>> that is the motion. comissiomer sugaya: second. >> the motion on the floor is to take d.r. and approve the project with conditions that the hours of operation are modified to go to midnight instead of 2:00 p.m., until review in six months. if there are no complaints, they can go until 2:00 a.m. that they establish a community liaison. that they configure the interior -- commissioner borden: that they consider ways to activate the front. that is all. >> that they consider reconfiguring the space to activate the front. and that the institute the good neighbor policies we have for other entertainment uses.

comissiomer sugaya: that is no alcohol, right? commissioner antonini: that is all in there. it's security. >> that is part of it. on the motion -- commissioner antonini: no. commissioner borden: ay. commissioner moore: aye. president fong: aye. comissiomer sugaya: aye. >> the motion passes. you are now on item 22 for 100 edna st.. >> good evening, planning commission. delmon washington. president fong: we have continued business. if you want to take conversation outside. mr. realtor with the bow tie mr. realtor with the bow tie?

>> the planning commission is still in session. if you can take your congratulations and commissioners -- and commiseration outside, we appreciate it. and he is really not going to pay attention. he is going to continue doing his -- thank you, adrian. >> good evening, commission. delmon washington again. this is a proposal to demolish a rear deck and construct a two- story horizontal addition at the rear of a two-story single- family residence. the extension would be a 24 foot deep, set back 5 feet from the northern side property line. the overall height of the building would not increase. after the building is expanded,

the rear wall will expand 8 feet further than the rear wall of the neighboring building to the north. this property is in an rh-one district located on the northeast corner of edna and marson. it slopes upwards to the rear. the parcel is developed and constructed originally in 1938. the majority of the houses on this block were built between 1913 and 1969. there are family residences. the residential design team felt the privacy concerns were not exceptional or extraordinary when considering there are no windows facing the d.r. requestor's residents. there are no impacts on their interior living space resulting from a proposed horizontal addition.

also, when you lateral slope is taken into consideration, it is effectively a one story above grade addition that extends beyond the wall, while maintaining a five-foot side setback. this addition would have no more impact than a 10 foot tall fence, which is allowed by code. therefore, the massing would not have any unusual light and air affect. the addition would not create a significant adverse impact on this adjacent residents, for the reasons stated above. the project -- the planning department finds there is no exceptional circumstance and the commission should not take discretionary review. this concludes my presentation. i would be happy to entertain any questions. president fong: d.r. requestor?

>> thank you, commission. my name is brad dorn. i am the homeowner. i live there with my wife and daughters. i have lived there for six years now. i have lived in the county since 1997. i want to put it on the outset that i am not opposed to building. i am not opposed to construction. i am not opposed to remodels. i definitely believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i think constructing this building would give happiness and a dwelling for a larger family. it will give them health, which gives the life.

i should disclose that not only am i the adjacent property owner, but i am a general contractor here, with a license. i own a construction company. a perform residential and light commercial projects here in the city. from the onset, it has been my general experience with clients that when we go into something like this, there is usually some sort of open dialogue they can have, and that you could bring appear different points, rather than having them brought here. this is the final say, or potentially later on. it is just a slight grievance. there has been minimal correspondence. we have done the application

meeting. there was the 30 day notification. it was only after that of the lead architect reached out. there was a communication issue there. i asked for a dialogue about this. that never happened. there was no release sincere outreach -- really sincere out reach. i would like to have a dialogue about this issue. i will just get straight to the points. i want to spend maybe 30 seconds on the block. it is actually a really unique block. if you look at the overheads, there is a lot -- meaning the private pictures from the planning board.

on the east side, there is for -- four arts and crafts homes, prole built at the same time. then there is 100 edna, which is, i would say, a little bit of a wet dog. no disrespect. on the other side, on the west side, there are seven homes. five of them are arts and crafts. i would say within the scope of the district there is -- no one is historic a preserved. but if you go to the building department, there are definitely windows. you know what i mean? there is a lot of character, a lot of detail. there is definitely not of uniqueness -- a lot of newness. if you look at the elevation of what is being proposed, we are

getting more of the same. it is faulty. it has a lot of mass. it is boxy. it is apartment like. it is flat. it is uninspired. it has no rhythm to the window layout. and i do not pull this out of my hat. i think this does not follow the guidelines are outlines, the -- the guidelines, the residential design guidelines from san francisco. if you looked at the principles of the residential guidelines, five of the six are not being followed. more importantly, if you look at the guidelines to provide greater visual emphasis to corner buildings, that is not being followed at all. also, the guideline in areas

with a defined visible character, to design with the features of surrounding buildings, and the context of a corner lot -- there should be concerned how the project relates to buildings on both streets. president fong: thank you very much. are there any speakers in favor of the d.r.? project sponsored? -- project sponsor? >> i and the architect with the project. -- i am the architect with the project. regarding the concern, from the very beginning of the project, we had started contacting and meeting with him, and i sat down

with him. we told him the design. in the later phase of the project, we also contacted and left a message, but somehow he just never returned it. i don't know how his schedule is. it is hard to get ahold of him. the second thing is he's also mentioned, about the design on this project. the existing building is in a bad condition. the shingles are really old. it is not safe to keep the old shingles. it is easy to fall down.

it is not able to last longer. it fits right into the neighborhood. stucco is really typical. it is really typical in the neighborhood. i think definitely the design is an improvement to the house. we got into the design of the house, the layout. mr. chu has a big family. he has three kids, and his parents live with him. he needs a certain amount of space for his family. the only space he can build on from the yard -- i think the addition makes sense. i understand the addition does

block his living room, but we have 5 feet set back from the property line. that comes right from the planning code. i think you can see that all of this effort we put in -- we can get ok with the project. thank you. president fong: are other speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> my name is joey chen. i have been living there since 1996. i love the neighborhood. every day, still remodeling.

i just want to give my kids a bigger house. i do not know what he is complaining about. that is what i want to say. president fong: thank you. d.r. requestor, you have two minutes, if you want. >> i just want to encourage the commission to take the opportunity at this point to reevaluate the provided architectural plan, and once a project is under construction, it is built for a good chunk of time. i think it is not that egregious to revisit the plants and to put a sincere effort into something that is inspired and within the

residential design guidelines. there is nothing being done to the front deck? there was a permit issued for that at some time. i do not know how cars are affected. there was a permit also to capture the footprint of the garage. there is currently no rush as well. -- garage as well. what is being used as parking is the egress, which you can see in the picture. again, i am not opposed to building. i encourage happiness for them. i want them to construct some point. i just wanted to be within the city guidelines for a corner lot especially.

just a revision, to reevaluate. thank you. president fong: project sponsor? >> i will make it brief. i just want to emphasize that the desire is an improvement to the existing building. we replace all the old shingles, and replace the existing siding, also the stucco. i believe this is definitely an improvement for the family and the community. that is all. thank you. commissioner antonini: thank you. i agree with d.r. requestor that this particular house needs to work. it is a little hard to tell from

the renderings how it will appear when it is finished on the front. the photos in our record are discouraging. it does not look like it has been cleaned in three years, and there is a car parked in the yard, which is not what you're supposed to be doing. i would hope that is all going to be stricken up a little bit. the way this was designed is an odd looking house, with an entrance coming from the staircase, and the deck in the front of it is pretty strange. the other question comes to mind is it appears the neighbor's house and many of the others have a third floor or upstairs over the living quarters. it seems that might have been the better way to go, up rather than out. but i guess that decision was made. aesthetically, it would probably have been better looking. the other problem i have is a look at these plans and i want

to make sure -- may be staffed and fill me in. the lower floor, there is no exterior entrance to that living space. usually, we try to have a downstairs matrix. there is a second bathroom in there which is in an odd position. it looks as if you have your two bedrooms being serviced by this path, and you have a separate toilet in the family room. i guess that is probably ok, but it is a little strange. is there a separate means of entrance to that lower unit without coming to the upstairs? >> there is a direct entrance of the garage. but it is actually through the garage into the habitable space. this floor plan is still complying with our matrix. the have access to the upper

floors, an interior stairwell. direct access through the garage. but there is a pedestrian entrance. commissioner antonini: there is no other entrance into their? -- there? the have to go into the garage, and from there into the unit? >> correct. commissioner antonini: as long as that is consistent. i did not want to do an nsr on this space. >> they have an interior connection. commissioner antonini: mention was made of the windows. i hope the windows would be contexture with the neighborhood and of the quality be specified. >> that are identified as a would sash. -- they are identified as a wood

sah, aluminum-clad wood trim. commissioner moore: the building as it is proposed, and we might all have other ideas of what it should be, is fully compliant, correct? >> correct. commissioner moore: that spirit is somewhat not in our purview to discuss how someone wants to lay out his interiors and get in and out of his building. what we should be concerned about is how this building presents itself to the outside, given that we have the normal dimensions of a lot. the expansion goes to the rear. the only thing, although that is not the purview of this commission either, i would encourage the owner why he built -- while he built the addition

to find a better way to have the building meet the side street. since it is a corner lot and at this moment it is basically a rutted, and landscaped -- un- landscaped space, and it is illegal to park a car on unimproved property -- >> may i interrupt? commissioner moore: i am not asking you to. in a minute, i may choose to. perhaps that might have been an explanation for the adjoining neighbor to make it a more inviting treatment of the corner. some green, some plants inside the set back. make it a softer thing. i can get into whether i like the elevation with the way the windows run. i would have other design ideas, but i am not asking for that now.

right now, if you would not mind stepping up to the deck -- the electorate. -- lectern. would you listen to what i am asking, please? do you have any sketch ideas of how you want to treat the side? is there an idea of a fence? is there an idea of a garden? you cannot parking car on there. -- park a car on there. >> officially, that is part of the street. nobody should part here. i do not know where that car comes from. commissioner moore: indeed, i think you might have to ask as the owner that that be taken care of by someone. i am glad you are explaining that. i think it would be helpful for you to have a better building

the would not look that way. perhaps there needs to be some grass or bushes in there to help you. i would strongly support that. i greatly appreciate you explain that to me. -- explaining that to me. we will try to find somebody to attend to that anyway. i am in support of this building expansion. i suggest we do not take d.r. and approve it as is. that is a motion. commissioner borden: second. commissioner moore: i just made a motion that we approved as is, advising the department to help this no man's land. >> we can bring that up with the department of public works. commissioner borden: i seconded it. commissioner antonini: you know,

we don't necessarily have to comment on an existing structure when an addition is being made. our review is on the addition. however, we look at the general neighborhood context and make suggestions as to what would be possible to make this fit a little bit better into their. -- into there. although it is not what the d.r. was filed on, neighborhood context is always important, and maybe we could do things to make it a little bit pleasant. commissioner moore: if i am correct, i think the applicant was describing that the shingles would be redone, which i think would really upgrade the overall impression of the building. old and new would not look in stark contrast. that is my hope, that that is properly done.

i do not think there will be shingles anywhere. commissioner moore: that -- commissioner antonini: that is what i heard, that there would be stucco. comissiomer sugaya: will the architect comment on the siding? you are indicating redwood siding on the facility. have you priced it lately? >> um -- i think that is -- no, we haven't. comissiomer sugaya: thank you. commissioner moore: if we are

approving in building with redwood siding and that has not been priced, we are talking about very expensive material. in the event we are approving something which because of cost would not be achievable, what guarantees do we have but we do not find some other material which is really not in the spirit of what we are approving? >> we are looking to take a step back. if the commission went so far as to bring it back to the commission before we were to take a drastic step -- if they were to change from redwood siding to something comparable, perhaps pressed a little bit more reasonable -- i cannot think of a typical material

right now. if there was a change, it would most likely make the entire building stucco, as opposed to having sighting on the upper floor -- siding on the upper floor, rather than to come in with another material. commissioner moore: i know you do not design many residential buildings, but i am put on notice with commissioner sugaya asking a very reasonable question because of the high cost of redwood. it is an endangered species and hardly in stock anymore. the designer might put the owner himself in a difficult position, not being able to deliver this material. >> that is a possibility.

you could take that into consideration as you design the structure, so you do not have to come back with changes midway and when you are in the middle of construction. the approval is for this structure, which will approve plans with redwood siding. it could be returned to the commission. commissioner moore: the approval contains that obligation, based on the discussion this commission is having. there has to be an equal understanding of what the conditions are. >> to understand that if there are changes, it is possible you would have to return to the commission.

commissioner moore: and it is not just the side. it is the entire building. comissiomer sugaya: commissioner moore: is there any additional comment? that is what we are asking you. >> the commission would like to specify that the entire building be clad in redwood as opposed to partially stucco. >> the plans that we have that we are approving show the material.