i like to spend a minute perhaps, for mr. gerardo to speed you will be available for any questions. we also the architects here to answer any questions as well. thank you. >> testifier: good evening members of the commission thank you for the opportunity to discuss it appeal my name is brian gerardo at the privilege of being a fourth-generation san francisco more poorly organized to maze of a decision to raise a family here in san francisco mac we ask for you support the project and denied up your biggest ability for us to complete our home is important to the young and growing family that we do start to race in san francisco. one of things the architects can talk to you about in the part of the dispute and why we have not accepted mr. talebi's request that removed the addition to the sell side is that were purchased on four years ago, we had to make material seismic and probation upgrades. the uphill slope, the foundation and says next ability of the home was in question. for us to do what mr. talebi would like for us to do would request to not only obviate the material mount of investment we put in the foundation side but then to also then redo it after the fact. so, we would like to be able to move forward with the project. got to planning. we got to the planning department would have a number of meetings to comprise with mr. talebi and practical challenge he has been very dogmatic italy one solution that he will support, which obviates the money and hard work that very put into the home. i ask you for your support. thank you. >> commissioner: somebody in the group will need to display that point on the structural -- if you flip it. i think you understand the question. tested my name is stephen -- on the architect working with courtney and brian. if we could switch to be over it, please. so, this is at grade level at the guardian. there is a garage level below that extends roughly to the same line, and the self is up in this diagram. north is down here. the south slopes up dramatically up steiner street is a large retaining wall on the uphill side there a historical retaining wall that has failed because water has been coming to the hillside and taking out the cement in the concrete footing. so when courtney and brian bought the house they replaced the footing along that side, or put concrete against that wall. so upon inspection when it purchased the property, they were advised was not seismically safe without doing more work correct they did that work in our water continues to come through specific channels with the inverted. the water runs through and goes as collected out to the west. so >> commissioner to the west or east? >> testifier: to the west, yes. if we put the plan we have to remove that -- line but waterproofing behind the wall and put new deep footing along that line. >> commissioner: why? >> testifier: well, the plan is about the access and where and how the plan works coming up into the house from the garage. no living space can be created along that self line downstairs with the water conditions the way it is >> commissioner why cannot you frame inside that [inaudible] >> testifier: sure. we could come side of that line by some distance and collect the water on the negative side of the wall would be a way to do it so we have to scale the plan backed by some distance and [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez. >> testifier: planning department the subject property is within zoning district which is a 20% requirement the subject project is code compliant that it went under when notification last year between september and october this special request was filed in the planning commission her that on december 18 the mac at that hearing their current recommended that no who discretion itb take in the planning commission did take discretionary view and produced the second story by 2 feet to think of something the permit holder provided for at an earlier time and two memorials that. the town is to the north of property and steiner is down closing on this box so it owns property is their lower elevation permit holders property e.g. reviewed this and -- after discretionary review was filed in -- recommended the project be approved no changes. in particular, in regards to the privacy issues, i think there is not much basis to that pack that dorm room is much higher elevation is a deep view into a very small window and that is the only window that would be exposed. residential design team on the were extraordinary circumstances to justify reducing a code compliance project to address future privacy concerns that were raised. in regards to the -- visited down sloping segment of steiner street. that the appellant's project is lower than the -- property but again the extension we have figures beyond the depth of the appellant's property is limited to one story grade mac it does come to the share property line, but is limited to one story and grade mac so, with that, the planning commission from the project touch it it is combo code compliant with that am available for any questions. >> commissioner: the permit holders rear wall is actually short of the required per yard? >> testifier: this at 25% rear yard requirement that both projects are well within the billable area but the appellant's and the permit holder. >> commissioner i did not scale or anything that looks like it is in the part of 55, 60% rainout? >> testifier: is substantial. even with the project being approved it still remains a substantial rear regard. thank you. >> clerk: mr. duffy, anything? no? then with a public comment. is there anyone for public comment? seeing none doshi do i speak in a public comment? okay >> testifier: i am jeff spalding diluted 2714 steiner some appeal neighbors so to the south. we moved in last october after doing some renovations of our own mac we met with the gerardo's and exit compositions about the projects. it a couple compromises nothing that significant, but generally last october been neighbors with them and got to know them very well. we previously are kids get along very well so, that is an added benefit. basically, we support their -- to build in compliance and knowing that they also enjoy them as vendors would hate to see them leave the neighborhood and operate our neighbors anymore that also feel that even if they were to leave knowing how the city is so mouse would likely move in and probably proposing some paperwork anyway. so pointless to try that [inaudible] so we support it. >> clerk: thank you. any of the public comment? seeing none, mr. talebi you have 3 min. of rebuttal. >> testifier: this is the list of all the meetings we have had. mr. -- keeps on having we have had numerous meetings, numerous hours that is absolutely false. just a record i am sure if you asked mr. -- he would be able to do because these are the only myth that we have. as you can see, every single meeting we have they told us we cannot do it because of foundation work that that is been the only reason, the only thing we have heard from it they can do it because of foundation. so, [inaudible] something about life and like to show you the kind of late were getting right now. he said we do not get much late because her houses down below -- but this is harrison were getting today. so, this of the summer getting today. regarding the 18th street wall that was talking about his, this is what i was talking about. here, this is the roof of the first floor. right around here and were going to extend this all the way 16 feet and this is to come right through around here several feet beyond the deck line. cure, we have 7 feet of retaining wall and regrettably looking at 11 feet of joe shelby look at 18 feet of wall sitting here in my backyard. again, 18 feet in this is going to impact on having [inaudible]. what we propose to them was nearly, put this thing and put it on the other side. peers and 8-10 feet retaining wall on the other side and we have no impact here on the neighbor but they refuse to do that. that is been the primary issue, and they never discussed why. in the meantime, they are trying to build this thing on the public -- they are trying to maximize their space for a living space. they talk about material investment foundation based on the current it is only $65,000 total investment in the foundation. they are trying to renovate the 4000 ft.2 house mac republic october $2 million to do that and not willing to spend a little bit more on the foundation and keep your neighbors upset as i was there and i was >> commissioner could you put back the first picture that you put on the overhead? >> testifier: the very first one? >> testifier: correct, here i mean cut even in the full sunlight shadowing effect is >> commissioner that condition is created because you have a -- second floor. even a picture there is no light he knows windows. >> testifier: that is correct., complaining about that late. i am complaining about, based on the shadow photos that were presented, though shadow studies are showing a significant change after they built this thing on this wall. >> commissioner thank you. >> clerk: we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> testifier: hello. i just want to correct the calculation of how is a real arrived at 18 feet. when he speaks of 18 feet he is talking about a grade on his property below grade which is like seven or 8 feet. his first floor is actually this line here. our first floor starts too happy about this, and then the additional wall all the additional wall is shown here, is about 6'7" from the fence that already exist close another 3'10". is about 10 feet taller and it is extended. so, it is not 18 feet. it is their. the only part that is new is like nine or 10 feet. i like to let mr. gerardo speak how handle any questions as well. >> testifier: i like to submit to the commission, my wife and i are not asking for anything special. we worked very hard with our architect mr. hsu joe, two, plans were squarely within with the code was residential design code the planning department it is -- it is why the pacific ice subordinates is why the planning department issued the planning is why the planning commission did not support discretionary review. i grew up in this town correct my families been in this town i know it means to be a good san francisco and works very hard to try to meet with mr. talebi are not going to dignify his comments about dollars and cents. were young family pack we want to stay up and i ask for your support so we can build a home that we want to be with to continue to be productive members of our city. we have asked for no special treatment, no variances, no nothing. we just want to be able to woods within the code and allowed first be able to move forward. thank you. >> commissioner: this is more of a curiosity. the views north onto the bay. >> testifier: correct >> commissioner: if you have flipped that room then from that room and from the deck you have use of the bay. >> testifier: no >> commissioner note? >> testifier: no. signage street, [inaudible] broadway. the way the grades are, the way it is built and the fact that there is garden and home, there is absolutely no view of the bay from that first floor. so, the only view that will be afforded in this extension will be out into the backyard >> commissioner understood >> testifier: which is basically out currently into our back -- the physical impossibility to see the day based upon the grade they held straight and for that matter, the homes that border of a no street. >> commissioner: i documented in a diagonal view that would possibly be northeast. >> testifier: no. there is honestly no view. >> clerk: nothing more? okay commissioners, the matter is you worse than. you worse than.is yours than. >> commissioner: i will start i am inclined to deny the appeal on the basis that, i think strong effort has been made from the permit holders to the neighbors, as well as it is a fully compliant project to mac there is no braces that are required. it is kind of how i feel. >> commissioner: i agree to mac >> commissioner afraid i would have to agree also. the permit holder, if that is where he wants to lay out on his deck because it is actually relatively close so his deck portion -- but that is his choice. the question is, is whether the proposed project exceed certain thresholds in terms of its impact upon the neighbor. i do not see it doing that to. .>> staff: the motion to deny the permit, deny the -- what time is it -- deny the appeal that was issued properly. there is a motion on the forefront of vice president to -- that it was issued properly. on a motion, took hold mr. fong with dick aye pres. lazarus aye commissioner wilson dick aye and commissioner swig it is absent the boat is 4-0 and the boat is built on the basis >> clerk: will to item 10 appeal number 15-ish 063 tracy western and sydney mortimer's dept. of building inspection planning department approval not opposite for 35 10th avenue mac purchase and issuance on april 1, 2015 and -- horizontal and vertical addition for bedroom suite and then on the ground for new christian family room half-bath and interior stair connected on the second floor to the ground floor extending existing bedroom and at master suite on the third floor new deck off the second and third floor. we will start with the appellant. mr. durst do need a moment to catch her breath? >> testifier: my name is david staccato manner behalf of tracy western man sitting morgan the appellant's. the same issues involved only this time were actually asking for things that courtney and brian actually gave the adjacent -- we are asking for things to protect our privacy to protect our light. same type of issues. we had some disagreements with the planning commission at the discretionary review hearing and planning dept. staff that largely because of the interpretation of a specific aspect of the plan. that is, you can tell from our site plan -- so, i want to show on the sample map here, it shows ms. west ms. morgantown ice extends into their yard. it has a cottage -- it is a living space there. the guidelines i should protect the signs of structures that there is a guideline that reads the building is located [inaudible] when up close project is adjacent to the lot [inaudible] ratifications of the building design may be necessary to reduce impacts and consider the following modifications. modifications that are supposed to be considered is to reduce the projects [inaudible] what we are asking for here is just that they were not asking for any major loss of living space. is no major loss of living space that were requesting back were asking that the stairs were merely adjacent to the site being moved to the other side. to move it a little bit further away. this is a private space, and that is tracy in front of her death.shows you where the deck will be merely adjacent to the private space. next picture will also show you how to look from that deck dry-cleaning to their living space. as a living space right across -- all were asking is reduce the size of that that the stairs to the other side is not livable space. the other thing were asking for is to reduce the size of the second that the only place were actually asking for loss of livable spaces along the property line and all asking for is for them to remove 2 feet, set back 2 feet, on the second floor,, third floor to get more leak light into that area. there is a lot of discussion in the response brief by the permit holder about to delay this project off. i want to point out, this delays primarily a result of his own efforts. we worked very digitally trying to negotiate a settlement. we had some agreement that some of the very things were asking for tonight he had agreed to in the first phase. at the last moment benches before the first discussion or review hearing was scheduled he pulled off the calendar. he stopped on the go she shares with us and pulled up the calendar and continued his plan to redo the ocean because the changes were so dramatic he had to go she noticed herein again that so, those delays at those hearings so caused a delay. i want to point out, once again, what were asking for here is to move the stairs from the deck to the opposite side. it does not impact anyone back to reduce the size of that deck from -- is not 12 feet down to 6'8" that the still very usable abatement has a deck on the upper floor [inaudible] make a julia deck set back on the property line, 2 feet on the upper floors doing it some light . those the only changes were asking for we think that is reasonable and billy gibbons image of addition the code that will point out, the planning on the staff has interpreted that -- in fact many need protected because it was connected. heather been a summer cottages of the dwelling unit it would have been protect that the fact that some point legally, over 50 years ago, when it was done was actually connected legally. is no longer subject to protections. i think that is a wrong interpretation. you can do without into rotation. i am asking you to do with it >> commissioner: did you say it is out legal nonconforming cottage? tech >> testifier: it is legal noncompliant, yes >> commissioner you have any year of its construction? >> testifier: note that the old the map we had was on their. >> clerk: if we could hear from the permit holders now. okay come forward but you just wait till the commissioner returns to speak.. >> testifier: >> clerk: you can begin. >> testifier: we will use a projector that good evening my name is sydney told my husband i hope to code compliant project as per the recommendation of three separate san francisco planning bodies. over the past 400 and nine days since we now got original building plans we work diligently with our neighbor to make this project is a medical and transparent as possible and that we been committed of and open our door to seven neighbors as was the planning department for site visits and wrote an open dialogue about this project and in addition you will see three letters of support our report and not required by the claim department we asked appellants with four separate building binds these designs [inaudible] to address concerns. each of these designs was code compliant supported by a planned apartment and residential design team and would it -- [inaudible] january 22 this year. after many delays by the appellant in the building which they corroborated by the planning department in accountable for decisions made up a bread bin appealed multiple times. plant department completed site visit to both properties which confirm -- self-inflicted nokes door neck conditions existed in addition [inaudible] sunshine request a project that we have addition [inaudible] and when it is time to schedule discussion review hearing last about the hearing date was [inaudible] at a monster the process might be action of the appellant to delay along each separate project been consistent throughout the considerable impact on both [inaudible] in terms of our project it