know which one of these is her window. they live in both units. get into his daughter's unit from the deck. the existing condition is a bay window facing a windows 6 inches away. if someone wanted to get into that window, it would be an existing condition. we're polling and the railing and 3 feet, far before you try to jump off a back to get into this window, you get a letter out and do it that way. as far as the kaiser's concerns -- this drawing i did, the darker, the higher. this is the subject roof deck. [tone] this is the kaiser's unit. the closest brailling is more

than 58 feet away from their windows. -- the closest railing is more than 58 feet away from their windows. he said it was immediately adjacent and it's actually to lot the way. without being too repetitious, [tone] president fong: any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor? dr request doors, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. -- >> the merger application was not withdrawn.

the rooftop deck was not reconfigured so as to be lower and easier until the drs were filed. it is opposed by 24 direct neighbors, not a single supporter. not a single one. cal hollow was here, they don't support it, it violates their policies. this commission is the guardian of the general plan. and the policies in the general plan. the policies against housing use it -- housing unit boss is the highest priority policy. it rises above all the priority policies contained in a general plan. we are asking you to draw assumptions, make conclusions from facts and we don't often get that assumption or conclusion. but in this case, you have it directly from the source that

not only do i intend to circumvent the code and do a merger year regardless of what the commission does because i've done it before -- you heard the objections from the attorney about don't use our own words against us. that's because this particular developer is doing this all the way around cow hollow. wrongfully murdering these units, the underlying policy -- wrongfully mergering these units. these folks are volunteers who work tirelessly and they have been busy. this is the community asking the commission for your assistance and your help and to enforce your policies. you have that discretion. th case could not be more simple. [tone]

>> i would like to respond to the claim that we were incorrect in stating immediate adjacency. that is a direct quote from the permit applicants response, as you can see in front of you. second, to republic -- to respond to some points -- this july 2007 meeting, the first we heard of it was a couple of months ago. not our neighbors -- not all our neighbors were invited. there is reference to an extensive roof deck. an extensive roof deck -- you can see from this diagram, the size of the roof decks are quite different. open space is already served by the very large backyard area. in the spirit of compromise, we

have been asking is not for anything huge bucket for the roof deck, we ask that it be shifted 10 feet to the west and resize consistent with the others in the neighborhood. five you heard some discussion in terms of the guidelines. the roof deck is in violation of the guidelines. page 37. furthermore -- i think i have been able to cover my points. i hope you will do you can to listen to the community in this and i appreciate your paying attention. in the last moment, we're not asking for movement of the stairs, simply changing of the seating area of the roof deck. president fong: project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal.

>> we have a letter from the previous owner. >> turn it over. >> with the previous owner explains is there was an allegation we are removing affordable housing. he says his family has owned it since the '50s and they never had on the rental market. was vacant were they let family members use of from time to time. he supports the allegation i made in that he did the same thing. he took two units and turned it into a single-family residence even though he's never done the unit merger. his attorney has accused of twice of trying to circumvent the law.

he also talked about the roof deck that is there. we've that apples and oranges as far as why these people are complaining about things that it's ok for them but not a cave with a new person in the neighborhood. before i turn it over, want to say through all these objections today, no one has identified one provision from a cow hollow association's guidelines we don't comply with. the planner has been shown we not only comply with city guidelines but the cow hollow guidelines as well. their own web sites as they don't object to applications that comply with their guidelines. >> the unit merger was removed. that was in the plant sent out to everybody. it was a revision submitted the same day.

we are within the setbacks and height limits and everything. [tone] president fong: the public hearing portion is closed. commissioner antonini: a question for mary woods, please. we talked earlier today. my understanding is it's been represented by the project's sponsor that day conform with the 45% briard open space policy. is that correct -- 45% open space policy. >> yes, they do. i will show that on the screen for you. this is part of the appendix.

it was not adopted by the planning commission in 2001 but even within the appendix, it says if you are falling, overriding 45% of your open space policy, it's ok to do an edition. the proposed one story addition is right at the 45% line. they are not intruding into the 45% open space. they are within the cow hollow appendix guideline even though the commission did not adopt it. >>commissioner antonini: it conforms to the guidelines but it is -- it does conform to the guidelines that that's because they have 137.5 feet and that allows them to have further back than other places might.

second question -- we talked about the size of the various units. you gave me some numbers today. the existing first floor unit and the planned lower unit. that is a 19% reduction in the size of the unit. >> its about 261 square feet last. commissioner antonini: very good. i have a question for brooke samson. we just heard about their rear

yard. what would the association like done with? because that's what we're talking about here -- done with the decks to make them more accessible to the is it -- more acceptable to the association. >> it we have respect briard and adjacent buildings on page 29. even though allowed by the planning code which this would be -- respect the rear yard and adjacent buildings. the intrusion of their rear yard as greater impact than just 9 feet. what we had considered is removing the debt off the extension and placing it into the rear yard as a patio instead of having the deck above ground, have it on the ground. meaning a patio in the rear

yard. the impact of the horizontal extension on the neighbor to the north is significant because his yard is a small. his -- his yard is so small. his yard is only 21 feet long. so this extension into that is significant. commissioner antonini: if they were to do a patio, they could not be the addition for the garden unit because the patio would be at the lower level. >> correct. or of the commission found the extension for the garden unit is part of the process and part of your agreement, having the deck removed and placed into the rear yard. there would be no debt on the rear horizontal extension. >> that would be one compromise

you suggest. >> use the patio as outdoor space. commissioner antonini: that i wanted to talk to michael kaiser. let's talk -- what we have heard from the association -- i did not hear much about the upper deck, but i have representation at the upstairs stacked is 457 square feet which is a pretty good size. would you be ok with a smaller debt up there? i know you want to move it to the west, but how about the size? >> that's why we're hoping for -- a movement to the west of a slightly smaller desk -- slightly smaller debt. commissioner antonini: what about at 350 square foot deck?

>> that sounds good. commissioner antonini: 1 at a time. i will talk to the project sponsor about that possibility. i have some ideas. thank you very much. project sponsor or project sponsor's attorney or the architect. probably the architect would be best. i'm trying to get to what people are talking about here and i would like to see the top deck be smaller and the move to the west. i don't know fact happen not. >> it can't work but -- it can work, but -- 13-years in the tenderloin, that's a strange

thing to grasp. you pay that much for a piece of property and you want to look at the fine arts and the day, you don't want to look at this. if i move west, of looking at a rotted? that is a fire hazard. there's like a cavity underneath it and it's all combustible material. that would be directly adjacent to our deck if we give to the back. the idea of putting it in the middle of to make it visible from the backyard at the street. icommissioner antonini: this is an issue that i see. the second part of my question is in regards to the lower deck of the bottom level home. it has already come in 3 feet, i would like to see it come in 6 inches to minimize it a little more and answer some of the concerns that the adjacent

neighbors -- may be round the corners a little bit. you still have a good-sized pack. >> we offered that at one point. -- you have a good sized deck. >> i was told of privacy was what he wanted, he could do a privacy screen and put bars of his daughters window. that's what he said to me. commissioner antonini: that is something i would be interested in looking into. my only other thing on the upper one is we have one of the situations where views are not protected either way. it's up to the commission to decide where the location is going to be and we don't want to put it in a place that takes the view into consideration. hi have some ideas on a compromise.

-- i have some ideas on a compromise. thank you. commissioner miguel: just to clarify, although i'm fairly sure i know, could you quickly review the merger guidelines as they may pertain to the reconfiguration of this building? >> sure. the merger policy is triggered when someone is combining two units or more. there are two exceptions. one, if when you reconfigure, if there will be -- if the placement of the unit is 25% smaller than the original size. in this case, the original unit was 1400 square feet and the replacement unit is about 1100 square feet.

it's only about 18% reduction. that allows them to get out of the merger requirements. commissioner miguel: that's all i needed to hear. i don't know how many here are in my age bracket, but i go back to the radio program of the big persons and that's what i'm hearing today. -- be bickersons. that annoys me. i am looking at a code compliant -- compliance with cal hollow guidelines and no variances. it is a totally legal code building,? and all. -- decks and all. i'm going to move not to take

dr and approved. commissioner moore: i would like to take this alit. understanding -- code compliance is one thing the understanding things is different. the key lot with a four -- with the living unit in the backyard and adjoining lot i think that requires consideration. what bothers me about what we're looking at is this building is extremely aggressive. it doesn't hold to common building lines, it creates a deck which is three times as large as the average back of which there are only two in the adjoining entire block. not to say that decks are wrong, but it creates another form of union -- a unit extension so it needs to have a common vocabulary.

i look at that carefully because i live in a neighborhood where the joining decks happen, but the beauty is where the art of joining them lies. this building does not speak to let a grand ideas because when it comes to the interpretation of the real yard, i would like the commissioners to open -- there is indeed a patio which is elevated and exactly 10 feet away from the little house in the backyard. we're talking about altering the mid blocked open space. it's not how the new building extension pushes it back beyond the common extension light, but it basically elevates the garden or makes it more a terrace rather than leave it like a carton rather than leaving it

informal like is and the rest of the block. that is why the building is more aggressive than what i would be comfortable approving. it's not about doing compromise. i'm not into compromise. i think the building has to be reconsidered for some common lines which serves everybody. it doesn't mean you can't have expansion and it doesn't mean you can't project on the rear wall or you can't have a roof deck or some form of patio. however, how all these pieces work with each other across the blocks is what good architecture is all about and this building seems to do that. >> you are out of line. you cannot speak out of the

audience like that. commissioner antonini: there's a motion but i do not believe it has been seconded. i would like to suggest some friendly amendments' to commissioner miguel's motion. i would like to see the upper deck cut down to 350 square feet. i would like to see 6 inches caught off the lower deck on both sides in addition to the 3 feet that are off already. i would also like to have staff work with project sponsor in regards to the project site rear yard patio to make sure it is commensurate with the rear yard situation. we're not building on a but we're putting some improvements there. i think staff would have to look at that carefully to make sure it is compliant with the whole rear yard concept of open space,

whether it still considered open space if it is a patio. >> -- commissioner moore: what the parameters would you suggest for the deck to become 350 feet? >commissioner antonini: there was a movement to the west of 10 feet that may be little extreme. but -- but the movement to the west, maybe half the distance -- you are going to have a smaller deck. i believe this is west moving toward baker and i believe this is lyon over here so we would take off the eastern part and leave in the western part.

that would be what i suggest. >> there is no motion on the floor. commissioner antonini: i would take dr and proposed changes. we are diminishing the side -- the size of the upper deck, with the area on the east being the part that eliminated to conform with 350. exactly how that comes up, we would have to work with staff. part two is 6 inches off each side of the rear yard deck. north and south if i am reading that correctly. the final part of my motion is to work with staff to make sure the patio envisioned in the

plans is in fact proper and still leaves as rear yard open space. that is the motion. president fong: is there a second? >> without a second, the motion dies. commissioner moore: i would like to offer the advice that the intent is correct but the devil is in the details. unless you really see how it works, this is very difficult to approve because given this is an aggressive building, you have to see this in the drawing form. perhaps what we should do is ask that the intent of this is being

drawn out and brought back to us. there is an intent to support the project but only until we see it in final delineation are we letting it stand at approval. is that acceptable? >> that at the commission's discretion. commissioner moore: i make a motion to continue that this commission is supporting the changes however, that changes have to be substantive in the way that has been indicated. >> second. >> to what day? >> one month.

>> june 14? commissioner miguel: i would support a motion to continue but not with the concept that we intend to approve. >> thank you. commissioner miguel: the other thing if i can ask ms. woods, there's a question regarding the patio. is there any normal control the department has that if i wish to raise or lower by patio [inaudible] >> it the rear yard is slightly sloped so there are some retaining walls. commissioner miguel: that's not the planning commission. i didn't think we have any control over that period -- and

over that period commissioner borden: i would like to see you come to an agreement by yourselves. another has been a very heated exchange between the two sides at a piquant find a way to reach across the bridge and work together because it's going to be an ugly process moving forward no matter what we do is these issues don't get resolved. president fong: this is a classic oldrancisco and there ay families have been your from multiple generations. i'm going to ask the project sponsor to be sensitive to that and i understand you have a pro forma but you are looking at and you want to maximize as much space on the property as possible to try to achieve some views and the maximum dollar

amount. but i'm going to ask to be sensitive to the neighbors and the neighbors next door, in front of, behind you who are living there. i appreciate it. i know it's difficult. it's not easy on both sides, but this is a small city and a dense city. hopefully will do your best trying to meet the needs of everybody, especially if you end up living there yourself, i hope you get along with the neighbors. commissioner antonini: i know we are dealing with a dbi issue in regards to that rear patio but as you try to work on designs and taking that into consideration, try to think about something that might be permeable, something that might be open space that is not paved in their rear-most area. while we may not have control ov