October 24 are compliant with the Fire Department as presented by planning staff. Thats what the staff report says. Add four wet sprinkler heads at the rear facade as a local equivalency from d. B. I. That was a quotation from staff report. How can adding four sprinkler heads to an existing Fire Prevention system be prohibitive . Why should variances be granted . No other adjacent property has similar structures in the front or rear yards to necessitate variances, especially the ones that were selfinflicted. Since the initial hearing in may of this year, the Planning Commission has been consistent in its requirements for the project. Increase density. Other projects, regardless of who is to be blamed, have been subjected to the same decisions by this Planning Commission. 284 roosevelt way, 655 alvarado street. It would be exceedingly unfair and set the wrong precedent to make an exception for this proje project. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the d. R. Request . One minute. Im an adjacent neighbor. I live with my family in the building next door. I want to say we love the structure in its current state. Are you in support of the d. R. Or the project . Im . Support of the project. Okay. Then sit down and wait until your turn comes up. Thank you. Can i have the overhead, please. My name is jerry dratler. The developer acquired a 3 million for 2 million and converted the two equalsized units into a singlefamily home. The developer admits to 13 Building Code violations. The department of inspection role in this project is shocking and requires explanation. Why were 13 illegal acts not discovered in 26 separate inspections . Why did one of the most senior building inspectors at d. B. I. Sign off on three certificates of completion on the very same day for the very same building showing the building to have zero, one, and two basements. I commend the Planning Commissions 18 july decision to restore the three units. The decision is fair and consistent with the commissions policy to require bad actors to put the Building Back the way it was. The proposal to pay 250,000 in lieu of creating three units of needed housing thank you. Is ridiculous. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. I ask you to stand by your july decision and i oppose the request of these builders. Their behavior has set a poor example of proper building procedure. I ask that they pay a fine of 250,000 in return for getting out of the Planning Commissions july decision. Its shocking that they should be allowed to decide what sized fine they should pay. I think their plea of financial ruin is disingenuous. They lost money because they were in the genuine in the building. Bad behavior must be punished, not encouraged. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester . Okay. Now, project sponsor, you get your presentation. Good evening, commissioners. My name is paul dawson. My partner couldnt be here today. Hes been hospitalized due to a collapsed lung. The last two years have taken a tremendous toll on us and our families. Our plea is to allow us to move forward with additional delays. We had a three and a half year planning and construction process to upgrade and remodel twounit residential building. Since our last hearing, the lender has moved forward on foreclosure of the building. My partner and i personally are responsible for the millions of dollars we took to restore and develop this property, and as a result our 20year Construction Company with 18 longterm, dedicated employees is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. We began working with d. B. R. And the Fire Department to further explore the viability of adding a third unit to this property. We learned that the Building Classification would need to change from r3 to r2 to accommodate the additional unit, which would trigger a whole host of major changes to the building. We would essentially be required to demolish and remodel the existing structure. When we purchased the Building Back in 2014, there was a c. E. Issued due to the presence of a small, illegal third unit at the bottom level. We proceeded to secure a permit and submitted plans for the current twounit building more than five years ago. In our view, the only viable option is to maintain the current twounit status of the completed property. The package we submitted includes updated plans, and im happy to answer any and all questions. This process has not been fair. The d. R. Application was fraudulently submitted by kevin chang using false identities, as were previous complaints regarding our project. We have had neighborhood support throughout this process. While we understand the severity of our mistakes and we take full responsibility for those requests, bebelieve we have been subjected to a range of accusations of those with compromised and undisclosed motives. Having no real ability to respond to various statements or developments during the past hearings, we truly felt like ghosts attending our own funeral. Our project has been held hostage in a power struggle between d. B. I. And members of this body while charges of corruption swirl around. Some say this is the cost of doing business in san francisco, but i hope we agree this is not the case. In this instance, i ask that you stand on the side of due process and approve our Building Permit. Thank you for your time and consideration. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im liz bridges, attorney on behalf of the applicant. I just want to make two comments. One, i wanted to address the issue of the third unit and remind you again that this unit was or the building, when they purchased it, it had an illegal third unit that had an n. O. V. On it and they received a permit to remove that unit. They acted on that and therefore that permit vested. Any action to try to add another unit would be improper under that. Also, i wanted to speak to the basis for the 250,000 offer that our clients have made. The calculation for that offer was determined by looking at what the in lieu fee for Affordable Housing would have been if they had been subject to that. So they looked at the project size and figured out the basis for that. So thats where the source of the 250,000 was. Its not out of thin air. It had some basis in city policy. Were happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the project sponsor . Now its your time. Again, im a neighbor and everyone i know on the block lovs this new structure. Its a beautiful and sensitive addition to our block. The last thing anyone wants is more construction. I will also mention what we want is for the place to be occupied as soon as possible. Its a vacant building. Its been there for five years. It poses a Security Risk for my family and my neighbors. Were dealing with vandalism. Thank you. Any other Public Comment in support of the d. R. Im sorry, of the project sponsor. This is unorthodox. I think that the project was egregious. I talked about it in general Public Comment a while ago. 11. 7 million in the flat near mission and delores park was terrible. You talk about wanting to put the project back the way it was. It wasnt put back the way it was because thats what you talked about earlier. It had three bedrooms on the top level and now only one. I think the 250,000 should be given to the smallsized program, and heres why. This is a project, this is a building on hampshire street. It was ellis acted. You look at this photo really close and you see an adult with a child on their lap. Now, maybe the 250 cant do anything for the Affordable Housing thing, but it surely could do something good for the smallsized program because this building sold for 1. 5 million and these people could be in their home. That is my unorthodox statement. It was an egregious project thank you. Im not excusing them, but this is a crazy thing. Any other Public Comment in support of the project sponsor . Okay. Mr. Chang, come on up with a rebuttal. Keep it to one minute. I think the most important thing about the consistency of the decision for this body is the increased density. Subject to the meeting the Fire Department requirement, which in the staff report has indicated is possible in the october 24 drawings that were submitted to this body. That was after they had already met with the Fire Department in the joint hearing. So to not share the ofings an a timely basis and to say what they shared in october is now false makes it difficult for public policy. The matter needs to be continued so we can review those documents further or kept with the krnlg third unit decision. More importantly, no variance should be given. There is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about this project that was not selfinflicted. What are the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to this project had it come through the door before the violations happened . Was it granted a variance . The answer is no. Thank you. Thank you. You get a rebuttal. I think we have just one request. That is, please let us move forward. This has gone on long enough. This is our fifth date. This is the fourth hearing. We need a motion and a vote. Please move this forward. Thank you. Im going to start asking a question of the city attorney. Ms. Stacey, do we have the authority to accept a contribution or a fine from the project sponsor . President melgar, kate stacey, City Attorneys Office. As i understand the offer, its a 250,000 gift to the city. There are a couple of ways that the city could accept that gift, but i think it would start with board of supervisors resolution in accepting that gift. Since its not tied to an inclusionary housing requirement or an impact that this commission or failing a finding by this commission that its created this particular kind of impact on the Affordable Housing stock, i think it would be characterized as a gift to the city and should go to the board of supervisors. There may be another way for the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to use that money or the project sponsor could separately donate that money to a private or a nonprofit organization. But for the city to accept the money unless we could make specific findings, it would be considered a gift. So suppose we accept or approve the project and say, yeah, the board of supervisors will accept the gift and they dont. The resolution doesnt pass, but then what happens . Kate stacey from the citys attorney office, there is really no way for the Planning Commission to enforce that gift. A gift is a voluntary offer. Project sponsor can make it on whatever terms they decide to make the gift, but it is it would not be easy for the Planning Commission to enforce that gift if it were, in fact, just a gift. So what happens if we say, okay, you can give the 250,000 to the Community Land trust or some other nonprofit thats working on, you know, small sites, can we do that . Can that be a condition of the approval or do we have any authority for Something Like that . President melgar, i think, as weve recommended in the past, the commission really cant enforce a private agreement or a private donation. So again, it could not be an effective condition of approval. There may be a way, if the commissioner or the staff could make findings showing that this project created a particular impact and that 250,000 was an appropriate and tailored remedy to that impact, that may be another circumstance. I havent seen that evidence in the record. Thank you, ms. Stacey. So because i havent been at any of the other hearings even though ive read the record, i have a number of questions. I would like to understand from staff where we are procedurally. If we let me give you a couple of scenarios. If a motion is made and we do get four votes for it, whatever the motion might be, if the project sponsor does not like that, what are their options . Well, im sorry, could you the first question was if there was a motion to take d. R. Well, let me start with it. Has there been a motion to take d. R. . There was a motion of intent to take d. R. , but in conferring with the city attorney, you just make a new motion today. So, in fact, if there is not a motion to take d. R. The project gets approved. This is a principally permitted project outside of the variance. So for the purposes of the Planning Commission, you need to affirmativity take d. R. In order to modify the project, otherwise it proceeds. There hasnt been any motion thus far. If there is a motion to take d. R. And to approve something, if the other than a continuance, but put that aside. If there is a motion to take d. R. And approve something to be determined. If the project sponsor is unhappy with that result, do they have a right of appeal to d. P. A. . Absolutely, they can appeal to the board of appeals. Is there any enforcement the Planning Department can proceed on . Im happy to touch on that. Nice to be here the first time with you, commissioner diamond. This permit is actually the result of the enforcement process. So the scope of work that is approved under this permit, assuming it goes forward, it is issued, that is completed and final, that will satisfy the obligation. That will legalize the work done outside of the prior permits. If we dont take d. R. , there is a possibility they will proceed with what you have approved through the enforcement procedure . Correct. This permit is intended to capture all of the scope. If this permit doesnt include all of the scope they like and some of that already exists, they would have to take that away, barring some other outcome of that appeal. But one way or another, this work and the work to complete the permit would be subject to variance. This work does require a variance, yes. If we dont take d. R. , the d. A. Could still not grant the variance, which means the permit would need to be modified to reflect the absence of the variance . Right. The variance decision does not have to mirror the d. R. Decision. If there is some discrepancy, then the permit would have to be amended to match the variance, again, barring some other outcome through an appeal. Thank you for all of that. That was helpful. Earlier today, and you referenced prior cases, where the remedy had been to increase density and add a third unit, in each of those cases did they need to switch from r3 to r2, or is there something particular about this project that is creating problems with the construction type . Im personally not familiar with the other projects. I mean, generally its a function of units. I think commissioner fung could generally its a function of the number of units in the building. I think here going from two to three is the primary trigger, but there may be others that the project sponsor or others could speak to. Is the issue a problem because theyve already completed the project. The other projects have been demolished not the building type. Under the two units that they have and they continue to propose, it would be r3, but adding the third unit would put them into an r2 classification. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner fung. I think we should make a decision one way or the other, to vote it up or vote it down. Somebody needs to make a motion. It cant be me. I will just say that i still stay with the our intent from our meeting in july, that i think we should put back the third unit. I realize that it had been the, you know, legalization of taking it out had happened. I think if it were happening today, it wouldnt happen, we wouldnt permit it, but that i do think the project sponsor needs to make us whole in this. I appreciate the author paying into an Affordable Housing fund. I just dont see how we can accept it. I just dont see a mechanism, and youre not proposing one thats viable, through which we can have that money accepted into the city through some other mechanism. I dont see how its enforceable. Im one of six. Commissioner fung. I thought that was a motion. I cant make a motion. Im joking. All right. Just to put it on the floor. Im prepared to make a motion to not take d. R. As part of the findings for not taking d. R. , it would incorporate some of staffs comments, but also that they have made an offer of 250,000. Can we make in the motion that we the findings. Okay, in the findings, that we make a recommendation to the board of supervisors, that we accept it for a down payment. Is that a possible thing to put in the findings . Kate stacey in the City Attorneys Office. That recommendation on a gift isnt on your agenda and its its a different kind of decision. What the commission could certainly do is note that the project sponsor has made this offer of the gift and that it needs to go through whatever appropriate city channels they are. Thats my only point, that theyve made the offer. Im saying that can be in our findings. It doesnt mean that were accepting anything. Commissioner moore. Im afraid that the discussion about this 250,000 shifts the emphasis of our discussion. I believe we have spent a lot of soul searching on the issue of densification, where and how. Since this project also still requires their answers, which is another reward for the project, my basic position of july is reinforced. Ive got to stick to my guns and do what we do with everybody else as well. Its actually more complicated by this offer. I dont even want to talk about it because its not in front of us, and i think it clouds the picture. So there is a motion. I did not hear a second. Commissioner diamond. I have a question for the City Attorneys Office about the vested rights issue that was raised by council for the project sponsor. Could you respond to that assertion that was made about those rights. Kate stacey in the City Attorneys Office. Commissioner diamond, im not sure that i understood what the vested rights issue is. When there is a permit violation, we generally dont see that they have a vested right to something that was done in violation of a permit. Or if and maybe the project sponsor could articulate better there or again their vested rights argument, the depending on what the work was and what theyre stating a vested right to, it may have gone away with the permit violations or with the work that was done. Im just not clear on what the vested rights is. Can you please come up. I think its about the illegal unit . Yes. The permit that was issued to remove the illegal unit was not subject to the enforcement action. That was a prior permit that was validly issued not subject to any enforcement issues. Removal of that unit was legally. Does that answer your question . I think for, right, that was done legally, but then you had a bunch of violations and a lot changed. Where its not possible for you to take out an illegal unit, so thats what makes it more complicated, but i think can i ask a question . You may ask a question. If, and this may be to the city attorney, is there a way to assess a fine against them for the offer amount . You can sit down then. Do you want to opine . Sure. Through the enforcement action, once there is a notice of violation, there is the potential for penalties. Those penalties are limited by the code in terms of how much they can be and how they are where they are spent. They go into the Code Enforcement fund. We cant direct those into any other specific fund. We dont have the power in the code to go above and beyond what the code allows to be more punitive in certain cases than in others. Commissioner diamond. I apologize for all the questions. We got to move on this. It is complicated. I think the other distinction between the other cases that we have struggled with and enforced and put it back. And if you are going to go beyond, if you go beyond to add more density is that this project got a legit permit to take out the illegal unit. And tipped back before the law changed. It complicates things even more. Mr. Teague, did you want to Say Something . I had a question of clarification from the motion because we have two plans in front of us today. One would two units and one with three units. I want to clarify if the motion was not take d. R. And approve the two units with acknowledgement that the offer had been made. I want to clarify if the motion was for the two units and not the three. That was the addendum to my motion. Thank you. Just to address this motion again, if you got a permit and it was a totally viable permit, many years ago to remove an unauthorized unit, everything was legal, there wouldnt be an issue if we just showed up some years later and said get the law has changed and we are out of the blue asking you to put it back. It is different if there is a discretionary decision in front of you and in front of the Zoning Administrator where there is a request that can be conditioned and thats what we have before us today. The Planning Commission has discretion on the permit, the Zoning Administrator has discretion on the variance. It is not uncommon for either body to have conditions of approval. I think that is more of the scenario we are in today in terms of how it will be viewed. In terms of the variance, justice begun that a little bit, it is an interesting situation. It is afterthefact and those can always be challenging. Some of the factors that are interesting for this site is it is actually it is a sloping block on the downslope of the lot and theres a very strong pattern of rear yard structures and much deeper buildings on this block. Not looking at what they are proposing but looking at this property and the context of the plot, i do think there are some interesting things going on that could support some level of variance there in terms of how much of the variance and how much impact that would create. That is something we are all still considering. There is a motion but there has been no second. Is there an alternate motion . If there is no motion, the project will move forward as is. Thats right. A defect oh, approval. I will second the motion. I really appreciate your opining on the unique situation that we find ourselves in. I spend a lot of time thinking about this third illegal unit that was legally removed. And weighing whether putting it back as it was and an illegal action was made and how to have us all move this into a productive decision. I would support the motion and second it. Very good. There is a motion that has been seconded to not take d. R. And include a finding recognizing the offer from the project sponsor of 250,000. On that motion. [roll call] the motion passes 42. Zoning administrator, what say you . I will close a public hearing for the variance and take it under advisement. Very good. Commissioners, that will place us on item 19. D. R. P. At 2898 vallejo street. This is a discretionary review. Good afternoon and happy holidays. I am david winslow, staff architect. The item before you is an initiated public initiated request for a discretionary review for Building Permit applications of 2019 for a partial infill of an existing light well on the fourth floor at the eastside to accommodate an elevator and an accessible bathroom at this location. This addition is within the existing footprint of the floor below. The d. R. Requester, the adjacent neighbor to the east of the proposed project is concerned that the proposed addition would block light to side windows and create privacy impacts to her property. To date, the department has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. The departments recommendation is based on an r. H. One zoning that requires side setbacks. The Zoning Administrator has heard and granted the variance for the proposed infill of the side setback. If you see the variance decision letter, i believe it is included the d. R. Requesters building is setback 3 feet from the Common Property line. The project sponsors building has no side setback except at the portion of the upper floor light well. The proposed location of the elevator aligns with the rear portion of the d. R. Requesters house where there are proposed three windows on the west elevation serving rooms that also face a rear yard, which also have rear facing windows. The sponsor has complied with the Residential Design Team recommendations in relation to building meth massing to address issues related to light, and since the limited extent of the proposed addition, in conjunction with existing side setback from the side lot allows the requesters windows to remain access to light. Staff has deemed there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking d. R. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Can we now hear from the d. R. Requester . Good evening, commissioners commissioners. Please pull down the microphone. My name is mary. My husband mike and i are the owners of 2880 vallejo street adjacent to the subject property im here to express my concerns about the impacts proposed construction will have on the light, air, and privacy to my property. On for. Twentysix, 2019, i had a variance hearing that i could not on february 26, 2019, i had a variance hearing that i could not attend. I emailed the responsible parties to inform them of my uncertainty of the impact this proposed development would have on my property as it was not adequately studied. The proposed construction is in a section of the light well at the east side of the property and into the acquired setback of 5 feet and portions of the said light well. As existing home is nonconforming to current planning codes and built to the Property Line on a 50foot wide property at the stories below, my property does benefit from a light well. The applicant is seeking to infill. I ask them to share my letter of the hearing and recommended further investigation such as a shout of study prior to the Zoning Administrator making a determination. I was told that Shannon Ferguson would keep me apprised of any new information. I did not receive any communication from the Planning Department until receiving the 311 notification plans and later tracking down the variance determination letter approving the infill at the light well. At that point, my only option was to file this discretionary review. The Zoning Administrators findings sight exceptional and extraordinary circumstances allowing for expansion into the light well to accommodate an accessible elevator as there are practical difficulties in locating the elevator in the existing envelope of the building. However, i listened back to the audio transcript from the hearing and cory teague stated that he saw six other locations that could accommodate an elevator and one that could reach all stories of the building. Further, the very same variance determination denies a second variance request from the year rear yard requirement citing that while the subject building has a unique and challenging layout in regard to adding an accessible elevator and bathroom , it is also extremely large lot and home. With more than 13,000 square feet in the existing home, there are no exceptional extraordinary circumstances related to the need to add more usable floor area. The variance determination seems to ignore or at least the requirement to improve that granting the such variance will not materially detriment will not be immaterial detriment to the Public Public or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. As my property benefits from this light will, the envelop may be a detriment to my light and air, which is why i request further study. Can suit assuming the variance determination has been made and not to impede the accessible elevator and bathroom , my husband and i are willing to look past the potential impacts on light and air to our property and accept the infill of the light well. I cannot to look past the addition of a roof deck on top of the proposed infill that calls for a guard rail where right at the edge of the Property Line atop of the elevator with a deck surface some 40 feet above the grade of my property. There is no need for this roof to be an occupy able space as the home already benefits from another roof deck on the highest rooftop. And as a Zoning Administrator pointed out, there is no need for additional usable floor area to an already large home. The deck unnecessarily creates privacy and safety concerns and i would ask the commissioners to consider the removal of the deck in the proposed project. Thank you for listening to my concerns and my considerations. Thank you very much. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester . Okay. We will hear from the project sponsor. Good evening, commissioners. On behalf of daniel and gina i am here with the project architect and please excuse allegra as they were not able to attend as they are about to have a new baby. Congratulations to them on that. Is mentioned by staff, theres no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances which ex received an approval from variance earlier today from the d. A. In may. As mentioned, staff is on the project that complies and this t line allows for the d. R. Requesters windows in the living room and media room to retain access to light. Consequently, staff found there were no exceptional extraordinary circumstances. They therefore, recommend not taking d. R. Notwithstanding such work, we have reached agreement to reconcile the differences with the d. R. Requester to avoid having this hearing, but unfortunately, we could not. They have had a history of gamesmanship requesting changes to this project and if a last and they have done such again here. For a little bit of background, there were two d. R. His that were made by both them and the allegra race. They have two projects ongoing of the current time. In order to resolve those cross d. R. Is, the parties worked together to come up with a solution. As a result, they withdrew their d. R. But at the last minute, they required an additional guard rail to be put on the light well that is being infilled. That created a safety concern for their children. As a result, we are here today and we have been working to try to resolve this beforehand. And since starting two months ago, we have reached out to the d. R. Requester to engage in mediation with staff. It wasnt until last friday that we are able to finally have that mediation at the last minute. Thankfully we had reached an agreement in principle, but like past history, the family has come back at the last minute requesting changes to be made that we just dont think we certainly dont know what they want at this point because i havent put those forward. The agreement that had been reached was to include a two and a half foot planter with vegetation at the edge at the inboard of the glass guard rail, but they indicated they wanted to make changes yesterday after we werent able to resolve that. Based on the concerns of loss of sunlight, we find their request for an addition of a planter and vegetation slightly peculiar because that would further block sunlight coming through the glass guard rail that was proposed. Further, as just for perspective, may i have the overhead, please . The area in question is essentially at the same level as the d. R. Requesters home. You can see the fifth floor level which is above blocks shadow and sunlight as it would come once the sun is over the median, as this portion right here is south of this area and the sun is coming from that angle. Further, as part of their project that they are in the midst of doing, they are removing the two windows that are in their elevation. Here are the current windows in question that the staff is filed which still retain light within the infill. As you can see, the proposed plan for the project does not include any windows there. In addition, their plan does not include any skylights or any forms of sunlight to come in through the roof that would come from sun casting over the fifth floor roof. It is a peculiar case because we are not certain that they are benefiting much light from this given the fact that the roof is a full story above and that the infill is going above the third floor which is already built to the Property Line. The layout of this property makes it interesting and we understand that there are concerns, but we are not really seeing where it is falling. That concludes my presentation. Im available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment in support of the project sponsor . Okay. D. R. Requester, you get a rebuttal. Hello, my name is john. I have been helping my parents through this process because i am in the industry. Understandably we are looking past the light and air concerns and on to safety concerns. Our request originally had been to move the guard rail off of the Property Line to the 5foot setback requirement. It was something they could not accept. We proposed a secondary guard rail for the safety concerns and infilled that would landscaping. That was something they couldnt accept further. Our safety concerns are that of daniels, talking about children playing with a ball on a deck that is 40 feet or so above the grade which would be a child falling onto my parents property. So we are asking that the safest thing be removed the deck and dont make it an occupy able service. It is not needed. There are decks elsewhere. It doesnt serve any egress purposes or anything. That is our position. Thanks. Thank you. You have a rebuttal. With regard to the roof deck that is being mentioned, though it is true there are other decks , the purpose of this infill is to create an a. D. A. Accessible bathroom and elevator to provide access for his aging mother and as part of that process, his mother will be residing excuse me. Residing over here and a bathroom here and the elevator there. The roof deck would allow her to utilize this and obtain sun without going down five floors the rear yard which is accessible only taking the elevator down through all four floors. We respect the safety concerns and understand those and that is why we agreed to put in a planter box that would provide an additional two and a half foot buffer from the glass guard rail, but with regards to removing the roof deck, there is a valid reason why it was being proposed. It was for his mother so she would be able to enjoy some sunlight. Thank you. All right. Sorry, if we have questions for you we will ask you. Thank you. Commissioner moore . I would like to ask mr. Winslow regarding the a. D. A. And elevator that seems to be in a home as large as this one, something i can easily accept. It seems to be a layout which follows guidelines for accessibility. The question i have is the roof deck somewhat caught me by surprise because i only realized when i was looking at the drawing it was not discussed in the staff report as anything that we are approving, and i do not see, since the elevator does not go up to the roof deck, how the person for whom you are creating accessibility would get onto that roof deck. I couldnt quite correlate the two items. That is a question for me because im not the originator of the program i think there was some clarity that is needed regarded regarding the purpose of the roof deck. It was not in reports because the focus of the d. R. Request came in as a result of light and privacy. We did have some negotiations late last friday where i thought a deal was close at hand with the barrier of the buffer between this roof deck that is at the top of this addition, the uppermost floor. Im from the architect for the project. I understand the concern, but there is no perfect solution here because we are bound with the height limit. That is pretty much we did extensive studies for where the elevator can go. Ideally we would continue it up to the fifth floor, but that is not a possibility. I think the secondary option would be going down five floors. I think between the two going up one floor rather than going down five floors i find settled for just going up one floor would help to take so, but directing your attention to drawing a, the roof deck were talking about is in question. Is that correct . It is the roof deck that is above the addition of the elevator. Correct. It is not an accessible to my knowledge. That is not part of the accessibility improvements of this project. Is that correct . Correct. It is part of the area that is designed for it. You answer my question for me thank you. You may sit down. Commissioner fung . I have a question for mr. Winslow also. Was the variance based upon accessibility needs . I believe the d. A. Sometimes allows variances more readily if it is based on accessibility needs. The conversation that took place, the question from the d. A. Was characterized as it seems like this is a big enough place for you to find multiple locations for the elevator had you explored that to the architect. And the architect and the project sponsor probably answered, know, this is the optimal from the standpoint of where it goes, to what it is serving, and where it can virtually vertically connect other functions in the building. If im not correct you can augment that. Actually, one of the key elements of the variance was an addition to the accessibility and the historic nature of the home itself. As you can see from the overhead , there is a beautiful staircase delved into the home. The home is an h. And the stairwell is right in the middle we went through a series of discussions with the Zoning Administrator that he agreed with and we created the extraordinary circumstances combined with the accessibility needs and this is the basic design itself of the home that really does limit the ability to put the elevator in a place without destroying the interior stairwell. That was a key part of the variance granting. My question was whether the variance, the granting of the variance was predicated on accessibility. I do not know the exact answer to that. Part of the variance was granted as a result of the existing condition of the building. This requires side setbacks, however that zoning was applied after the building was built there and some era prior to that zoning designation. I think it was deemed it was an acceptable exception from the code given the condition of the building in relation to the code commissioner moore . I believe that the questions that we answered, particularly where the elevator is, are sufficient. I do not believe that this requires taking d. R. And i am making a motion not to take d. R. And move forward. Second. Seeing nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d. R. And approve the project as proposed. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 6 0. Placing us on item 20, 2169 206 th avenue. Your last discretionary review. Good evening, commissioners. David winslow, staff architect. The items before you are three public initiated requests for discretionary review of Building Permit applications for a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing threestory, sickle family home. It also includes the subdivision of the existing 50foot wide by 120foot lot into two equally sized 25 by 120foot lots that result in two Single Family homes. There are three d. R. Requesters. The first are from 2159 and owners of property to the north of the proposed project. There concerning the proposed work does not comply with the residential Design Guidelines with respect to scale and character of other buildings on the block and respect of the midblock open space, and articulation of buildings to minimize impacts to light and privacy on adjacent properties. The second d. R. Requester is at 2166, owner of the property across the street to the east of the proposed project. He is concerned the proposed work will the third floor addition breaks the uniformity of the block and is inappropriate. The project extends too far to the rear and blocks light to houses to the north, including solar panels to the building at 2159, and it is new construction it needs demolition permits. Lastly it will set a precedent that will change the block. The third d. R. Requester of 2163 , the adjacent owner of the property to the immediate north of the proposed project is concerned with the following issues, that the project proposed addition raises concerns about excavation and impacts to the neighbors foundation. That the project intrudes into the rear yard and disrupt the midblock open space and lastly, deprives the d. R. Requesters backyard of light and privacy. To date, the department has received 26 letters in opposition and 15 letters in support of the project. It is worth mentioning we also had a sitdown meeting a couple of weeks ago. There was some additional issues that we all discovered in relation to the front and i will mention those in the recommendations. Our Residential Design Advisory Team agree reviewed this and confirms this requires some additional modifications to reduce the mass and reinforce the scale and character of the street facade and preserve access to midblock open space. The project sponsor has incorporated the changes and has deemed the proposal meets residential Design Guidelines with relation to the midblock open space scale, massing, in preservation of the street scale staff deemed the project with these changes poses minimal impacts to the neighbors with respect to light and privacy. Specifically the modifications we requested were a reduction of the scale and massing of the street by one and setting the third floor for additions back to 14 feet from the front facade , eliminating the roof parapet at the third floor, eliminating the third floor parapet, aligning and proportioning the entry door and windows more in keeping with the surrounding buildings, revising the bay windows to be code compliant and aligning them over the garage doors, at the rear, the popout was reduced on the one side of the project to extend no more than 5 feet preserve the scale and access to the midblock open space. And lastly, after meeting with the neighbors, the project sponsor agreed to relocate the bay projection adjacent to this property to preserve light at the front windows and balcony that to her property. Furthermore, though this project is represented but it is not a demolition, a lastminute review by staff has revealed the project is extremely close to the tantamount to demolition calculations and requires further staff review of those calculations to determine whether or not it is or impact is not a demolition for 317. However, the house sold in 201742 but 1 million which was well beyond the threshold of affordability the house sold in 2017 for 2. 1 million. It is quite likely the value will exceed the current level of threshold and not require a see you, but could be approved for demolition