probably express that specifically to our church body, that we need to congregate indoors or take it somewhere else and not in front of the building. and we want to be conscious of the neighborhood as well. we do not want to block our walkway, because it is a public walkway as well. since we've owned that building, again, i'd like to express just the benefits of us being there. there are many services within walking distance of the church, the new location of our church. so we'll be able to take advantage of all the services that are in there. there's a paint store, glass services, dry cleaning, a lot of different things that we would benefit from. we took a poll of our total head count, of our church. approximately 25% of our church lives in the district, within driving distance of the property. in addition to that, we also

have six to eight families that are actually in walking distance to the chuff. so i think this will greatly allow us to reach out to our congregation as well. in addition to that, one block away on santiago and 14th is the hoover middle school. and you know, as well as all churches, we want to reach out to our community. and we're looking at some of the opportunities to reach some of the students from the school, maybe provide after-school tutoring, whatever programs that maybe we can reach out to them and also reach out to the community as well. we're looking at positive things and potentially to improve our current condition, which is very crowded at the current time and to be able to move into a building that we can make use of. so i hope that this would be in favor of the planning commission moving forward. thank you. president olague: thank you. i don't think we have -- we have one speaker card.

if you'd like to pass that forward. georgia parsons. >> thank you members of the commission. my name is georgia parsons. i am the owner of the property next to 401 taraval street. and i want to say that i have had a discussion recently with mr. louis, and i have no problems -- mr. louie and i have no problems with the church moving next door to me as a neighbor. my concern rests with the structure of the original building. my family -- my grandfather built the building that i own as a neighbor of 401 taraval in 1949. and in 1972 my family was not

given the opportunity, as i am here before you today, to express an opinion of what went next door to them. they were simply told, here's the building, you know. you pay for your share of the section that has to be supported structurally for our new big commercial building. so i feel -- my family has hated that building since it went up in 1972 and it's hated it because of where the entrance is located. i wish to heavens i could do something or that planning commission or the church could do something, anybody could do something within reason in terms of cost and times and what have you to move the darned entrance. all the other buildings, the entrances are on the corner. why in heaven's name they have to put it within four or five feet of my entrance is -- you know, who knows?

but i don't want to come here and guasch the project for these lovely people -- quash the project for these lovely people. i would just like to have something looked at. if the church cannot fulfill because of money or whatever to do whatever it wants to do there and it has to sell it or whatever happens and the new tenant, the new owner, i want somebody somewhere to put something in it that if anybody does anything structurally with their building, that that issue becomes addressed. because it's been a real pain. these are lovely people, but i have been there, spent 35 years of my early life there and another three years there when i had to move out in order to come before the planning commission and build my current abode. been there, done that, know all the pieces here, ok? and i've had a terrible time with people who weren't so considerate. so i don't know what you can do or what anybody else can do,

but i'd like to have it down on the record that this has been a problem and somebody needs to look at it. if they can't do anything, maybe in the future, if they can't do what they want to do and they have to sell the building, please, can somebody put that in the record because it's a pain. thank you so much. president olague: thank you. i don't have any other speaker cards, but at this point, if people want to come up and speak, they can, or if they want to stand up to show their support for the project, they can. and then -- because i don't have any other speaker cards. and i assume that you're all in support of the project. ok, thank you. i don't want to assume, but is there any opposition? i don't have any other cards before me. no? so does anyone want to speak? seeing none -- seeing no additional speakers, public

comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm going to maybe a motion to approve, but i would like to comment on the last speaker and just encourage the church that, if it's possible -- it's colonel not a condition, but if there's a way to do something with the front door, as time goes on, it might even -- i think one of the speakers representative of the church said we really would like to have a nicer entrance in there. so if it becomes economically feasible to do that, it would be a nice thing to do, but certainly not a condition at this point. but something to think about. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i'd encourage the church to take a look. one of the conditions of moving it to the opposite side, toward the corner, is that there's a utility room in the basement. and i don't know what's in there. but it might be really expensive to take out whatever is in there and that kind of thing. but if you can take a look at it, other than that it doesn't seem to be, on the face of it,

having looked at this just for this particular approval, any reason that it couldn't be switched. but, you know, it's not a condition. but we'd encourage you to kind of take a look at it, if you could. president olague: commissioners, the motion on the floor for approval with an encouragement to the project sponsor to look at possibly moving the front entrance to another location if that proves to be possible. on that commission, commissioner antonini. aye. >> aye. >> aye. commissioner moore has stepped away from the room. commissioner sugaya. aye. aye. aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on -- >> i was going to ask that we take a 10-minute recess. i want to make sure that commissioner moore is here for the next discussion because it's based on clarification. president olague: the commission is taking a

10-minute recess. [7:37 p.m..] . . . .

come too its fruition with the completion of the theser. so the theater's opening was remarkable. . . . . .

president olague: ok, the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you are on item number 13, for 3987 20th street. and this is a hearing to clarify a previous planning commission decision.

it was on a d.r. case adopted february 3, 2011. the building permit application proposed to construct a roof deck and a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling. it's also in the delores heights special use district. and commissioners, the only reason i read that through is because i really want to emphasize that this item is before you for clarification. the d.r. case it not before you. it cannot be addressed at this time. it was not noticed for a d.r. hearing. the only thing before you is clarification of the motion made at that hearing. >> good afternoon, president olague. michael smith. planning department staff. you have before you 3987 20th street. i'm sorry that we're here today, but if you refer to the overhead, i'll try to clarify

the area of dispute. the motion that was written after the february hearing reflects -- is reflected in this plan, which shows a notch right here, a three by eight notch, approximately. the neighbors or the d.r. requesters received that action memo and it was our understanding that it was to encompass this area highlighted in yellow as well. i have since met with the maker of the motion and clarified that it was indeed to include this yellow area that's highlighted here as well, which would be a setback for the whot depth of the addition -- whole department of the addition. this really concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions or comments. president olague: i'm sorry. i'd like to open it up for public comment at this time.

>> madam president, let me just say one more thing. this is not a typical d.r. hearing. the project sponsor does not get five minutes. each speaker can have up to three minutes, depending on the rules that you've set. president olague: thank you, secretary avery, for clarifying that. >> thank you, president olague, jeremy paul for the project sponsor. after the public hearing we spoke to commissioner moore, who made that motion, and used this set of plans to get clarification of where this line should be. and the markings that were made on this were made by commissioner moore at that time. she was very, very clear that we were lining up to the furthest projection in the adjacent building, which was here.

and i'll show you some ph this reflects a substantial cut into the existing deck at this site. this is a photograph of the existing deck at this site. and there is the property standing at the point at which we need to cut this deck back to meet the motion as it was recorded. if in fact we're being asked to push that all the way back to the house srks the doors that are there, the existing french doors that enter that balcony will no longer function. this changes this project substantially for mr. copp, and it does not improve the situation in any noticeable way for the adjacent property owner. this is ms. todd's home. this is the deck that must be

cut back to meet this extension right here. so we're cutting back about this far into this existing balcony. the area below it, as you see, that we'd be eliminating our infill from is fully solid. so if we were to cut this back any further than this, we're not giving any substantial benefit in any sort of way that's going to mean something to the adjacent property owner. when you make a d.r. decision that find a way to form a compromise and to re-design a building that gives both neighbors a way to move forward, it improves the situation for both parties. that makes a lot of sense to everybody. but in a situation like this, where we're cutting into a balcony that he already has. and in going all the way back to the house, eliminate ago

french door that he has accessing a deck, eliminating the possibility of a table being anywhere on this deck, it becomes just a walkway. so i would ask that you uphold the decision as it was previously made and let this project move forward. this is the sixth time we've been in a public hearing with this thing and it's a very minor thing. thank you. president olague: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? everyone has three minutes, because it's all based on the clarification. commission secretary avery clarified that at the very beginning, that this item is not a d.r. it's basically to clarify -- >> oh, absolutely. president olague: yeah, everyone in the audience who's like to speak to it has three minutes.

>> i was only going to respond to mr. paul's comments. all i would say is that -- president olague: if you would identify yourself. >> oh, i'm sorry. my name is chris boettcher. i'm one of the original d.r. quers and i'm one of the neighbors -- requesters and i'm one of the neighbors. i thought that notch was in fact going to be the full length of the deck. after all, the new project basically -- the point of departure for the new project is not -- that deck won't be there anyway. so my understanding was that as it was shown on the overhead projection was that that notch was going to extend all the way back to the building, because that whole portion of the house is actually going to be rebuilt anyway, so it's not like they're really losing anything. they're gaining all that additional floor space that's going to be included in the remodel. and when we left the hearing, that was our impression of what

was decided. i think michael smith, the planner, drew on the overhead to show exactly what the modification was going to be, and everybody agreed to it and it was voted on. so when we left the hearing, that's what our understanding was. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> pam, delores heights improvement club. and if in fact the decision that was seen on tv is what is being put forth here, i think that is quite acceptable. it was a bit unnerving to have one decision on tv and then another one on paper, where there had apparently been a meeting behind the scenes. that included the permit example pe diedor is what we were told and did not include any of the d.r. requesters.

but if in fact the original decision is being honored, then i don't think i have any more to say about it. thank you. president olague: thank you. dd >> good afternoon. i'm the project architect. i would like to just respectfully disagree with the d.r. requesters. it was our understanding that there was only -- we thought it had been expressed at the hearing that the notch was only going to be eight or nine feet. so looking at the drawings -- that eight or nine feet is taking space of both the living space and the deck above and what was part of the original deck that was on the house that jeremy just expressed. but also realize that at the ground level of the adjacent

neighbor, their building is actually -- is partially supported on a column. so their setback is much wider at the bottom level of the property. so they are getting light in a substantial area already. i'm repeating what jeremy has expressed. the notch -- the neighbor has a shrubbery tree along this property line for privacy, and that's the dilemma that we continually are example expressing is that the neighbors insist upon having privacy, but at the same time they want openness, so we're caught in this dilemma. i think the decision to cut back the notch eight or nine feet is appropriate and it gives us a deck that is at least functional. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> i'm jim, one of the neighbors, it was my understanding that miss moore said that the building was too

wide at the back. and so they were trying to narrow it somewhat, you know, to ameliorate some of the damage that it's done. we really thought it was the new part of the building, you know. that was our understanding, not just eight feet. so we were somewhat confused. seems like it was changed after we left. so i didn't understand how that could happen. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? no? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: this is not re-opening the d.r. hearing or negotiating if it is or it isn't. i will have to basically state for the record that i did not meet mr. williams and discussed behind closed doors or independently the decision which was not on the verbal recount by people in the