east. when asked from -- to confirm this, the designer revised it back to the smaller concession of may 30, discarding that of may 31. and submitted it on june 4. if you find this litany of revisions and kemp -- maneuvers confusing, you're certainly not alone. on thursday, they submitted the current plans. thursday and noon. -- at noon. there is a disagreement of the five-footage. we ask that you set in stone with a notice of special restrictions to avoid any future misunderstandings like this and definitely determine the location and size. thank you. president fong: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> the conflicting plans she is

referring to was the site plan sent to mary woods to ask a question about the spirit of the motion of reducing a deck, which was privacy. moving the eastern rail is a view she is concerned about which she said she would be happy with so that is ultimately in a roundabout way, i discovered because no one ever answered my question that the point of the concession of moving the railing was just to make her happy. it does not matter with the bases is. it does not matter if it makes sensor not. it is not in line with her property. i had sent the plan to ask a question and it was the wrong plan. the male was only sent to mary woods -- e-mail was only sent to mary woods. it was to the notion of, does this make sense? i never got the answer.

ultimately, we did the 5 feet and turned it in and no one else was supposed to see that e-mail. everyone here is talking about the conversations they have had with mary woods. we're not privy to any of these. the lawyer that said we tried to contact him, he contacted me two days after my deadline to ask me to put trees in the drawing. that was the first i had heard of it. there's a lot of misrepresentation going on. there was a drawing mistaken i will admit that. that is a human error. i was not trying to beguile anybody by sending marry this drawing that had the wrong dimension on it. we tried to make everything that you proposed for us to meet. and the only reason we could not meet again was because there were two motions that contradicted each other. they're calling it a reduction of the building. it is an elimination of the entire edition. that is all i have.

president fong: thank you. a number of commissioners want to speak. mary, could i ask you to come up for a minute? i know you work on alert -- a lot of large projects that do not take this much time. ?t

is it your opinion that would be the way to go? the decks and over the counter and that type of thing. >> typically 40 our cases, we do not propose conditions. this may be an exceptional case, since decks with then buildable areas, one can get the over-the- counter permit. if he is unaware of past history of the project approval, may want to increase and so on at the planning -- someone at the planning department be able to approve it. commissioner antonini: think that -- you would think an nsr was appropriate. >> i will ask you to come back

up again. let's talk about some of the things that were brought up here. first of all, there were representations about the residential guidelines which i know are not binding but there was talk about a 45-foot rear yard allowance which is more than 25% -- 45% vs. 25%. what i did this in my -- mhy math would be -- could be wrong but i came up with -- the nine foot two addition that would be proposed brings us back to a depth of, i think it was -- a total of 75 feet with 62 feet being the rear yard. and 45% of 138 feet is 62 feet. i do not know if i'm doing that

wrong. >> know. -- no. you have done that correctly. >> that is the first thing. there is talk about secondary means of egress in the rear bedroom of the proposed lower unit. i do not see any second means of egress there and i am not sure it is required. >> i guess this is a building code issue. i think this unit being on the ground floor, you have to have access to the street. it is something i can follow up with to see for ground floor unit, whether a second mean that -- means of vigorous is necessary. >> the speaker was talking about the second means of egress from what will now be the upper unit which will be the larger upper unit and i guess they do not have unless the deck does not have a staircase. there is not any that i am aware of but i am not sure if anyone

is required. >> if the deck is on the second floor, the fire department is may be seeing perhaps if you have a deck on the second floor, maybe they could have a drop ladder, not necessarily a staircase. >> these are dba issues. as long as there is some sort of emergency exit or egress offer of the deck or wherever, they would probably be satisfied but that is not before us. let's talk a little bit about what is proposed -- thank you for your work. it is very clear here. there is talk about the illness are -- nsr which i am fine with. reduce the size of the upper roof deck to, you said 400 feet

and i am writing it is 300 tricky square feet. i am not sure the number is going to be or maybe it is the douzable portion of that debt. >> the original proposed is 450 square feet. at your last hearing, you intended the roof deck should be reduced to 350 square feet. >> that is fine with me. that is what i remember. during earlier presentation, you talked about a couple of numbers that had to do with, or someone did. maybe it was the d.r. requestor. >> i think there is a small portion of the roof deck on the west side near the elevator. it is a tiny space which is not usable. i think that could be the area. sitting versus non-sitting roof area. >> we have to render its crest -- 350 square feet with a deck

being eliminated and that looks like 5 feet from each side or maybe -- was that part of the thing, too, that the elimination is coming from both sides as far as the shrinkage? >> the west side was going to remain as is because it was -- there were concerns if he shifted westward, the adjacent neighbor's deck would be somewhat in his field. the reduction came from the east side of the roof deck. 5 feet. >> that is what i see written down here and that is what i remember. there is a reduction of the rear addition by 6 inches on each side. >> right. >> ok. that is the two points. i do not remember specifically the commission asking for alignment with the rear walls of the existing adjacent buildings but i know there were

commissioner comments that suggested that. i think the project sponsor makes a good case and if you look at the plants, you have to have that addition to be able to realize the square footage down below. reestablished even with a nine- -- the 9 ft. 2 addition, there is 40% rear yard after that. i do not see a reason why you would not allow that. when you determined the rear yard, it is not the rear yard of the adjacent unit credit is the rear yard of the -- in which they prejudicing bill. that is the determining factor, i believe. >> right. in cases such as this one, it is kind of like an anomaly where you have a very deep lot adjacent to almost a lot that is half the size or have the deck. typically, 45% requirement is

the standard. because of the deepwater -- deep lot, a small one story addition encroaches into the open space but the department feels that it is only one story, it is set back and meets the open space. if it were a two-story or three story addition, i think the department would probably have a different position. >> i understand where you are saying by you have an unusual mid-block open space. the space is fairly uniform. this happens to have one the plot and the others are shallower. -- deep lot and the others are shallower. i cannot see enough here to cause a need to move this back. i think we're in is written, it

seems to be fine. the fourth part was about the rear yard patio which already seems to be in place as was shown on the earlier visualization. as long as they're not -- and looks like they're keeping that level area there and they will put some planting area there. and they will have a patio further towards the front. that will be in the rearmost. >> there is a clarification that the commission has directed staff to do to make sure the rear yard is not burdened with lots of features. that takes away its natural feature. the slope, the greenery. that was basically to clarify that point. >> i remember that part and the trees would be -- if it is a ruble to a private sponsor to

put some screaming trees -- screening trees. it would help to provide a visual barrier to the adjacent neighbors. if they would like that, that is probably appropriate. we have to have the right kind of tree because we do not want it to be too big or too small. if it is good enough to block it visually without causing a loss of any kind of light, that might be a good solution. i am basically fine with the two changes we have made. and put a notice of special restrictions. i am not making a motion yet but that would be my intent as we go forward. commissioner sugaya: is it the commission's understanding, when i watched this, i was not completely sure that the four conditions were the roof deck, the 6 inches on either side,

reducing the death of the rear addition as it was written here. is that how the motion was made in past? >> when commissioner moore made the motion, in leading up to the motion, she mentioned about the common wall for the addition to be in line with the adjacent wall. during the motion, commissioner miguel also " -- clarified that the changes that are being requested are not a defect to approval. that the commission's intended to approve but as future reference, take a look at the revised plan so that you have something concrete in terms of how the plans will look like, but whether to approve the changes or modify some of the changes. is still up to the commission.

commissioner sugaya: the motion included a strong suggestion to reduce the addition back. >> that was by commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya: but it was voted on, is that right? i am trying to get a sense of the commission -- the entire commissions understanding and direction. >> commissioner moore is raising her hand and perhaps wanted to clarify. commissioner sugaya: i am part of the -- during or after the motion, there was a suggestion that these conditions be substantially address or something to that effect. >> right. commissioner moore: what is commission agreed on is the elements which were of concern to us was first to recognize the large deep lot to the west has a

second residence. and occupied residence that has been staying in that family for five generations, this is an established residents to which any new addition or jason lot should be sensitive to. that is the way the world turns in an urban setting. the conditions are the observations we made were supposed to be invitations for creativity. that is exactly what i said. i do not see any real new design here. i see mincing and snipping and snapping of what ever. the challenge which i believe this commission posed by answering concerns have not been created in two -- turned into a more creative way to approach this building. 6 inches from the left or the right and this line, 350 square feet, 362, 400, does not mean

anything. what i expected and i said that very clearly, i want to see a small mock up model, so in context, with or without addition could be looked at 3 dimensionally. there is not one single three- dimensional drawings in the set. not even a block diagram which any competent architects can do in 3d mottling or a sketch. none of that is here. i have three sets of the same drawings. the only difference i could find is the date on one set of them. in that sense, there is only one drawing that shows some changes. to tell you the truth, based on the spirit by which i asked for a continuation of this, i'm not prepared to do this project. it just does not meet muster. i want to be really honest and i'm not going to sit here and say it will be fixed -- 6 inches

from here, 6 inches from here. it is correct. woods has given this project the most competent guidance a planner can give but it is in the hands of the architect who is being paid to make these changes, and i do not see those changes being made to my satisfaction. >> thank you, commissioners. i did want to respond to something that i think commissioner antonini mentioned a few minutes ago about encouragement of the planting of trees, landscaping. that would have to be something that would be agreed upon, agreed by the project sponsors, not something that we can actually require a landscaping

per se. anything below 3 feet above grade is not something that is under our jurisdiction. that is not something we have control over. president fong: i have to agree with commissioner moore. i was extremely disappointed when i received this revised package. knocking off 6 inches here or there was not the spirit that i expected. maybe it was. but not what i wanted. i do not think this is -- there's no way you can call at creative -- it creative redesigne and i do not feel thee has been a real give-and-take, either. there is nothing we can do to

force that. i'm not prepared to vote on this today. commissioner antonini: well, in terms of the trees which was brought by the zoning administrator designate, product sponsor, you are ok with the trees? if you want to come up, maybe you should agree to that on the record here. if we make a motion to -- >> we have discussed the trees in the past. we are amenable, where a greek -- we are agreeable. there has been some suggestion about the type of trees. you have to be selective to make sure the purpose is met and it is not a new problem. commissioner antonini: the motion will be made. we will agree to place the trees mutually acceptable to d.r.

requestor is an project sponsors and will be over 3 feet in height. we will have an ability -- quex can we do that? >> anything under 3 feet -- within 3 feet of great cannot be part of your motion. it is nice the project sponsor is willing to tell you they're agreeing but it cannot be part of the motion here. commissioner antonini: i thought if it exceeded 3 feet -- >> is a tree. landscaping generally is not under the jurisdiction. >> to have my agreement to it. >> i was going to ask that it be over 3 feet. i am not going to do that because it sounds like we have the agreement anyway. you may end up with a tree that is too tall to include it in emotion. that is my -- it in a motion. i was going to make a motion and that would be to take d.r. and

approve the project with the following conditions. number one, work with staff to reduce the upper roof deck to more than -- no more than 350 square feet. the reduction being gained by eliminating the space from the east side of the deck, and we will have a notice of a special restrictions attached to the same to make sure this cannot be changed in the future. reduce they were with the of the rear addition by 6 feet on each -- the width of the rear addition by six inches. on each side.

>> is there a second to the motion? >> without a second -- commissioner sugaya: just to reinforce one comment of commissioner moore's. i had gotten to the tape and i paged through tons of drawings which were irrelevant. there was no as she mentioned three dimensional presentation, no massing diagrams, nothing that told me what the relationship of the building as proposed in its rear yard configuration and addition to the rear and the positioning of the roof? , relationships of all those elements to the adjacent buildings. i was going to send staff a note, but, maybe i should have.

that did bother me. that said, i think that again, having looked at the video and around it back once or twice, it did seem to me that after looking at the proposed revisions that there did not seem to be a very substantive response to the comments from the commission. whether that is something along the lines of what mr. williams is suggesting which was to sculpt the addition a little bit more to reduce its apparent size, to maybe reconfiguring the floor plan itself. you have a substantial amount of square footage in the upper unit. maybe if you had to reduce the bottom unit, you could have gone up one floor to the bedroom or something like that. some kind of response that

showed some thinking went in. in -- rather what we got was 6 inches from either side and a reduction in the deck which i understand one of the dearer questors is ok with. that is fine. as far as the other kinds of discussion that took place up here in my absence, it does not seem like there was much effort put into answering the concerns of the commission. commissioner moore: i believe the commission has given to an applicant the type of guidance and a generous extension, there should be a substantive response. i do not believe this commission in the second round should sit here and design 6 inches here or 6 inches there. it is up to the architect.

we were generous enough to make four broader ideas. there -- they were basically points of guidance and a request for creative thinking. the commission has the ability to deny the project. or send it back home. and i am open minded about it. but if it is being sent home, and it comes back, it better be different and better be more responsive to their requests we're making and there'll be no further design guidance other than what we have all expressed. there are guidelines within the

areas that have plenty of examples of how to do it. this is not a green field design. this is designing within context. commissioner wu: i wanted to add on to commissioner sugaya's comment. if we do to to continue this and have it come back, i would be very disheartened to see the bedroom on the first -- the ground floor diminished in size to the extent that the first unit is unlivable. i understand that diminishing of the deck for the extension would mean that the to come back to just show that would really be a problem. i hope to see something that is much more reasonable that does not have the small first store unit and a very expensive second and third story and that if this deck is really the point of contention. commissioner antonini: what it

appears from the testimony that 1 d.r. requestor has agreed essentially to the revision of -- mr. williams, maybe i could ask you for some comments. sounded like you had said that if the bedroom remained on the ground floor where it is designed to be, you had talked about perhaps some rounding of the corners. what sort of shrinkage would make you more comfortable or revisions to the plan without reconfiguring the entire floor plan? you hinted it would be ok with some kind of changes to make it less intrusive. >> you heard from us and i submitted a brief. i think this is a faux merger

that is being done. i do not think it is right to make such a tiny and that -- unit and have this huge, large, luxurious unit. i think it is a way to get around the code. we put this out there a long time ago. that jagged edge along the yard is going to be difficult to look at. we talked about trees. if there were sculpted in, set in, i do not begin should be there all. i was looking for something creative from the point of view of hiding it, digging it down, there is a slope there, you could dig down, you could shrink it down. the floor to ceiling heights are large in the unit. it could be hidden behind the fence, that happens out in the sunset all the time. when you have these extensions into the rear yard. there is a lot of