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 the window she did arrow pointed to next to it a door with a window on it next to that a bathroom call thank you so much. >> okay any public comment on

this item? okay. not seeing any that being said. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think the pardon should be afforded a rebuttal pardon do you have a rebuttal? commissioners >> commissioners as was stated we worked with enormous planners and each the planners had different perspectives we are were offend a penthouse then no penthouse and bulk head it is really been a variety of different changes i've worked diligently with the architect met with the neighbors i even provided changes approval space

i was given at the previous hearing back as you can see we said we'd have a 4 feet set back with the stairs i made that 5 foot i was going to have a closet in one of the original drawings and this turned into the space here originally if you look here this space originally here actually was the bedroom and it actually had a closet that space i gave back that space consists of more space than required in the stairs as you've seen in the packet the open stairs is not visible no privacy issues this addition if you look at the neighborhood this is a recent addition on the street as i stated it is 18 percent learn what i was was

doing i ask you approve the project and take the recommendation and does not take dr and police dog reconsider the expense i had to pay the $4,000 plus planning expense i was asked to incur thank you very much. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i remember this case i think there were two or three that came up in a close proximity of times we eliminated stair penthouses from the tops of buildings which were decks were proposed this one one of them as staff i tend to agree this is a different project that is the exterior stairs it meets the spirit of what we asked for we didn't want the satire

penthouse working on the top of the penthouse basically we want it in a different way originally the plan was for inside of the structure that took up a lot of space that allows for internal for the project sponsor and the stairs are on the outside and so i would tend to be supportive of staffs position to i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say say. >> if there are none i'll make a motion to not take dr and approve the project and the charge for the mandatory discretionary review is project sponsor is going to have to deal with staff there's always a charge for mandatory discretionary review. >> before we precede i want to make one clarification commissioner antonini on the

overhead is the original project okay so these stairs were to a easing assess that at the rear the building they never had the stair penthouse. >> it's a different project. >> offering. >> i want to clarify that and as far as the mandatory discretionary review expense this is the hearing obviously that we have to bring the project to for a second time and that it was necessary by the changes initialed i initiated by the project sponsor so the pardon hears that. >> commissioner moore. >> this project to too much times for what it say, i think

that staff is correct this commission directs the pardon to do basically what needs to be done 0, however another important changes that caused it doesn't have anything to do with foes to be paid by whom and when but i'll approve that comment on this department does the kind of work and gets paid for it as simple as it is so things cost money that's the way it is i'm supportive of this changes and you cannot beat a dead horse sorry to say that staff contradicted it in a manner that makes it acceptable and so i would second the motion for approval. >> commissioners there's a motion not to take dr arrest

commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> and puts us on general public comment for which i have no speaker cards. >> any general public comment this afternoon not seeing any general public comment is closed. and this meeting is adjourned@p

>> we love our parks, but we love... >> and the community who is really the core of it all, came together and said what we need is a place for our teenager to play, not just play grounds for the kids and soccer fields but we need a skate park that will keep the kids home in the neighborhood so they can play where they live. >> the children in the neighborhood and it will be a major boone. and we have generations, the youth generations that will be able to use this park in different places. >> the best park in san francisco right here. >> creating place where people can be active and lead active,

healthy life styles that are going to just stay with them for life. ♪