-- directly north of the project. they have lived there since 1973, raising children there, almost 40 years. it should be obvious that most of the impact fall on the building. the building to the north from the proposed project. we appreciated last time the comments made by the commission and at the close of the hearing and the neighbors have been working diligently trying to resolve this so we could come back here and what the commission know we are all on the same page. unfortunately, that did not happen. and i know the neighbors -- would want to thank mary woods. calling out everyone and -- and

so we're acceptful of the suggestions in the memo. the neighbors would like to see the deck sized reduction. given this is a professional developer. he may live there but the building could easily be sold immediately. the neighbors do not want to lose the proposed deck, the railing could be moved with an over-the-counter permit. almost in any direction. the one issue that was discussed was the planning of the trees. she sent me an e-mail saying this would be planted as a protrusion and reduce the noise

from the rear decks. the other comment in the memo -- one of the comments was to reduce the death of the new edition and to preserve the greenery. this is the most important point from the design guidelines. and the impact here are dramatic because of the shape of this lot and the rookie it -- the location. it is the only lot that extends into the rear yard in this manner. the yards are all very small. this lot is to be -- it is divided in two. this is to lots. we would like to see the addition as recommended in the memo pullback so in alliance

with the other buildings. there are three buildings in deerow that are lined up. the point is these rear yards are so small in the adjacent homes that the proposed new protrusion virtually covers the entire yard. and remember this is the bottom of the deck. there should be another rail on top of that. we're asking the commission to make this change. there is an alternative that we discussed with the project sponsor. we would like to see some imagination used in the design of the new pop out extension. we had discussed at one. put in writing that perhaps make a semicircle so you do not have this ridge line running down the

property. it would take the corners often turned away from the rear yard and reduce the impact. there's also a question that came up in the interim that we have not answered. at some point, is there going to be a rare stair attached to this? -- deck and into the year -- rear yard. one unit would be this new area. there is no we're exit for the other unit. we urge you to adopt within the memo and take d.r. and make the changes to the project. thank you very much. president fong: thank you. speakers in favor? there's another d.r. requestor. second d.r. requestor.

>> i am judy kaiser, 2806 union street which is perpendicular and it was the yellow building that was outlined by mr. williams. good afternoon, commissioners, and commission director. thank you for your time. as you may recall, our d.r. is regarding the reduction in size and the position of a roof deck at 273537 baker. i am here to report on the progress. working with the city planner ms mary woods and in the spirit of compromise, we have come to an agreement with the sponsor. we thank ms. woods for her professionalism and dedication as an intermediary. if there have been misunderstandings in the past and disagreement -- this agreement will likely have been

impossible without her. as per pages a3 and a7, of the revision, submitted by the sponsor, we agreed to a reduction of 5 feet from the eastern boundary of the roof deck, reducing the square-foot it to better line up with the other -- square footage to better line up with the other decks in the area. the total area of the roof deck is 400 square feet, of which 335 square feet is the city area. given this has been a heated issue, and there have been repeated misunderstandings in the past and during the mediation, we ask that you, the

commission, said this agreement in stone with a notice of special restrictions. to define the size and location of the roof deck so this process may come to a clear and definitive end. as they do not require a permit notice, we asked for this notice of special restriction. thank you, commissioners and especially to the planner for your guidance and mediation during this difficult d.r. thank you. president fong: thank you. speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> i have lived almost 75 years

on our block. first with my parents at 2727 baker street and since 1989 at 2729 baker street, the home of my grandparents. today, i can only reiterate the objections to the proposed retention with a deck of 2735 baker street which i made before the commission on may 10. the extension with the deck as commissioner more so aptly described it is aggressive in that it violates the shared open green space of all the neighbors, presents a raised stage for outdoor theater better conducted in private for the good of everyone within earshot, and is esthetically inharmonious because it breaks this rare

alignment with the neighboring building. this is my house with a small cement platform in front of it. currently, i look at the ground level, paved patio at the lower end of a sloping garden. the proposed extension with the deck, surmounted by railing, built for the patio now exists would be and high-level, spatial and visual intrusion. i would find it most regrettable if the suggestion made on may 10 to keep the rear walls of the building in alignment were abandoned, particularly if the real purpose of this extension is a scheme to

create enough additional square footage within the building to slip through the annett's conversion. indeed, a mockery of the process. thank you, commissioners for your attention to this case. in particular, i want to thank commissioner moore, who, according to my understanding, was especially sensitive to my concerns in the rear cottage on may 10. president fong: thank you. additional speakers are in favor of the d.r.? >> thank you. afternoon. -- good afternoon. our prodi looks out towards the -- property looks whatout --

looks out toward the rear yard. i have taken time out of my day to be present. i could not make the last hearing. as previously signed the petition and submitted an objection letter to mary woods regarding this project. i believe there has been a lack of public outreach by the project sponsor who has not contacted me today, even after my objection letter. therefore, my opinions are largely based on information and plan supplied by my neighbors. i believe the additions to the building are excessive, unnecessary, and not fitting with the neighboring properties. in addition to the visual impact, our garden will be affected by the noise and

smells coming from decks of the property and our enjoyment of the garden will be affected. respectfully, i request the commissioner ask the project sponsor to scale back the proposal. thank you. president fong: thank you. additional speakers? >> good afternoon. i live next door to the property under review. my family has lived on baker street for five generations. the two flags next door have been nice patio and a large garden in the backyard. the proposed renovation is out of character with the neighborhood and affect the privacy and quiet of nine rear yard neighbors. he proposes to install two large garden patios, a large rear deck

and a roof deck. what is the necessity of building to patio's and two? -- two decks? it negatively impacts the neighbors who will be hearing noise and breathing barbecue smoke and tobacco smoke from parties. all the neighbors have held ground level parties in that garden spread we raise these issues at the july 2011 reapplication meeting and several times following the meeting in e-mails. i have met him only once at the precipitation meeting last year. he has responded in a hostile manner to e-mails which i sent on behalf of the neighbors. he had his lawyer send me a threatening letter in december which demanded the neighbors comments be withdrawn or he would file a lawsuit. he was demanding that we not

take part in this commissions process of public participation and input. before the last hearing in may, the neighbors attempted to meet with mr. teed at supervisor farrell's office and he refused to participate. didier specific directives to the sponsor and neighbors to work on four issues. -- you gave specific directives to the sponsor and neighbors to work on four issues. he screamed at a neighbor and an attorney saying he would never negotiate. three weeks past -- passed and the neighbors received a letter from the architect. the revised drawings did not respond to the issues the commissioners had raised. you will hear from his staff now is try to meet with the neighbors but this is simply not true.

since last hearing, and none of us have met with mr. teed. the research extension is out of the spirit of the guidelines and is an extraordinary and in appropriate. i request the commission not allow the rear yard extension or the deck as they're not necessary and disruptive to the rear yard neighbors. two patios and one rear yard deck are more than ample. thank you. >> i am a member of the adviser board. since the may 10 hearing, i too have been in e-mail discussions with mary woods and she has a halo tonight and she should. she has been remarkable. i was asking her how this proposed project complied with

the town hall neighborhood design guidelines. she presented back and forth a discussion -- the discussion points and we have disagreed. that is why we presented a letter to the commission that we wanted the commission to take d.r. on this proposed project. we did not feel the projected comply with the guidelines. -- complied with the guidelines. back in may, it was presented to the commission that they policy of a 45% rear yard was a basis for the project compliance. the 35 foot height limit is intended -- this 45% policy is just that. it is not adopted by the commission. nor is the section in the appendix on height.

the 35-foot height limit is intended to be absolute. no roof appurtenances such as parapets, elevators, or penthouses are permitted. a policy not adopted but why was this not -- the section of reference to the 45% policy was? this building measured from the curb, i calculated it at 38 feet, 6 and 1/4 inches, 3 + above the association policy. reading the adopted section, what was he was the respect of the rear yard and adjacent buildings. the line of development on the rear building wall. in the adopted section, building patterns and rhythms which help to find a visual character should be respected. adopt a section, intrusions into the rear yard even though

permitted may not be appropriate if they fail to respect the mid- block open space. we feel this project does not respect the mid-block open space. in addition on roofline, in the adopted section, as important as the patterns -- is the perception [unintelligible] the checklist that cal hollow has where a project complies and where does not and somewhat. where there was no complaint was the building design and its respect for the rear yard patterns. where did comply somewhat -- president fong: thank you. >> thank you. >> i have been in city hall for

30 years and in the planning department. i have never seen a plan that was okayed without a second means of egress. the only second means of egress for the upper unit is through the bedroom of the replaced unit. there is no intention of using the second unit as a rental if the second means of egress is through the bedroom of the adopted unit. my question is, where is it going to be? should there be special restrictions that that second unit must be used as a rental unit, and i do not want to have this be a precedent for the rest of the city. this is something that has bubbled my mind.

with deep regret, i am making this speech. and this also has bothered me because the second unit is being expanded outside of the existing square footage which goes against the master plan, against the demolition replacement plan as written. this down the line is going to cause future lawsuits for this department. someone else is going to probably take it to the hilt. i want you to be well aware that affordable housing is being demolished, there does not look to be a fair replacement apartment, a legitimate one. the fact that there is no means of egress in the second unit in the first unit and there must be some work if there is a second means of egress applied when it finally hits. it should be under the special use of restrictions that the

neighbors should have complete input and work on a solution. thank you. president fong: thank you. are there additional comments supporting the d.r.? if not, project sponsor. >> good very late afternoon. thank you for your patience. i will be relatively quick and turn it over to the architect. >> would you state your name? >> i am brian soriano on behalf of the project sponsor. this was analogize to the old program "the bickersons." i do join in the praise of mary woods.

because these two sides could not get along, she did act as the go-between in she was inundated from both sides and she deserves if not a vacation but everybody is appreciation. there are only two d.r. clusters but there are a number of people banding together here out of loyalty and friendship. i'm a big fan of loyalty and friendship i do not think there is an appropriate concern about the impact of this project. throughout the afternoon, we heard concerns about projects that are great to have serious impact on neighborhoods that make these pale by comparison. the city agrees and we believe that we not only comply with the city code requirements but their own neighborhood association code requirements. we believed that we came here laugh -- last time. commissioner antonini made some suggestions about reducing the size of the deck and moving it to try to adjust -- address legitimate concerns about privacy and keeping things

consistent. we have done that to the extent we can. i will turn it over to kellie content to show that we have reduced the deck and moved it to the west. we have a privacy screen and the terror questors have said all the concerns have been addressed yet there is -- they are still here because they are -- there are ad hominem issues about the project sponsors. let me turn it over to her. commissioner moore did raise the concern about the outdoor area of the open space in the backyard. we have some photos to show this elevation issue is an existing condition. that is not part of our plan. any concerns that are coming about a raised platform, we're not raising anything, that was at an existing condition. that was when it went to address last time we did not have the of brittany. let me get kellie out here -- kelly out here.

>> on the overhead, i am kelly condon. this is to illustrate this portion of the backyard with the patio that was being discussed is already elevated. we are moving the stairs which are back in the corner. you cannot see them, they are in shadow. we're moving them in the center to go there. this is slow to just enough -- sloped just enough. there would be plenty all around the patio and the one change i did make since the previous presentation before i had shown the planters as flat and they should slope up to the retaining walls. there is an existing retaining wall at the back of the property. the remains and that is the wall

we will be sloping the great back up to at the patio. that is the patio issue. one of the points in the -- this is the memo. that mary would put out to explain what we did and did not meet. there were two motions that contradicted. one was to move the orioles in 6 inches and the other said to possibly reduce the addition to be in line with the adjacent buildings. the adjacent buildings are flush to the existing buildings. if we reduced to the addition, there would be no edition at all. if we reduced the addition, the rate distributed units would not exist because all the living spaces are crunched into that far corner. is that all the time i have?

president fong: 30 seconds. >> this is just the four plan -- floor plan. this is the addition re here. it ends of comprising the whole bedroom. and all the living space starts from this point back. everything leading up to that is usable but you're not going to hang out there. it will hang out in the kitchen, dining, living area. president fong: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor? dear quaestors, u.h.f. too many rebuttals. -- d.r. requestors, you each have two minute rebuttals. >> i am here on behalf of one

of the neighbors. not much to rebut. the project sponsors seem to say that they have complied and the memo and produce as they have not. the recommendation from the planner is set out there. you have heard from the neighbors. you have heard from the direct neighbors as well as the surrounding neighbors, you have a petition with 24 immediate neighbors and you heard from the neighborhood association. this violates the guidelines. if we're not going to reduce it to land with the existing buildings which i think is the proper thing to do. if you are going to respect and enforce the design guidelines, if you're not going to do that, what's shaping. let's move it off of that so we do not have this wall, this towering wall on this tiny backyard that the family has had for the last few years. it would ease those corners

away. and the plants and trees. the views are blocked of that large new extension in the rear yard. again, we urge you to use the notices special restrictions to make sure these items are enforced. we had a difficult time communicating with the project sponsor throughout this entire project. fairly confident that if we do not have the nfr's, much of this will not get done at all. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> i am going to be speaking very briefly to the process, the mediation process. it has been a difficult one. even when working through the city planner, the sponsors on several occasions claimed our previous agreements to indicated to us by the planner were

misunderstandings. subsequently one week -- they tried to whittle away the grim and time again. on may 17 we agreed to a compromise of the 5 foot setback. we called it the original [unintelligible] the sponsor rescinded this compromise claming it was a misunderstanding by the planner and then attempted a confusing barrage of revisions. on may 19 -- 29, they were parsing the words, removing space from the east. they started moving space from the south. pages a3 and a7 of the same plans did not agree on the dimensions. may 30 saw a lone a7 page. may 31 saw the planner receiving a3