weekends. and then there are not a whole lot of -- not necessarily everybody is going to every basketball game. it is different because of the number of games there is the world cup -- the number of games. the world cup happens once every four years. it is in some ways not good preparation for what is good to be 10 times a year when it will be off the charts traffic there. if we listen to the project's sponsors average nightly and daily numbers, these are not numbers that should be generating huge amounts of noise. to that point, i think the conditions here -- i think turning it into a dining patio, different than the scenario in

has been today, is going to help with the noise comes -- noise concerns the members have. i would move to take the project with the recommendations staff has made. i also ask the condition that the project sponsors provide a cell phone number to the neighbors to make sure there is a point of contact when there are concerns. i am happy if people want to talk about -- maybe we can have a report back in the year that is a staff report from ms. woods to hear about how things went so that neighbors would know that there is a reason for them to be compliant. we are asking them how things went over the course of the year. i think through that process it can be a very fair way to kind of work together. that is my motion. commissioner antonini: second. commissioner moore: i am not quite there yet. i would like to have the conditions addressed a little bit more, other issues such as

with an open patio to the sidewalk that attention to sidewalk cleanliness, a community liaison with not just a phone number but the ability to be in communication with each other. this is a very unusual situation on union street. it is a primarily commercial street. this is partially professional offices, but an equal amount of residence. these are mostly older businesses. it is quite noisy. it always has been quite noisy, because it is partially in a valley with the hill rising beyond it. i would find a way that the owners of the restaurant become better neighbors too many people who do not have -- neighbors to many people who do not have particularly good

feelings about them. we try to encourage and the ability to come to an agreement prior to showing up here would be preferable. i want to ask a community liaison. i want to have particular attention to the open patio, that there is no additional accumulation of stuff on the sidewalk. i do not want to see the patio becoming a place where people smoke, partially because they think it is outside. this might be all commonly understood, but i would like to have it spelled out. something which almost takes over the front of the building -- i want to have conditions where we mediate between the people living there, having professional offices, and operating a restaurant. with the event, i do not have anything against. there is more noise.

there is more excitement. it is more fun. there is more whatever. that is part of that type of establishment. for that reason, i think we should be particularly putting sensitivity conditions here by which we also recognize where is. in terms of locations of street, the hill -- i would like to have a certain sensitivity reminder in these conditions. commissioner borden: as the maker of the motion, to say that smoking should not be happening -- i think that is california law, but we can add that. just because something is happening on the patio -- people are on the patio for the purpose of dining. we can add that. commissioner antonini: i am fine with that. i think the business with the community liaisons' is understood as well. commissioner sugaya: i was going

to get into some details, but i will skip it. >> are you sure? commissioner sugaya: no. >> on the motion, commissioners, to take dr and include the condition that the project sponsor provide a liaison and that the patio be limited for dining purposes only. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. this brings us to item 18, 4916 ortega street. a request for discretionary review.

-- for 916 artistry. a request for discretionary review -- 916 ortega street. a request for discretionary review. commissioner sugaya: i would like a progress report for these kinds of things. vice president olague: should we take a recess? commissioner moore: let's just run with it. >> good evening, planning commission. i am the southwest team leader.

we request discretionary review of a building proposing construction of a third story the vertical addition and passat alteration. the property is located at 916 ortega street in the outer sunset neighborhood. two discretionary reviews were filed, one by leonard kachn, and one by tracy thompson. they believe that the vertical addition does not respect the scale of adjacent buildings and that the horizontal addition encroaches into the open space, creating a boxed in feeling, and that the report additional create privacy impacts on neighbors. the residential design team has reviewed the project. we find it to be on balance and consistent with the general plan

and design guidelines. we do not find a project to contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. we of classified the project as an abbreviated dr for the following reasons. it makes alterations inappropriate manner. it retains the pattern along the laterally spoke -- laterally sloping blocke three. -- sloping block. the rear addition extends 6 feet beyond the neighbor to the west at a two-story white with a setback. the addition extends 14 feet beyond the thdr requesting or's property, but it is stepped interest. we find is appropriate with the use of setbacks on the upper floors.

some loss of privacy to existing neighbors is acceptable for an addition in a dense urban environment. it will not have unusual impact on neighbors. the department has not received any additional comments regarding the project. under pending dr reform legislation, it would not be referred to you. the department recommends you do not take dr and approve the project as proposed. this concludes the presentation. vice president olague: thank you. dr requestors -- whatever order you want to go in. my name is leonard pond -- >> mining is leonard pond -- >> my name is leonard pond.

i had two concerns with this proposal. one is to do with the setback. the project plan currently reflects a front setback 10 inches, based on the set back of the adjoining properties at 924 ortega street and 908 ortega street. the street level average setback is 10 feet. on the other adjoining property, there is an average third level setback of poor 0.5 feet. these figures are documented in the department's street planning and construction drawings, which i can submit for your review. i am requesting that the front setbacks for the proposed project be determined based on true setback figures, as per planning code section 132.

my other concern relates to the proposed rare word addition in the renovation. the multi-level real extension will encroach into the existing mid-block open space. the existing structures in the southeast corner of our block that surround my rear yard -- this results in my open space being a three-sided open box, with the fourth side exposed only to the west. neighbors residing to the east utilize their rear yards to access the same mid-block open space. the project if first and second level rear extension will extend 14 feet. this reduction of access to the mid-block open space is 36%, a

significant impact, contrary to what the planning and project agent have alleged. the residential design standards code sections 100 to to four and 136 specify to design the height of the building to be compatible with the existing building skill at the mid-block open space. rear yards provide open space for their residences to which they are attached, and the collectively contribute to the mid-block open space that is visible to most residents. this visual open space can be a significant community advantage. and out of scale rear-your addition -- rear-yard addition can leave residents feeling cut off. we will indeed be affected if the construction of the rear extension is beyond the

existing community structures. i have made myself available to discuss my concerns with the agent and the owner since the introduction of these plants in a meeting on the project promises may 6, 2008. i initiated an intake file with the community board with an option to discuss our differences and arrive at a mutual concordance. however, this file was closed on november 30, 2010, after the final contract was made with the project agents, who declined participation in this mediation service. i live in an urban area and concessions can be made, hopefully with respect from all parties concerned. i have lived in this neighborhood as my primary residence for 27 years. i am aware that an edition may be needed for this building. i am in support of its proposed

renovation. it would enhance my neighborhood's esthetics and property value. i am interested in solutions. in the past, the guidelines in sections meet neighborhood concerns. i request this dr the granted and i hope there will be an opportunity to explore design modifications that will allow continued access to the mid- block open space, given the unusual configuration of existing structures. thank you for your time. vice president olague: second dr requestor? >> good evening. thanks for staying late. i filed my own separate dr because i felt that while an

exceptional condition exists to affect the decision, this exceptional condition has not been addressed in the planning for the ortega street project. i want to show this picture. this indicates where my property is. when you look -- it looks like the specter is taken -- this picture is taken at high noon on a very sunny day. you can see this darkened corner here. this is facing west. this darkened corner -- this is my house. this darken the corner -- darkened corner will be further in closed, as indicated, up to 36% of this area.

you can see here that this area will be further in closed. i would like to clarify that i am not opposed to the plant in its entirety, but would like modifications to accommodate this exceptional, already claustrophobic corner lot, lot 205b, to avoid a substandard situation. there are discrepancies in the planning agency regarding measurements of the property, including side elevations and measurements of the rear window of 1885, the lower portion of the house from the grade level. i can show you a small picture of that as well, here. this is the western facing

window. this measurement, as indicated by a project planner, is around 25% higher than it actually is. this will impact the open space, privacy intrusion, rear yard intrusion, and light, air, and space. i am concerned that these measurements downplay the direct impact of proposed projects. this has been conveyed in limiting discussions -- limited discussions with planning architects. the rear yard intrusion restrictions -- it is my belief minimum requirements are at maximum limits and do not conform to sections 134, 136, and other guidelines for backyard where extensions. -- backyard rear extensions.

i believe the situation exists within this small, already tight corner. the diagrams in sections 130 poor, 136, and guidance for rear extensions do not anticipate corner lots and alleys. therefore, an exceptional condition. i would like to request in kind the modification of the project that takes into account these relevant sections with respect to this condition, already eight compromised open space -- already at a compromise to open space -- already a compromised open space. i would like to respond to specific references from the planning department documents

other than not accepting the dr request. i have lived in this unit. i have lived here. and i know that the level will affect this property, and not conform to the planning documents. in addition, the residential design team has concluded that the addition will not result in the unusual impact on privacy to neighboring interior living spaces. i am the one most impacted here by this renovation. again, i am open to modification and compromise. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. are there other speakers in support of the dr requestors? we have a couple of cards. leonard pond, you spoke. tracy thompson was the second

one. francis short? >> i am the owner of 1850 and 1891. vice president olague: can you pull the microphone down a little? >> sorry. my property has extremely limited access to open space. the rear yard extension will cut off sunlight. i am scared it will become dark. i will have more hardship if the topi walls lose the little like they have.

i feel this project will impact me greatly, and no one notified me. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. are there any additional speakers in support of the dr request? seeing none, project sponsor. commissioner moore: she has a picture. vice president olague: ok. >> [inaudible] vice president olague: thank you. commissioner antonini: i don't think it makes any difference. vice president olague: project sponsor.

>> i am the project architect. the property owners, and jake and donna, are also here. it has been a long night. i am not trying to talk about the end inches -- about the to and inches. as an architect, i follow the planning code and the residential design guidelines. we have a project planner. we have an entire design team to review the project. i believe the project meets every section of the planning code. in terms of the design guidelines, it is a guideline. the interpretation of the guideline is very objective. everybody has a different way of looking at it. but the project has been revised

according to the planner and the design review team recommendations. i believe that if they understood the intention of the planning code and what is expected by the city -- we accepted and we honor it. that is all i need to say. if you have any questions, you can ask. but i believe the project respect every act and -- every aspect of the planning code. vice president olague: thank you. are there any speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> this is a tough job you got here. we bought this house in

december, 2006. my wife and i were going to move beein. we lived in the sunset district since 1976. i work just down the street. the fellow that owned the house next to us told me, "maybe you want to buy this house." i went and looked at it. we bought the house. immediately, we were going to remodel it and move in, because we really like the neighborhood. it is a little more quiet than 28 avenue, where i have a bus pass by my house every day. we raised a family there. then we found that the house is in really poor condition. we would need to tear the whole thing down. we decided maybe we did need to.

anyway, we have been working on this project since 2007, january. we worked with the planning department. we did a lot of work to accommodate where the height, the length of two houses next to us. originally, they were the same height, one story above the basement. both houses were built up to be pretty big. our house is kind of dwarfed in between the two. especially sloping down, looking up at mr. pond's house -- it is way above us. when we finish, we will be the same height with mr. chanen on the oceanside, and still six or

7 feet below mr. pond's house. we are also lined up with mr. chen. but could not be blocking any more, because we will just be lined up with him. i am not sure that we are including. i've looked at my yard. we are sloping down. as you know, we are slipping down. so we can not be obstructing anybody from down below. it has been a long time, since 2011 -- it is been a long time. this is 2011, january. this has been dragged on for a long time. this is our so-called day in court. anyway, thank you. vice president olague: you both get two minutes for a bottle.

-- rebuttal. i forgot to ask if there are any more speakers from the public? ok. sorry about that. >> i would like to respond to the response to the discretionary review. i received a copy of this. the project architect was given certain dimensions in trying to determine what the setbacks were. after having seen this, i went back to my original plans. i also have the plans for the adjacent property. can i possibly submit this at this time? i would also like to say that on august 23 i had a meeting with ms. elisabeth waddy at the

planning commission. i had questions and did present my concerns to her. i had concerns about the front setback, etc. i told her i had this information. she told me that everything had been met -- all codes. it had been through review. she was not interested in seeing the information i had, which showed proof. i did not think much about it until later, in august. that was when we receive the original plans. -- received the original plans. i would just like to say this is only a small copy of the large original plans. vice president olague: thank you.

>> there is a very slight slope, but not significant enough to say that anything built downhill will not intrude on a property that is almost ground level. i do not know the exact measurement, but -- vice president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have a couple of minutes. >> i believe what mr. pond is getting at is the top floor setback. he probably believes that he has a set back more than we do. but not