d that we remove a window from our property line. we had an existing window on our property and they requested we move it. so we actually come -- complied with their requirements and they are supporting the project for us. we also work with the planning department. we have application meetings and it was reviewed by the planning department and we feel they are very respectful of the neighbors concern for the light and privacy and air. so, based on these items, i would like to respectfully request that you reject the appellants appeal and you allow this project to move forward which by the way, started a year 1/2 ago. thank you very much.

>> can we hear from mr. tieg? >> good evening, president lazarus and commissioners. corey tieg for the planning department. this property does fall in the rm 1 zoning district zoned with a 40 x high district . it was reviewed by our residential design team. it was determined that it was consistent with the residential design guidelines. 311 neighborhood notices was conducted between june and july 18, 2014. it was heard at the planning commission on october 23rd last year and the planning commission voted unanimously to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. the appellant claims the plan was not

accurate while stating the scope of the work is and clearly states that it includes a horizontal and vertical addition of reconfiguration of all floors and also on the section of the plan of the cover sheet one. there were concerns about what plan was included in the neighborhood notification. per our contract with our mailing vendor, those notices are only permitted to provide 6 pages on back of plans for the level notice. therefore they were not included in this plan. these are the least relevant sheet for the plans because such deterioration would not be included in the notice but the other plans did trigger the 311 configurations. they were unaware of the proposed work to finish the

lower floors. they brought that issue up at the dr hearing that was discussed at the dr hearing. there was a planning commissioner that asked questions and there was a proposal to finish the lower floors and provide additional bedroom space for that unit. there is concern being raised that adding these bedrooms on the lower level is tant amount to creating more units. there are no new kitchens being added down there and the zone administrator has interpretation on these types of situations on how they are designed so they are not easily converted to illegal units and this project is consistent with that bulletin.

just very quickly about the impacts which have already been addressed. it would be lower and less deep than the appellants building. the third floor addition referred to has significant front and rear set backs and will be setback three 3 feet from the property line and as mentioned the subject building is no shielding a shadow. many of the lots in san francisco are 25 x 100. however the planning code specifically states that with a lot within 25 feet of an intersection that the lot is 750 square feet. this lot is 350 square feet. per standard code it

is larger than a lot. the question of whether or not the proposal that it was not within the neighborhood guidelines. almost all of these buildings are taller and deeper. as one adjacent neighbor who supports the project. again the planning department's residential design team reviewed this project twice both before the notice went out to neighbors and after the discretionary review was filed which is a practice to make sure they didn't miss anything and look at the specific issues raised by the dr requester. the appellant just now raised some planning code issues that the project may not be consistent with the planning code. those are related to rear yards and construction. those issues were not previously raised but i have reviewed this project in detail and appears to be compliant with the rear yard

and rear obstruction requirements. based on that, i feel the permit was properly issued and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. anything, mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. i don't have much. it's a site permit which has been approved and the addendum is currently being reviewed. but i don't have any building issues to bring up unless anyone has any questions. >> there was a claim that there were inadequate fire exits and the additional of the lower units would pose a significant danger to safety personnel should there be a problem like a fire. >> i did hear that whenever the

gentleman spoke there. i wasn't familiar with the code section that he gave. if he wants to elaborate more on that on rebuttal. this code 12 something i don't have that. my understanding on a 2-unit building is that you don't have to exit from the public way from the rear. you can exit to the rear yard. i have spoken here before about that. but if there is something in the code that i'm missing, i would like to get that section. i didn't see it in the brief. if he has that, maybe i can speak to it again. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? if there is more than 1 person

speaking please move forward and lineup. >> public speaker: good evening. i have lived in this neighborhood for 8 years. i strongly oppose the proposed project as it will adversely affect me and many others living in this neighborhood. first of all the size of the proposed project is huge. the project sponsor and the planning department consider this a 2 story building and in fact it is 5 stories. this is completely out of character for the area where the majority of the buildings are a garage. the roof is out of the character. this project will create a precedent and sooner or later will create a change of the

neighborhood characteristics. and i fail to see how the proposed project will improve neighborhood quality, but i do see how it will create issues with privacy in the nearby homes. it's not just a coincidence that the only letter of support we have is that the project sponsor was able to produce comes from an owner of the cottage next door. that property owner has already submitted a demolition by the department. it's under going a review. there is no doubt that it is his intent for his proposal for his other huge proposal. this neighborhood has a strong identity and it has it's character and when local architecture and street design and the neighborhood and history is forgotten. a neighborhood can accommodate sudden changes. i think we have to be

really careful about all of those changes as to not set precedents to change the ownership and affect it's residents. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> public speaker: hi. my name is phillip brady. i live directly across from the property. there are shorter lots. my property is surrounded by five other properties. this property directly to my east i'm against the back of it. i have four windows that it looks right on. they are building back and up and now i'm finding out they are putting bedrooms in the bottom. i guess you can put them bedrooms in what you call a garage or basement. when something has bedrooms, it's kind of a

floor. so right now it's going to 2 stories of living space to 5 stories of living space facing my windows. yeah, there is a loss of privacy and i am kind of boxed in. the other issue, speaking of boxes, i love the idea of people improving their property. i don't have a problem with that. especially in our neighborhood where properties are going for $1500 a square foot, people are building as much as they can. they are ugly. they block views. they block light. the final point, on the sun, the idea that the property and won't block any sunlight to the south. that is not true. i have a deck back there and during the summer months it's going to come straight down

and will block all afternoon sunlight into the appellant, an drae's property. it will cast out. in the morning or afternoon the sun is going this way and it's going to block. i have a really small yard. i actually tore it up and put fake grass. we have two kids, we use it. that's going to block our light. this is a ton of square footage. please reject this project. especially the top box. it's not what we want our city our neighborhood to look like. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> public speaker: high, good evening, my name is trevor wilson. i live on

chestnut street. in the building owned by andre. i would echo the comments that my neighbors have shared with you. i think there are some pictures shown that would cast some sort of doubt around the level of sunlight blockage our the level of interference of the use etc. but i think the reality is that there is going to be a blockage of reasonable access to sunlight. i think there is a reasonable access to ventilation when we open our windows. i have 5 or 6 windows that face north and will be facing the line of construction. and the privacy issue is in arguable. with the size and scope of the proposed plans it will be easily accessible to view into windows that face the new construction. and on top of all that, in terms of the use of the new added space, it's not going

to be any kitchen built. i think common sense tells me you don't add 1,000 square feet to a building without finding a way to adding a new dwelling and people to the area. i think from a privacy perspective, it's going to cause a problem i think from ventilation and light perspective as well and like my neighbors would certainly encourage you all to accept our appeal. if for nothing else, i think this is slightly over-the-top modification to this building and certainly uncharacteristic to the other neighbors on the street. >> next speaker, please. >> public speaker: good evening, my name is kelly donahue. i'm a long time resident on chestnut street. i cannot talk about code or any of the

studies that might have been done on light or air, but what i can tell you is that for 20 years i have been washing my dishes on the kitchen sink and the light comes through that air well, it's a light well in that area and it's more of a practical application to say that if you are looking out of a window with light and air, to put a nine 9-foot box on top is just common sense to say that that is going to be directly in the area of that sunlight. like my neighbors, i also have habitable windows, habitable areas and that light and air is going to be affected. i also know that having lived in that area for 20 years, that the neighborhood is very unique. and by popping a top on

something, putting a box on something it changes the character of the neighborhood itself and also our dwelling. so on a practical point of view, i just hope that you will listen to all the things we have said as long time neighbors and as long time contributors to the neighborhood and thank you very much. >> ms., what floor do you live on? >> i'm on the ground level. >> any other public comment? seeing none, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal.

>> okay. first of all let me rebut some of the issues that were raised. we have no problem with the rear yard except that it's -- what i mentioned was usable space, the rear yard, usable open spaces never addressed that. there is no independent access as required by the code to access that rear yard from the first unit. and they never advertised it. also i had they made a discretionary decision not to mention the grand rooms, bedrooms downstairs which are obviously a fire hazard because there is no access. a fire is there. because the only access they have is into the rear yard and

it's not locked. there is no access to the street. but having said that, this is the one that is most an n annoying to the neighborhood. this is the existing structure. now this is the neighborhood light and it was intended to give light. as i said they have 11 windows in there leading to their bedrooms, kitchens, living room. but if you also see you notice a small difference there somewhere where a ray of light would come in. they have not just come in and boxed this place up. they have not just boxed it up. this area is also locked. so when the sun rises very slowly and it rises very low. when it's

time for -- she only has an hour of sunlight. she will have perpetual darkness. basically they have a reason and they have been complaining that maybe the owner is in ka hoot with the department because of all the thing that have happened. i cannot for the heck of my life. i have worked for the planning department. shows you that any addition that is 12 feet high has to be noticed. i'm not sure where this is coming from. he is quoting from this and this one says exactly the opposite of what you are saying. above all what we have to look at is the impact on this long time neighbors in this place. he never comes to these meetings. it doesn't need to be here. what we are saying, is

let this project go back to planning and let them renotice it, if not remove the box. so that these people will live in a better light. thank you. >> this is the notice from the residential design guidelines from planning department rejecting any box. >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> yes, so we've been closely working with the planning department and we've been following all the rules and guidelines put in place from the planning department when we designed the building. again, we have been, the addition is recessed 15 feet

from the front, 3 feet from the side. we are providing plenty of light and air. the fact is the light and air is actually being blocked by the appellants own structure that is on its own light well. so the light well is in permanent shadow so there is no way that we can create more shadow. it's in permanent shadow right now. and to come back to the masking of the department, we feel we are very respectful of the neighborhood and again the building would be much smaller than the appellant and in comparison to the neighborhood itself, the massing is in keeping with the neighborhood. so, for those reasons we would like the board to let the project continue

forward. thank you. >> thank you. mr. tieg? >> thank you. corey tieg from the department staff. just to address a few issues. the open space question, the appellant brought up the difference between the rear yard and open space. he is absolutely right they are different requirements. however this project, each unit is required to have a minimum usable open space and they do. the upper unit has two roof decks that both meet the requirements and provide more than the code requires for open space. the lower unit, the lowest basement level has a rear yard which is a code compliant rear yard for section is 135 is added for use as

required for open space which it is. the usable open space is adequate. there was a difference to section 136, the 12-foot pop out. he is correct if you are doing that and only that, that triggers 311 notification and the project went through 311 either way. that section is not relevant here. that section is when you have a rear yard and the basement is 45% you can go into your rear yard what we call a pop out up to 12 feet. in this case the property has averaged up to a point and that point is the rear yard and they would not go beyond that. they are not using 136, planning code section 136 to do a pop out. they are building completely within

their buildable with the planning code. the other issue, the box of their top floor addition and whether or not i was going to respond to that. so, the floor plan for the top addition. they are showing a 3-foot setback which is bubbled with a note for no. 2. it's harder to see here but the note for no. 2 basically states that which

is small is basically saying that those revisions were made pertaining to planning department. the initial design requested they set that back three 3 feet and the sponsor did set that back 3 feet. i'm available for any other questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. duffy, anything further? >> commissioners, just to answer the question regarding the exiting from the rear of the building to the yard. we do have it's an information sheet. i think as i said earlier, i have spoken about this issue before. there is a code requirement for the exits to go into

the public way or to the rear yard. in san francisco because of our zero lot lanes and just complexity of exiting, we did come one this information sheet. it does require that you have to have 25 feet in the rear yard. that also can be shortened if you come into the building department, have a preapplication meeting and there is a section in the code that allows you to use ab 5 which is an alternative code. i know they are putting a sprinkler in this building. that would be something that a plan check or code check can potentially bring here. that still could be done. sometimes it isn't caught on site permits. certainly it is an issue and it needs to be addressed

by the architect or dbi or you can ask the architect what they will do with that. i did see some measurement but i'm not sure what the distance is from the rear. that is important to address for the addition. >> if they are in site permit now, the site permit process is looking for code issues? >> yes. that's correct. >> okay. thank you. >> we have a question. does anyone want to address the architect. >> i thought the architect would be addressed. maybe the architect is the designer on that and something that they may have worked this out with dbi that i'm not aware of. it was

just brought up tonight. i'm just going through the ipad. i do know we have the information sheet. i wanted to make you aware of that. >> thank you, i think it would be appropriate and diligent in our interest of the neighborhood safety to ask the architect in terms of egress in case of fire and protect the occupant as well as the people providing the safety to the occupants. >> i agree. >> yes. i didn't address that on the rebuttal. the building would be fully sprinklered and we are within the appropriate distance from the furthest point of the building to the front door for the exiting. >> while you are up out of convenience. is the owner intend or does the owner occupy this building? >> the ouner occupies the lower

unit. >> the owner would be the ones putting themselves at risk in the incidence of fire. >> there is no putting themselves at risk. it is in the requirements and we are meeting the exit requirements. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think they have brought up a number of issues. i will bring up a few of them. one is overall the sale of this building with additions is very similar to a scale of the other structures in this neighborhood. secondly, this building is north

of the units directly facing out from the light well. yes, there may be some instances for a little bit of light. i get that sometimes from the north where it could come at an angle that is greater than 90 degrees. that's not long and not very often that it happens. most of the blockages really not from the building with respect to the light well. the issue of privacy, it's not necessarily code related, but we take that as one of many factors when we look at the scale and the relationship of buildings to buildings. i don't see that this is much different than any other building in san francisco where a key lot then crosses the orientation of other lots and therefore you are