rooms are now filled. i will be seeing these folks day in and day out. so, i don't not so sure the holding is reasonable and the ordeal of the plants no one has reached out to us. no one has reached out was good there has been no attempt to offer any kind of opposite plan to it they have or even a slightly change. yes, i did say to them i would oppose a third floor but show me something else. the addition of the dac wheelie amounts to a wood deck in my opinion. it's coming off the third floor as well. so, again, we want to work for positive change. we do want to see the family broken am excited for them. i've been there. i understand that. but they've got to do it in concert with their neighbors. there's been no [inaudible] happen. that's all i have to say. >> thank you. project sponsor your two-minute rebuttal. >> think you commissioner's. so in response to stevens comments about that there's no communication, and a timeline

of events that we've actually reached out multiple times on april 26 we received an e-mail from get is a bunch of questions regarding whether the new building would be 29 feet or 40 feet. whether there will be horizontal addition and etc. we responded back with that the meeting was going to be held on the 13th and we show them the plants could be one of the plans earlier and i said kim has not completed it so when he to wait until the meeting. we felt all articles in terms of sending out mailings. we get veronica in the loop. all e-mail sent to our all our neighbors received cc to veronica and i have goes on record. he proposed on the 14th to remove the tree but i don't think we can do that because i do giant redwood tree or by tree in the back it is over 40 feet tall. he said though the author forward doors and

windows facing east with no egress project building codes did you stab and egress. you can go through a closet can go to a bathroom. we reached out again with honey because honey is a partner of density try to talk him that you know we did have a shadow study and the shadow study shows no impacted his properties is so far away the shadows do not cast any kind of--there's no shadowy with the current property. you guys have a copy of this, too. there's a giant tree in the back, as did do anything that does cash shadow is the tree which has been there for god knows how long. like i said, we just went up planning to sell the place. my parents bought this place over 20 years ago. what high school did i grew up here. i'm raising my family. were both pharmacists. where did you getting members to san francisco. we do a lot of volunteer work affairs for blood pressure all over the city. we both teach at ucsf

actually. so like i said, thanks for listening appreciate it >> think. this portion of the hearing is close. >>[gavel] >> commissioner moore >> just to summarize, we are in r-h one with a 40 foot height and bulk good i'm sorry? >> r-h-wendy commissioner >> sorry. r-h wendy. wendy. 40 feet tall which means this building expansion in terms of height does not even get anywhere near its maximum allowed envelope is that correct? >> yes. it is code compliance. >> i think the building proposes a modest addition to the applicant is separated by the depth of two compliant reader yards, which i think makes the discussion about shadow impact somewhat not

really applicable, particularly, because some lots of light intensification of a build up city is nothing which is really requiring exceptions unless it is really cheap to gel type of development which we don't have here. so the question i have for you, mr. washington, looking at the plants, i do not believe that for a single-family home though your yard stare as proposed is necessary. i think for fire exiting and single-family, we do not need that we are stare. but i'd appreciate if you could confirm that for me? i see one small issue and it's a tiny small one. on the proposed third floor, we have a small roof deck modest in death, yet slightly too wide when it comes to the west side. there is a building adjoining with a chamfered window which you can see on drawing a10 and i think

would privacy issue and require us to cut that will step back by about 3 feet so that when people stand on the deck they cannot look into what is definitely a bedroom living room situation in the rear of the adjoining building to the west. i'm sorry, to the south. sorry for that. to the south. they'll be my only comment could check in on the necessity were non-necessity of the stairs and the small reduction of the rear deck on the third floor good i think this building is approvable, except for those two small adjustments. >> can you comment on the stair? >> if i am correct, you are referring to the stair accessing from the third level down whether or not that is

code required >> that is correct >> i can answer that question with confidence that is not building a building inspector. i will ask the architect. he knows the answer to that and please feel free to come and volunteer. >> i am also a building inspector and a plan examiner. i can certainly the third floor you do need the second means of egress and that's in the code. for a single-family home? >> >> you do need a second means of egress. we are willing to cut down on the deck as required. that's not anything but >> cc the point i'm making? >> >> yes. i don't see that as a

problem >> all that the other issue go to dbi. my understanding of the code on that is or isn't but you're in the business of code >> we can reduce the stair of having another take the stair that's what you are looking for to reduce the scale and then were willing to do that as well. all you need is a second means of egress from the third floor. >> if the stair in its current position is somewhat imposing on the rear elevation than a look somewhat awkward. that would be my only concern is however, i would like mr. washington and planning staff to book a little more closely into that including a double check with dbi so that when we have the stair, if we need it, it may have to be positioned a little bit more sensitive to the relative to the overall façade including the reduced rear deck. at the moment, with cutting back the rear deck and having the stair dominate the rear façade, i find that it questionable >> we could do that commissioner moore >> i think would go for moveon

project sponsors architect, please? >> the question i have read by so many spoke in support of the dr requester was look at the jake 2.0. i see behind the garage a full bathroom. 2.0. i see a pullback from opening up to a storage unit. is there-is that in him all units? >> no. single-family residences >> i understand that things happen over time and is about opening up the bathroom open up to a storage unit. can you explain that? reject as not and in the unit happened was seven years ago it burned him.) to rent it out was due to a fire when they rebuilt it it's not high enough so they it's

illegal life stories. there is a bathroom down there. they dropped it down to make it by wise but it wasn't high enough. so they get a step down for the bathroom >> okay. thank you. commissioner antonini >> face. i see a lot of similarities between the existing house and our first house that we bought in 1976 in the park. in fact, the floor plan of the existing main floor is very similar to just doing the math quickly, i doubt that's more than about 12 75 ft.2. that's what you really counted at least in the old days when you talk to realtors. they don't come downstairs areas. garage, storage, that's not square footage. anyway, what is a difference with our house was it was built in 1931 but in 1945 somebody put what we called an airplane room and it was pretty much what you are proposing. it was a bedroom and bath on the upper floor to serve as a master because these houses have the two bedrooms in the back usually would adore coming out of one of them to

the backyard and they are fine. but, when and if you start having multiple children then you're kind of got everybody on the same floor and having that extra room up above was a big selling point when we bought that house. so, i think your plan seems to be typical of all these other addresses that i am seen that. there's a lot of them in general vicinity. they name some of them 2341, 2331, three 429, 23 14 23 4450. i know the neighborhood. i know there are a lot of them without roof. i can appreciate the impact of shadow or perhaps the sun maybe not coming in as early for the dr requester on 15th ave. because there is a change of elevation and they

are lower than you are on 14. so that's understandable, but there's a huge separation between the two houses. so, whatever impact would probably be something that would mean the light would come in at adm instead of 7 am or 9 pm instead of eight depending on the time of the year. until gets a little higher in the sky. so, i don't have too many problems. one thing we have a downstairs matrix and is this satisfied mr. washington? you know, we usually have a weight that you have to a separate means of egress into the rest of the house and no separate entrance because this is an r-h-one deed neighborhood so we don't want a second unit, >> no. it has open stairwell. that connects it to the upper floor, so that granted, it's

practically anything is conceivable that someone could try to squeeze in a second and a legal unit in this instance, however this is definitely it's designed to comply with our matrix so that it has an open stairwell. it does not have direct street access into the unit. the primary entry into the house spew >> right. we probably don't have to put notices special restriction on it giving it satisfies it already projects i don't think would be something redundant >> there might be redundant and it's a little odd because you still have one car parking get you could have two tandem if you be designed that on the bottom which would probably make more sense, but that's kind of an individual choice. i think the rest of it probably looks okay. i agree with commissioner moore. i think we need that deck would you bring it on 3 feet of both sides were just on one side?

>> just on one side depicts the rear stairs, you know, there's no problem with the rear yard. is that correct? this washington? >> that's correct. we typically discourage breaking into the midblock open space. so typically, residents are served [inaudible] upper floor is was pushed back from the front of building >> right and this is what they done >> essentially what they've done. typical standard in this type of configuration. >> yes. they got closer to the back. it's a back a lot more from the front and the back. they can access their stairs from the deck to get down, which is probably if the architect is correct, but something that has to be put in there if there's a third floor. i'm not sure if there is or not

>> we will confirm that >> yes, confirm that. work with staff to make the stair suspended because of a curved back upon themselves, sometimes they're not as intrusive because having a stairway just come straight down is going to be more of an impact than it one that turns on itself. that might be [inaudible]. >> is a motion? >> adjust the clarity, commissioners, i heard a motion did i did not hear it seconded?. second. >> thank you. that was to reduce the rear deck? >> the architect understood it was an oversight on his part. given the adjoining windows on the property to the south. staff will confirm the necessity of the rear sayer based on what happened to the code.

>> very good commissioners on a motion commissioner to take dr and modify the project the project when modifications, by notching the south side of the third-floor deck and for staff to continue reviewing the necessity of the rear stair, >> confirming the necessity as well as kind of proportionate location of the stair >> very good commissioner on a motion, antonini aye wu aye richards aye so moved that motion passes unanimously-4-0. commissioners, the places on the item 19,, discretionary review. >>dr requester, you have 5 min.

>> staff usually should introduce- >> before they start >> we will take a 5 min. break. >> >> douche version or view his 19th straight >> good evening commissioners jeff 120 departments that did the item before you public initiated request for discretionary review 3880 and

3082 19th st. project proposing a four story vertical and two-story horizontal addition to an existing two-story over garage two-family dwelling. subject poverty zone r-h-240 foot height and bulk district. subject property located on the north side of 90 street between sanitize sanchez and church to endorse heights neighborhood. the property generally flat but slopes outward at the weird and slipped below the grade of adjacent property to the west north and east. in the immediate vicinity consist of residential single-family and multifamily dwellings of a three-story four-story design and bearing construction. on june 30, 2015 the product was continued without hearing to allow the project sponsor additional time to address your comments and staff policy concerns. the project has been redesigned to approve the equity in size between units and remove the roof deck on top of the proposed fourth floor addition to the lower units previously proposed relocated

to the ground floor behind the garage is now proposed as a 2400 square-foot bedroom unit equates the entire second floor of the building along with the improved ground-floor space. the project also includes renovations and additional interior remodeling. in addition to layout proximally thousand 659 ft.2 floor area to the existing 2000 and a virtually building size for approximately 4000 450. project sponsor today made revisions to the plan that corrects the height for each level of the existing building. there is no change to any of the proposed floor heights. with these revision proposal will result

in a lowering of all fifth floor plates including the main roof, which is now proposed to be decreased in height by 1 feet, 2 inches from the existing height. the relocation of the floor plates will not change the result of section 317 demolition analysis. provides plans also include changes to the reader with skipping character to provide code compliant rearguard free of any obstruction and also provides a new access to the rear yard from the lower units immediate room of the ground floor. the discretionary review application follows by the neighbor directly to the west of the subject property contains the following issues. the project will result in a loss of the unit and loss of affordable housing. the addition will result in a loss of public use permit sanchez street. the project height massing and character are not compatible with the neighborhood and the project will cause a loss of light air and privacy. since the publication of the report to letters in support of the dr have been received. one from the dr filer, and another from the neighbors at 3875 19th st. i've received some additional letters just at this moment before the hearing. the residential design team reviewed the letters in consideration of the dr's concern and found the project

will not adversely affect was admittedly diminished public views from the sanchez street fair. the height and mass as proposed another exceptionally exceptional or extraordinary due to the topography the proposal is a minimum adverse affect on the midblock open-space particularly to property sanchez street. the apartment i commend the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed for the following reasons. the height and mass another exceptional or extraordinary good the project will provide to family site units and the project does not adversely affect were significantly diminished public views from the sanchez street fair. this concludes my presentation it am available for any further questions. >> thank you. dr requested, you have 5 min. >> good evening. my name is julia brown. i am the wife of the dr requested caroline wasik.

in the interest of time, we have divvied up some of the responsibilities with the other residents and community members here. so, i will start here. the addition of this story for this project should not be allowed because it blocks the public views from the aqu sanchez stairway when the stairway constructed the stairway almost 100 years ago, the planners had vision. they did not build a simple utilitarian stairway as you see here. but, instead designed a grand stairway with first and character. they saw as an open space for the community to enjoy. we do. the stairway is

featured in city guidebooks and it visited daily by residence and dozens of tourist from around the world, and enjoy the exceptional views. it features iconic views of the city people think about when they think of san francisco. my home office faces those stairs. i work there 8-10 hours a day every single day for the last five years. i consider myself an expert on the visitors of those stairs. they, and they take so please all day all night. they stop, they sit in the middle landing they enjoyed the fabric -fabulous abuse. they bring lunches. they have snacks they hang out. it's a social experience. a large portion of the city view we blocked by this project from the middle

landing with the people actually sit all day. half of the downtown skyline will be obscured. due to the vertical extension of this project. if the staircase is treasured by the neighbors and meet regularly to maintain the gardens. we have put in hundreds of hours of work, not for our own personal gain, but for the enjoyment of every resident and visitor. it adds value to the entire neighborhood and the city not just a single individual. it is so highly valued, that we have a project in works to beautify the space further with mosaic tiling similar to the 16th ave. stairway. the project has limitary approval for a san francisco community challenge grant from the city and will undoubtedly draw thousands more visitors once completed. the investor and developer will propose this project understand how special our reviews are.

that's exactly why they take this location and that's exactly why they are trying to profit from them. the neighborhood has worked hard to create in making this treasured open-space and our efforts should not be wasted so that one single wealthy homeowner can have the views to himself. i ask who benefits from this project? the developer? one lucky rich owner? but who loses from this project if it goes forward? of thousands of residents and visitors. ultimately, the city forevermore. new spaces like this are not being created and cannot be created so we must preserve the ones we have. for all. the additional story should not be built. these views will be lost forever. thank you very much thank you. any speakers in support of the dr request or? >> hike and i'm caroline orsi. i'm the dr request or i live in

the building directly to the west. >> just one second it was annexed a minute left you to realize as part of the team there's a combined presentation of 5 min.? >> i understand that. as part of the public comment section >> ui the dr requested. >> eyes. >> you have a minute. >> was a minute left >> know you would not be able to speak on the public comment section >> okay i'm requesting the vertical extension will be illuminated from the bus. the additional story whether detrimental impact on the neighborhood by blocking views, stored sanchez seconds. the view study prepared by the project sponsor does not accurately depict the impact because it does not show the views from the area was commonly enjoyed by visitors.

the study shows the views from the upper area only we have to stand at the end of the cul-de-sac to cw. so this does not provide any seating or shade was visitors sit here at the middle landing weather is more peaceful setting with shade and greenery. this image shows the impact of the view from the middle landing. this is the area they'll be blocked by the additional story. as you can see, half of the city skyline will be scared by the vertical addition. his is a significant and an acceptable loss to the community. the vertical extension should be eliminated to protect this public open space. the expansion and renovation of the ground floor already contribute over 1000 >> your time is up to you have an opportunity with two-minute rebuttal at the end. thanks. project sponsor, you have 5 min. >> public, >> i'm sorry. any additional comments as long as you're not part of the dr requesters team

>> i name is mary glaspie on part of the age away next door on the west side. i live in the same building with julia and caroline and my concern is that the additional story will have a negative impact on the human environment by reducing the sideline. you saw the enclosed photos of the step. these steps have been in existence for at least 100 years that the developer received i believe, a categorical exclusion for exemption. exemptions are to be strictly construed good they are substantial evidence presented by carolyn of the historical and cultural resource of the sanchez steps. planning department is required to consider information submitted by members of the public on this historical resource. this is from your website. historical and cultural resources of the city of vinton it's in the guidebook. stairway of san francisco visited daily by residence and tourist around

the world. the mosaics of the steps the regular beautification and maintenance by volunteers of these steps could we also maintain a garden. most of all, we use it as a community space where we get to know our neighbors. otherwise, we just be in our condos and apartments and not know who our neighbors are and working on those steps we met many neighbors. there substantial evidence should be considered and i urge the planning department to consider the sanchez steps as a historical and cultural resource and consider the impact of the addition of the proposed story on this historical resource. a categorical exemption is not appropriate for this proposal. when you look at the keynote of impact indeed, others have impacted that saline but this will add to the accumulative affect regarding past current and future developments. which collectively, will and have an impact on the sanchez steps

sideline. i urge you to take another look at this and to cumulative impact as well. additionally, as the neighbor, i have the lowest unit facing that building him a. the additional story of the proposed project will have an impact of the son and daylight on my units. sunlight is a precious commodity in the city and while i appreciate the need for the developer to make a profit, why at your neighbor's expense? good neighbors do not walk neighbors sunlight and expansion plan does that. the existing building envelope as many improvements planned to include outside enjoyment areas should be more than enough to make a profit while respecting the needs of my condo units to include i-h 08. the back of my condo where my dining room is located has windows on only one side. the side that will be impacted either shadows induced by the development him on the first floor age away of my unit comes cavelike i urge the

developer to reduce the footprint of the current and stop impacting >> thank you, ma'am your time is up. any of the speakers in support of the dr request or? >> good evening commissioners. i'm also going to speak to the concern run the public status. on the view from the public stairs they'll will be lost in the development goes ahead. i want to ask you to deny the additional storage so we can protect this unique precious abuse. the background on my standing. my wife and i have lived in san francisco since 1992 but not only in san francisco but at this address for the past 23 years. 38 19th st. we also have it in the dust of 601 sanchez because our house has been there so long since houses were there to begin with. in fact, you've seen this picture already, i think. this is on the

right-left hand side is our house. it's been there since 19 a as you se another [inaudible] this is a built in 1916. it's truly historic staircase and monument for the men and women who built it is part of the employment project that were works by the early 20th century and restored in the 20s as well. this is a historical staircase. i believe it's a scarce resource shared by all sf residents protected from the developers only personal profit in mind rather than interest and profit at the businesses and people of san francisco. his immediate neighbors of the studies we've seen everything that goes on the. it is a shared resource.

enjoyed by local dog walkers, joggers, neighbors and by so many many tourist french german middle eastern and african and asian you name it could i cannot even tell you how many pictures i then asked to take on smiling welcome friends speaking for all broken english and i love them all. why do they come out to the staircase spewing why do they stay in san francisco? why they spend their for next installers here spewing it's in large part because of our beautiful city because of this we been unspoiled vistas because of the breathtaking spectacles like to 19th st. stairs. here is the spectacular view. using this picture before. you can see what's going to be lost in this representation did it a little hard to say but most of a 20 lost is a view that only of downtown but the mission dolores church. another piece of sf history which attracts thousands of visitors a week.

the church you will be largely secured by the development dimension the quality of life of residents and community as well as for the thousands of tourist they'll fund our precious ticket the developer for the property let them make a profit they have the multimillion dollar profit, but do not let them indulge in the addition of an extra story at the expense of residents in the valuable visitors and torso vinton is time to protect history make san francisco the place that so many people >> thank you, sir your time is up. any additional speakers and support the project of the dr requester? seeing none, project sponsor, you have 5 min. >> hello commissioners.

members of the honest money this doesn't-with eag studio. the subject property is only a three-story two-family residence to the east there's a four-story three unit building. the scope of work is a vertical and horizontal addition of basis into family drawing. the project is consistent with the residential design guideline and is undergone extensive overview by several members of the planning department. the dr requester is building the subject property currently and will continue to be your separate bio was 25 feet in distance as well as double project structure belonging to our west neighbor. the dr requester is in this location. subject property is in the not quite clearly see it here. is there. to the west, there is a

three-story building containing four condos on the corner of the dr requester barely see the subject property from their unit since they reside on the opposite side of the building. in height or project is dwarfed by several homes east of us. as is demonstrated by this graphic. over here. this mornings son study also demonstrates at the worst time of the day the project has no impact on the dr requester's building. including the lower units. the propose addition is recessed 25 feet from the front of the building to minimize the impact of the street. the horizontal addition was sculpted in the rear to not create an unfair burden to the surrounding properties.. in the rear, the propose building that

is nearly the same with that of the east neighbor though the pop out of the subject property is actually one level shorter. the project retains a large 35 feet long in order to preserve the midblock open-space. i think this slide is important. there are several very large properties all around. as is indicated by the red outline in this aerial view of the rear. it should be said, the overall massing is particularly on impactful because of the subject property is great and sunken in as relates to both eastern and western neighbors. the subject property is outlined by two small hills the race effectively all the other properties around. further, the subject property is the fact that tall retaining walls on either side of the backyard and on the west settlement the retaining wall is no less than 1.5 stories above the lower level as is indicated by the red outline in this photo. this

offense on top of this.i think this slide is also very important. when the complaint the dr requester with the attraction of the views of the downtown sanchez street steps and through an accurate model, we took the time prepare a photo simulation demonstrated otherwise. again, the subject property is why my two bills and far more imposing properties all around it. in this stimulate simulation degree nine outlines the existing building. the red box shows the impact from the sanchez st., sayers and any doesn't in fact even come close to affecting the downtown views. sir, no outbursts >> over the course of the past two years, we discussed with

over 18 neighbors in the direct vicinity of provided some 25 accommodations to our initial plans. with over a dozen in person meetings with various sets of neighbors all in an effort to create voluntary accommodations above and beyond what was already considered a reasonable extension by general planning standard. activity are without the neighborho