we find it hard to believe that the d.r. applicants would object to the vertical addition. given that the d.r. applicants have asked us in writing for unconditional support for their vertical addition. and have plans of adding another floor to their own house. we have come to understand that liz is always very aggressive in trying to negotiate the best deal for herself. threatening lawsuits. when she doesn't get her way. and it saddens me that liz is putting neighbors against neighbors. we ask you to support dorrian and julie's project as currently proposed. i also want to say a couple of words on behalf of a neighbor who is a nurse and couldn't be here. she lives a block away and wrote a letter of support because she has a roof deck own over her garage. she mentioned no one has a roof deck over the garage. that's not true. this is a house on 80 upper terrace. >> you need to speak into the microphone. >> here is the roof deck and you can see the walkway. there's the garage. here is the garage with windows. there's the roof deck. >> pull that down, sir. >> i'm going to read a

it's noted, during the additional design review process that happens when a d.r. is filed, staff, the team looks at the d.r. application and sees if any additional changes need to be made to the project based on new information and staff did a request of additional changes to the project which were made that's why the planning commission approved the project this year. project is completely code compliant and noted by staff and the residential design guidelines. the applicant has put forward a revision regarding the garage and having, rather than two parking spaces, an additional bedroom at that floor that would appear to comply with the planning code and any issues with that revision and that the board supported could be adopted as a revision here. generally interior revisions, such as that, can be done under the addenda process and addenda or not appeal able to this board but i think in spirit of transparent z. it'trancetranspae applicant has put forward that change because there are changes at the rear of the building. it's good that the entire project can be reviewed by the board. i'm available for my questions. >>

the d.r. sponsor amended and added to the d.r. application on september 25th of this year. the amended submittal was missing a page and i've provided to you that and i e-mailed it to you yesterday. the d.r. has complaints about impacts to privacy and neighborhood context of the compatibility and context of the use of a deck. on this garage as well as a roof deck at the rear of the vertical addition to be put on the existing single family home. i have received one letter in support of the project from a neighbor across the street. since they've filed a case report to submit to the record. this time staff recommended not to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you, d.r. requester. >> good afternoon, commissioners. mr. sanchez. at august 8th, there was a hearing on eye roof deck. relevant conversations by the commissioner moore, one roof deck can destroy the quality life for many. need to balance how much of a roof deck one should have. commissioner richards, backyard is supposed to be where open space is. roof decks facilitate

by the description of the d.r. applicant, they are not required for light and air to habitable rooms and therefore this is not an exceptional or extraordinary condition. number 2, the privacy impacts by the projecting bay window setback 3 feet does not present any unusual or extraordinary impacts to privacy to the adjacent rear neighbor's deck and three, roof drainage and property line disputes are not a planning department issue in this case. the planning department recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. the project has been modified further minimizing privacy concerns and does not prevent any -- present any conditions of justify further modifications to a code compliant project. this concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer questions. >> president hillis: thank you d.r. requester. who is the d.r. requester here? who is the d.r. requester? >> i received an e-mail that the d.r. requester, three of the d.r. requester his might not attend. they may not make it. >> president hil

the d.r. requester be in an open dialogue with the applicant, yes, this is part of what we want to do, or notpart of what we do. i don't want to be called in the middle. i think that is a fair compromise. it's not denial of a project. it just needs a little more clarification of what's intended here. so i'm making a motion that we continue this project for at least six weeks in order for that to be properly worked out. >> i would second that motion. looking at these plans, i agree with you, commissioner moore. it's not entirely clear to me where things are in terms of the existing conditions and what is proposed. and you know, i take to heart the windows issues on the east side. i'm not exactly clear as to what's going on with that either. so i would appreciate a little more clearly laid out plans and also the time to have discussions happen between the neighbors. >> commissioners, six weeks puts you at december 6th, however you already have a full d.r. calendar on that date. december 13th? >> i'll take your recommendation on december 13th. >> okay, then on that motion to continue to december

the business of this project. i am inclined to support it, but i would suggest that we take d.r. and have really the applicant very closely work with staff to address some of the things that you yourself at second reviewpointed out which i support and even go a little bit further. that includes the front expression and the facade expression of the building which i find rather odd at best. it may be due to the way it's rendered, but i think it needs more work. that would be a motion but it requires additional work and perhaps as a cursory, if you would find a moment to re-represent the project once it is in shape in the manner that the department supports it in in various forms. >> second. >> very good. commissioner? >> i want to clarify a motion to take the suggested changes that mr. winslow said to reduce the height and also to continue to work the project sponsor on the -- >> a window expression, facade expression, and tame the building down a little bit. it is just too busy a building. and it just needs to -- it needs a little help. i think there is enough talent in the department to understand what i am t

be an appeals avenue, although the variance would, obviously, not be able to be appealed, because it would not exist. you would still be able to file a d.r. where applicablen appeal to the board of appeals where applicable. all of these processes would remain unchanged. in regards to the september 12th meeting, the board of the district 6 community planners stated they are in support of the proposed update to planning code section 136 because they feel that streamlining these codes will help to simplify the adherence to this piece of the code and maintaining the historical values of san francisco design, while keeping in context with the seismic restraints is essential to maintaining the diversity of design the city is famous for and the code changes will help to achieve that balance. and finally at the historic preservation commission, voted unanimously to recommend the board of supervisors recommend the ordinance to exist in san francisco. many of these designs additionally assist in increasing the environmental sustainability of buildings. the design review process will continue to be enforced. further, amendments to the bay window requirements would n

i believe that the application is reasonable and follows the codes that govern what we are looking at and i move to approve. >> second. >> there's a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0. commissioners, this places us on case 16 for 2017-009996drp. 434-436 20th avenue for discretionary review. >> the item is 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 fe