part that tracks all 3 floors that means using the yes, ma'am of the stair uncombufrmd that's where the demiss is. >> it would be possibly going on beyond that. >> but you can't do anything with the space.

>> that's on the other side not right front of the stairs. >> i'd like to toss the question back to the gentleman so i'm asking you. >> no worries about andrew i appreciate the detailed back and forth i think we're okay to push it back 3 feet and set backing the building from hodge's consistent with the existence of the close even though it doesn't have to be equal. >> i think you understand it is clear in the design we can manage that this is basically, what the motion is. >> i'll - is there a motion and a second to increase the set back the same width of the depth

of the closet and increasing the depth to the rear yard set back line as well as reducing the third level deck at the north corner equal to the depth of the adjacent building commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu. >> commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes national anthem 7 to doer commissioners that places you on general public comment i have no speaker card. >> any general public comment any public comment on this item? okay public comment is closed. and the meeting is adjourned