but. >> are you the dr requester. >> i'm representing them. >> your representing the dr requester you'll have 10 maintenance total. >> i have a power point overwhelming to be presenting. >> good evening, commissioners david lindsey of department staff the case are a request for discretionary review filed against two project these broderick street the commission needs to take two acts it is a 3 story family house on the west side of broderick case 2014.1497 d a request for discretionary review of a building applications issued by the department of building inspection to look at a penthouse and to modify and add a par fit wall along the side of the property deck case next is a request for discretionary review of a building permit application filed in response to a notice of violation to novice the second story deck originally constructed under a 1985 building permit application at the rear of the house both requests for discretionary review were submitted by the owner of the apartment building open green street immediately downhill of the subject site the planning department mass not recei

sponsor has agreed and i assume as part of the case report to make 9 second floor even with the dr requesters building mr. lindsey. >> that plan has not been simpleminded. >> we'll have to take dr but i want to say the architect present of yeah. hi dr requesters have talked about the phelps of the building it has no real significant impact either way although they get a little bit of a separation between their yards and the one story addition but there is a structural reason why that is different to do maybe you could explain that. >> it has to it - nooechlz a steven it has a lot to do with the water that anything rats through the hill it has been augmented when the client bought the building a wall was placed through there but it runs to the year a lot of times there's active waters coming through the garage and goes through a drafrn onto the sidewalk the consideration the dr applicants to place a staircase away from that wall was in response to understanding there is great deaf living space that has to do with the calibration process out into the yard and up through the house and water that

in support of project sponsor okay dr requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> thank you, joe butler i'm concern if the gentleman had a problem with the shadow study he would have produced his own he particularly eyed summary shadows when they're most likely to use their deck and yard and the sun is high enough in the sky the context will not have an effect if i could have the gene in 2011 co-sponsored to the dbi records a foundation was put underneath the north side of the importance i'm sorry the south side of the project sponsors property they've accurately a foundation there were no plans created but the written description of work any concrete foundation to cappa foundation two feet thinning thick as a tow at the bottom to create the four story this is plenty plenty strong to carry is 2 story wood frame structure when we designed and compromise envelope we made the stair down two feet off the property line go past the foundation i want to show one more thing i'm going to leaving to our hands the 311 drawings shows the back corner the preapplication drawings show that to my clien

project is not creating extraordinarily circumstances and approve the project as proposed. >> dr requester our team has 5 minutes. >> jose as may we have the screen on and leave it on for the duration of 5 minutes. >> good evening commissioner president wu and members of the commission i'm joe butler an architect since march our team has their family room are set back from the common property line downhill and to the north of the sponsor the 311 plans property to extend a green house edition on the property line i advised them to read the residential guidelines he quote to me the residential guidelines address the common guidelines of residential design all permits must imply with the residential design guidelines and they having must comply with the principle one principle says place the this on the site to respond to the topographic i didn't those quotations suggested to him that the microphone might negotiate an young and old model we presented our they have in issue with the design in spite of wavrn the sponsors the lot exceeding 20 percent that might require additional environmental r

in support of the dr requester? i believe there's one public commenter >> we obituary the house on green street. >> which shires condition tigz property line with the kc lot and the gentleman's i'm not here with any ax to grinds not specifically involved in this at all i want to say as a neighbor express a concern payroll a number of things went on in contradiction unpermitted the roof deck, the surcharge of the rear yard. >> i don't know about the roofline stuff but i think if you approve southern things here today that we're not permitted and not approved that would have con sooefbl been caught the planning department would say this doesn't work as a neighbor we want to see the community work the way people go through the proper process and completed their work with permits eye i hope this can be resolved in a way to be enabling we've lived there 25 years and before that on broderick street by the way, wisp involved with the initial writing a letter which we didn't want that roof deck because living on broderick s

i'm susan holey and i'm representing the dr requester. as staff mentioned the request is support by a petition of 59 area residents most of them within the 150' radius and othersust beyond it in the neighborhood, as well as 30 letters from concerned neighbors. i wasn't able to hear all of the last discussion because of the problems with the capacity of the room and the next item that is coming up, but i did see the beginning and it appears there are some overlapping issues in terms of mid-block open space and the blocking nature of the building, but our issue is much simpler than the one you were dealing with. we don't have an interior stair issue or merger or anything that complex. is that going to sh:the first photograph shows the neighborhood as it is and it shows the -- this is a potential historic district with a lot of contributor homes most of them 2000 to 2500 square feet and as the commission can semiconductor they stepped down along the roadway. and what has happened that is extraordinary and exceptional there was a house built i

seeing none, dr requester you have a two-minute rebuttal. . >> thank you. i just submitted the 12 letters of opposition to the project including from the suzuki family, whose garden is right behind it and the louie family who is next to me. i'm on the executive committee and the laurel height as the association did not say it had anything to do who was there first, because they would have told me. i didn't get to mention that he wants to expand on the second floor and wants to deem the second floor non-conforming and bring a deck out to encroach into the year regard. that is an intensification of the non-conforming floor and he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. so the deck should be taken out, because that is an enlargement of the non-conforming on the second floor. now he has got 505 square feet he wants to add about 370 for 00. 900 and that is bigger than your norman normal apartment. he is going to cut down a couple hundred of feet and still have 600, which is just as big as anything. and clearly, in your memorandum, staff indicated that this wa

is a lot of different name that could be on that dr request. i first became aware of the project later than some of the neighbors. my first exposure to it i would say at the variance hearing in august. i would say that i'm requesting particularly is to deny the variance request. i think they will have a big impact on the project in terms of what it has. i went to the variance request hearing. it was continued. the way the timelines work, i was forced to file a discretionary review request without actually knowing what the outcome of the variance request was going to be and there are three projects. so, dr request for filed on all three. you will find the issues are very similar for all three projects and that there is a lot of repetition in those packets and i apologize for that. i believe the project sponsor will go into a lot more details about the actual project. on the display right now is a little overview of it. the plot map is involving two lots, 22 ord court and 24 ord court. there are two new homes being constructed on the stateside of

therefore the planning committee supported the dr request. we request the code requirement for rh 2 rear yards be strictly enforced for this project and variance be denied. the neighbors have suggested as an alternative project that the existing house at 22 ord court be expanded to achieve 2 units. this is an achievable goal and the neighborhood support it. the ord court is not under consideration at this time if it's not considered an historic resources. also take note that at 24 ord court, the residents are in their 90s. >president cindy wu: is there any additional comment in support of the dchlr? dr? >> you have 15 minutes if you desire. >> good evening, commissioners, john here on behalf of the project sponsor. the project before you would create two new family size dwelling units and expand an existing family home. the two new single family homes would front state street, three 3 stories at the street. each essentially has a three bedroom home on the top two floors and the smaller home has a guest room. the renovations to the existing hom

. >> thank you dr requester our team has 5 minutes. >> good evening nooimgz is erecting air heart an attorney and i've been retained by diane young the neighborhood immediately joint adjudicate to the subject property on the north side 33 sheriff's here for four and a half hours waiting for her case be to called her 11-year-old daughter had a distance residual and she got frequent calls from her daughter she's a single mom not an option to have her spouse attend in her instead diana has two little girls 14 and 11-year-old they moved to the property from russian hill because they wanted open space russian him ems is filled with tight constructive properties and because of the age of her children she moved to lake street the property that she had is similar to the properties on the north of her on link street you have the principle dwelling unit and the sixth open space and then you have a detached combrarpg facing the additional which kits between 23rd and lake street this project is of considerable concern to my client as a preliminary matter from the law man's prospective this a thi

project is not creating extraordinarily circumstances and approve the project as proposed. >> dr requester our team has 5 minutes. >> jose as may we have the screen on and leave it on for the duration of 5 minutes. >> good evening commissioner president wu and members of the commission i'm joe butler an architect since march our team has their family room are set back from the common property line downhill and to the north of the sponsor the 311 plans property to extend a green house edition on the property line i advised them to read

is a lot of different name that could be on that dr request. i first became aware of the project later than some of the neighbors. my first exposure to it i would say at the variance hearing in august. i would say that i'm requesting particularly is to deny the variance request. i think they will have a big impact on the project in

this is the subject property, the dr requester lives here and was not impacted. it extends into the rear much farther than the project sponsors. would i oasis also that the rear lots of the project sponsor and lot directly behind it are the largest rear yards on the block and together more than 110' of mid-block open space. so any suggestion that 110' is not enough mid-block open space seems to me misplaced. the dr applicant has the burden of demonstrating exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and i have seen no such demonstration today and, in fact the planning staff reviewed this meticulously. they didn't find any extraordinary circumstances. and, in fact, if you note on the planning commission agenda, they designated this not as a dr, but abbreviated dr and abbreviated dr i believe is a signal and the second [a-urpblt/] raised has to did with the neighborhood pattern. i'm sorry, i have to give the sponsor a chance to speak. i would like -- >> my name is neilie pointer i'm the project sponsor and i would like to thank everyone for your time today. just to

>> are you part of the dr requester's team? >> no. >> okay. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm greg scott president of pacific heights resident associate. we support the dr and this should not be permitted. the in[to-eurp/] stairway with the door at the bottom is a wink of an eye, the dwelling unit merger issue and we have seen this before. and we think that should be stopped. people are plague games with dwelling unit mergers by putting internal stairways with doors it they leave open all the time and defactor units. and moving around non-conforming use within the building is absurd. we had a similar issue on jackson street and then zoning administrator pospass morsaid they could not expand anything outside of the existing building envelope of the non-conforming use because the entire building was subjective to the ability of pro[h-eubs/] on expansion. if they permit them to move the non-conforming use from the garden apartment to the second floor flat, it should be stateds a condition of appeal that they cannot move it back to another unit [th-fpt/] is too many gamesmanshi

seeing none, dr requester

building inspection their appropriate and mirror certain elements and improve the reliability the dr requesters is unhappy with the projects for for his own reasons he has a few valid points we want to work with the flashing at the roof deck graduate wall and the removal of the stairs for i am had maintain his property if we get a assess policy in place our soil reports it is less than a foot in several places we want to conduct a boundary survey of the buildings you saw the gap the gentleman made the assumption that entire gap belongs to him and could bridge and encroach open the caseys property when you have abutting buildings with a small grandpa in their roofed over or made waterproof and nobody has issued issues if didn't it explicit matter who is flashing as long as something is between the buildings, however, the inspector expects the department of building inspection to impose financial burns on folks for a rotted fence this is a finite life in the packet you'll see this rotted fence it is true the casey soil probably contributed how is mr. casey responsible for rot on his fence my gent

numbers ambassador transposed the second the packet identified the project and the project the dr requesters and the project sponsors property so i brought corrected maps which i will - and lastly the e-mails i'll handout in opposition to the project since the packet went out last week i'll pass those along and refer to those in my presentation case 2014 dot 139 request for a discretionary review for the second story edition above the sister-in-law family house the project includes a small twrt set backs 15 feet from the property line and 16 from the north and 2 and a half from the rear property line on the west side of lake street between delmar and like many blocks it is deseconded by on a additional in the wraer portions of most of the lots since the packets were sent the department got e-mails both prove or disprove behind the subject property for the second-story rear it is from diane on lake street the property immediately adjacent to the north the subject project ms. youngest concerns the second-story additional clouds the privacy and light and detracts from accident style off the nei

in port of the project seeing none, dr requester you have two minutes rebuttal >> okay quickly this is a subject property this is the garage this is the four foot guardrail there's from the garbage up 12 feet this is 4 feet this is about up to here okay. this prove or disprove has opted submitted this prove or disprove opposed unable to make it don't think they supported this property owner didn't speak english you heard from the prove or disprove that opposes it the property next to the north vacant under contradiction everyone that lives in this area opposes this don't be fooled by the number of people here today, in fact, as a representation it's not a popper o popular project in terms of scaling i want you to understand what we're dealing with here this is cam ills bedroom the 11-year-old this is calling all going to be gone this is her sole light and air to her bedroom we're not going to have them this is was there is now minimal when we add on 8 more feet and solid building it's not a liveable space i think the family deserves t it if we care of open space and not allow a project

i'm on the application for the dr request, however you needed a name on the request, i would say there is a lot of different name that could be on that r

the dr requesters do not rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances and we respectfully request that the commissioner accept the dr with modifications. >president cindy wu: with that, the public hearing portion is closed. commissioner richards. ? >> >commissioner dennis richards: skew me, -- excuse me, sorry about that. what a marathon. i absolute support house, but i don't want to confuse with monster fiction. we saw this on sloping, that's not the same project sponsor. >> thank you for the question, commissioner. it's not the same project sponsor. the architect that is providing the services to the two developers. >> i just want to make sure because it could be confusing. >> what projects were considered without the variance project sponsor? >> there was some difficulty with this side. where the project sponsor started was that 24 ord court hassledly tennants that have been there for over 30 years and they have a great relationship with those tennants and they did not want to touch that building and have a negative impact on the tennants. that leaves you with 22 ord and the tw