neighbors to reduce the horizontal and verticalal extension we arranged did meeting with the gentlemen to express our frustration that mr. washington was saying that was the primary importance he conducted 9 neighbors and he asked to contact the people i told mr. pealing man, i would contact him with changes to the plans the requests referred mostly to reducing the horizontal and verticalal extension he wait until 3 days ago to eliminate the subterranean room and add a second units he had no interest in considering any requests we

made thank you very much. >> i'm leslie a member of the eureka valley and land use committee i'd like to read a letter if ellen former wanting of the association dagger or dear commission the catalyst and the potrero eureka valley neighborhood association has reviewed the topic of the permit operation at 3 to ord street the eureka valley neighborhood association was the record of the supervisor wiener department of human services passed if 2013 it didn't meet the basic scale and size determined by the sgmdz we ask the planning commission deny this for a conditional use

permit than you. >> i'm wrapping up you recognize a lot of our faces we've come back time and times again about the projects in our neighborhood i have this visible health talking about why you see the same people i know we've even few months a new project the interim controls they came up as drs now cus

we're disappoint the planning department is recommending this project in our minds the intent the sgmz here one tiny portion of city two cul-de-sacks two 6 very large developments that are proposed are underway that is why it seems like they're under siege and supervisor wiener came through with 9 interim zoning controls i believe the plans are reasonable they're not saying no, but something in scale with the neighborhood that make sense and didn't have the detrimental impacts they've gone on about today if this proposal were necessary

and desirable we wouldn't have won and 19 signatures or both neighborhood association saying no to this and i've also want to thank you for your time and consideration and to mention a shadow in particular that is commissioner antonini who during the 22 ord court hearing distributed houses that were in the orders of 2 three hundred and 21 hundred square feet as good-sized go single-family homes we agree that that that seems reasonable to us so we're asking you, please deny the conditional use here there are - we're trying to not have everybody come up and talk we have some people that didn't get to talk if you could stand up we

had anymore people around three or four this afternoon thank you all very much the 32 ord street developer builds over 3 three hundred square feet. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> >> sorry. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> okay nirts public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards. >> interestingly enough with the project changed that week can you put the plans up i don't believe i was we got a hardcopy i was interested in the second

unit. >> i don't how to focus this thing. >> this is the jury box pearlman this is the second floor the first floor above the street level a portion of that room that exists we're digging further in the stake in the back from the garage to the house you know to single-family above so we were able to get 5 hundred square feet but in keeping the

existing house twlrs windows up front but once you go back slightly you're into the hill so in terms of making it burn that we would on this be digging further into the hillside. >> there was a house down the street i held up a year ago by duncan i believe at 82 ord court was a magnifies i don't know if the neighborhood knows it dwarfs to the next door but a smaller small studio units that went with that one my understanding i understand is sold and it was to me desirable you know you've got constraints on the lot i completely understand that i

think you can adding the second unit and getting action on the desirable i think the legislation really was to from supervisor wiener was really he says not sold in the housing crisis i'm cynical are we adding to housing stock i would be supportive of the project if you have something that kind of went into the reliance of a code compliant of 3 thousand one hundred square feet the neighbors are calling for if you want to create a second units that to me is necessary adding to the housing stock when it dbes sold sold to two buyers and not in-law units and keep vacant but the question for staff thank you very much the question for

staff for square footage you know there's nothing in the interim controls that 19 said if it is not viable from the streets it didn't count. >> correct and i'm assuming a tenth of the lot to solve the housing crisis controlling the dissension indication. >> not a lot of projects the direction given was to have the design it is virtual square footage but the legislation will look that. >> if this was a times that we should ask clarifying questions none seize it i'm taking it by square feet and i don't support the project i will support it with a larger second unit and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say.

>> sorry jump in we're not exempting is one of the reasons it is the staff given the the location the sub telethon it is upgraded. >> i believe it is less felt i believe that so you're not going to get any disagreement from me but adding the square footage you time to create housing a sizeable second united. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. to the speaker that quoted an earlier project 22 to 24 hundred square feet yes, i did. >> a december sent single-family but by definition in the real estate market you see square footage as marked on the rooms you still have that count in terms of real estate purposes like a 5 is a couple of

bedrooms a living room a kitchen and dining room and junior has a modify small dining room in the same houses they're often downstairs room even with baths not counted as part of sdeej e square footage you never count the garages or laundry rooms and or furnace room we're treating apples to apples the existing housing is counting the garage but bring out the fingers those are huge houses and say that is what more than they should be is taking into account things not counted i'm talking about 22 to 24 hundred square feet i'm counting all the things you don't count as square footage so some of it is a matter of facts

but the spirits of this thing is to try to make those alleges not have negative effects on the neighborhood i think you've done a good job 18 between one house and 6 feet between the other house one of the neighbors came out and talked about shadowing or loss of light from the children's room by the third floor this is something we can address particularly this project is continued in the future and resdoindz might be possible to make some modifications bill the the truth of the matter a four-bedroom home could provide the same thing if possible shrunk to some

decree i like that the way it is but maybe a few modifications a steep hill behind there a 42 feet slope that is built and that is difficult i understand the two adjacent houses were enlarged in 2008, and it is height is the same as one of them and lower than the other one the kind of thing that fits in nice you've seen the pictures not this huge house it over you know dominates the size of the other houses and it seems to fit pretty well i don't have any problem that square footage because of square footage and even the interim controls say we want to have a conditional use not you can't approve something with square footage but find out it is necessary and desirable it

is creating a nice large single-family sized houses it would be nice it the units were bigger and the main house slightly smaller in terms of sized the only size eliminated would be you know not have negative effects on the light and air to the children's rooms so generally i'm supportive but i would like to see i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but i think that is a well-designed project >> commissioner moore. >> i want to ask the zoning administrator to take us what is intend on the resolution of 5 61 and supervisor wiener interim legislative which is it not i don't on the supervisor gives us

us tools to deny a project based on conditions that meets other parts the code that could you please engage in the issues and others considerations that summarize in this report because i don't think this commission has been authorized to do other than using the conditional use authorization to elevate the discussion in front of us i don't believe the lower grades increase no square footage as it meets the neighborhood guidelines and the rear yard exposure to other side, etc. modifies except to bring it into a discussion. >> supervisor wiener would did you that better than me but the issues the fact that projects would have otherwise been as of

right the neighborhood notification subject to the sgrmdz if their increasing by 75 percent and not adding a units those come before you as conditional use authorization and the burden a higher for approval if something comes before you as conditional use the project is approval of approved as opposed again you have to make a finding to approve the project certainly there were two parts one was look at the overall size of the building and try to reduce those but give flexibility if you're adding a dwelling unit we've excuse for section 317 and an idea for how to better deal with the affordable housing concerns

but mainly the conditional use authorization before this commission on that ground i agree a slightly better and slightly larger dwelling unit would be more in keeping with trying to bridge the gap between a very large home with the neighborhoods we're not doing social engineering such as we want to we have to stick with the physicality of the building i'm concerned that the next door neighbor that had a model a few years ago is calling out he believes is potentially a discrepancy to the model building and those are two points by which i'll create a pause to have those questions answers before i support the

project the project does many things correct or shout out the right of the frame so done by so many other buildings in town but more muted color not to stick out this is a separate discussion i'm in principle not opposed to the projector i'd like to cage it to deliver a little bit more ♪ respect to the second unit as well as the for me to be more further examination on the height and typography >> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask a couple of follow-up questions to mr. pealing man, i agree with

commissioner moore's comments square foota is not. >> it is less impactful i commends you it is a lot different mann than the project on state ord but i think it could use some modifications but walk through the change you're proposing to make that second floor or the third floor above the garage a studio and eliminate that backroom to eliminate that media room in here. >> the original proposal that room required mechanical

ventilation so we decided that to take care of square footage that's the most expensive square footage we're digging into the hill that was one way to eliminate a certain amount of square footage. >> if you made those changes do we have those changes. >> 43 again 4 hundred plus in the garage. >> how much is the studio. >> the studio is 4 hundred and 90. >> and then what are the rules as far as cu do you fall under the cu if you add the unit. >> in the garage pushes us over if i took out the garage it - and the garage will be factored into the overall square footage with the addition of the

units that will be in expose of an increase ever more than 100 percent so the conditional use requirement is required. >> in excess the bigger main haul. >> the total square footage the building in excess of 3 plus hundred square feet. >> i want to responds to one thing that 0 commissioner moore said we had a survey it identified the point of the houses on either side those are factored into all the work we did not correct at the beginning we came back and got a survey with the participate and the heights the solar panels and the heights of the house on 3638 on the opposite side to align based on the survey i don't know that

it is inaccurate. >> you're speaking to me the gap in communication with the person that presented the point i i'm picking up. >> the problem is shadowing you can't create a building in san francisco without shadowing we have 18 feet you away which so so for respond the residential guidelines i thought wisp doing something to address that i don't how to not throw shadows. >> i personally didn't believe if you have a difference in interpretation of heetsz bans him doing his renovation two years ago and a level of discussions i'll expect do have

with you and you have documents by which you're designing a new home it has to be met not my discussion i was pointing out the discussion here. >> my overall take when i saw this 3 e 4 hundred 57 square feet you designed it in a way that is getting there i like the addition of the other units and would like to see that flushed out a little bit more i share commissioner richards concern of the other units maybe not the size but it remains as another unit that maybe adrc a second door to the entry to see two carriers i worry about that blows that out as part of the unit that may be different if you saw the two doors that go

into a in-law unit goes upstairs to the in-law unit unit the top story can be to accommodate some of the neighbors with those changes i could are supportive of the project i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner richards. >> i move to continue the project for exploration for increasing the size through variance or some other way a great design as well as whatever else feedback to make sure that the neighbors understand the calculations for what are true and correct and incurring i move to continue. >> second and the date is march third. >> march third is the next

available hearing. >> commissioner antonini. >> oh, i thanks i'm in favor of that i would like to see the following thick explore mr. pearlman you're original plans are the existing plans the second floor above the garage and a media room that will pushed back further and eliminated that the now front room both a studio so not impossible to push further back i know you exclaimed about the lighting with the backroom but, possible gage additional square footage to provide ventilation in there you know agency you said with the media room or find some kind of a lightwell a suggestion and the other thing i want to see is just resolve as

much as possible the third floor rear extension may cast a shadow 18 feet from the neighbor that is complaining about the challenges bedroom but some things like shaving a corner that might minimize that shadow and the third thing to try to get around agreement to what shadows might be cast on the solar panels i know you said you'd pay those are the 3 issues i'd like to see those things resolved before the 3rd of march and whatever else the commissioners may have. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore i'm arguing request commissioner antonini summarizing technically speaking the building application on which the

neighborhoods project to the north matches exactly the grade and site of typography we're indeed sure your autograph talked to each other and to comment to mr. perry that the drawings changes or whatever last minute changes are submitted in hardcopy because there is a large drawings there were restrictions i looked at them on the web i'm comfortable with what i saw it is indeed in keeping with the tradition of the commission and commissioner johnson all thanks very much i echo i appreciate having the them in print format i get them and download them and perceptive over the course of week is there

a second door i don't know that. >> a quick question for mr. washington can i may not be here on the march third hearing i know that is a cu it is a higher level of decision making authorities and then the dr but what this have been considered a demolition a lot of things happening here. >> dennis devlin southwest team not considered demolition. >> that's interesting had we not seen this as conditional use because the interim controls and their were you not discretionary review authorization filed. >> this is a standard notification if one of the neighbors filed a discretionary review authorization before. >> no doubt people in the room

would have filed that wouldn't have seen especially not filed but this channeling georgia actually this strikes me from the plans that were presented even from the 3-d schematics it is interesting to note commissioner richards is this a demolition or not and supervisor avalos had us comment on conditional use for dwelling units we gave a way to look at the demolition and one of the ways that was mentioned go drastic increase in size indeed this would recent come before us a year from now or 317 as

written. >> we've started that and reinforcing training great. >> commission there is a motion and a second to continue the item to march third. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that that motion carries unanimously 6 to zero. >> commission will. >> regularly for san francisco planning commission commissioners, we left off on items on our discretionary review authorization calendar item 17 ab record number 2015 plus at 10y street request are for a discretionary reviews and two public initiated request for

discretionary review authorization and good evening commissioner president fong the request before you a discretionary reviews of two system from with approximately 13 hundred must square feet with story over basement about approximately 3 thousand plus square feet in the glen park and frontage with age afternoon feet of one and 9 feet a substantial down slope with 20 feet higher than the property line that is immediately around the residential and rh1 to the current proposal with one story over garage on the southern side of the street the structure will provide 24 heat in feet and proposes a penthouse centered on the massaging it is visible you

must consider the discretionary review authorization and the two discretionary reviews on the new construction permit if in public initiated drs westbound filed it was for the approval by the zoning administrator and finding the existing structure was you think sound and not a historic resource about public initialed dr requests were- the dresser to the left and right of the subject property both the dr application say that causes loss of privacy and light and substantial cuts off the mid block open space and that the proposal is generally out the scale with the structures the dr requesters is suggested moving the rear yard wall to be in line

with the walls and eliminating the decks and the roof deck be removed it it is in kroornsz for the eliminations of a projecting deck well ceiling heights and the railing of roof deck are pulled off to help to maintain the privacy a match let that meets the standard of residential guidelines they've received opposition but not comment in supports or opposition since the staff report was permitted and not take discretionary review authorization it created a family sized scale in the site

surrounding characters the projection of the building with the mid block open space is consistent with other buildings and is not along the rear although is it the consistent with the entrance of the street the entry achieves an end with the public and private realms the proposed materials with compatible with the nature of the neighborhoods has been primarily detailed that concludes my presentation. there are two dr requesters so we'll call the first dr requester. >> thank you commissioners i'm lloyd my wife and i live in the backyard with the street my wife bought the property in the 80s it is an

investment and solely our retirement home and it was lovelyly removed in the lass late in 1999 we agreed 32 square feet and moved in there january of 2000 it is my hope i can make a case to you that 831 a design is not in keeping with the guidelines believe it or not i've been over the guidelines nothing like you but hope to show an agreement was possible and could have been reached if there was a desire to do so so we've felon there would be a much bigger property and bigger house the property to the level of two or three times the size of the small one very

delipidated and - but didn't expect quite the up size we found the way i look at it even though the 831 huge, huge consequences for us and the related i guess you call them the guidelines of light and privacy and mid block open space other speakers will address the neighborhood character but this is really from what where we view the property a full 4 story prompt at the back i don't think there is anything else i've looked through the neighborhood anything else most of them are two or three stories with a crawl space i'm also going to say i've looked around

with penthouses their scarce in the neighborhood as well and brought some supporting documents here with me pretty much with the kinko's card and some answer. >> i've put together i think the way i'd like people to look at how this changes our this immediate neighborhood if i may put this on can i is there a way to shrink this this >> i superimposed this is the house that is under now the small house and i've simply cut it out of the elevation and pachtd it over what the new

highway will be like as you can see the round numbers twice as high but you see the existing so some stent higher than the others especially the penthouse and the roof decks the side elevation i've done the sort of the same thing here this is our house obviously that is in front that is the deck a little levy we use as an entry and the new house as you can see the deck on the second floor and the deck on the roof deck they sort of create an era of superiority of place over us

this online is the other neighbor those are the windows in their house that will looking out over the existing house basically lieutenant the side the new this 831 it shows also i have the plot plan to show here's the plot apparently right now this is our house this is the existing house, and this is the 845 chair wiener the new house comes back the deck here again overshadows this deck and expends above the roof deck is here well - if i get a little bit of latitude.

>> your time is up. >> you'll say two minutes of rebuttal. >> the second dr requester. >> hi my name is leslie i own number 5 thank you for allowing me to speak i've supplied packets with diagrams meetings with the owner with these stopped it was obviously the owners were not willing to go further than the 4 feet the rear boundary of any property joins 831 i object it effects my property san francisco guidelines indicate an objection to demonstrate the proposal has

issues that are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances it is extraordinary what is original in grant park the diagram one a and 4a glen park has a similar footprint it has approximately to 50 percent extra foot in excess of the surrounding building the established dwelling are of a similar depth the newer building between shelton and the building have a similar foot if approved it is unusually large and out of scale for the neighborhood i hated to see that without sized, the proposal is exceptional it is inconsistent and i have seen compatible with

the neighborhood the mid block space diagram two a the open space is less than the surrounding precincts it is critical it is projected diagram 3 a that was currently a continuity of open space through by yard expending to the after the proposed development will almost sever it diagram 4a it allows a 3 story extension it is out of scale with the surrounding building and impacts the mid block open space the elevation diagram one a from my house the height of the fifth floor first floor is as high as my house it is 5 stories

including did solar panels on the roof that leaves my house boxed in diagram one a the back of the building is the full length of my open space to the corner of my house don't the extensive length and bulk it is inconclusive like looking at a mountain as opposed to seeing is several miles away the character of the area by the it was a strsh suburb my home alone one of the cottages of the neighborhood please don't let the new 831 over power in order to be compatible with the character area minimum the mid block open space and respect the privacy of the neighbors to

permit the extend more further into the rear yard with my boundary fence line with 831 that is diagram 6 a mrs. preserve that green space as that is thank you for allowing me to speak thank you okay excuse me. now calling speakers that support the dr requesters. >> good evening and thank you for being here to listen to us i live n.y. too this project the block where the project

takes place between shelton is a catalyst a case for the residential guidelines seeks to protect the proposed project explicit follow the design guidelines section two neighborhood character and section 4 building details going west from this shatters a aesthetic glen park properties that are defined as mixed virtual patterns of architectural features is that the structure is setback from the property line on the sidewalk and set back he homes and display of an early era in glen park the greenery is

virtually appealing and the design principle in section two page 2 states the design building to be responsive to the overall context i have no speaker cards to preserve the virtual character of the neighborhood. >> i don't think we should losses those setbacks it part ever visible feel and adds to the greenery it is setback design with steps up from the street level the property there's a 3 unit 813 and 15 it steps down if the street that is part of the pattern and the there's a bridge that has access to other unit and setback from the street and 817

and others one is my house built up to the property line if other era and break up the pattern the r e g design principle states in areas with very front setbacks the building setbacks are not act as a transition between the adjacent building to overall have the landscape it didn't because it eliminates the setback and in r g d the guidelines states the quality of the buildings materials must be compatible with those in the surrounding area call for light similar to light exteriors to be bans the color on the block and page 37 sir, your time is up.

>> sir, your time is up. >> thank you very much you have a great voice as well. >> didn't go i'm thovms stone on shelton avenue and three houses from the proposed project one is the neighborhood character and some cites specific issues has been pointed out fwlerp a historic neighborhood over one hundred years old most of houses built between 1920 and most between 1940 it is a small entrance one square feet one might not considered small does not meet the standard in glen park the proposed project is

really, really big i don't object to those grounds by those challenges can be met as i said site specific issues you have to been there to go appreciate that the sleep slope and 20 foot drop from the street down to the rear the property line and the house that is most effected that comprised on shell sown is oriented at 90 dresses what you, you expected the front door didn't face into selling shohel >> you have a second story house by the time it gets to the

rear it's a 4 story building and the doors open into it is as if the ceilings are 25 or thirty feet tall imagine you south step out you're front door and as close as i am to you it is a 40 foot tower now that is a challenging site i realize that could be difficult for an architect to that the privacy light blocking and so those kinds of issues that a site that presents that problem but i can see a challenge not met or addressed so i would ask you to reconsider approving that project and have send it back to the drawing board essentially any other speakers in support of

dr requesters okay not seeing any, project sponsor. >> can you turn the - >> go ahead and speak. >> tony architect good evening commissioners as andrew mentions to don't worry about the shingle building they're small home and replacing it the europe paragraph it uppet 86 to replace the existing house in that the site plan if you

look at shelton they look out to the opinion not blocking their views of the opinion we're to the north of them so we won't eastbound casting shadows on them as well over the last months numerous meetings with the neighbors and discussed various things that andrew at residential design team in the red on the first floor because the change from the walk to the rear yard is 20 feet almost second story above is it a family room a guest room and area for the kids on that floors we sixth district that 4 feet the main living room

level with the sidewalk we ended up reducing the mass of that 11 foot 7 inches by cutting it back as well as moving the projected deck we had to redesign the interior and reduce the size of garage only one car fits there a $40,000 lift for parking for two cars remove the master bedroom deck and set the building back 5 feet on the elevations as you can see on the upper left hand the elevation and 7 shelton in relationship to us a doted line showing the neighbors and the mass we reduced over the past redesign this is a section clearly shows

the 20 feet drop from the street to the rear yard the man is correct a redesign challenge whoops and you'll notice that you see the outline from the mass of the original design and the dot that shows we're compatible with our neighbors this is a photo a series of photo same photo as you walk into the rear yard 5 and 7 shelton didn't have a side yard you open up the gate you can barely see the outline on the first time photo the second photo is our large window and a bigger mass the third design reduced it somewhat and the bottom is the current design we

clearly show we've reduced the mass and eliminated two decks at the rear the building only one and the deck is closer to gray lastly angle all of their view how much of the sky view the owner would like to talk about. >> my name is tom, i have a letter in support from 9 neighbors that doesn't oppose i've purchased in 1996 where we live around the corner western out growing our home and able to purchase a home more than two years ago the property was in foreclosure and since we've been making every mortgage payment the intent to make it the new

single-family we're current blocked from doing that we met with the neighbors a total of 4 times and held 2 meeting one that he neighbors request and did you are best to meet the neighbors and no meetings was refused my understanding with the commission with the utmost restrabt respectfully ask we be allowed to moved on the project thank you very much. >> thank you a two minute rebuttal - dr requester number one you have a 18. >> oh, sorry public comment in support of project sponsor my apologies. >> good evening i'm my case

newman i am a 24 year residents of glen park a unique neighborhood i had did pleasure of raising my three children i'm no support of this project i'm going to take a slightly different slant the mayor has noted repeatedly about the flight of families in san francisco i think what we have an opportunity for you to give this family an opportunity to stay in san francisco and raise they're growing family and enjoy the benefits i did with may convicts of glen park a very, very family-friendly thank you. >> thank you. >> i live 7 houses down from 2, 3, 4 house we moved into our

house in 1991 that house has been there for a long time we welcome a new house i think that is pretty my neighbors down the street redid their facade i know this family our kids went to the same school from kindergarten to elementary school i want to understand the understanding neighborhood and want a nice house it is interesting to hear about private properties our house was built in 1992 our performs are in the same place and my kids send messages you're neighbors next to them this is great to see that is positive and over neighborhood since the 20s we don't have a problem it is city living and i will say

we're the next block down all the housing houses are 36rs and not a big house this is a great house. >> is there anyone else who wishes to speak on item number in support of project manager and dr requester number one you have a rebuttal. >> as far as the being able to raise the kids they're in a nice house and raising their kids i don't see how moving to a bigger house makes that different i'll point out when you look at the enter block green space this is looked at right from the street this is the online of that building superimposed on the previous one it is true from the

kitchen and so on the enter block space continues, however, from the deprecate decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not very muabbreviat in theeprecate decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in tprecate decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in trecate decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in tecate decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in tcate decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in tate decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in tte decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in thee decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in t decking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in tdecking and from the yard and the way we entered is not abbreviated in the yard - that will be obviously with the finished off this is the view when i enter the gate my house to the right of that indeed 4 meetings the meetings were sort of the ground hog day we asked the same thing and asked for four feet less of penetration and asked for the roof deck to be removed we asked

for that at every meeting never ever addressed okay thank you. >> dr requester number two 18 minute rebuttal. >> will i again, i want to say we're happy to have tom and his family nova move in next door we exterminate a building much taller not to come so far back into the yard and if they reoriented the family room on the first floor to cross instead of down they would be able to move in line with the upper two floors i know that is difficult when you start off with a huge house and try to reduce it down but

from my point of view it is just a big place thank you. >> thank you project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> anthony projector architect the overhead please i think in our packet having you have photographers looking from the two neighbors in the east they have decks it projection out from the rear yard and three story our is 4 stories we are pulling out a little bit further into the rear yard

we are allowed a 25 percent rear yard and way exceed that 25 percent rear yard is right here we're back 8 feet on the lower two floors again about 15 feet on the two floors so also again as you can see those are the windows from 5 and 7 shelton lloyd has agreed to move the state dishes we're overjoyed we're not blocking into the rear yard and the open space so

public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i think you already answered that the talk about mid block open space you made that clear a conforming project more exceed the 25 percent rear yard that is required if i can mention dof land and andrew forced us to push it back as much as we could so the main living area to have room for a living room and dining room and garbage we made it as at this time as we could. >> as far as i, see i don't have any objections nothing exceptional or extraordinary but the fact they've gone back i don't know how many square feet

but whatever that distances you have to have floors agriculture the way to the ground since there's spaces they've use it for a sub basement pea basement they've used it so it is presidential designed and i think lovingly feet 7 inches off and taken the railings off the side to the north of the neighbors on the adjacent street so the lighted that will be blocked in the sunlight so i don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary and a very well designed project especially from the street commissioner moore. >> i appreciate that the building has been reshaped that in the back the question i'm

asking myself why no real assess if the living space by the staircases and to the garden it's the garden from the photos i'm seeing are nice i'm asking that question with a roof deck on top of the third floor it is imposing so give me a mom i'm talking with the commission at the moment i'll reading the question the penthouse staircase towers above everyone is absent two of the building has some qualities i can support a large this but the typography and how the buildings relate to each other that is not the only one that the large-scale is accentuated but i'm asking why

not access to the ground floor that is a legal garden the garden looks at nice i'll basically question we need the extra platform you want to explain that. >> oh, i think i can. >> supervisors on the first floor plan between the tv rec room and tom's office a door that leads you to another door it takes you to the garden i plan i love the gardens so i design houses there is always an assess not to run to throw the house to the garden so from the garage to the stairs to the garden but assess from the

family room to the garden as well. >> in a way it doesn't come directly off the living room our stepping off but a choice that is equivalent. >> yes. and i want to know why you think that is necessary i think that the area within the spirit of the larger neighbors discussion i'll challenge that. >> the google maps are roof deck. >> is there within typical from mines it is not typical. >> typical of a section like this. >> as you probable heard you've been here earlier we took that issue the roof penthouse and this additional height and

the situation quite seriously we're trying to get away from getting center protrusion with height is an issue i can't support the building - i can support the building but not the roof deck. >> is that the roof deck or the penthouse. >> both i believe that 24 above others it fits the six i can't support that. >> commissioner richards. >> i hope to commissioner moores concerns one of the biggest issues with the drs the roof deck i support the project without the roof decks or the penthouse. >> is that a motion. >> i move to take dr and

approve without the roof deck. >> commissioner antonini there are decks that exist off the bedroom and living room; is that correct it gets eliminated. >> no only off the living room there were two decks only one now off the living room. >> i'm not saying the other possibility through there is a motion to take the elevator act out and make it assess that might be something subcommittee, consider if they don't have the elevator penthouse. >> if i engage with commissioner antonini if i may the discussion we sunshine had earlier that particular project didn't fall 234r9s consideration, etc. it is still to weigh the impact of a new

home and it's size and brought to us in the form of a dr there is still something we need to weigh not reduce the building make it in terms of the volume of living space there is enough assess with respect to the living area to go to the gardens it is required, etc. it is very nice piece but i believe that is plenty to accommodate the needs for the expansion of this area. >> okay. let me ask the projector architect i'm supportive of the motion, however, we still have the deck off the living room or the bedroom. >> living room, sir. >> but not off the bedroom. >> there's a hang in setbacks a little bit are further you'll have to go back further to allow

the floor to have quite a bit of space and compromise it looks like wasn't we'll probable given i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say we may have to go without the top deck. >> i think my client will live without the top deck. >> okay. thank you. >> if i may clarify the motion to take dr and approve with modifications to remove the stair penthouses and the rblgdz commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to zero. >> and place you on item 18 ab record number plus on 36 webster

street a request are a discretionary review authorization and a rear yard variance good evening sharon planning department staff in a nut shell is a request to legalize the one story horizontal addition approximately 1498 by 10 and 8 feet hey at the rear the dwelling on 36 to 26, 38 webster street the property line is setback approximately 11 feet plus and extends to approximately 17 feet with the rooftop line. >> hey. >> hey, we're still working

here thank you. >> the proposal includes the removal of an 28 roof deck at the southeast corner the building with a priority to repair the rear addition with the windows in approximately 90 square feet roof deck that was the subject of the board of appeals with the work of the permit it involves conducting a horizontal addition with a footprint to the one that previously exist and in addition the zoning administrator will consider the rear yard variance with the prompt project the proposal was expired because a portion of the horizontal was effected to extend to the rear yard please note a correction on the

materials it is to maintain a rear yard not as noted in the dr a one story addition steendz into the rear yard provide some other background on the property approximately 5 feet deep by 16 deep wide at the rear of the building in july y506 a variance was granted for the subject property to conduct the one story horizontal rear addition by thirteen feet 6 inches wide by the north side property line and included a roof deck above the addition with slopes,

windows and a balcony approximately, one feet he 6 inches deep by 4 feet wide of the second floor, however, the configuration was conducted in 2007 was modified by the previous owner and approved in the 2006 variance the current discretionary review is filed with the project have the opportunity to the property the dr requesters concerns are with regard to the size of deck and rear deck and open space and light to the adjacent property to the north and also that the rear yard variance should not be granted it didn't that meet the planning code criteria, however, the dr requesters have suggested that

if the subject rear yard rear yard variance is grabbed it shouldn't be larger than approved in 2006 and a variance and in response to the dr requesters concern the project sponsor has the original proposed project by removing the square footage in providing ceiling roof production system and a 24 inch open railing in response to the dr requesters concerns the planning department recommends that the planning commission not take dr and approve the project that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> dr requester please

>> thank you commissioners ace scott sanchez for hearing our objections i'm leslie my husband and i live adjacent with four kids and have resided at the house for over 10 years we've remained in the city with four school aged children that attend the public schools we have respect for the property this requires a rear yard variance because the structure didn't comply with 925 percent rear yard variance we think this is straightforward that the structure should bey designed to stay within the visible area the lot this project obviously if meet any of the planning code criteria we're perplexed why the

variance was approved in that 2006 but no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances will will justify a variance our block is level and closely resemble the other blocks as seen in the aerial across the street is 25 feet by one feet the same dimension as the lots in and the adjacent properties are single-family homes in 2006 they delayed the wall was an xshg the wall was built upon the request of the owner on webster we were renovating in 2004 our block like other blocks range from one and one and 50 feet some buildings extend out more this is not angle exceptional or extraordinary with the same

continues 24 webster expends 12 feet beyond our building they claim it is the basis for granting it is one by 25 a standard lot size and the sales force same as the 7 lots on our block on the same side of the project sponsor second there is no unnecessary hardship they're a retired couple and reside in san francisco only half of the year in 2006 the variance seeker said a mature of sunlight was blocked and light is minimally impacted as you can see from the shadowing in this aerial photo the project sponsor claims dry rot has caused a hardship they've demolished the addition

sorry they voluntarily down the road it without getting proper permits this was what render the 2006 permit and retracted by the zoning administrator also dry rot is not a exceptional or extraordinary and third the variance is not applying the enjoyment it is common for properties on shallower lots that have building that extend out furthers the project sponsor is a property right, however, attempts at rebuilding did for the comply with the building code and twice red-tagged by the department of building inspection the granting of that will be material to the properties the rehabbed guidelines says the april's must

be considered about of the boyd structures will, impacted negatively and karen to the north will speak to this this is not possible for our privacy to be impacted i sure you state is and that will be more expansive you are loss of privacy will be that time and why i engage my kids are young and very, very demanding i wouldn't be here if no privacy impact the deck will be 3 feet deeper than the deek in 2006 that's the one and 32, 60 percent more square footage and when we purchased lighthouse and lastly we believe that allowing the structure to cover 82 and a half percent of lot will effect other to seek roof

deck variance the granting of this variance will not be in harmony with the conditional use and speakers in support of dr requesters. >> i'm kearney along with my family own directly north next to 3636 webster that appropriate boundaries our property line i'm here in support they should evolve we want to see the city and project sponsor fellow the code that should have been fold in first place we believe unless that happens it shouldn't be approved. >> any other speakers in support of dr requester if not project sponsor please.

good evening commissioner president fong and commissioners and mr. sanchez anticipate mr. lindsey i'm here on beef of the project sponsor and the architect is mere if this was a brand new stwrur maybe the dr requester - we had a structure approved in 2006 and the wvtdz were found appropriate by the zoning administrator at this point the neighbors doesn't request the variance but it is unappealable and final focusing other than the 2006 are - yes. that was built subsequent to the approval and in compliant with the variance my clients stood by the properties in 2010 didn't

know until they do the kick the tire overhead those are the exit conditions with regard to the attempt to repair the dry rot in san francisco the structure was basically having dry rot 6 years after crux that's not typical i just to be clear this is not new construction no new footprint from what was built in 2006 and what existed over the last 10 years the variance requested now is mark farrell to expend the deck 3 feet and not changing the footprint the footprint is not changing but the work to preserve and prevent for the water damage and again, the picture i showed you the

condition of the ellis acted is still as is given the on slot of the el nino rains coming we're angels to move forward about this hearing or hearing and again, the zoning administrator with the, yufs the variance didn't change the footprint and no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances we are not caused by the project sponsor, i.e., shoddy construction until they opened it up i want to talk about the discretionary review the rdt found no effort in changing the existing conditions is nominal didn't rise to the exceptional or extraordinary to grant dr we're only repairing an existing structure that a portion is in the rear yard because of the zaurns in 2006 that need to be done to preserve

that portion of the house that is used by my clients as part of living space i ask you to consider that and the focus that the dr requester has made loss of privacy and buyer of light that would have occurred over the years the other two points we addressed the dr requesters to remove a small deck on the south side to return the roof deck to its configuration and addressed the concern that initially about having a firewall along the property line and stayed the property lines will be protected by 42 inch railings or sold wall in the case of at - i don't see the basis our granting the dr ask

you and mr. sanchez ask you to approve the variance we've met you all the requirements. >> i have one question in regards to the open railings have you conferred it meets the requirements. >> yes. a preapplication that is an exceptional for the roof. >> that's; correct and the plans should be in the commission we're available for any questions and urge you not to take dr and thank you for your time. >> thank you calling speakers no support of project sponsor. >> hello commissioners i appreciate you working late as you do i'm the owner of the

condominium above this and i might be able to focus this a little bit so 3636 and 38 webb store we're highlighting the dr requester pointed out we own a one foot lot she has the benefit of one foot and their house in 2005 tripled the size of the lot to be a very large structure with the deck the other thing i want to show you is the - this is the structure as it was built but

and as you can see the extension as you can see the text above it the scenario were badly constructed with the dry rot what the public sponsor is doing removing his section to try to accommodate the dr requesters concerns it in my opinion it is taking it to a extraordinary degree but repair the structure in our backyard i urge you to reject the discretionary review. >> dr requester a two minute rebuttal. >> so first and foremost i was aware the project in 2006 i

thought after looking at the criteria that the zoning administrator would approve the evaporates i don't believe i don't believe the project sponsor has provided material the tiny deck they've remove 9 illegal deck scott sanchez asked them to remove that that was not from me but from scott to the zoning department and they somehow lost sight of the permit they began ta to build a larger addition the dry rot was to gain space on the deck 3 feet into

the rear yard 3 feet might not seem a lot of when it is in the buildsable area but 3 more feet into the rear yards number had the project didn't respect the privacy of the boyd structures that's why karen and i are here you're privacy is detracted by this deck when i moved in it was 5 feet and then 7 feet now 10 feet it keeps getting bigger and bigger we did the rooms within code no variances and david perry our neighbor made modifications upon request with nothing other than making these requests because david you're our neighbor and lastly again, the project sponsor figure out a way to do this with only a

buildable area. >> project sponsor two minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners e like dick just to be clear we're not extending further are mergely this is the hand model shows you what is there you can't see it from the distanced distance that is already there we'll only covering over that there was no - yeah. no intent when the permits were pulled in the summer of 2014 to basically tear down the rear edition they found dry rot and get a repair in place sometimes you steady it but basically made a complaint to dbi we're keeping within the

distance and with respect to privacy the dr requester said she's worried about her privacy those conditions have been existing and from our or her submittal from the dr request she can't possible see in with the occupants with the whether or not a edition can't see a 6 inch firewall not physically possible for anyone standing on top of that deck to peer both her deck we ask you to deny the dr. >> if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> thank you public hearings is closed commissioner richards. >> just a question for staff the project sponsor attorney

clarified it what we have before us is a dr of a exceeding scope of work ever k of repairing more than 50 percent of a structure requiring a rear yard variance is that it if you i have a deck to replace 50 percent of deck yet 50 percent of roof deck is this structure had a variance we're trying to rollback the clock and deny the variance that was in 2006. >> right that was the variance was lost by the will that the city to have a permit to remove that building they lost the title you that's why they're seeking a new variance. >> have a fresh look at that.

>> but replace the appendage by the variance. >> okay thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i was going to ask scott this is typically something that the variance issue and we're adding into the dr that is deal with a variance so i don't see what is extraordinary and that finds finding commissioners, on that motion exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and i can find justification that is a i have concerns i would condition a variance think others reduction of the size of the came back that was approved at the previous vaurngsz and squad car off the end of the

building with the roofing that the issue of the project sponsor that is acceptable but i have concerns the impacts of privacy and the dr requester is a sizeable firewall but on the property line the adjacent property and having the deck extends that is a private concern i'll limit cutting it back by 3 feet the deck was previously approved. >> even though the windows are gone kept the deck back to where it was recommending keeping the deck. >> that is the condition of the variance. >> so knowing that i'll be supportive of not taking dr and

allowing the zoning administrator. >> i move to not take dr. >> commissioner antonini. >> there's a evaporates because the deck infringes on the rear yard. >> yes. it requires a variance but not grant the variance to the full stent i'll modify such the railing the deck is reduced 3 feet under the original variance. >> that's kind of what the dr requester said. >> yes. >> so that will still be into the rear yard but not as much as proposed. >> the structure it's the study will be encroaching into the rear yard the same amount as the previous and what they're proposing i'll simply take the deck that they've proposed and

shift it impact 3 feet so the, will extend 3 feet beyond the deck we're taking dr and approving. >> it is something that is can be completely conditions you can if you like i could take the action on the variance and note that because of my action on the variance taking discretionary review is not required or take discretionary review and condition it the same up to you. >> let's see i think we have a motion. >> i want to say and appreciate that degree of sensitivity because in certain language it is what it is, however, because the moisture building i'll approve it is incredibly sensitive so thank you for explaining that to you. >> commissioner antonini.

>> is it clear by approving the motion we are conforming to what the zoning administrator has. >> what he will do. >> what he will do. >> it sounds like okay to me. >> the motion to not take dr and approve as proposed. >> not quite yet. >> approve as modified by the city administrative under the variance decision. >> she's indicated. >> yep. >> okay got it. >> we can take a vote on dr and then the zoning administrator will - and i can take the action now and close the hearing and be kind 0 grant the hearing that the proposed

roof deck setback 3 feet if the promote building wall noting that otherwise the footprint of the study was the same as it was moved in place. >> thank you. >> so back to the original motion not to take dr. >> as amended by the zoning administrator. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to zero. >> commissioners that places you on public comment i have gone speaker. >> one speaker. >> okay. >> xhargz jim born and raised in the mission district a proud member of a union and

generations that built this city as you can see where residential e commercial as you can see i never wear black hats with the cia that are referred to as carpetbaggers they have no real ties to the community and as much it is a real detriment to us the proof during the greatest construction boom of the city when it was built we lost 11 hundreds members the greatest impact in the african-american communities the bayview hunters point unfortunately as a member of my organization having been 3 generations the black brothers and sisters are the la is to be hired and the first to be fired

i can't look at the fact we're less than 3.8 percent less of african-american in the city i came here to see you, you came here to impact the fellow san franciscans all of us san franciscans and at no time do more of an impact on each one of us you allow us to earn a december sent wage i'm hoping us you do our business i know how difficult this panel as i remember a lot of at least a minimum of thirty hours a week i you couldn't ask each time you meet with people the developers are there the problem when they

turn the project the general contractors say yes, but do to a tongue in check and role their eyes but when it comes to hiring folks the developer is not there to check up on them but at least make an effort to say hopefully, we'll make native san franciscans like myself a place to hope and dream as and do because i want to remain here for the remainder of my life they continue to live here as at the wish to commissioners happy new year and thank you for staying here late and don't they bring in dinner. >> it is coming commissioners, thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, the meeting is

adjourned and welcome to the