the status is. we continue into next week we certainly can bump it but it turns out to become problematic it because people wait for this really simple addition. >> very good i didn't commissioner >> i motion mocha i make a motion to forward this. >> second >> we should make take public comment >> any public comment on this matter the proposed continuance >> on the matter of continuous? >> not seen any public comment is closed. >> on a motion to continue this matter to august 4, commissioner antonini aye moore aye lucas new aye fong aye so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> commissioners 17 a has been withdrawn 17 b has been acted

on separately. which will place on item 18 l 2015-00709. drp at 2535 discretionary review. >> actually [inaudible] it's wrong on the report but actually his 14th ave. on the agenda. >> it's wrong on the agenda. >> 14th ave. then commissioners. >> good evening planning commission to dublin washington southwest team units get subject property is located at 2355 14th ave. proposal is to construct a vertical and horizontal addition to existing residents. this will add a

master suite to the top floor and interior state connecting all three levels and move remodeling of the kitchen could additionally, additional capital space will be developed on the ground floor. subject property is on the west side 14th ave. between santiago and caravel street and its 1b and singles story family occupies the subject. the discussion review was filed by a neighbor owns the property that funds onto 15th ave., there about your property line about. the residential design team supports the project for the following reasons. the first third-floor is only one story taller than the adjacent context. it's that at 24 feet, 8 inches from the front building wall. this is consistent with the residential planning guidelines and minimizes the visibility as you from 14th as is good the expansion at the reader is pulled back 5 feet from the reader wall and includes relief

along the side for appropriately sculpted we hear of the building consistent with also with the residential design guide. there is also 100 foot [inaudible] between the structure and structure. project does not contain your create anything that is exceptional nor extraordinary and the planning commission should not take discretionary review and approve the building has presented. thank you. >> dr requested, your 10 min. 5 min. i get that wrong every time. >> thanks for trying. >>[laughing] my name is steve manoj ila 23 15th ave. direct way connected to 14th ave. the reason we i'm speaking for a couple of neighbors as well are questioning the discussion review as follows: one, it breaks the many[inaudible]

absolutely no effort to work with the neighbors in any meaningful manner. anything bought beyond an initial meeting the exposition of the plans was all that ever happened. nothing else happen after that. no with a compromise was ever reached out in any way. by anybody from any of the parties. here are the major breaks. the most egregious breaks is obviously according to the codeno other building on the block on 14th ave., north in the neighborhood in general [inaudible]maintain lead adjacent to the property providing adequate setbacks and

2315 avenue will summarize 2-4 hours after sunrise and louise sunshine for another two hours after that. 2350 14th ave. blues sunlight for significant portion of the setting as well. 23 5740 that it will have power and construction blocking there like an existing windows. the construction of an existing easement. provide architectural features that enhance the neighborhood's character. most of the homes within the five block area, five blocks, were built 1927-1938 and mediterranean revival style. the premise is a towering mistrust city does not look anything like the rest of the neighborhood and will set precedent for others to do the same in the area which i question. the majority of the homes in the area most definitely do not have three stories. the design roofline to be compatible surround go to the third floor will create with lines and visit with the abutting neighbors. everyone on 14th ave. everyone across the street and everyone did to the avenue after that. were some weirdness of the plan, the right-hand hard requirement on

not met on sheet 8-10. shows right-hand side measuring at 1 foot 2.5 inches, no plant or tree plantings no bicycle parking no funds set back garden plan at all was proposed but most important, and this was not an initial request missed the part you need to listen to, but one of the proposed ground floor is already in place. the existing ground floor plan and thomas plan is completely false. so, that leads us to believe something bizarre about the whole prosecute the plans were presented to us as if they were a done deal. feedback was relayed to them by us at the initial meeting and by e-mail to veronica florez and although was exhorted the wind reach out to any was with any kind of compromise and we are willing to listen to a compromise. tim offered a skylight to one of the neighbors to help him out with it. the good you in reviewing my roof. it seems a

little inappropriate in discussing plans of getting the plans them. then, suddenly, we got an e-mail from someone named jamie dale, was unknown to aspire never introduced to us in any manner or in any form, at any point, ever. he told us he was the partner of tom tama lea godiva milk we was good we get e-mails all the time so i googled the guy and i find out he is been bested by the was investigated by the fbi for some input priorities concerning the planning department. nor did time in my responses to know who he is and what he was doing in terms of this plan were never contacted me back in any four weeks went by before i got a contact. what we can support and i think that's the most important thing to prove we are willing to work is, if they want to be one top

of the house and i understand they do. that's perfectly great good build a roof deck. build a roof deck i would still give them plenty more expansion space could begins to move out further the art. they can move 8 feet from the fence line. were okay with all of that. the addition of a third floor and a third-floor deck seems a little bit excessive to me. so, we believe and support efforts for my and a well to do with they wanted a home and we believe someone is right to do with they wanted their home. but must be done in a manner that is courteous thoughtful and with the full realization of the impact on the neighborhood and especially to those physically closest to us. which is me. that's it. >> thank you very much. speakers in support of the dr requester? any speakers in support of the dr requester? >> good evening commissioners of my name is jack jacoby in and if you're having a hard time understanding my accent, please, let me know. i moved to 14th ave. in 1989 and i was lucky to live there and we have

great neighbors can we look for each other and we support each other. i hope that our opposition for this project will not create any angry feelings. i have a few points here. as stephen said, we don't mind any horizontal expansion and beside, the plans that presented because i was there when they brought up the ground apartment, which is still there. according to the plans presented, presented as the future expansion and the ground floor. which is not true. i want michael, the owner or the architect to come here in front of your panel to say that the exisapartment downstairs or, and dispute my claim. whether it exists or not. it is

there. now, as i said, we don't mind any horizontal expansion. that is fine. but, no vertical at all. and to my and some photos to show you during the sunset. the sun on the existing building, it deprives the from the sun and we live in an area that we always hope to see sun in a foggy area like ours there. so, that's all i want to say and thank you for letting us -thank you >> thank you. any additional speakers in support of the dr bequest or? seeing none, project sponsor, you have 5 min. >>what to place it down sfgov

tv should go to it. >> members of the commission, good evening. my name is noel deleon and i currently reside in 2355 14th ave. along with my husband michael and two daughters amelia and maia. simply stated, we wish to expand our home to accommodate our growing family. we were a family of three and as of two months ago when our family of four. we wish to add a modest third-floor bedroom suite in order to have enough room for our growing family. we would like to offer more than just space on the couch to my family who frequently visits from los angeles. the difficult of a finding affordable owns with a big backyard like ours and close to everything important to us like our church, i work in my husband's family, our current home is perfect. with exception of living space. so, adding to our home that my husband's family has owned for the past 20 years, is what makes sense for us. instead of relocating. we are connected to

the city. idol has made san francisco his home since his family emigrated from china in the 80s. i've had the privilege of living in the city for the last five years. we positively contribute to san francisco as pharmacists that we want to raise our daughters here. so we would like nothing more than to make modest upgrades to our current home so we can continue to live in it. with respect to the arguments posed by our neighbors, we feel that our team changes are modest and within the allowable guidelines. we wish to preserve the divine visual character of the neighborhood with no change to the exterior aside from adding a third-floor which several homes in our area have as you can see in our sketch. privacy goes both ways. we value our privacy as much as our neighbors did so we've made significant setbacks from the front rear and side of the house. we did a shadow study the revealed minimal to no effect on our neighbors alike. we've done our best to accommodate our neighbors request that were within

reason. our initial plans call for a larger structure but decided to scale it back to have the least effect on our surrounding neighbors. we have kept the lines of communication open with a dr requester throughout this process because want to live harmoniously with our neighbors. we hired an excellent team of architects with many years of experience working within san francisco to ensure that our plans integrate well with the neighborhood and were not disrupt or change the character of the street. we work diligently alongside the planning department to ensure that their suggestions were met. such as removing the struggle we originally planted in a market where owning a home in san francisco has become a privilege and finding your dream home is nearly impossible, we ask that you grant us the opportunity to grade the dream home that my husband and i work for. thank you so much for your time and consideration and what you turn it over to our architect. >> good evening my name

is-[inaudible] just going to make some points. the planning supported the design of the two-story buildings with all the front rear and side setbacks. you know we have successfully talk to the adjacent left neighbor to--as for his concerns inside the building accordingly. also, you know, the rear yard neighbor has not shown any evidence to justify we are creating a nuisance in terms of the scale of the property. we are not creating any shadows on this property as well. then, the only suggestion he says it has to be two stories. which i think is unreasonable when within the one block radius we have a 16 properties that have a third story and to being just adjacent to the property on 15th ave. you know, the owners

don't want to rent out the property that they live in the property. they don't want to move out of the property. the other thing is, these setbacks are very dramatic in terms of the fund said that a 15 feet from the existing house and the third floor is 40 feet in up front. even in the rear, we have 44 feet on the second floor and 50 feet on the third floor for that we are set out good we are 100 feet between the rear neighbor and herself so that's quite a big difference. so, overall, i just want to say that we been very sensitive to the neighbors and open communication with them and we have not get anything besides this go down to project. thank you. >> thank you very much. any speakers in support of the

project sponsor? >> good evening commissioners of my neighbors todd komodo and i want to on behalf of ivan loomed co-owner of 2345 14th ave. the house right next door. i'm here just for the project because they're next-door to get i can see the expansion of the project is not expensive at all. they only want to add one master bedroom at the top. expansion at the back is only six or 7 feet. for such a small extension i don't think it will affect our neighbors at all. in san francisco many homeowners don't like to see any change on neighbors houses. however, we should see and respect increase in both the population and the lifestyle of people compared to 10-15 years ago. warehousing and large homes are needed.

let's look at it. the current sub that homes are built mostly between $.20 50. most of them were built without master bedroom were walk-in closets. however, these are today's peoples lifestyles. they would like to privacy with the master bedroom at the top separate rooms from the children. they would like to have extra rooms to accommodate their friends and relatives when they come to visit. to achieve that, they need more space for the house. more people want to expand their homes nowadays.. san francisco is changing so are we. we are right next door and we are fine with the project. any neighbor within 100 feet away claiming this extension is blocking sunlight may not be active. thank you. >> thank you. any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> cleavage at michigan my name is raymond lived. i'm here on behalf of [inaudible] uncle to michael. he says recently released we had a house completely rebuilt without

having to appear at public and it just because their neighbors were resistant to change i feel as though they should not be penalized for the addition. there are types of people, these are types of people who have young families which you want as your neighbors. [inaudible]. >> thank you. additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> my name is christine tom. i've known mike for about 20 years and know well for i think six or seven years now. so i just want to speak on their character. their family life. as you known, their two young daughters. in a house that is just substantial giving that they have a newborn but when they grow up i think noel and mike really want to provide an

ample space when you're growing up you are your own individual rooms. you don't want to be fighting with your sisters or siblings. so, i believe mike and i well want to grant that kind of space, privacy, to the growing family and they have always been generous and i believe willie model neighbors. they have always been involved with the community. so they don't have any malice and they don't feel there's a nuisance to their neighbors to building this extra floor. they have always been professional and i feel like them having an expanded house is something that they worked hard for. not just for themselves but mainly for their family and thank you. >> think. any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, dr request of your two-minute

rebuttal. >> i do know a few folks have a light study they presented to you but if you do, you will see that my home is not included in that light study. i think it's rather significant. since i'm the one complaining about the light. they're on 15th ave. 14th ave. and i'm on 15th ave. it's on a hill so as a result the properties increased height of 10 feet and 8 feet closer a substantial given the extra addition of the hill. so there's this extra like 12 feet between my home and the bottom basement of their home as well. so, there is no light study for the property good i love to see one. i did my own. it changes every day but i did my own and every morning i look and see the light being blocked and i can match with 10 feet will do to add that. they're moving

from 2300-3600 feet. that's a lot of space. i could to go my my mother not living with me my daughter just moved back because she can't afford to live somewhere else. by that 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 neighborhood outreach did not cease further concessions were made. this point we've essentially received support to achieve copper buys with all directly adjacent neighbors but the dr bequest. it would attempt to address the concerns that have asserted was created to demonstrate to the eastern neighbors of the building on the corner that given the fact i knew four is set back in line

with the furthest steps of the boat the sunlight would not be impacted in any way at any point in the day. in summary, we feel in the spirit of community we perform extensive neighborhood outreach will we understand any changes can trigger concern we generally feel we've done everything two strikeouts between achieving the subject property's potential and minimize the impact to everyone around. thank you so much >> any speakers in support of the oject sponsor? seeing none, dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> date. i want to point out that one of the things that is most frustrating about the process here is that when we show you the view from the stairs they didn't actually show you the view from the stairs. it brings into consideration credibility. it was the view from the very top of the stairs which is in fact sanchez street. nobody goes and stands on the street on the curb to take in the view good

that's not what the people go every day. they go to the center of the state. they sit on the stairs. think of yourself with your lunch would you go stand on the curb where would you look to the stairs and sit in the shade of the trees and taken that gardens? of course that's what you do but it's to the developer's best interest to distort the information and make it look as though there is no impact at all when, in fact, that is trying to take advantage of everybody's intelligence here in the room and i'll ask you take another look at that and just, please, give that consideration. as we mentioned the stairs are going to be they are iconic now and more so when the mosaic goes in and begins when the treasures of the city and the views are important. everybody likes a good view. i certainly would love to have a roof deck. i'm not in here trying to defend putting a deck up there. i'm trying to preserve these views for all the people of the city. i don't have a view of the downtown

from my vintage point either. it's the stairs. so with that i like you to reconsider the project and remove that additional story to the benefit of all. thank you. thanks. project sponsor, you have 2 min. >> so, the view study that we sent to the planning department after they asked us actually show the location that we were selecting the views from pure this is now what i'm showing you. we purposely chose the worst location so that concisely to demonstrate the impact would be insignificant

to none. what i would like to point out here is someone behind me was right next to the stairs. this is higher than the stairs i believe, under the pretense of protecting the views of the stairs, these are views that here we are dying to protect. the square box that they showed earlier was clearly a false representation from a photo taken up close and i think has nothing to do with the massing that will be added by our design. again, we are flanked by much larger properties and if any views are obstructed from the stairs they already are compromised and it's not by any edition of our own. >> excuse me you're out of order right now. are you finished? object sponsor? thank you. you have anything

else to say? don? >> i'm available for questions >> page. this portion of the hearing is closed >>[gavel] >> i let you go first here. if you wouldn't mind i like to see the picture you post. please? thank you. so the question i have for staff is what is our responsibility to the view corridor? on this type this is the first one about these on my career on the commission in nearly 2 years can some explain to me with the responsibility of the commission to protect those views? >> we are very sponsored of a tool within reason protect the view corridor. there is the understanding, however, that reasonable alterations will impact the views. and to my

there is also a design precedent that makes this in a particular neighborhood. so, to completely abstract w is one thing. to impact the view and affect minimum minimally cut out portions of its e-mail have to rise or fall, that is still is tolerable. >> so, i mean the reason i am asking is because i lived on this block for seven it. i know the stairs because i want them nearly every day walking my dogs. the question i have is as i look at the stairs unfamiliar with him, i see the photos that were taken here from the very top actually one here from the street. you can see the railing. i agree with one of the speakers said this is actually sanchez street i believe. because you have kind of an iconic and landing and you come down and you have a square and you come down and

have another half moon and you have the sidewalk. as i look at this, as with the project dr requester samiti, the question i ask is, to what extent we love to obstructed views? because these if you took these pictures from different places on the steps they be different. these are the one submitted in the packet for june 30. so, as i look here, i believe one of the pictures was taken from the very top with the railing is good i think i can you can see here's the railing posted the second one you can see the middle of the steps are here. this is where the top landing is in you see here and you pay sanchez street to the south. the question i have is, what is the requirement to take the different photos from a different places on the steps? >> right. this was considered by residents on the 19th as well. they filled in this particular case it wasn't substantial to the point where it would not-it would fit in such a way that it would be limited complete visibility

from the stairs. but it was considered and is in fact in the evaluation of the project >> okay open up for my fellow commissioners comments. the other items on the project that think the building is fine but my issue is our responsibility to the view on the stairs and having lived there i know where the photos were taken since i just want back and we looked at the june 30 think. most of the time, we would spend time in the middle of the stairs. i think that's where the simulation was done but i don't know what that would actually look like it for done by professional. that's my question. i do have a doubt. that we should be-look at that from a different place on the stage and they're the people

place people congregate is on the lower landing as well. there's three landings and i think the photos are taken from the current in the very first landing at the top. the rest of the stairs were not considered. so can i open up to my fellow commissioners. i think we responsibility to understand what the impact is. the rest of the project dr staff am actually fine with. >> commissioner moore >> mr. washington i like to elevate the question whether the sanchez stairs in this particular location fall into the category of protected b use ? there is a specific map, which shows protected views and if this particular state or falls with in it and it's a complicated map in answer to commissioner richards question, i don't have them all in my head, when it comes to a project like this, this would be definitely an answer i would like to staff to have either yes or no. is this particular stair within the protected views category for the city of san francisco? >> i can say with certainty that it is. did you can set it is certainly either but to

expand on that a little bit, commissioner richards, there's general plan identifies several streets that are either good, excellent, for public views though i think the most important thing here is to remember for public use, not on private property. so, essentially, the street are to be kept open for these you corridor downs >> we've alterations ideally should have minimal impact on these corridor. >> i would obviously like to see consideration as to whether or not this particular view which seems very popular. i can imagine it's for a beautiful but given the voter which shows it in broad expanse, but really, the guiding question is does it fall within those recognized corridor, and then you really have a case to have the building conform to protect the view. if it isn't, then i think the explanation, which mr. washington and the staff planning dave, mr. horn, are

really that there may be a small impact of sorts, but that is negligible because we didn't all other categories, the building is in compliance. in r-h-two and 44 height and bulk it does what it is allowed to do. am i correct in that assumption? >> that is correct >> the basic question which either allows us to have a question answered? you raise the question rightly so. there is one other comment i would make to make good why we continue to this particular project within the instructions for providing the vestibule on the units, one plan and some other small tweaks, these were all accomplished. in what is in front of us today. there is only one remaining issue, where i'm looking for a change and that is that the units to,, on the deck level two brian

a-six, where i think we need to cut the deck that i 4 feet from 12 to eight again the issue of privacy which you can see when you look at drawing 8-11 there is a photo good it shows that with a 12 foot deck that you will look directly into the windows of the adjoining building, which is basically nothing we can support. so that can be cut back but otherwise, the building as modified meet the expectations of what we have asked for. the only remaining issue now asked mr. commissioner richards, to then request a continuance if you believe that question needs to be clearly and succinctly answered >> as chair i can't. i detain

a second >> okay >> commissioner antonini >> i visited the site on a very sunny day. i do not put the steps but i could tell from being on that side of the street you have to go a ways to see over the existing homes could not only the one in question but the ones around it. some of which are quite high. so, it's conjectural exactly how high you would have to go to have any kind of a few there. i probably should've walked up there if i knew this was going to be an issue but it seems like with a set back being 15 feet and the addition of not being that much higher, and being a fairly narrow addition, my feeling would be the amount of eu change is minimal. you might go a couple more steps to see over a certain area. it probably is not going to make too much difference because if you're on the height street crooked

street, lot of the tourist stayed right at the top and look out at that lombard. hide and lombard of course. you know, they also will walk down it or drive down it in cars. but, many of them stay at the very top because they can see a lot better than being at the bottom, where you can see too much. so, that is the view they all want. so, not that only make sense to me. i think it's very well modified. they created units that are 2366 and 2306 so the sizes are very close to each other. actually, the façade that they are doing is better than the façade of the existing building. i mean this is extremely well done. much more contextual with homes that were built typically around the turn-of-the-century and the 19th-20th century in that area. so, i like that a lot. they worked on the doorway.

i would agree with commissioner moore that we should cut that setback from 12 feet to 6 feet >> ac >> okay whatever you think i was prepared to go. 6 feet last but, yes, that would be fine. they have made the changes. i did talk to a neighbor around there could either exactly where he lived but he had thought it was fun. no problem. he just said some people are raising the height situation and i am glad staff was able to survey it and find out the modifications to make it compliant because it is a 40 foot height area and many of the buildings along their are 40 feet. so, to pick on this one as being the one that is most impactful for the view when it's at the 40 feet like many of the other ones are, it doesn't seem picking it out for many of the other buildings

along their impact the views. if you move a few steps from one direction or another, then you're going to look over one of the other buildings. so, i'm compared to support this and with the change on the deck, i would move to not take dr and approve >> commissioner antonini has resulted the you modify the project issued >> take dr and approve the modifications >> very good. do i hear a second? >> commissioner wu >> i want to ask the project sponsor, number one, do you have any other simulations from other vantage points were also can you point out on the photo of the stairs except where those vantage points photo simulations were taken from the? >> do you need this back?

were passing this back and forth the only copy this was the actual stairs. >> as commissioner wu as a matter fact, we do. in the survey the view survey submitted to the planning department we have quite extensive viewpoints with several bandages. just as it's difficult [inaudible] >> can you put the microphone over, please? >> we showed the different points in the different landings from which those views were shown and i am going to show you. then, on the other side of this page, as commissioner antonini pointed out, not only does the view get better when you go higher, of course it gets special

therefore that's why we thought appropriate to show the worst of you. i'm trying to >> can you show me on the map on the photo of the stairs, with that viewpoint is from? >> on the black and white photo , please? >> i think i would be easier to understand >> the black-and-white photo. the one that he handed in. yes. >> so, one of the photos is from the landing up here and the other one from the landing below. >> can you explain which one is the landing below? i can tell from those two pictures that were not taken from the landing in the middle but i am open to being corrected. >> okay. again, >> go back to the color photos that you are showing. the color photos. the other side. >> yes, you have >> the color photos use a minute. the one i was holding

up. the actual photos from of the view corridor. perfect, there we go. that is its. so, the top one is taken from, i believe, the first landing right off sanchez street. as you come down the steps, their two benches that face south >> correct >> the second photo, i believe and am open to correction year-is taken from actually write believe is the street we have the railings >> right >> none of them were taken from the middle landing. the taken from the very highest vantage point and the street about. >> i don't think so. because we have a map here. it shows where we took those photos. one is at the very top at this point. we also made a point to go to the furthest, west side to demonstrate a worse condition and then we actually

scroll down those stairs to go to the next landing. in fact, because the railings are different. i guess, it sort of suggested a different viewpoint. in fact, the photo on this slide shows the street being very close. over here. >> i'm sorry. i dig to differ. the photo evidence does not agree with what you are saying. the reason is, the middle landing has two benches that face each other. you can see on the photo of the one where you're looking down you can see the corner of the bench. the other when you can clearly see the railing in the front which is at the top on the street. so regardless of maybe the confusion here, it's not supported by what you submitted. i am sorry to say. nothing was taken from the middle. everything-i mean the surmise the of the peekaboo view when you go buy a house and you're in the bathroom and look at the view of the city

here's the best bottom house to get it. that's what you did on this these photos. the question is, most people congregate in the middle of the steps. the reason is, there's a place to sit and take in the view were even at the bottom of the steps. i would be open to it because recruiting a building that could be there for 100 years. we are to ourselves to actually really understand what the view is from different vantage points on the steps. i would hope we could put a two-story. and at different vantage points notified that the actual height and take photos in different vantage points include week marked him. the top of the street. the first landing as he could on the steps. then the actual middle landing further down and then the bottom land. so we can clearly see the back of this building on all of those. additionally, i think we would really oh to ourselves to understand whether this is a protective view corridor or not. i don't know. so, i don't think we have all the data right now on the one remaining issue besides the 4 foot on the deck. i would love to get this

out of the chute today. trust me. commissioner antonini you most power here right now to say no but i think we'll were to ourselves to do a quick photo survey and get this back in and get this out the chute. would you entertain commissioner moore i'm sorry >> mr. washington, i do not want to create undue hardship for the applicant or the dr requesters. the clarity i need to have as a commissioner is is this a protected view? from there arises the request for a clear depiction of the views and where they are taken from including how the new silhouettes of the proposed building partially completely, affects the various levels on which the view seem to be important. i am prepared to take a continuance on the

project in order to answer that question for myself. and even if the view corridor is not a protected one, for us to understand in clear language, verified by specific pointing to the location from which simulations are created, i feel adjusted to take dr. so, i will act as ask for a continuance. this can hopefully be done quickly so that within a week this can come back to the project, except for modifying the balcony roof deck as i pointed out on the unit two, level ii, is a project which needs the descriptions and requirements we have put forth on the continued at first. is there a second? >> second >> yes . i wanted to get this done as fast as everybody arrested may

i ask we direct staff for you to work together to take them out the different vantage points outlined? >> yes >> street bottom of the first landing middle of the steps other static waisted middle landing, middle of the first ayers and then the bottom land can is actually see is going up and down the steps what happens to the view it's assuming that the protective view >> we can do that commissioner. >> thank you. >> i'm in agreement can in fact i'll go out tomorrow and take a look and take pictures. >> okay. so we will move it continue it for one week. >> that's correct >> second >> we will meet you out there. the project sponsor as well. if you would like >> please call the question >> on that matter of continuance to august 4 commissioner antonini aye moore aye wu aye chairman richards spew aye so move that passes unanimously for having zero. that a place is on item 20.

discretionary review. >> good evening planning commission. devin washington southwest in. for the property located at 2430 castro st. proposal is to construct a one-story vertical addition to an existing two-story single-family residence. the project includes a major façade renovation interior remodel and roof deck with stair and house. this addition will add approximately 1440 ft.2. a four area to existing 22,800 air square foot home. the survey parties located on the west side of the block between date and 30th st. in the r-h-one zoning district. the property is 25 feet of frontage along castro street. with a lot depth of 105e. it's coming out with a single family dwelling constructed in 1914. this house

was reclassified as a category c but it was determined due to numerous renovations over the course of its existence all original have been removed from the residence. parcels within the immediate this in a consistent residential single-family dwellings of two-story and three-story design that were constructed in the 20s. the alterations in the complete renovation of the front and feel the sudden removal of the entire gabled roof the addition of a third level with a flat roof that will mimic its two flanking residences in height and configuration. the proposed house will be very contemporary in appearance, it is not a demolition because the majority of exterior walls will not be removed and the existing floor plates are not moving. the residential design team has reviewed the latest plants which are before the commission and determined alteration meets the standards of the residence and design guidelines. the building height

and depth are consistent with the adjacent and overall development patterns the open space which provides the dwelling unit located in the adjacent rearguard maintaining privacy, like it or they block open space in the dr request is situated in the higher elevation approximately more than 40 feet away from the subject property. although, some visual access to neighbors property will result from this project proposed with deck, it is an acceptable limits for dense urban environment in san francisco. the roof deck incorporates adequate separation through setbacks from adjacent property to minimize impacts for noise like.. to address odyssey issues the third floor deck at the proposal your addition should be removed. the roof should be fire rated in this location so as not to require parapets along the side property line. the residence design team determined that this project is not contained nor create anything that is exceptional or extraordinary.

and recommends permission not to discussion or review the building permit as presented >> thank you mr. washington dr request or, you have 5 min. >> good evening commissioners. another members >> can you speak into the microphone, please? >> good evening. my name is mighty partisan mining is my husband. we own the property at 6613 three. directly behind the slightly uphill from 2430 castro. first i like to address misunderstandings on the part of the project mr. katz. he

seems to believe we are objecting to the proposed conversion of the attic into a third floor. this is not the case. he also seems to ms. membered our interaction bringing the pre-application meeting as we absolutely do not say we were worried about use. rather about privacy.. [inaudible] and extensive panoramic view of the city from her own home. it is true the project is massive and we find that old fish. unappealing. however, the primary focus requesting the dr is the unnecessary unusable [inaudible] noise generating roof deck on top of his third-floor the risks cited unfortunate precedent in our genteel little corner of san francisco. from our home a roof deck and its intrusive penthouse would allow anyone standing on it not only to look directly into our dining area and kitchen on the second floor, but also into our master bedroom on the third floor. second, a little corner when the chilly tunnel with or even

protected decks next to the home's kitchen are rarely used. completely exposed roof deck two floors up from the kitchen would be unusable uncomfortable and eventually become simply too much trouble. after initial you become a deposit for deteriorating furniture, in this case a giant penthouse that would be in our faces and those of our neighbors as it visitors to billy goat hill day in and day out. mr. katz claims his backyard is unusable because i have cheated from the sun. inductive backyard gets at least as much sun as most around these parts. this photo was taken two days ago during a welcome sunny moment and shoot the yard in full sun. it's not shaded by our home. however, houses in this era do lose some early because there will below the crested diamond heights good in the winter this block will be in shape by about 3 pm. as mr. katz does not live in the property may not realize this. the developers

justification in leaving gaping roof deck sues children have a place to play his father. the troubling issue of letting children play on a roof it's our understanding mr. katz's children are of around high school age and will be visiting only on weekends. in this case can my roof deck and we can home in san francisco would likely be targeted become a magnet for noisy high school and college by the time this is built creating a nuisance for the whole neighborhood. if the developer will intend to of space for children to play, he would do better to use his own backyard as planning suggests in this neighborhood and protected from the wind. my husband and i were partly from home and use the dining table as a workspace facing directly at the back of the property in question. we also cooked dinner and enjoy sitting down maybe 12 of the family dinner. at the dining table. the proposed roof

deck coupled with a large that windows would mean we would be compelled to watch and listen to our neighbors and would seriously impact our privacy in the piece of the neighborhood. the subject is apparently more exhibitionist nature than us seize this [inaudible] is really bothers us. we really don't want to of someone else's life pushed youtube like into the forefront of ours. we have photos here of the area that you know existing roof deck where stare penthouses. this first one is from billy goat hill. it roof deck and stare penthouses will stick out like a floor sore thumb on the roof one progression on castro street from the spot. it is the our rebuttal mr. katz was the number of apparently similar houses to what he is proposing. please, note, but were showing here were showing the use of

the neighborhood. that they either have no roof decks or are set into hill so that no one's privacy will be impacted. we would also like to correct the misapprehension our home is the largest on the plot. in fact, since 2000 hundred square foot is smaller than some indeed our home is always exactly the same side as his own property and that is before the proposed expansion. this is a quite gentle corner of the subject papers hold christmas and hanukkah block parties and what each other was summoned forgets is a product parking brake omissions were trash bins, down the street but a win. otherwise we live life quietly behind closed doors. [inaudible] roof deck access and huge gimme windows is simply not >> thank you your time is up. you will have rebuttal. >> thank you >> any speakers in support of the dr request or? >>? that some letters you man the may have can i read on the? >> you can submit them. >> you should have copies of them. >> okay. thank you. see no speakers in support of the dr

requester, project sponsor you have 5 min. >> hello my name is spell i am the owner of the house. i think the easiest way to explain-with see if i have a photo here. i think the easiest way to explain that looking at this picture it's also taken from billy goat hill. as you can see, this is my house here. big yellow line. the tax on both sides of the house and the neighbors house on the back in a circle. the house is to force.

the one floor below with the crotch area is 1400 ft.2 each floor. essentially the ground floor is like a basement is blocked on both sides honestly in the front >> would you please speak into the microphone? it's hard to hear >> if you could raise your voice? >> yes. essentially spot in the back of show a photo or photo taken for my backyard which is really smart. the plan is actually as mentioned is leveling the attic ts floor here and with her two neighbors and align the top floor and [inaudible] exterior work at it all stays the same. in addition to the attic, changing some of the façade of the husband i'm giving the store well inside the house and the crotch tournament in stays the same. in terms of feasibility, as you can see the house, the only light i have only 25 feet side to side. that's the only place i have light coming into the house. if i change the design

of house and just put some windows on the front of the house. i would like to stress i made every effort i could to address all the concerns of the neighbors. if you can see the one next to me here, one to the north, they have adopted here. i met with all the neighbors and discussed the plan with a view they specifically told me that they don't want you to have a balcony or deck in front of the house. because they want to produce. that's where they usually hang out. so, i mean, the problem is that the only opens they sat in his house out is a small yard in the back and let me just show you my photos. the same thing that the dr five

osha. that was taken from the second level. but the ground look at the ground level is 10 feet long. they go this house about 10 years ago and they go this low towering wall about 30 feet tall and is building on top of that. it wasn't there before that and they have three decks. that can oversee i mean, you see the whole neighborhood in fact. and more. so, all i have is a really really small space outside my house and i thought, that's why i propose a small roof deck very non- intrusive roof deck. the roof deck that i think the question in hand is very small. and it was reduced as mentioned. both sides said 5 feet to each side of the house with the subject from the roof. it's unobstructed is probably 75 feet distance between mine and i was sure he that and another photo. here. that shows you that was taken actually from the other house the neighbor on the house next to me which is very supportive. you can see the distance from the yellow line shows where my roof deck will and. so it's about 70 feet

between my roof deck and their house. not mentioning, even after building the roof deck, i'm still going to be much lower than them. much lower than them. i didn't roof deck is again very nondisruptive. much lower than that. we met a few weeks ago to find some solutions and again i mean the propose to build may be hot or something else. but the bottom line, again without that it feels like my house is a apartment in fact. one big apartment because i really have other than the small backyard in the back. i can say that again go back to the backyard which is my only place open space in the house. it's practically not livable. because again there's no light is nowhere and there's definitely no privacy. again i try to comment privacy from all neighbors. one wanted this one wanted to. i can accommodate everything but all in all i

think the solution actually compromise on both sides. about the style, i photos i can show you in the neighborhood itself also roof that much larger and higher than mine. much more excessive than mine. >> thank you you will have a two-minute rebuttal. you can continue that and 2 min. dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> the setback is a reminder. i have been in that-in his back garden could i seriously doubt that was taken from the second level. there is plenty of room in the back. according to staff, there's plenty of green

space. it's not an issue. you can see. it's 2 pm in the afternoon two days ago. it's not an issue. he has plenty is a bigger back gardens than many. yes, the bottom is that the basement so that's an issue but he's got a deck. that's ongoing to be a problem. this might give you a better idea what the actual privacy is going to be. if you see here this is the house next to us. this house watch the project closer to us. it goes farther into if you put someone in that window, they can see into our diner. this is from our dining room. if you're standing on the roof deck to about there, you're going to look you're going to look down on me in my dining room and be able to see into my master bedroom and there is no rationale for the roof deck. he has views galore out the front. he's got plenty of sun in the back. it's a vanity piece. that's all we can think. it's incredibly intrusive to our privacy. it just destroys it. without the roof that we have no issue just

not happy with the class but that is a privacy point rated. the roof deck on that nothing on castro on either side going 100 yards on another site roof deck is no roof deck inside. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> going back to the photo that my neighbor just showed, i mean any photo can be private. it probably takes two and 3 seconds to make any photo much by. i live there and i know the place and i can tell you that i know the former owner was suffering from that. the two neighbors next to me and told me specifically. jesse went to the same process about 10 years ago when they built their house. she complained there's no light no air. they went

through a long process and ultimately it was rejected and whoever built this house one the case. but, again if the concern is privacy, i told him i can do the same thing when the neighbor had here with the solar panels did we have enough good i'm not building the entire roof. so without half of that were lasted i can put the same solar panel that is a very easy process and build up now will give us a lot of space. honestly, they said please don't do that because they're concerned about abuse. i told him it's a small roof deck. there's nothing really there. just allows me to go there every now and then. the fact that there is furniture the that should not be disruptive. any obstruction to your views. so, i do try to come up with some other solutions. maybe there's a penthouse that comes out with a builder hot and i think with some spell to consider that. just when i talked i thought he was agreeable maybe you'd be some expensive project but then he

said after that, you know what we just want the roof deck. so, again, i think it's very minimalist roof deck. it doesn't impact the privacy of all because it's really far from them in the privacy issue i can definitely put the solar panels. my neighbor and that would result in privacy is good to be able to look at me and i won't be able to look at them. >> thank you. this portion of the hearing is closed >>[gavel] >> commissioner moore >> residential side in r-h-125 feet wide typical san francisco while 105 feet deep seems to propose a building, which seems to increase from 2000 ft.2 to 4000 square feet asking for a roof deck with a penthouse

that's highly atypical. the house itself is a choice it doesn't leave much of a workable rear yard on grade. i personally, have question that the additional of a roof deck with a penthouse is advisable in this logo should aside from the awkward elevation which you see on the opening sheet of the drawing set on 80-10 it makes me think it would be a better neighbor eliminating the roof deck and the stair house. the building itself is approval. i'm talking about this one commissioner antonini. the building itself is approval. how it sits on the side is the applicant's own choice and i think i would like to suggest that we do take dr, remove the roof deck and stair house and

approve what is proposed modified by the residential design team. >> will hear what other commissioners have to say. commissioner antonini >> i visited the site a week ago nice sunny day and talk to when the neighbors could i forget whether he was to the south or the north, but they seem to be supportive of the project and-he told me were i could type back to get to the dr requester that i went down the driveway away so i kind of saw the was cut quite a separation that. this quite a bit of elevation change. not as dramatic as one of the pictures that this project sponsorship, but there is an elevation jim. in any case, i thought well this is a no-brainer and then i opened up my packet and i saw the socket i don't like all that glass. i mean, the guy on

the south and north both had renovations they were able to do these in a very contextual manner to look a little bit more like the houses there. so my feeling would be, but >> [inaudible] >> that stuart >> i would want the staff to work with project sponsor. i just think there's too much glazing on the front of it there. we could find something that looked little bit more contextual with the neighboring properties. i would agree with commissioner moore. i don't know privacy is that much of an issue given distance that the dr requester are away from the project sponsor, but he's created a lot of space. i mean you can drive a truck on the second floor could you know, i mean, he may choose rather than having so much space to have some kind of decking in the back rather than having the deck on the top. because it

seems like there's a lot of wasted space but that's a personal choice. i'm agreeable to taking dr and removing the deck and the upper deck, and the penthouse stair and working with staff on design to try to make it as contextual as possible. >> so without a second >> said that is a second >> thanks. i agree with your summary. >> commissioner moore >> that's fine. >> discoverable >> the commissioners for my part is can you repeat the motion taking dr and a limiting the roof deck? >> that's correct the roof deck and the penthouse seconds >> on the motion, >> no >> commissioner antonini aye moore aye wu that richards aye.

so move commissioners in the motion passes unanimously 4-0. that places on public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> all over general public comments. the free minutes, sir. >> another house there was that about any specifically allowed the roof deck. i stressed behind me three roof decks. mine is very minimalist very small and >> [inaudible] >> i don't understand your preventing me to build a small roof deck. all i have is a very small deck here. tiny backyard in the back and would've left with is [inaudible] it seems so unfair. some of the same way about me 40-50 feet. his three best. as one to work with them and find a different solution

project. one i prohibited from doing that the? >> were not allowed to respond. it's not a question or answer pertinent. you've the ability to comment. if they choose to they can respond. >> again it seems completely unfit. [inaudible] out into have such different pvileges? 1 to 3 decks, and i cannot even obtain one in my husb just in apartments. would end up as just an apartme i don't understand the merits of this decision at all. >> you can appeal this decision to the board of appeals. >> seven waiting 18 months for my house. 18 months.it's completely unjust. especially [inaudible] you support and let them have roof decks. i don't think that i'm an exception. the new roof decks in the city.

[inaudible]. itself. thank you >> thank you. you have an appeal process to the board of appeals, sir. >> meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment]

>> feel like it really is a community. they are not the same thing, but it really does feel like there's that kind of a five. everybody is there to enjoy a literary reading. >> the best lit in san francisco. friendly, free, and you might get fed. ♪ [applause] >> this san francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. she was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990's and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi it's ic in the mission. >> although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho.

people writing poems about being jerks. beatty their chest onstage. >> she was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to be heard. touring the country and sharing gen-x 7 as a. her mainstream reputation grew with her novel. theses san francisco public library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. >> a lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. they're just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way.

coming in to the library is awesome. very good for the library to show this writing community that they are welcome. at first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really? things like that. >> as a documentary, there are interviews -- [inaudible] >> radar readings are focused on clear cultur strayed all others might write about gay authors. gay authors might write about universal experiences. the host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. there is no cultural barrier to entry. >> the demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. it is very simple. if we want more people of color, you book more people of color. you want more women, your book

more women. kind of like that. it gets mixed up a little bit. in general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. their ages and very. we definitely have some folks who are straight. >> the loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more chances with the monthly lineup. established authors bring in an older audience. younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. >> raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. it ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the

underground of queer fell, history, or culture. >> and there are so many different literary circles in san francisco. i have been programming this reading series for nine years. and i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this. >> the supportive audience has allowed michele to try new experiment this year, the radar book club. a deep explorationer of a single work. after the talk, she bounces on stage to jump-start the q&a. less charlie rose and more carson daly. >> san francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. multiple reading events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and

lectures. radar was voted the winner of these san francisco contest. after two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her full-time job. >> i am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world is eagerly to bring writers together and to produce literary events. if i was only doing my own work, i would not be happy. it is, like throwing a party or a dinner party. i can match that person with that person. it is really fun for me. it is nerve wracking during the actual readings. i hope everyone is good. i hope the audience likes them. i hope everybody shows up. but everything works out. at the end of the reading, everyone is happy. ♪

>> >>[gavel] >> good afternoon everybody welcome to a special meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee. monday, august 1, 2016. my name is mark farrell i will be chairing this committee. i'm joined by katie tang as well as by supervisor norman yee and supervisor mar as well. i want to thank sfgov tv for covering the meeting today. mdm. clerk we have any