to construct a two-story horizontal addition of the side and rear of the existing three-story family home. the addition is within the buildable area and not visible from the street. this block of green street consists of three story wood clad houses that back on the street with a fairly consistent pattern of open space. which the project respects. as proposed, the site and felt addition -- addition would extend 3 feet past the d.r. requester's rear wall. a code conforming bay window setback two and a half feet from the side lot line protrudes an additional 3 feet from the rear wall. the reason for the d.r., the d.r. requester his of 1877 and 1879 green street, the adjacent neighbors to the west, concerns three primary issues. the first, to existing property line windows would be blocked by the proposed site addition. to, primacy and light impacts on the neighbors rear deck from the rear bay window and three, roof drainage impacted by the new construction. to date, the department has received no letters of support or opposition. a recommendation, in light of the d.r. requester's concer

horizontal addition adding 991 square feet of interior space and deck to the back of existing residents. new layout and finishes throughout. restore the garage to the lower level with new driveway out into the sidewalk and new front stairs and landing. this is application 1016108266097s. we will hear first from the appellant. >> you have seven minutes. >> thank you. >> my name is steven. we thank you for the time and consideration to hear our appeal regarding the 575 expansion project. having been owners and residents on belvedere street for 42 plus years, we command daniel and calvin for wanting to improve their home. 575 and 569 belvedere are the only single-family dwellings on that side of the block between 17th street. >> overhead, please. >> the overhead shows the properties next to each other where they are now. as the next diagram shows, if the project proceeds, as planned, we will be placed in a tunnel between two much larger looming structures restricting natural ventilation. even though the city could allow a larger building, it doesn't make it right. our concern is not only t

once that was discovered through the 311 notification process, it was addressed with the horizontal addition. so the drawings should be accurate to my knowledge. the photographs most certainly are because they represent an existing condition. >> there is another question about increased demand for parking and an n.c.d. do i not consider that to be an issue and nor is that really addressed with what the planning commission considers. and it's an issue with transit and relate more to neighborhood retail than impacting what residential needs to do here. i am in support of the project. my own suggestion is not to take d.r., but i'm curious what other commissioners have to say. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner koppel? >> i think the architect did a good job sensitively designing this to match the rear of the property to the neighbor with the side setbacks and the addition of two units. i'm all in support. >> president hillis: -- >> tell us what the deal was please. >> could the architect come up to get this story? >> i am pretty sure she will agree to everything except one guy balked.

the project proposes a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of an existing single family home to accommodate two additional residential units. the project also includes legalization of the raising of the subject property by 17 inches. it is on the north side of taraval between 34th and 35th avenue within the parkside neighborhood and located within the taraval street neighborhood commercial district when a 40-foot -- 40x height and bulk resignation. the reason for the d.r. is the project will result in the loss of natural light, privacy, and mid block open space. the project will remove the source of light to an unmatched lightwell by expanding the subject property. the residential advisory team does not find an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance to warrant changes to the proposed addition for the following reasons. one t proposed expansion is contextual and compatible with no blocks to the mid block and light and air to the adjacent neighbor with a 3 foot and 5 footsteped setback proposed along the western property line. the request to the matched light well is not nece

there wasn't as much of a net increase in the mass, although there was a horizontal addition in the rear. there is also a difference in the topography of the site. although it's only a few doors down, it was an upsloping lot, which is not the case for this property, so i think that there are some fundamental differences between the cases, and so we have found that the five findings that have not been met. we believe that the appellant has not presented those arguments here tonight, as well, and i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> so what is the actual total square footage that they're asking for? >> i can look up on the plans. so the total proposed is 2,547 square feet of conditioned space, a net change of 1,147 square feet. so not quite, but nearly doubling the size of the building. >> okay. >> going from existing 1400, and adding 1100 square feet. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, you're probably aware that i had input into the original bernal heights guidelines. >> i did not know. >> in 1800. >> i did not know, and i would love to hear more. >> any wa

the building permit for a rear horizontal addition at 575 belvedere. the item was heard discretionary review earlier this year and voted unanimously not to take d.r. and approve the project. last night the board voted to deny the appeal and approve the permit as proposed. the board noted the project was designed in a matter that respected the adjacent properties and complied with the residential design guidelines. general public comments at that time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. with respect to agenda items, you will address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i do have two speaker cards. >> good afternoon. commissioners. i sent you an e-mail with a change in the list i gave you last week. about demos from the past number of years. i think the important point, and i addressed it specifically because commissioner richards br

complying alteration as well as another existing addition which included a vertical addition and horizontal addition to the building. the department worked fairly exhaustively with the sponsor. we typically do works iteratively with the sponsor. so items get reduce index size and volume as perwhat -- based on what they kind of provide to us. and ultimately, i guess i'll focus a little bit on two kind of main items that the appellants are bringing up, particularly with regard to the rear yard as well as the compliance with the residential design guidelines. i think two things are getting conflated and confused in the discussion of both. planning code section 134 outlines a rear yard for most residential buildings, particularly in the rh-2 zoning requirement. this building has a baseline requirement of 45%. the code has a provision that lets you reduce that requirement based on the adjacencies of the buildings surrounding you. so ultimately, the planning department and in particular, the zoning administrator had final determination on what the qualifications are for the adjacent buildings that surroun

the horizontal rear addition is sculpt led so the first and second stories are partially below grade and setback to maintain the scale and privacy with respect to the immediate adjacent neighbors. the project added the roof deck and railing 5 feet from the south property line. the reason for the d.r. are the concerns of the d.r. requester of 718 duncan street, an adjacent rear neighbor to the southwest, that the elevator penthouse constitutes a fourth story addition that is out of scale with the neighborhood context. public comment, to date the department has received no letters in opposition and no letter of support. however, staff received a phone call yesterday from a resident at 1424 diamond, an immediate adjacent neighbor to the south regarding the roof deck that does not appear in the pre-11 and the primary concern was the privacy impact due to the roof deck. the department re-reviewed the project with respect to scale and massing of the context and recommended eliminating the elevator vestibule at the roof, minimize the roof massing and removing solar vents. i apologize. i was

a public initiated request for discretionary review to construct a fourth story vertical addition and horizontal at the rear of an existing building for an additional dwelling unit. one d.r. was withdrawn by an agreement by the neighbors to remove the roof deck, include a solid railing on the lower decks and limit exterior lights. this, as i understand has been recorded as a deed restriction between the property owners. this block of 20th avenue consists of three story stucco buildings. this building is one of the shallower buildings in the pattern. the rear addition as proposed would extend 19 feet from the existing rear wall and 13 feet at the second story and would be setback five feet from the property line. the vertical addition is to setback 10.5 feet from the street front and screened by the roof parapet to maintain the scale at the street. the reason for the d.r. requester, a tenant of 436 20th avenue is concerned with three primary issues cht first, displacement and economic hardship during the construction. and an increase in rental cost due to pass through of building equipment and fu

the building was to convert the single family residents to a two-unit residents with a horizontal and vertical addition. they're going to add fire sprinkler system throughout the whole building under a separate permit. as you know, the family in the building code is an r-3 occupancy. it's till an r3 under the california building code. it's going from three-storeys to four-storeys. most of the discussion was about the planning department and the planning codes and the objections. there was one building code issue that has been brought up and i think the architect addressed it and his comments and i would agree with them on that. the discussion about the exiting to the public way, you can't exit through the rear yard under the two-unit building. we have an information sheet at d.b.i. it's eg2 and it would probably be better to read it out. it will clarify what they are going to do on this project. there was no approved plans in the package so i did hear the architect saying they had applied for the equivalency to grant that. that is a proper way. i assume that is going to be on the drawing if it's not al

change of use to convert an existing single-family house to a two-unit residence with horizontal and vertical addition. remodel new kitchen, new bathrooms, new bedrooms and living space,, new decks, and install new elevator. excavate rear yard and add fire sprinkler system throughout under separate hermit. did the appellants decide how to present the case? you have a total of 35 minutes. >> yes. we would like to do it individually. 7 minutes each. >> yes, please. >> what order would you like to do it? >> i'm going to go first. i'm robin. and then kristine. then napthali. >> them emrah and then chris cole. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> thank you. so you have seven minutes please. good afternoon, members of the board of appeals. my name is robin bishop and i am a life long resident of san francisco and petero hill native. i am asking the board to address the violations the subject project makes against the planning code, the building code and the residential design guidelines. appellants are before you today as a united front because we recognize this project as the tipping point for the neighborhoo

the product proposed to construct a one-storey vertical addition and rear horizontal and side addiction to the existing single family home. and the legalization of the existing roof deck on the non legal conforming garage structure on the adjacent rear property. the addition to increase the building by 953 square feet for a size of 3,257 growth square feet. the product proposes to raise the elevation of the rear yard by three feet with a new deck into the rear yard. however, this is a permitted obstruction for planning code section 136c25. and eight foot tall fence along the east property line. the product seeks a variance from the rear yard for both lots. the project proposed to create new access to the proposed roof deck on the garage structure by means of a staircase and landing, located at the rare property line of the main lot as well as a portion of a landing that would be within the required rear yard of the separate garage lot. the project proposed to remove the unpermitted elevated walkway and the current stairs. and to remove an eastern portion of the existing deck side. this

horizontally across the salesforce transit center. last tuesday a routine inspection showed a crack in one of the support girders and additional inspectionevealed a second one of either we can, construction crews assembled at this temporary support system with the idea being that the columns will gently push up and offload the weight from those two cracked girders. once they finish setting it up, the engineers can do additional testing to figure out why those beams cracked in the first place. >> we can get in there and actually remove portions of wil what happened and that would be a part of how to get it fixed. >> reporter: once the temporary work is done, they will take samples of the steel beams and send them to a laboratory. it could take a week to get the test results back to they will remain closed at least until october 12. later this morning the joint powers authority is expected to provide an update on this closure of the work that they are doing. a little later on, we will be going there to bring you an update on the work happening. the last check, according to the ials, fremont and howard vehicle traffic through october 12 san