that there will be some additional and formal discussions about a certain level of expectation by which how we can justify a building xooegs execution that fastest exceeds what we're currently seeing i know we're not talking about the building but the building is far away what i want to see particular area the comments that is when you come up that freeway you used to see the city beautifully actually past the second pill our i know it's marked up with buildings and you're trying to catch it again beyond the tower we saw the dinner on the table and now

they're building another one and we're descending so this building has to be an incredible architecture building and not entitlements we're getting critically strong designed buildings. >> i completely agree. >> commissioner richards. >> we're boxing you in not more creativity that's why i have an issue i'm not 2 hundred to the feet height it could be higher i have not seen anything you can program the same amount of units with a thresholds and come back with a design i introduced in the zoning building. >> commissioners if i may i think on that point the lowering the height limit was my request and they came to us a couple of

years ago with those proposals in this range and felt that because of corner of the site that zoned only 65 feet combined with the tower speculation the building wouldn't work there with those two constraint the hundred and roughly 2 hundred feet whatever it is made a building possible on this site and so that's where i suggested if we're going to go forward with a building here is it it seems to me to makes sense to lower the height limit take off the map effectively it not a high-rise site because of the tower in the 65 feet secondly from an urban stand out we felt strongly that a 4 hundred foot

tower doesn't make sense we can argue about what did rincon hill plan is about and a tower of that height doesn't seem to make sense so we suggested going with the mid-rise building, if you will to be fair from our stand out to lower the plan was ours. >> can i make an offer are suggestion it would be helpful to come just like or july 16th for a working group and show you the option where the commission is if that's a possibility we'll we'll willing to do that. >> if i may in my earlier comment been rincon hill one from a distance it sticks out like a sore thump and nothing next to it is near it in height

i felt it needed companion sister rather than that height. >> i don't know i think for me i'd like to see something hierarchical and skinnier that didn't give you that big block wall coming off the freeway that's my purely personal opinion commissioner moore. >> i actually am strongly in support of the directors decision lower the building because in a way rincon hill and really at the edge of the freeway it comes to a gradual gateway postings it will be partially silhouetted

against the building so it will compose hearing laying the gradually layering the height midnight eir behind what the director is describing i appreciate that being a lower building and again, it say, i always say the devil is in the details this is a skillfully designed building at the moment it is not. >> the suggestion coming later in june to have a formal design discussion we'll try to get that calendared irish that work for you. >> would june 25th work for the commission for an informational hearing on the actual project. >> does that work for everyone for you the sponsor as well. >> july 2nd is better.

>> i'm not here and maybe july 2nd. >> i'm not here. >> you're not here maybe we'll schedule it anyway rich and you'll be on vacation and we'll have a couple of designers from the department come okay. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm sorry, i was going to support the idea of a meeting and what's planned in rincon being a sore thump it is starting to fill in. >> commissioner moore. >> we have a motion; right? >> right >> commissioners a mows motion that's been seconded to a recommendation to initiate. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards no commissioner wu commissioner president fong no. >> that motion passes 4 to to

with commissioners commissioner richards and commissioner president fong voting against commissioners that places us under our discretionary review calendar for item 10 for case this is a staff initiated discretionary review. >> golden gate bridge commissioners michael smith planning department staff that is the discretionary review for the project at 372 sucking sick street the construction of a two story edition at the rear of a split-level single-family unit the department initiated the dr it was previously reviewed by the commission pursuant to the discretionary review action memo what dr was requested by the adjacent neighbors to the west with the dr action memo the

commission voted plus 6 to one to take discretionary review and approve the permit inform one have the circle last year stalkers or staircases and remove the east deck adjacent to the master bedroom and 3 provide access to the new roof deck and to the stair penthouse above the internal stairs the staff has determined the current project is inconsistent with the direction from the commission as it related to the last condition regarding the stairs to the roof deck to the penthouse minimally above the proposed stairs the stairs that assess the roof deck are relocated as a major of

revitalization the bedrooms located at the rear the bedroom will have no windows with a light lightwell didn't doesn't meet the requirement the plan was relocated to the rear of the plan as you see and the stair circulation was relocated to the interior of the floor plausibleness once the stair own knowledge e.r. location their privacy concerns have shifted from the rear of the edition to the front of the addition since the transmittal the department received a letter of opposition from the neighbor a

different project then reviewed by the commission previously when reviewed on emphasis on merit that is cigarette from the front of the building to the restriction revised location of stair access represents new building mansion located in an area that has minimum overlook impact on the exist building and minimal impact on the light and air to the adjacent buildings so for those reasons we recommend you not take dr and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> i call of the project sponsor. >> yeah. project sponsor please. good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners

my name is mary it was my intent to be able to complete the dr actions without being here, however the current planning process would not allow my project start over 2 and a half years ago the project to create a simple modest addition it was set back more than 40 feet from the house the open stairs is set back more than 26 feet from the in front of the house the open stairs a minimally visible from the in front of of the houses the hearing held the recommendation was not take dr and approve as proposed the planning commission intoxicate the dr and approved it subject to those 3 conditions the first two conditions were

easily addresses and the third more difficult after the hearing i meet with do you consider he seized a bedroom egress we talked about users the space but doug and the architect said that was an earthquake reconstructing costs too expensive i went down to the planning department and discovered the earthquake restructuring was a north korea issue take into account the suggestions of planning commission and this new information i was able to democrat that a stakeholder stairs would be a solution this solution allows me to move the stairs into the existing building to meet the dr action a stair penthouse was approved by the planning commission the planning staff interpreted the written action and i was told no penthouse and that staff would not facilitate another 311

notice i learned that a stair penthouse will require a 311 notice i used the penthouse volume to create the centralized back stairs to the roof deck my project has less volume than previously previewed to create the stack stairs a 44 square feet footprint would be required to take the stairs to the roof deck through the planning commission approved the stair penthouse to the roof deck i decided to remove that and replace that with stairs sins this was the request of michael smith there are 4 key elements one i used the footprint and volume that was previously approved and two gave back the addition volume of lightwell a larger set back there telethon the roof deck and 3 set back the

open stairs from the west property line an 8 feet sect and finally move the backward circle last year stairs 5 feet away from the april it is smaller than previously approved in the dr hearing so the penthouse had been allowed the penthouse would be considered volume i could have used for access to the roof deck i gave back a lot of volume from the lightwell the volume is smaller than previously approved the residential design team sports or supports the designs and it meets the design lines and code because of the different was i had 3 planners and architects i've been caught in the catch-22 i stand before you, you than - whatever way i

shouldn't have had to pay for the 311 and the staff dr i'll leave it up to you to feel if so is fair and appropriate on or one to please approve my project as planned to take another dr it will cost me thousands of dollars marrying more and reconsider the planning expense i was asked to occur right here is the picture of the arithmetic renderings of the open stairs that meets the residential guidelines and support by rtd as you can see this is not visible from the front of the house thank you. >> okay. i do have speaker cards opening it up for public

comment katherine (calling names). >> good afternoon. i'm the neighbor to the west i'm katherine we filled the original dr we decided not to file a second dr we don't want to be in front of the commission again

aside from the dr from last year we're hoping this staff will the recommendation will be upheld we have the official property line to the west we disagree this new design meets the guidelines that articulates the building to the light and privacy the property line will create a coordinator for the property to the west and this will be a problem the project sponsor has moved the - has managed to move the private issue from the east to the west and the staircase will provide a grandstand view into our bedroom this lace out the issues they're the same that will have to be reposted whole previous dr was to reduce

the massing not increase it and reduce the privacy issue it is a clear directive how to access the roof deck but the previously embroider not making the mass it is misinterpreted our directive it was the sponsor who choose to reskyline the project we understand there are issues with e impressions egress there are good examples roof deck assess in the gnp neighborhood and we sent this to planning to show how it can be achieved it project needs to be modified once again to internal lists the

overhead massing and privacy issues thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm andrea all to point your direction towards those two the ear in purple describes the additional massing that is current today is current design and the side of the hearing from last year 327 this obviously shows the addition of massing that was currently moving to the rear to the front and in addition bring to the penthouse arrest this profile those are the two things

of the two story the drawing to the right is the new plan and the left is the previous plan presented you have taken back the lightwell is where (inaudible) this set back exists the one story a lightwell for her own property is behind our window less one story wall the sponsor said they gave bay he bake space by pushing the property line she's removed the egregious with those who designed to accommodate access to the roof this he said result is light and privacy issues to our property i'd like to take you back to this drawing which shows the

impacts on our side windows and the front of our extension there needs to be changes made to internalize the revolver assess which is what we talked about last time this is not a complex directive and the challenges quo could have been straightforward thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm a neighbor to the east in 366 and i speak to the opposition of this revision because it doesn't follow what i feel is a very simple directive that the commission could resolve the issues you've heard

so on the next drawing on the left-hand side this one on the left-hand side is the drawing i submitted with my letter where i tried to illustrate the simple way of how the commissioners directive could have been followed but continuing that internal fairly all the way to the roof didn't need the penthouse you saw the two examples from the properties from this one and the dynamic on the right-hand side showering show us how to comes to the roof behind the walls no need for revisions to the fauld facade the stair is behind the wall just continue up to the revolver sponsor mentioned that there

were egress issues and the discriminate to our left shows you how that would have been resolved by maintaining the same that exists currently open the property a window to the bedroom and there's an egress that's the plan allowing for the set back and by comparing the plan on the one story to the right which is what the sponsor submitted that seems like that is easily achieved this only thing in the way of cigarette butt is a closet. i understand that the sponsor mentioned that after reviewing the plan he submitted she

thought she wanted to move the bedroom back again following the same lay out two bedrooms to the back and without the stair you can have an office still maintaining the set back so all those are possible within the footprint that was previously submitted without encroaching to the existing building and submitted if last time with the upper level the extension being moved you could have followed the dr directive thank you >> okay. any additional public comment? they can speak either way if

you're a supporter or opposed to the project. >> hello commissioners my name is a kevin anderson i'm a resident of the city of san francisco and i'm speaking in favor of the project if i can get the - this is a picture of the neighborhood taken from bosworth just the other day to show the neighborhood the context i don't know if you see anything that stand up out in the punish but right there is the addition that all the con on donation is about the whole neighborhood it characterized by being densely characterized by the exposed mass dominates

everywhere there are 4 dwellings hidden the neighbor's house behind those those projects that are unrestricted views to the privacy issue that comes up is a bit of a con in regard i'll do a closer view of the neighborhood itself and the issues of the massing that copes coming up will show that this image show us us another massing and bulk the largest bulk i'm seeing is from 366 and the house on the other side of that in that view so the massing and the privacy concerns put forth are a there

just to abduct and detail there is no plan they'll support and as stated by mr. insight meets all the requirement of the r d g as a stand-alone project coming to you for the first time that project will be recommended for approval so i would ask that you consider the sponsors needs and approve the project. >> is there any additional public comment is there any additional public comment? >> hi commissioners, i was here last time with the dr a lot of the issues that we are talking about are neighborhood issues pardon not so much

architecture when you ask mary to change her project in the dr we've spent a lot of a year trying to figure out how to have reasonable sized rooms and fit in the stair we went with the architect and are around and around and around and finally got to this project that came before you the first time a penthouse was offered we thought well mariah's dad is getting older and we're getting older you look at of the roof deck and i don't know it seems like a nice way to do that a couple of times around with the staff we got 3 different staff people dealing with us they kind of filed each in on the project but what got lost

was her needs she notes a house with rooms that are liveable and we i was there when everyone was saying don't move out into the existing because of the earthquakes i believe that she took it on herself to go down to the counter and found out it was minimal and the thought that will solve the problems we'll get auto the stairs and move them out in the middle of the existing roof so those pictures that you see that show a side view of this red spots city of chicago out, of course, they used red ink as the a side view is no one sees she gaffe back as well as she took at one point

michael insight said if you i watch those hears you were shopping o chopping pntsdz they were not well-designed they were shark this carried the roofline across in the peak roofs to the float roofs of the neighborhoods this went down the tubes finally got to a point we chopped off the penthouse and changed the stairs the stairs look out to the 0 front of the house the privacy issue if you can see it on here this is a drawing of katherine's bedroom she will have a grandstand view of the bedroom that's