business as lark, at 4068 18th street, located within castro street neighborhood commercial district. the project would allow the applicant to seek a type 75 license from the california department of alcohol beverages. the license would permit the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits on site consumption if association with the restaurant. plus the operation of a brewery -- micro brewery. the existing tenant space measures approximately 1500 square feet and the size would not change as part of the project. minor tenant improvements are associated with the brew station. since publication of the case report, the department has received four letters of support from the public. and a petition of support with 43 signatures. i have copies of the subject letters, which are available upon request. the department is in support of the project and recommends approval with conditions.

the concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is louis and i'm a consultant for the food and beverage industry in the state of california. today we are requesting a conditional use permit to operate a brew pub on already existence restaurant. this brew pub was especially designed if for restaurants. there is no [inaudible] to be taking place, there is no storage, there is no smell of any kind on the most important thing is the upgrade from the 41 guide license to the 75 won't hurt the operation that we have at the restaurant.

the restaurant will remain exactly the same. and we're goinging to offer our customers, yes, a choice of a cocktail before or after dinner. it's not going to be a bar. definitely not. since we are going to be closing the kitchen as soon as we close the bar. i'd be available for any questions. >> great. thank you. we'll open it up first to public comment. any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment, commissioner richards. >> i think this is a great idea. i've been to the lark restaurant. i think it has been a good neighbor to the castro. i think there's another kind of brew pub further down the street that i understand this commission was approved probably a couple of years ago. i think this would add to the offerings of the restaurant and it would create more vibrancy for you and i absolutely wholly support it and move to approve. >> second. >> second.

>> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve this matter with conditions, commissioner fong. >> hi. [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that will place us under discretionary review calendar. for item 12, case number 2015-01125dr opinionsinger at 171 jetson avenue. this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon. subject property again at 171 jetson avenue. the property is on the south side of jetson between edlar and circular avenue. a two-story rear addition was constructed without the benefit of a building permit and was constructed back in the 1970s by a previous owner of the property. and is currently being modified and legalized with this permit. the proposal includes the

renovation and addition to this existing two-story single family residence. this will include the construction of rear horizontal edition on the first and second levels, along with a third story vertical addition. and the proposed rear addition will have a depth of about 17" 7" and a width of 20'. it will include a 35-foot rear setback. the roof deck will be included on both the front and rear of the building with cable railings. the overall proposal is relatively modest alteration and is consistent with similar residential expansions for this type of structure the resident is more than 65 feet from the rear property line. the third floors have been consistently allowed throughout san francisco on single family residences and similar zone

districts. it meets the planning code and design guidelines. the planning department is in support of the project. this is determined that this addition is neither exceptional nor extraordinary and recommends the planning commission not take [inaudible]. that concludes my presentation. >> all right. d.r. requests. welcome. you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is brian. i'm the homeowner and resident of the property directly to the south side of the project site. i'm concerned with the third story with front and rear decks. this additional story will sit high above the surrounding homes and on my block and noticeably stick out. my block and immediate neighborhood has very uniform, visual character made up mostly of two-story flat roof single family homes. as the project site, it's surrounded by the style and

will completely break this pattern and look very much out of place. i'm fairly new to the neighborhood and a major factor of my decision to own a home here was that the area was so well laid out and there was no odd construction or visually disrupting features. it's a warm community full of families and modest home sizes. if this project adds proposed third-story plans it would drastically change this and negatively affect the property values of my home and my neighbors. i can attest if this project was completed a little over a year ago when i was home shopping, i would think twice about the purchase and the amount i was willing to spend. i'm asking that the proposed project be changed to remove the third story plans. this still allows for a larger [inaudible] to a five-bedroom house more in line other single-family homes on my block. i have a few pictures to demonstrate the neighborhood. [coughing]

[inaudible]. and the neighboring -- >> speak into the microphone. >> i'm sorry. the top picture shows the surrounding houses and highlights the project site. as you can see it is a very uniform, regular pattern. and the lower picture is the rear of the home. which can also shows a very regular pattern. just a couple more pictures of the surrounding neighborhood. that demonstrates the same visual character. this is marsden avenue street, which is south of the project site. that's all i have. thank you for your time. >> thank you. any public comment in support of the d.r.? >> i'm sorry.

i do have one letter from a neighbor that i'd like to submit. >> ok. you can submit it. yeah. seeing no additional public comment, are you commenting on in support of the d.r.? yeah. >> my name is alfredo and i live at 62 marsden avenue right next to brian's home. i've lived there for 25 years and this project is proposed for the lot basically kiddie corner to mine. like brian said, this project will eliminate any privacy i have in my backyard. i have two young children who enjoy a little bit of privacy that we have. the view in line from that third floor is going to eliminate that. also i think approving a project like this will go against the character of my neighborhood.

the neighborhood as you saw in the pictures is flat, between two and one floor structures. a third would be out of character. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor? you have five minutes. >> hello, commissioners. i'm the architect on the project. this is mrs. malaney and she is the homeowner. first of all, we have about 26 signatures of support from local neighbors around the property. i just want to begin with a few images of the building. >> speak in the microphone. >> speak boot mic, please. >> i'm sorry. this is the building at the front. this is the existing building at the rear. this is from the '70s, i

believe. this is the back of the yard. which is the southern neighbor is beyond the telephone pole that you see, or the electric pole you see back there. this is the neighbor's building, the white building at the rear. and the separation between the rear building and the existing illegal addition that was built in the 1970s is over 100 feet. that is about 100 feet and eight inches. this is sort of a rendering showing the existing conditions. relationship to the neighbor. this is the addition on top in relationship to the adjacent neighbor. part at the front will hide the glass guardrail at the front.

this is just a side view relationship and this is a building with an addition on this side and the neighbors building on the other sigh. >> you can pull that mic over if it helps, too. >> i'm sorry. this is a cross section of the conditions. so what we're also proposing is when we did a little outreach with the neighbor, they asked us to come and meet with them. we thought we'll create a wall and setback the actual deck away from the property line and away from the back wall and at the same time, we sit it back five feet so our actual distance to the rail is more like 105'8" and then to the building it is roughly another 10'plus, beyond that.

we're almost 115 feet away. let's see. so, i guess what we're saying is we feel that the family needs more space. the amount of bedrooms a little zealous. that wasn't my attention with them initially but they wanted more bedrooms so i spoke to them recently and we looked at potentially cutting down the bedrooms so that at the ground level this becomes a bedroom and the entire back becomes a family room and then on the second level, we turned the back bedroom into one bedroom because the bedrooms are very small. so at the top floor we have two bedrooms with the family room at the top. with -- so we're looking at four bedrooms total. this is the view outside the back window into thele with and then see the guardrail in the foreground to the neighbor's

house in the background. so i guess now the homeowner would like the say something about the property as well. >> hi. we've been living in this neighborhood over 40 years. and our need right now is so much -- it is more space because we have two children right now that are growing and they need more space. i have a older mother-in-law living with us and we constantly have family members coming over to take care of her because we work and we need their help. and that is one of reasons that we needed that. we wanted to have different levels because of the children are getting older and they need their more -- their own space right now. and because of the elderly person, you know in a main

floor. it has been really hard on them. and we are very traditional family. we all live together and, you know, our kids stay with us until they're married and out of the house. age that is the reason we want this addition to our house. >> any questions by -- >> we may. but let's finish this process first. >> so, the overall square footage -- >> that is your time. you have a two-minute rebuttal. let's just open it up for public comments in support of the project and opposed to the d.r. if there is any. you have a two-minute rebuttal. if you have anything additional you'd like the say if response to the presentation. >> i'd like to say that i like my neighbors. i have nothing against them. they're nice people.

i even like the architect that they've hired. this is not about anything other than the privacy that we already -- that we -- the little bit of privacy that we enjoy and the character of the neighborhood. and, you know, there was a time a few years ago when i considered doing a project like this. and one of the reasons why i gave it up, as much as i need the space, i have large family, too. i have people come in all the time. our neighborhood is not manhattan. it is not for big buildings and this is why we we moved there. so, again, i don't oppose their motives. i just oppose the project. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> yes. i was just going to talk about the square footage. the square footage is basically 2900-plus for the actual habitable space and then the garage is over 400 square feet.

so, it's getting up there, but yet the horizontal addition that's talk about is really at the same location where the existing horizontal addition that was built in the 1970s so we're not expanding the building envelope at second level anymore than at the third level we're actually bringing back the building, you know, enough to at least provide a little bit of a deck at the rear where there is a little bit of a view but provides for some light and air and ventilation. our intention is not to invade our neighbor's privacy here. we elected to put planters and give them a little bit of screening. but that is always something that can go away. we're doing our best to try to work with them and that is what we have. thank you. >> ok. thank you, we'll close this portion of the hearing and open

up for commissioner comments and questions, if there is any. commissioner moore? >> i think this project proposes some interesting challenges. the most important one is the one mr. washington mentioned that densefication in this neighborhood is probably unavoidable. then the question is how do you do it? and how do you do it sensitively and in anticipation that other people could do the same which means setting a precedent. and i think the precedent is to be more sensitive to your neighbors and i believe that excluding the second -- the third floor right over the foot print of the second floor is too aggressive given the shape of the neighborhood. if i look at the project, there are two red flags. one, we're legalizing something that was constructed without permit at a time when

apparently it wasn't noticed that this wasn't following the rules. the second one is that the arrangement of the floor plans raises a number of questions. there are hardly any floor plans by which you have a building with two family rooms basically clustered around by seven bedrooms. this almost looks more like a rooming house. and i'm speaking here in simply organizational terms, not reflecting on family traditions, etc., because that is in this discussion. important to know, but not deciding how we look at a project. what i'm concerned about is that, indeed, the lower floor should have been brought forward as an a.d.u. because what happens if we approve that project as it is and somebody just simply adds a kitchen and has an a.d.u. that would have been the proper way of enlarging this home. exempt the a.d.u.s for that are slightly different. not totally different, but a little different. the second point i'd like to

make is that by tucking in, for example t third floor on both sides, one could have come up with a model of how to dense -- densify this neighborhood without being a harm to its neighbors. in order to be respectful to that, i would have tucked in the building from both sides and i would still leave sufficient room and square footage for all rooms to occur. but i would have also not be considering a terrace to the streetside of the building because it is totally atypical and further accentuateses the bulkiness and massing of this building. so, those are two points i'd like to have the commission look at. one is to be a better example for leading a proper densefication of the neighborhood.

tucks the building in those are my comments. >> commissioner? >> i don't know if it's proposed with a project that we look after we put our two cents in and made some edits and clarifications. i do think both of the decks that are set back aren't necessarily going to attract an airbnb party crowd, which is something we often look at. i'm still open to hearing what the other commissioners say and i'm hope to other ideas. but commissioner moore was tossing around the idea is an a.d.u. possible just to provide a different -- or additional unit of some sort. >> commissioner? >> yes. thank you. i agree with the points that commissioner moore made.

although i am hfp-my objection is to the deck in the back not necessarily the front because i think that the neighbors raised the issue of privacy. so to me it is more important than the aesthetics. but also, you know, i am really wary of setting a precedent that will have sunnyside be snowy value in 15 years. and so where we densify, this particular neighborhood, i do think that we should be adding units. i like the a.d.u. point and i would, you know, say that to the staff. >> commissioner moore? >> i would also suggest to lower the floor height by one foot. because we do not need that much floor height on the upper parts there. that's one possibly to diminish the massing.

>> commissioner? >> i'm curious about the parking because we're keeping the garage, right? we're keeping the garage. although we have a full driveway. did you at any point think about incorporating the garage tas are not allow maryland this neighborhood? -- allowed in this neighborhood? >> i thought we'd keep it as a one-car garage and not expand it or reduce it for bicycle parking. and i think we're open to the concept of lowering the height of the building. i think the way they're using the home now, i think they'd rather not have an accessory dwelling unit but can entertain the accessory dwelling unit. maybe in the future. if it is par of the conditions of geting this approved, i think we can entertain that.

and then i guess they'll lease it out at the point when they don't need it anymore. right now the mother is living in the house with them. and they would like to give her a little privacy. so it could be an accessory dwelling unit where the mother will live there. this is my thoughts at the moment. >> so, just to chime in, i think there isn't much that rises to kind of the extraordinary here. so things i think i would support, although i think that a unit is being -- it is almost built as an act says sorry dwelling unit. it has access from the front and from the garage. so, i'm not sure i'm stipulating that it is or would not do. someone in the future can convert to that. it's built to allow for that.

which is good. i don't particularly like the front balcony more so than the back because i think they tend to be more visible from the street level and that is a totally kind of different concept. than what's around. i'm not enthralled by the third floor or the height. i think pushing it back a little bit from the kind of the typical property line there could, you know, be neighborly. it's 10 feet. so i'm not troubled by the height. i think interior spaces at nine feet tend to be small and feel cramped and i don't think it gets much to the neighbors. there are a couple of things that i'm kind of in support of. a front deck removal may be shifting it back a couple of feet back on that property line. commissioner moore? >> i would support the front deck to be removed. you may not have noticed it,

but that is a north-facing deck. the south-facing deck with a rather deep, rear yard is the appropriate one. in particular it will be used off two bedrooms. so, that would probably be a better -- that would probably be a better idea. in addition, the fact that they are typical to have decks facing the street. it's interesting to hear both commissioners talking about it. it could be an 880-u. we would be well-advised to oust the project applicant to apply for an a.d.u. because you cannot -- you cannot install an a.d.u. fls you properly permit it and this would be an easier way to get a permit under current legislation. is that correct? >> that's correct. again, that is up to the project sponsors. they obviously have a situation where there's multigenerations

sharing one household. a lot of times they may not necessarily be at that point in their lives where they want to entertain the options of an a.d.u., but it sounds like they have an elderly parent that they are sharing their household with and obviously growing children that are probably reaching into young adulthood that are also sharing the household. it is not uncommon today that you have living situations and arrangements like that. >> so, having the legality of a kitchen right and part of the current construction irrespective of extended family members or so live there is still a legal environment requirement. you cannot build a kitchen because your partners live there and not have a fully permitted a.d.u. on the this one. in the interest of the applicant for the extended family situation to have an a.d.u. and amend the plans accordingly. but that would require a separate application, correct?

>> could we -- could we condition our approval on the application of that unit being an a.d.u.? >> i'm thinking of that option at this point to amend it to require the a.d.u. -- >> the application. >> no, but we can amend it so that -- as a project sponsor, are you willing to do the requirement that that bottom unit be configured as a separate unit and you request approval for an a.d.u.? >> i am. and i need to convince my client of doing the same. so it's really up to my client. i think if they understand what the a.d.u. is really all about and how their mother can actually use it to her benefit, i think they would agree with me on this issue. so i shouldn't be speaking out of turn. i did ask the owners about it, mr. monan circumstance a little hesitant because he done want

to get trapped into that. but i think the way they're using it is exactly like an a.d.u. i don't see a problem. i don't have a problem you conditioning it that way. and then we can apply later with some commitment from the owners. >> right. i think commissioner moore's point is that you couldn't currently build it that way and then an a.d.u. because it is a existing livinging space. >> sure. you need to trust me on this. >> we can condition the permit on it, adding a kitchen and applying for an a.d.u. >> excuse me.

15 years we see this all over t. giving your client time to mull. because putting in the units is densification done right, a weee not talking delaying this a lon. >> that's fine with me, two wee? >> december 21st is not going t. we need to go in january. we need plans. >> we can go to the first meetin january. is that possible? >> i move to continue the firstf january. >> january 11th? >> yes. >> commissioner moore? >> you described rearranging of. we'd like to see what it is youe

proposing. >> i would modify the plan to st more plausible. identify we suggest the deck beg reduced -- even five feet so tha place to step out to. >> and regarding the front deck. this structure has a 14 -- 14-ft setback. from the property line. tea atypical from san franciscoh usually has zero front setback. this has a setback that is prety substantial. the top floor is an additional . the deco will be visible but ite deminimis from the visual at tht walk.

>> front sidewalk. >> i i know we're looking at ths globally to the deck and how the viewed. people have the spaces and frons seem to be a thing you put on bt interferes with the visual can . >> i'd like to take visual clutr further. since the decks sits on the proy line, it's not held back from bs easily, it makes it even more c. you have the third floor stickit with the balcony on the propert. i would support commissione com' idea of removing it. >> there is a motion seconded to continue this matter to january. to install an adu on that motion

commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> that passes 6-0. that places us on item 13. 2017-005643drp. this is the have discretionary . good afternoon. up before you the request to coa one-storey 425 sphoofort above e single two-storey single-familyg and front and rear roof deks abe existing second floor at 583, 4d avenue in the richmond district. it's rh-1 and is not seeking any exceptions or variances from the

planning code. they raised four main concerns e project. first the d.r. opposed the roofn the fourth floor. secondly they opposed the rear f the vertical addition recommende squared off so it's not obliquey acrossed neighboring properties. they noted that the 311 plans dt reflect the true slope of the st which had the effect of underste visual impact on the vertical a. finally they on thed to the masf the third floor. they reviewed the project, the g code and general plan and the pt was reviewed by the residentialn advisory team three times incluo reviews ooft d.r. was filed. the department does not object e rear wall and windows finding tm consistent with the residential

guidelines. the department requested that ty revise them to more accurately t the gradient o long 42nd avenue. it was agreed that the third flr vertical addition appeared to be visible and disruptive to the ag along the block. staff recommended several meansf minimizing the bulkiness of thed floor so it's less visible frome street. the department recommended thate upper most roof deck above the d floor be eliminated from the pr. the project sponsor has not mady modifications to address the is. the planning department has rece additional letter from a neighbs the street from the subject proy which supports the recommendati. i have that copy here for the r. the department recommends that e commission take discretionary rd approve the propose the projecte

modifications as specified by te residential design advisory tea. these include removing the uppet roof deck above the proposed vel edition and lowering the ceilint or sloping the third floor rooft it's less visible from the stre. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for further quest. >> d.r. requester. you can do the overhead. pull the mic towards you so we r you. >> my name -- thank you very mu, chris, we agree with you. 13 households in the immediate

neighborhood are party to the d. many other neighbors are concert the project and the precedent is for the neighborhood. my husband and i live here. downhill from the property thate barometric pressure barometric g about today. i became involved with the projn 11511515. >> i'm active in enabled groupsa . a bit about our neighborhood.

due to the immediate proximity n the city. we're near golden gate park. of the 54 homes, 38 are designee same architect. they're designed to max mime lih is very important in the outer . and we love and depend on our cr patios for the light. the most recent decision said te massing of the third floor vertl decision including the roof is inconsistent with the existing neighborhood character. when comparing the plan tots ch, with regard to the -- does the

topography respect the surroundg areas? no. is the height and depth capacit? no. is the width compatible? no. roofline compatible? no. they found that the are removale roof deck as well as lowering og the third floor would meet the l intent of the residential design guidelines. we agree and that's all we're ar today. but, the amassing issues, i wano address privacy issues that addr concerourconcern for the projec. our houses are close together ad of the block. it's on a 70-foot lot and from u can see down into neighboring h. it's dense here, we have used vn to provide some sort of privacys end, but when you go up to the d

floor, you can see this is a vit was provided in your docket by e property owners how much privacs impact. the bottom level and backyards h more visible and i don't even kt it's going it look like from thh floor, especially when you talkt areas like our center patios soe concerned about our privacy. we are with sf planning, a numbf neighborhoods added additional e while respecting the character e neighborhood and privacy of the neighbors. please reare expect the decisiod eliminate the fourth floor deckd reduce the third floor massing. >> thank you. we'll open it up for public comn support of the d.r. and opposede prompt if there is any. >> we've got a couple back here. >> come on forward.

if there are others who would lo speak, you can line up on the sn side of the room here. >> i'll try to make this quick,s going to be a little robotic. i'm eric peterson and i'm here y support for the decisions of ju. 13 households in the vicinity oe project signed the d.r. and more households like ours are concert this. a number of neighbors are suppoe d.r. because they couldn't tend. attend. this review process remains rel. please require the sponsor to e recommendations. this has been of covered. remove the roof deck and reducee

third floor height to eight fee. my wife and i live at 55328 anzt around the orner from the proje. we moved in last year but been a resident in the outer richmond. we moved into our dream house co friends and family. when we bid for our house, we we of 24 bids. we were accepted even though wee well below the highest bid becae previous owners were aware of or appreciation for the character r house and neighborhood. this attitude of respect is typf my neighbors. they're active, engaged and intd in ensures that as others impror property, they do so we respectr their neighbors. we're constructive, not conserv. thissal is to petition the cityo assess the block so utilities ce placed underground. there is a lot of great cooperan

among the neighbors. the open and cohesive charactert gone for disappearing from manyf the city. this assures that tourists and f residents get to enjoy the area. the temporary gain can become a precedent for further abuse. as the city is more congested, e more and more people including l estate spec laters attempt to ct the existing housing stock beyoe neighborhood character. the owners of 583 have placed ad space on the bottom floor. they'll have a new living area e third floor and a second deck wa view of the ocean which i don't. please support the process to ee that all neighbors update theiry with the guidelines in the neigd character with respect to priva. we're asking that the roof decks

removed and that the third floot is kept to eight feet, thank yo. >> any additional comment? go ahead. >> good afternoon, my name is c. for four years my mother has lit door to 583. about seven years ago, my husbai moved into this family home als. my father is hoping with mentals and is home with 24 hour home c. when we received the packet froe city, we had 3-d renderings of e additions would look like, we hd misgivings about the project. we're seeing two dimensioned pl, looking at the 3-d plans give ur idea of the impacts of these ads

on the neighborhood. at the may 179 meeting with the architects and many of us neigho have similar concerned, hoped td be able to dom a quick and rease solution. at that meeting, i share my cons including how the 3-d renderingh help us interpret the decisionst represent the slope of are the t and line of the roofs. the perspective was off. i showed a graphic photo taken e spot where it seemed the rendere taken from. and just didn't quite measure u. now in drawings, using software. you can change things and change angels, rotate and so on. however, a building is so imporo

me once a building is up, it's . we can't change it. that's why we're here. we want to make sure that the appropriate building is put up r neighborhood. my husband also expressed a dift concern at the meeting. he mentioned how hard it had bes physical and mental health becaf the construction. it was a place right next to him and we went on for over a year a half. he was at that point wanted to t dick and bonnie could do to enst the next rowched construction wt be as length ri -- round of conn ront be awouldn't be as disrupt. we hope it could be at a faster timeframe. please do consider that for us. i work full-time and i have to y

elderly mother and my husband ws medical complications. i really don't need the additiol strefs having to deal with consn issues next door. in con seclusion -- in conclusis you to accept the staff recommes as is. >> any additional comment? >> hi. commissioner, i'm john anser. i love on 47th avenue three houm the project. i'm here today to speak to the f visibility of third floor additm 47th avenue. and our community's trier to ree existing cohesive streetscape. here is a picture of 47th.

so here is a photo of 47th. the project is part of a larger integrated neighborhood. on 47th avenue, it's one of nine identical architect designed hom 1938. you can see them here. here is another -- here is anotw of them looking down. this pattern of home runs aroune corner along anza street and aly up 48th avenue. it has the effect of unifying tk of the neighborhood and it feelt like a planned community-type d. the planning staff reviewed the neighborhood and it concluded "s cohesive in design, material and massing." so here is a photo what have thw project will look like.

is it very visible from the str. the third floor has no architecl integration with the rest of the or neighborhood. it can clearly looks like and rs an addition, so it must be mades visible from the street. the ceqa exemption for this pros based on "being minimally visibm the street" we need to assume tn historical house. the renderings show this is not minimally visible. many tourists israel it this blk because we are the last block at to the park and cliff house andp on the hill overlooking the ocen scenery. they take pictures of the housed beautiful ocean which you can sd them. this is a page from a travel bl. it shows the nine houses and reo these nine pristine houses as te

painted ladies. this is a very -- obviously a re to the more famous painted ladi. this is a special neighborhood. it's the last block above the o. unusualing in that it's almost y owner-occupied. the staff support is supported r and other whoos signed up in pap with the d.r. there were 64 neighbors who stad they don't believe roof decks ae project sponsor is not doing wt staff suggested. the staff reviewe reviewed thisn both times said remove the deckd eight feet only on the third fl. >> any additional public commenn support of the d.r.? seeing none. project sponsor, you have five .

>> we can. >> just pull that mic over. >> my name is jeff burris. i'm the principal architect and architect for the project. i'd like to address a few issued walk you through the process ofe got to this point. i met dick and bonnie through me when she was a journalist. they bought this house to be clo their family. they like the street just adds e neighbors do -- as the neighbord as i do. they both consider the pacific s a potent feature. the house was built in 1939, a d structure with 1500 feet of live area. there is extra room downstairs e

basement next to the garage. as is with the case of many of e structures, building seismic and electrical systems were subpar t up to code. there were spatial issues with e that was gigantic and bedroom be small. spatially there were two issues. the rear of the yard is exceediy short. it's a little dark back there be there is a large tree in the nes yard. the yard takes us space right h. the yard takes us space right h. this is the -- >> that mic moves. you can move the mic over so yot have to juggle it yourself. >> i'm reading from this side.

so spatially we were looking tos the year yard and then we felt t was appropriate to add a third . we agree that the house sits ona pristine block and pushed the td story 23.5 feet back from the f. the height allowance is 40 feete block features three and two-sty residential buildings. there are seven houses on that n of 47th avenue that are three ss tall. our design is at the leading sis cut the addition well behind thf the house. in front of the house, 23.6 feet edition. we elected to make the new addih the flat roof. this is consistent with the architectural houses on this bl. they have a flat section in th .

my office considers them separam the differences. we never set out to copy what we 08 years, but we can for that ro and -- mary the two and propose9 screlg height and brought it doo 8.6. we made it 6 inches shorter thae height of the main floor. we gave the third floor a naturl extension to the floor below. we positione positioned positiok as we could and allowed the stao come true. with the flat roof assembly ande majestic view of the city -- i o show a diagram. so you can understand, this is e sidewalk. there is the roof -- >> sir, speak into the mic. >> here is the roof deck profile

blue represents the addition pr. after completing the design wore held a neighborhood review and d verbal endo dofers dorsment froe three neighbors but no objectio. we turned the project in for red it was taller and bulkier. chris felt the new addition wasr from the street. this is actually a rendering ofe building from across the street. after completing the design wore held the review meeting as i me. we worked hard to address this . i know that the sponsors had med that we had originally had an it slope. it was actually 2% off. i checked it since, our renderis overlaid on to a photo of the se itself. to give you an idea of what the difference is between 8 feet an-

>> your time is up but you haveo minute rebuttal. >> is there public comment in sf the project3me and opposed to ? seeing none, we'll move to rebu. you have a two minute rebuttal n we'll come back to the project . >> i'm going to keep this short. we did have a meeting and we had to come to resolution. think we just got the two pointt were continuing to address thatn francisco planning department hd upon is to reduce the height ane have never said that three store an issue. we've had, a lot of people havet and done it with complete respeh the neighborhood but this is no. the sf planning department cameh solutions that we're comfortablh and we'd like to move forward wh

those. as you saw from the pictures ea, they're going to have a stunninf the ocean in the back. this is a neighborhood i'll saye going to have -- if roof decks , i anticipate deck wars because a number of people, if one persons up, the other person will buildd i'm terrified of that precedent. it isn't just for this house the talking about the roof deck, ite neighborhood as a whole. we appreciate it. >> thank you, project ponser. -- project sponsor. >> good afternoon on behalf of e project sponsor. i think the d.r. requester and t spons railroad all in agreemente major ideas here. what -- sponsor all are in agref the major ideas here. height and livability of this an

and what to do to make up for a substandard lot in the back. we respectfully disagree with t. q9 as proposed both in terms of itt and the additional open space of the addition are appropriate and contextual. i have a handout for the commisn which is a comparison showing an eight--addition versus the 8'6" addition. so people can see what it looksn context. a few details about the roof de. it's 19 198 square feet. that's small. it's shaped so it's stepping bam the back to address concerns aby issues with privacy and people g into the rear courtyards. the proposed rear yard is less 5

feet in width and as you heard,s dark and slopes down. providing and finding open space substandard lot is important. in terms of the third floor fam, we were talking about going frot to 9 feet. here we are at 8.5 feet. we would submit that 8 feet is y tight. you may not be able to tell it,e of the project sponsors, dick, " and both of his kids are over 6. thank you and we're available fy questions. >> thanks. we'll close this portion of theg and open it up for commissioners and questions. commissioner moore. >> looking at the the experiench is quite comprehensive because t comparable projects with the lay of applications, i would have te

with their findings. i think they are spot on. and the -- what disturbs me is e applicant hasn't take that reviw serious. this commission is here to looke thoroughness and accuracy of whe department does and in the majof cases, we agree. sometimes we push it further. which then, of course goes to tl consent of all involved. in this particular case, i findt amazing that the applicant did e any of the thoughts that the det developed seriously. nothing of what is asked for is reflected in the drawings. i would have to say that i willy support the department's recommn as it stands. i'm curious what the rest of the commission is asking for, otheri would take d.r. and approve thet

with the department thoroughly y recommendations. >> commissioner richards. >> i second. can. >> go ahead. >> i second. >> i read this report cover to r because i found it incredibly interesting. we find ourselves sometimes sidg against the rdat when we take t. and change projects and find ous like that the rdat had given on constraints. i think the roof deck in the bad front is significant. and usable. i think it takes the project sps need for open space to the poine they'd be satisfied. i don't think the sloping yard s useable opening space especialle