about that. we would recommend there be c.a.c. where you have different seats for different constituents >> excuse interruption. there will be follow-up legislation about that. you will have a further discussion on that. >> commissioner richards: and the potential legalization can include land banking and what other stabilization it needs. we had a couple of recommendations -- >> president hillis: can we just clarify? page 19 on the report says conditional issues for consideration that were not staff recommended. >> we are not necessarily recommending. we just want you to explore them you did want to explore the living wall concept. i understand. we are not -- we put those out there for consideration because they have been raised. we want to make sure you are aware and you discuss them and all

>> i drop that one. >> the inclusionary -- >> we can explore that. >> commissioner richards: we could say we have a feasibility study to determine the value recapture and compare it to all the other parity percentages of the plan. it is pretty easy. >> president hillis: this one is on process changes. it is a little bit more difficult to figure out. i get the notion -- >> commissioner richards: director, what do you think? [laughter] >> as you know, i am overall

concerned about project feasibility. we can certainly look at -- perhaps the easiest way to do this is to see if we can quantify savings in process and see if it actually is a meaningful amount of money that could be applied. i can almost guarantee you that an increase would be impossible with the savings from the process. it is way too much to have an increase of 5%. is there an amount that is reasonable? i don't know what that is. that is the challenge. quantifying the savings from process savings is really, really hard. >> commissioner richards: i guess we are referring to time savings. >> president hillis: we have to come up with a baseline. is the baseline what it takes when we continue things we what is it? i guess it is difficult. but we should be encouraging ourselves to make process change >> commissioner richards: it looks like there is no support

for that so i will not include it. >> overall it would help us to quantify savings. i just don't know we can do it in the context of this particular time. i think it is helpful -- again, it is something i would like the department to do in the coming years to look at how much do we actually saved by saving time? how much do developers save? that is a more complicated study than what is being suggested. i think that is something we can do but i don't think we can do it in the context of this plan right now, is my point. >> president hillis: all right i second that. >> clerk: there is a motion -- >> president hillis: sorry, there was a motion about the popos too. to look at the design of them and make them more family-friendly.

>> commissioner moore: we talked about the proposition k. consideration for protection of sunlight on the open spaces. is a very important idea for a green district. >> president hillis: new recreation and park -- any recreation and parks could deal with that. >> commissioner richards: i am looking around to see -- >> what i hear support for looking at design guidelines for popos and making them more family-friendly and if it is possible to look at sunlight issues as well. i will at that. >> commissioner richards: there it is. very good. anything else? >> president hillis: i think we got it. we got it. [laughter] >> clerk: commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt recommendations for approval of

planning code business and tax regulations code and zoning map amendments to the central soma plan and sustainability district with all of staff's recommendations and supervisors' recommendations including the one submitted today. as amended, to include exploring green living walls, design guidelines for popos, funding for the mint to be increased $5 million and to be taken from the transportation fund, and explorer conversion of dwelling units and capturing that funding and allocating it to the community stabilization fund.

>> yes, i wanted to clarify. on this handout that we provided with you today, it has two lists in one. the first part of the lists are the staff recommendations in the second list is additional issues for consideration. some of which overlap with the supervisor's talking points. some of which are other things that have not been discussed fully. they have been part of the presentation but not part of what your deliberation is right now. wanted to clarify that for you. >> president hillis: we are taking the staff recommendation and -- some of the ones that are key off of those items. >> ok. >> clerk: on that motion. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. >> president hillis: we will take a sufficient -- a 15 minute break and then come back and take

tregub. pinkston. selaws >> commissioners, we left off on your calendar on item 21. before i do that, we actually just received a notice for item 24, case number 2017-003846 d.r.p. at 765 vermont street, discretionary review, that matter has been withdrawn, so if anyone here from the public is here for that matter, you no longer need to stay. >> president hillis: all right. if you're just going to withdraw. we don't need to take any action. all right. go in peace. >>clerk: all right. item number 21, case 2018-28516 d.r.p., discretionary review. >> okay. good evening, commissioners. elizabeth jonckheer of planning

staff. the property is located on the south side of broadway and scott in pacific heights. it's developed with a three story over garage single-family home, constructed circa 1910. as initially submitted in june 2017, the project proposed a two story horizontal rear addition with a floor area increase from approximately 3400 square feet to 5100 square foot. the project also proposed a new elevator, alterations to the front facade, expansion of the basement, level, and below grade first floor, and a below grade first floor for a new family room, laundry room and additional storage space and the terracing of the rear yard. since the february 2018 31 # notification and submission, the d.r. sponsor has reduced the decks of the horizontal rear additions by 3 feet and

eliminated three windows on the east side of the window. in addition total floor area was -- the proposed floor area was reduced to 47,000 square feet approximately. the revised project is not seeking any variances or modifications to the requirements of the planning code and does not trigger the section 317 tantamount to demolition threshold. also in february 2018, the environmental planning staff issued a categorical exemption from the project which included review by preservation staff. the owners are owners of the adjacent properties at 2517 broadway and 2513 broadway. the staff found that the project appropriately respects the neighbor's topography and the neighbor context, preserving the step down the hill on broadway. the proposed rear addition as

revised maintains both the neighbor's privacy as well as midblock air and open space. the massing is consistent with all design guidelines. staffing has determined that the revised project does not contain or create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and's recommendation is to not take -- and staff's recommendation is to not take d.r. and approve the permit. >> okay. we have two d.r. requesters. you have five minutes each. [inaudible] >>clerk: you may. >> my name is jerry, and my wife and i have lived at 2513 broadway since 1985. members of the commission, thank you for having me, and i apologize for the low tech nature of the -- no, i'm sorry. is the project sponsor supposed

to come first? >> president hillis: no, d.r. >> yeah, i'm the d.r. person. apologize for the low tech nature of the handout material, but 8th grade production values were probably my highest achievement. i would like to say that five minutes will go fast, and so i would like to make three points. one is that this is a motion permit maskerading as an alteration. there is a cut out in the house and i'll talk to you in the sponsor's house that really has simply disappeared under this plan, and it really has an impact on our house. and the third is location of windows looking into our house are unwarranted and really obje

obtrusive. so if i could familiarize you with the properties. >> president hillis: do you want to put that on the overhead next to you? >> this one? >> commissioner richards: yes, and swing the mic over. >> you see what i mean by low tech abilities? >> president hillis: we're about to upgrade you to high tech. there we go. >> so we're in this house on the right that sticks out -- >> president hillis: please point to that on the overhead. >> where am i -- >> president hillis: just point to it with your finger. we can see it on the overhead. yeah, that's your house. mr. sewich, excuse me. you have to speak into the microphone. >> 2515, 2517. this is the area that i wanted to talk to you about today in terms of the cutout. our -- according to water

service records, our house was connected in 1889. the house on the other side at 2517 was connected in 1889, and the sponsor's house was connected in 1907 as an add onto the 2517 mother-in-law house. number one, it's our contention that there was an incorrect permit issued by the planning department. what's happening is that basically as proposed, the roof system's coming off, all the tweshl bearing walls are are coming out, and all the floors will have to be reframed. getting new staircase, the only internal chimney coming out, that almost will certainly lead the building department to

require a full upgrade for all the codes in terms of title 24 and so forth. we requested demolition calculations. we received the -- the ones that you do with the 317 tantamount to demolition. however, there were -- there are three sixections of that code, y one of which if exceeded means demolition. so we hired an architect by the name of mike grevalia. and if you look at page two, he has done a quick review and has found at least two thirds of the interior walls are being removed, and that would trigger under 317 b-2-a, that would trigger a demolition. so i would go back to our 1-cr to allow us to really know what's happening at the planning stage. number two, in terms of the

cutout at the back of the house, if you would turn to. >> president hillis: it means you have 30 seconds. >> all right. [inaudible] >> what wasn't advertised in the 311 notice is that this area goes away. we rely on two windows, only two windows into our bedroom here, and that gives us light and air. so what they're doing, contrary to what's happening up and down the block -- >>clerk: sir, unfortunately your time is up, but you have a

two-minute rebuttal. >> has it been five minutes? >>clerk: it has. >> president hillis: but you will have a two-minute rebuttal, but we may have questions, also. >> so am i able to get to those points? >>. >> president hillis: you may in the two-minute rebuttal. is there any public comment in support -- oh, yeah, there's another d.r. requester. >> good evening, commissioners. >> president hillis: just speak into that mic right there, or you can pull it towards you. perfect. >> good evening, commissioners. i live with my 88-year-old mother and daughter at 2517 broadway. i've never done this before, and it's a bit nervous, so i hope it's okay if i read my statement.

>> president hillis: absolutely. >> to be honest, it's embarrassing to be in front of you today since the issues we've raised could be addressed in a more collaborative process. we've lived in our home 50 years and always had great relationships with our neighbors. the project sponsor's been extremely vague and closed in the renovation plan since the very beginning. throughout the process it has been very challenging to get accurate information or the latest plans. instead of coming by to introduce himself, see our home, understand potential issues, the first time i met him was at the neighborhood meeting. i was surprised when they filed their plans unchanged days later without any input. it was only after i hired an attorney that they responded. the original owners of my home built 2515 broadway in 1915 as a carriage house for my daughters. in the last renovation, my

parents were kind of to trust the process of the previous owner, however our home was severely impacted. the kitchen side window was eliminated, our drainage rerouted and they built on top of our porch on the property line. i hope you understand why i'm so concerned about this project. i couldn't afford to purchase the home today, and i can't afford to correct any damage or impact. there is an unfortunate recent example of what can happen in this type of construction. the project at 655 alvarado and its impact on the neighboring project. their submit -- [inaudible] >> -- and not be replaced. what was approved in the planning permit wasn't followed, it was an unlawful demolition, and i understand it severely undermined the neighbor's foundation. i am fully supportive of the sponsor's building a home to

meet their needs. even after the d.r. we continued to work with them in good faith to try to resolve our issues and i'm still hopeful of that. unfortunately they continue to assert that the structural information is not in planning's purview. they either respond -- they respond by giving me vague promise that they will take care of everything later. i believe my questions do fall understandably your jurisdiction. the need for more detailed amount of report given the amount of excavation is an extremely steep slope. when i went down to planning, the guy showed me a sheet of paper and thought that would be the case. and democalculations since no internal walls remove, the floors, and more, they repeatedly refused to specifically address my concerns and instead expect me to pay for my attorneys to draft the

necessary reassurances that everything will be addressed and the appropriate mitigation taken. they also have yet to present plans to recreate a vent for our kitchen, and the existing one can't be used without a fire hazard. i've had to hire an engineer, an architect and land use attorneys. the experts were all surprised how without consulting a structural engineer, the project sponsor could represent a two story addition with additional two story grade on a steep slope basically underneath our kitchen could be supported with minute ma'minute -- minimal excavation with structural conditions. i believe there will be much more excavation than what is stated on the application. based on the building code numbers, if you do the math, it's over 122% increase.

they are adding 2,630 square feet to their existing 2,101. whether they plan to sell or keep this property is unclear. their d.r. response indicates no increase in value after this renovation. regardless they should take responsibility for all of the impacts to the renovation. i don't want to be here next year because it's become an unlawful demolition and our foundation impacted. i continue to hope we can work together with them on an agreeable solution. to summarize, i respectfully request the commission place the following conditions on the application. i thought i'd run out of time, so i have them written down. >> president hillis: that he's great. yeah, just leave them right there, and mr. ionin will grab them. >> let me give this one -- thanks. >> president hillis: so is there any public comment in support of the d.r. requester opposed to the project?

seeing none, is the project sponsor here? all right. so you get ten minutes, 'cause there's two d.r. requesters. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeffrey eade. i was the architect for the project at 2515 broadway. i appreciate the opportunity to respond to the d.r. applicant's comments in front of the commission members here today and to address any questions you may have. over the course of about three months this past spring, we were involved in discussions with the adjacent neighbors to hear their concerns and see if there was some common ground that we could achieve to help relieve those concerns while still providing my client the opportunity to remodel their home. we met with 2517 broadway and her attorneys on three separate occasions and corresponded openly during this time. we offered to meet with 2513

broadway, and he agreed to meet with us once at his attorney's office. their concerns were made known to us, and we provided suggestions of how we could address those concerns which are detail index a letter provided to you on september 13. most of miss hockchild's concerns were reasonable and we suggested methods that could be implemented while there would be an opportunity to conduct a peer review with the foundation design examine we would provide a monitoring survey of her home and my client's home before and during construction. mr. sewich had concerns about the proposed addition on the east side of our home.

-- [inaudible] >> -- about the effect the proposed project will have on the midblock space. in addition to these items discussed last spring, the d.r. applicants in the supporting letter from the pacific heights residents association say they are concerned about the impact on the midblock space that our project will have. the project should be considered demolition under the criteria set in the planning code section 317. i have submitted documentation to the planning department that shows that the scope of the proposes demolition does not nearly approach the thresholds outlined in 317 and is not considered a demolition. in regards to the question about the project's effects on the midblock space -- if i could have the overhead, please.

this is a photograph from google earth of the existing midblock. you can see 2515 is right here. 2513, 2517. you can see that the existing house at 2513 has one of the smallest footprints on the block, and the proposed addition would have minimal effect on the midblock space. you can see here in blue the proposed addition. in addition we are aware of the character of the house and the front facade that makes it special. this is one of the reasons that the homeowners love this property. the only work we are proposing on the front facade is to remove two small windows and replace those with four new wood windows which would align with the bay

windows above. the remaining proposed scope of work would not be visible from the front, it would not alter the characteristics that contribute to the category a rating. i would like to conclude my time by bringing to the commission's attention that the proposed project before you today was revised from its original scope presented in the 311 notification drawings in response to the neighbor's concerns. compared to the oram project, the proposed scope of work reduced the rear yard addition by 186 square feet and pulls it back 3 feet. the rear yard addition will be 12 feet short of the rear yard set back line. it reduces the proposed floor area. the proposed scope of work also removes three windows on the upper floor on our east facade in response to mr. sewich's concerns. the homener and i understand any concerns may be first approached

with apprehension and concern. on some occasions, this is warranted and as members of the san francisco community, we are grateful for the review process that the city has employed for many years. however, we feel that the work we are proposing to remodel the home from its current layout to a home where my clients can raise their family and in a future provide a place for their parents to live with them has been carefully considered with regard to the home itself as well as the surrounding neighbor. we respectfully request the planning commission not take discretionary review and to allow our project to move forward. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. is there any public comment in support of the project? you are the project sponsor, though, right? -- i mean, the owner. we don't have time for public comment, but you -- he's got 4:45, so you can speak during this time, if you'd like. >> thank you. my family and i thank you for time and opportunity to present

our personal stories. we are residents of san francisco for monany years. both our children, nine years old and three years old, go to san francisco schools. my wife and i engineers, we lived here close to 30 years now. we admire san francisco specifically for its social responsibility to its residents, we love this culture, and more importantly, we love the diversity of people that we meeting every day. we are working parents like many, providing for our children, and in late 2016, after the year after my son was born, we got into a situation that we needed to pursue a bigger home because family of four and ageing mom that was -- is becoming ill and needs our assistance no longer fits in a condominium. in 2017, we purchased the home, 2515, on broadway. we fell in love with actually

its character, and its absolutely beautiful garden. as we began the planning of accommodating a family of four and ageing mom, we pursued a thoughtful plan and experienced architect, and the proposed plan allows for two small children to be on the same level as we are as our bedroom is, and balancing that with enough garden space -- actually large garden space for them to be in it so they can get all the sun and play time that they need in the garden. we understand the privacy, and there's sometimes emotional objections to constructions. as you see on the projector, prior to this, on the east side of our -- our property, the back yard -- our entire back was exposed to this structure to our neighbor, and on the west side, we actually are exposed and open by a full level above our yard, but these are the realities of san francisco. this is where we live, and it's

okay, and we like living in san francisco. there are people in bay area would rather live away from their neighbors and places they can go to. we understand all of that. more importantly, about the home, there's been a lot of talk. this home naturally is our home. we never intend to demolish, destroy or alter it -- its architectural form. we're familiar with the guidelines. we've been very careful going through this with full transparency, and really our goal is to make this home functional for us. i want to emphasize the word functional. the prior owners were two people long time gone, and existing layout fits their lifestyle, not the family of four and my mom. so in closing, i want to say this, that san francisco planning system and including preservation residential design team have reviewed multiple

times our plan, and they determined it was in compliance of course. we have reached out to our neighbors, especially with francis as mentioned. i actually had very good friendly conversation. we hope to be neighbors going forward. unfortunately we did not come to resolution. lastly, we actually reduce our plan by 300 -- actually more than 250 square feet, because by minimizing, we figure out we can fit the bedrooms and everything up stairs so we can finish getting done what we want to get done. we allow you to make this our home and raise our children, and i think we as neighbors and homeowners have equal rights, and we have obligations to take care of our family, and nobody, whether they live here one year or 50 years before us has privilege or they'll be above those rights. so with that, i end, and thank you for your time. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment or any public comment in support of

the project? seeing none, mr. sewitch, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you very much. we're very happy to have this gentleman and his family as a neighbor. we're simply asking for responsible plans. i would show you this, which is the main window on this side of our house, so we are looking at 2515. it's a window 7 feet tall by 5.5 feet tall. it didn't appear on the first plans, so we had to ask them to revisit it so it shows on the plans. you come up, and it's the second floor access. everything comes off this, and what we would like to do, if this goes forward, is for them to remove these windows, which look directly into the core of our house because this is our main living. you come in off the street through a staircase. the other thing that i would like to show you is this is a

picture of where we are looking from one of our two bedroom windows into that little private area open space. there used to be a tree here, but it's not there anymore, obviously. our proposal would be that if this goes forward that they simply flip the area such that instead of this being 15 feet wide this way and 9 feet tall, that it be 7.5 feet wide, and then run the full length of this, which is 18 feet. i would ask in public comment that you address the reality of the issue, the 317 has been violated. each one of the -- there are three tests for demolition. all three have to be met. one of them was not met, and that is an issue. we're not trying to be difficult, we're just trying to say it is such a complex project with excavation under the house, that it needs to have an informed discussion at the planning stage between the structural engineer and an architect. thank you very much for your time. >> president hillis: all right.

thank you. the second d.r. requester, you've got a two-minute rebuttal. >> so first of all, i want to -- >> president hillis: just pull that mic. >> first of all, we welcome the change. having lived there a long time, that's not an issue. the size and the privacy is not an issue. i'm not here to talk about that. in fact the 3 feet they took back is welcome, but that wasn't my issue. we had had some good conversations, and as you can tell, i kept trying. however, their promises, you know, on the -- on the monitoring was that i do draft something at my expense and with lawyer fees, $500 an hour, i'm a single mom, my mom has dementia, i've got my daughter, just going down that path didn't make

sense. it shouldn't be my responsibility to draft documents to make sure that my foundation's okay, and we still haven't seen anything on the plans about that. i know you've seen a lot of neighbor letters in the file. obviously, i've known them a long time. they are concerned on my behalf that my foundation, home, and family will be badly impacted by the project. so thank you for your time and consideration. i am not asking that they not be allowed to build a home that works for their family. before it was two couples and a family with a kid. i get it. the realtor didn't think it was a family house when it was sold. that's not our objection. my objection is concern for my home, foundation, with the sand and other issues. i appreciate your time. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you. >> president hillis: project

sponsor? >> thank you. we -- we've offered to address the concerns of miss hockschild's foundation by doing the peer review, by offering the monitoring survey, which is a licensed surveyor that puts points on the building and periodically measures the points in the foundation process, establishes those points before construction. we've offered these things, we've offered concessions -- not concessions, but agreements on how to correct some of the 1994 or 1996 remodel that worked its way that was built .2 inches or .2 feet onto her property. we're going to correct that so that everything is within our property, and it's all been noted on p.d.f.s that we've shared with the neighbors, so

we're happy to document that, and our willingness to comply with that, so we don't have an issue with that. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. [inaudible] >> president hillis: unfortunately, that was the time to do it. we may have questions, though. but i appreciate it. so we'll -- we'll close the hearing and open it up to commissioner questions and comments. commissioner richards -- or commissioner fong? >> yeah. it's a classic block, beautiful homes of san francisco. it's a fair amount of work in that space. i don't know if i can question the tantamount to demolition or not, but there's a fair amount of work, and just coming off of alvarado street, one, there was a lot of excavation in a good way, but the result wasn't very beneficial for the neighbors, and i think they were sort of caught without any kind of

agreement. maybe this is a little bit of a trend setting thing where if there's this amount of excavation if there's an agreement between the parties if something goes south or doesn't go right, there's a resolution in place or something. so it seems like two different things: foundation and the windows. window alignment does seem there's some attempt at least in this drawing to have them not align, but there are a couple that sort of align face-to-face. maybe one of the commissioners has a better idea to offset the one in particular, the biggest one that's sort of looking right through each other's houses. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i guess question i have for staff is we have a letter from the architect saying this is a demounder 317 subsection blah, blah, blah -- do you folks have anything on that that you could share with us? >> yeah, i do have the

demolition calculations and the tables and the graphics provided by the architect, and both sections, you know, these are "and" clauses -- [inaudible] >>clerk: sir, sir, sir. >> any way, regardless, the percentages are not -- based on the information we have, they are not exceeding the thresholds for 317 in any of the cases. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: could you talk to us a little bit about foundation concerns? we hear them obviously all the time, and there is reason to voice concern. however, standard construction practices do consider adjoining foundations including how you treat them in case there is an interference. could you enlighten us a little bit more on that subject matter?

>> i wish i could. i'll try my best. from my limits experience of foundations, where there's adjoining foundation, and you have an adjacent neighbor, there's an under pinning that requires a permit to access your neighbor's foundation in order to shore it up while you're going lower. that is typically done in sections of two to 4 feet such that while you're under, you know, excavating stuff to go underneath and support a foundation from below, you're not allowing it to collapse. there's probably an expert in this room in the form of mr. buskovich that would probably answer the question faster than i. if you would be so kind. i'm at the limit of my knowledge. but usually, it's a civil -- you've applied for a permit when you do that, and you gain the

acknowledgement and permission of your neighbor to perform the undershoring. >> commissioner moore: the reason i'm asking it is the reason itself, it is not a d.r. issue. we hear concerns about noise and drainage and foundation, etc., however in the planning and approval process itself, we are looking at criteria why we determine best care is being executed during construction, including all necessary aspects of protecting each other's foundations, etc. this is not basically what is in front of us to consider as a d.r. issue. while we do, obviously, support everything that is required by d.b.i. and good construction techniques, we are not here to have that as a d.r. argument. the question that's here at hand is to whether or not windows facing each other, not sitting on property line, are

appropriate or not. and i believe that is really at the core, at least, of the first d.r. i believe that the department has looked at them and from what i can tell, they have been adjusted in position and size, including in terms of detailing and quality, that i believe that they are just as justified as the original -- the d.r. requester who has windows there and hoped there wouldn't be any others. i'm curious about what other commissioners feel about this, but the right of having a window which is, i think, pretty much 6 feet away from each other on facing walls, is the reality of how many buildings are built or being expanded to. and the question is, do you have them just, like, aligned with each other, that you're really forced to look into each other or are they discreetly set off in distance and in size in order to protect that element of

polite privacy by which you don't just stand there and stare in other people's houses. i'm curious to what other commissioners think. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i don't have section 317 in front of me. you probably do. it is and, and, and, or or? >> i have it right here. between a, b, and c, it's or. within the criteria -- well, the first criteria is if the building department determines that an application for demolition is -- it's required, and that wasn't determined here. and then, b --

[inaudible] >> -- and more than 50% of the horizontal elements. and based on the information -- and that's measured in square feet of actual surface. >> commissioner richards: based on the information we're at, can you just share that with us? >> yeah. so based on the information that we have for the b, the front facade is there isn't -- there's no percentage of demolition there, but the rear facade is, and i can make put this graphic up from the project sponsor. >> commissioner richards: could you, please?

>> yeah. >> president hillis: i'm not sure if these -- did the d.r. requester get these? do you know? >> my understanding is these were provided either by the project sponsor directly to the d.r. requesters when staff also received them. [inaudible] >> president hillis: okay. go ahead. go ahead. >> so let's see if you can see that section. so you have the vertical elements here. so at the front facade, 0%, but in the rear facade, and this is the rear facade, the demolition

calculation of 100%. and while that total percentage is close to 50%, it's an "and" clause with this information here, which is totals all the front, rear, east and sides, the sum of -- of all the -- i'm sorry, of 65% of all the exterior walls, and that's only here at 24%. so it doesn't meet that criteria. and you can see that graphically, also here and here. so that's -- so that's b. and then, section c, that's 50% of the vertical elements and 50% of the horizontal elements, so you're taking a look at the vertical envelope -- i don't know if you can see that. you're at 24%, and each

percentage for each facade. and then, the horizontal elements, those are the floors, including the roof. these are at 23. and again, these would have to be at 50 and 50. and based on the information we have from the project sponsor, they're in the 20's. the percentage, they're in the 20's, and this is how it is represented graphically. richards rirch richar . >> commissioner richards: so it's not even close. i guess from the requester we had to build expect space, instead of perpendicular, mlay t more horizontally. what would that do to the project? >> well, on the upper floor, we're trying to put two bedrooms in the back, so with the 3 foot set back on that east side, the three bedrooms -- or the two bedrooms that would face the --

beyond that rear facade would be about 11 feet wide each. so by adjusting the floor plan in that context, we'd have maybe an 8 foot bedroom or a 10 foot bedroom. it just would be an odd situation in the floor plan to take a chunk out of the back like that. >> commissioner richards: okay. thank you. >> president hillis: how about the other question that -- about the window, the addition of the window on the front side there that kind of matches against his -- >> i think it's something that we could look at and consider. >> president hillis: is it something about the size of your window because your window kind of mimics there. it's kind of three double hung windows wide. >> yeah. that's the dining room -- that's the dining room of our proposed plan. so if that's something that's a concern, we could look at reducing that, something like from a three-bay to a two-bay.

we're not opposed to that whatsoever. >> president hillis: i kind of agree to commissioner moore's comments. it's hard for us to get -- it's really a building department issue, but if you're recommending that bay be reduced by a third, we take you up on it, it minimizes some of the kind of view and privacy issues amongst the two buildings richar. >> commissioner richards: i just want to say something. >> president hillis: yeah. >> in my first home, we had that problem with foundation -- problem in the underpinning of the home. if i were concerned about my foundation as much as you are, yours, i would take them up on their offer because that was a fool proof method of understanding whether there was any impact, so i would --

[inaudibl [inaudible] >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> president hillis: commission commissioner koppel? >> all in all, considering the size of the existing houses, this is a modest addition. it's going to align these three houses, so if any commissioners wanted to add on small things to work on, additionally, i'm in favor of moving it forward tonight, those. >> president hillis: would you take the -- the -- directly offer from the project sponsor to remove one of those windows, and i say the one farthest from the street that's the -- so is there a motion to take d.r. >> commissioner koppel: i will make a motion to take d.r. and approve the reduction of the

windows. >> president hillis: it's the new window that's being put in on the main living area, and it's the third -- he'd remove the third window furthest from the street. overhead, please. so with the three windows, you'd remove that -- the farthest from the street. so you're going to remove the third farthest from the street, right? >> yeah. >> well, the street is over here. >> president hillis: right. >> so just remove this one. >> president hillis: yeah, because that one lines up more with the neighbor. okay. we have a motion and a second. commissioner moore, did you have anything? >> commissioner moore: you just took it up. thank you. >>clerk: who seconded that? anyone? >> president hillis: second. >>clerk: thank you. on that motion, then, commissioners, commissioners to take d.r. and eliminate the third window furthest from the street along the ground floor --

[roll call] >>clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners that'll place us on item 22 for case number 2017006815 d.r.p. at 48 clifford terrace, discretionary review. >> good evening, president hill and commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review for a building permit application to construct a roof deck in the buildingable area of an existing three story single-family dwelling. a 6 foot tall ottawa slat wind screen set back 5 feet from the west side property line is also proposed as part of this construction. the proposed roof deck will be set back 25'3" from the front property line, 4'2" from the east side property line. no set back is proposed at the

rear property line as access to the proposed deck will be via a roof hatch and proposed landing. minimal guardrails, and parapets ranging from 30 inches to 42 inches as required by building code are proposed around the deck. the reason for the d.r. is the d.r. requester's concerns include two primary issues: a light to the interior of their house and privacy, specifically, the roof deck will allow visibility into the d.r. requesters home. to date, the department has received zero letters in opposition and two letters in support of the project sponsor. the department has reviewed the project and finds the project meets the standards of the residential design guidelines with respect to privacy and massing issues, and despite the existence of aabundant and large sky lights, the 3 foot side set

back that separates the properties from one another, in addition the location set back of the roof deck with a -- are a sensitive response that aligns with the preliminary recommendations of the department's roof deck policy and presents no exceptional or extraordinary conditions. staff recommends that the commission do not take the d.r. and approve the project as proposed as the project has been approved to minimize any privacy concerns to the property at clifford terrace and does not represent any extraordinary conditions that would require any further modifications to a code compliant project. this concludes my presentation. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. d.r. requester. [please stand by]

>> lets a policy of how much more do you need to. that is the purpose of this step is it for short-term rentals? i don't know. the new policy talks about, i think it is a good idea collect about setbacks. it also talks about that that is the dear process. and do you need more when you have almost 6,000 and you can walk to a couple of nice parks? that is part of the d.r. process but also part of this clock is tacked particularly on the short-term issue, is the five put setback which they have done but they haven't respected -- this is also part of the d.r.

question, they have installed stairs up the side of the property right here, and the landing, which is really part of the deck, is adjoining their skylights. so you can literally look through their roof and see people coming up to the top. one of the questions is, if they're going to have a deck up there, if you say it is ok, another 500 square feet, that at least makes her the landing is set back. it is an easy thing to do. you can take these stairs and slide them to the front of the street so that when you get out, you are not looking right through those windows plaque though skylights, right into their space. and is not that hard to slide it down. so if the commission does feel, because this is part of the d.r. process, i don't know what you want, at least not have the landing directly above the

skylights. slide the stairs down, so when they come out of the stairs, they they're coming down here it is an easy design feature to change. that is my request. may be they have too much deck. maybe they don't need it for short-term rental. >> president hillis: project appellant? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is elizabeth gordon. along with my husband, we own 50 clifford terrace to the west of the subject property. we really struggled with whether we go forward with this d.r. or dismiss it because we did appreciate the efforts planning made in trying to get this a lot more reasonable when it was originally proposed, it was a huge loomingog