communication. the problem is i sent an e-mail to the architect eight days ago and i got a response yesterday. >> thank you. i appreciate your comments. the way i'm seeing it is with short of the commission redesigning the entire addition, or the real objection especially from one set of d.r. requesters is the presence of the extension of the bedroom where it's visible there and it would be nicer if it were less visible. that's what i'm hearing. obviously, it can't be any smaller. commissioner wu talked about you have to have a decent size unit and this is a very nice, smaller unit with a bedroom, dining area, kitchen, bath that fits in well with that. but you do need that rear extension. so project sponsor, i don't know if you're amenable to changes that were spoken about, perhaps if there's a chance bringing that down a little bit, maybe a few feet lower to make the unit less visible from the adjacent

property. i'm just asking if that's a possibility here. sounds like a is solution. what -- >> bringing less -- >> the bedroom portion of the addition, you would end up probably with a ramp or some stairs there to go from one part of the unit to the other but perhaps if you went from your dining area there on the lower unit and had a little step down of two or three steps down into the bedroom or a ramp or something like that and you dropped it down. >> the bedroom is excavated two feet down. that's why i think there was a misunderstanding about the rear yard being raised. because we had to add a couple of steps to get up to the yard. this whole addition is sunk two feet lower than the existing rate. >> what's our height there? it should be on the plans, i guess. >> it's a little hard to go through these. i think there might be still some misunderstandings because there are two sets of plans. the ones stapled to the front

are the old plans. the ones at the back, if you look at sheet a-11, can you see the height of the railing, the height of the solid portion of the walls versus grade -- let me actually look at the different drawings. >> it looks like -- >> ok. >> the elevation going. >> it's 15 feet from 15 feet from the top of the railing from the new grade. the new grade is lower than the existing grade. let me look at my floor plan. >> but the great of the actual -- it looks like 11-6 to me on those plans. >> the grade has been lowered two foot four. so right, that would be about 12 foot eight.

to the top of the solid portion of the railing. >> solid part, yes. i don't know, the only other thing that's been hinted at is rounding of corners but i don't know if that will really -- maybe on the deck itself but don't know how much we're going to gain from that. if that makes project sponsor, d.r. request happier perhaps rounded corners on the edge of the deck railings might be helpful, i don't know. might make it a little less -- look a little less like it's a square out there. that might be something i'm going to suggest. >> right f we put the trees in then, it will be from view as well. and then i would just like to say, my understanding of what i was supposed to present here was i thought i just had tookt on the motions and that the -- you made a comment about the details needed to be seen in drawing form, i did not know that meant

you wanted a 3d model. i can do that. it just wasn't something i realized was proposed. >> thank you. i appreciate it. those would be suggestions either tonight or if we can't get approval from the commission tonight, then if we do have to hear it again, i don't really see any way that you're not going to be able to have that extension because the unit has to work. and i don't feel it's our place to start redesigning your entire project, sponsor's entire plan to change all of the interior dimensions of it to create two different sized units. but we're supposed to address the d.r.'s in my opinion is the impact on the neighbors and if we can minimize the impact on the neighbors, then the configurations really, you know, are within the code and they're within the compliance with the unit mix. so i don't really see where that's our place to do it. but we will see where we go from there. we may have to have a continuance.

commissioner moore? commickser moore: i would like to make a motion this project is being continued. the challenge which proposed to this project would be -- the architect is encouraged to reconsider and work with these considerations including the depiction of the three-dimensional impact as well as potentially looking at resizing, rearranging in order to meet modification of the building as it stands. >> second. >> continued to when? commissioner moore: it would take six to eight weeks in order for this to be done correctly. >> let's pick a date. >> are we talking the august 16th hearing? commissioner moore: that sounds fine.

>> ok. president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: my feeling, although i only speak for myself the architect for the project spnser worked with the d.r. requesters in regards to impacts to the d.r. requesters, that is what the d.r. is about. and i'm not in favor, if you did come up with some sort of redesign, that probably would satisfy some of the thing that's have been brought up by the commissioners, but we have been down this road already and we know that this is compliant and there's not a problem here. and they want a distribution of the units that makes one unit larger and one unit smaller. and that in my opinion is sort of their privilege to do as long as it's in keeping with our particular guidelines. went also have already -- and we also established the addition is even compliant with the radar extension allowances for the cal

hollow guidelines. anyway, we will see what we come back with on the 16th of august. president fong: commissioner wu? >> i want to echo the sentiment asking project sponsors to work with the neighbors. although i will vote for the continuance, hate to see it come back to commission again. i really would hope you can come up with a solution outside of this room. president fong: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i thought that the four points were actually conditions. but that doesn't seem to be the way the discussion went. and miss wood's interpretation of one of those conditions was that it be brought back, the addition be lobbed off and they bring the wall back. that was never even addressed.

so i'm kind of surprised that we are even sitting around talking about this except that somehow there seems to be some -- not miss understanding but interpretation that maybe that wasn't really the case and maybe that wasn't really part of the motion but it was discussed but not everybody agreed on it. i don't know where it is. all i could go by is what staff presented and it seemed to me that not addressing it was just flying in your face of the commission's condition. and that's what i didn't like about it. so i think -- i still think we don't have agreement on whether or not the addition has to be removed or not. but i am of the feeling that it should -- should be or if it isn't, there has to be some kind of creative approach to it, even to the extent of putting the bedroom upstairs. so that i think is all on the table for me at the moment.

and that's why i will vote for the motion. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: everything commissioner sugaya said i fully support. i understood our conditions more as conditions. there were suggestions and conditions on the other hand. i don't want to go there. it wasn't quite delivered today so we're giving it another chance. >> just as a reminder, every d.r. case is code compliant to begin with. so to continually make arguments that a project is code compliant , it doesn't do anything. commissioner moore is right. because every -- everything that gets d.r.'d to us is ultimately code compliant in the first place. commissioner sugaya, i understand that but there's a different between code compliant and neighborhood guidelines that

are extraordinary and we have those in different then. so the cal hollow guidelines are not part of the code but they are what is cat hollow association likes us to address and it's compliant with both. so it's not just the d.r. condition. >> that's not what i heard on testimony. >> with apologies to mary wood, i will call the question. >> commissioner, my understanding is the motion on the floor is for continuance of this item. the commission has made further suggestions for modification and change of the project, including working with the neighbor that are affected by this and the public hearing has to remain open because you have requested change. and this item would be continued to august 16th on that motion.

commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> that motion carried 6-0. thank you, commissioners. commissioners, you're on item 16 a and b. case 201216-a, 2012.0039d to 318, arleta avenue and 16b, case 202.0157d. arleta avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners and staff planning department staff. the splan to demolish a two-story dwelling and replace with a two-story one-unit dwelling. the new structure will be in conformity. it has front and backyard and

other applicable requirements. the building has been substantially demolished. in 2009 the owner received building permit to remodel interior. according to the field report filed by the department of building inspection, all interior room partitions on the first and second floors were removed. and the building collapsed subsequently on october 3, 2009. the property was barricaded to protect pedestrians from possible further collapse and hazards. a building was filed and approved on october 8, 2009, to allow emergency partial collapse debris and removal. on november 12, 2009, the same owner filed the building permit to reconstruct the building. since the majority of the building has been demolished, the project has determined to be ten amount to demolition. management discretion to review was filedian 2012. since zonesing allowed for single family dwelling and demolition was not act of god,

replacement of the nonconforming two-family dwelling is not permitted. overall designed scales of materials and replacement structure are combustible with block face and residential neighborhood character. residents will review the proposal and was in general support of the project scale and design due to the mixed mid-block contest and since the project is similar in blueprint to the previously existing structure on the lot, resulting in minimal net new impacts. so there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the project. the project qualifies for administrative approval because it is in general conformity to the existing building footprint and cost repairs or structures to its previous liveable condition would clearly exceed 50% of the replacement cost since the big building has already been demolished. the project would create one family size four bedroom dwelling, no tenants would be displaced as a result of the project. given the scale of the project, there would be no specific

impact on existing capacity of local street system or muni. the rh-1 zoning district allows one dwelling unit on this lot. the district is intending to accommodate lower density. project is therefore an appropriate in-fill development. and the department recommends the d.r. an prove the project. thank you. president fong: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. s.i.a. consulting. we got into this project as a three-lot project. we initially filed the permit to restore the existing building that is at subject property. we proposed full foundation replacement, fabric upgrade restoration of the facade, and permit was achieved.

and construction resumed and the foundation was replaced, removed and replaced and they were in the process of -- they removed all of the sheetrock from the -- from the walls and they were setting the new walls in. and the new roof was -- the new roof was removed and new roof was supposed to go in and exactly at the wrong time that day, that night of october 3rd was extremely high winds and due to the lack of weight really, i would say, of the building because all of the roofing members and sheetrock and all of that was removed, the building was lifted and demolished basically. the client immediately hired us to be able to replace the tree unit that was on that lot with a

similar building and we submitted plans that was to construct a new two-unit building with the same footprint in bulk of the original building that was sitting there once. after a few months of process, planning department deemed the project basically demolished and has asked that my client to return -- to turn this building into a single family. this was a some financial hardship to my client and they really wanted to keep both units from what we understand the quote does not allow that to get rebuilt.

we are an architecture engineering firm. architects and engineers on staff doing over 100 projects in the year for the last 125 years. architecture the last 10 years. and we have never had anything like this happen to anything that we have done. although we were not in charge of this prong, but i think the cause of the demolition was just wrong timing of that windy night. i hope that you look at this project and approve the project as proposed. i'm available, and the owner is available for any comments you may have. thank you. president fong: thank you s there public comment on this item? none. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i could talk to project sponsor -- president fong: public comment closed. commissioner antonini: thanks. i called you today. i guess you got the message. >> i did.

i returned your call. it was late. commissioner antonini: i am looking at the renderings of the facade. i don't think it's sympathetic to the two new structures or recently built structures are on either side of it or to the structure that was there before. in particular, you know, there seems to be a cornous line before the peaked roof that was not represented, not that it has to be. and then window treepts are unimaginative and -- treatments are unimaginative. there are no mollants. the door seems to be routed right at ground level which may be the case but the other two buildings at least have some sort of entry steps and brought the entry door up to give it a little more representation and welcoming nature to it. these are some of the things i see and certainly a door that looks somewhat like a glass

section in the middle of wood or some other material around it instead of just solid glass is, the same with the window above it. the other structures all have bays on them or as did -- this seems to have a flat window with the deck out in front of it. so i would like to see -- work with staff on the facade for sure and see if other commissionerses have feelings because it could be a much more attractive building if we tried to do the types of thing that's were done with the two adjacent or look for the earlier element. unfortunately blew down as a representation of some ideas how to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i'm reading the building inspector's report. it seems a little different than the characterization of the building at the time the wind supposedly happen. it says here the subject

building is under alteration with the interior wall on the first floor story street level all removed. now, is that standard practice, that you would go in and remove all of the interior walls on the first level? >> let me check. commissioner sugaya: the second story collapse totally sideways with the attic towards the southeast side where the empty lot is located. most, if not all of the exterior wall studs were disconnected from their original contact. so it wasn't just the sheetrock that was removed. it seems like there were other things that were done. it just doesn't seem like a is situation where a little bit of wind just knocked the bimmeding over because some sheetrock came off on the interior. and i don't know how to characterize that except when i

was on the board of appeals, there were several instance where's contractors would come -- contractors would come in and say there's so much dry rot, we had to remove all of the interior walls. and you go well, isn't that going to result in a situation where the building could be subject to imminent collapse? so i -- you know, i'm just pointing something out, that it just doesn't -- i don't want to be in the business of rewarding people for intentionally -- i'm not saying this happened, but from the building inspector's report, it seems awfully suspicious that all interior walls were removed both on the first floor and second floor and to expect the building to stand up on its own. >> is it ok if i respond? >> i'm not looking for a response. it was just a comment. i also agree with commissioner antonini the front wood elevation looks like hell and has to be redone. d.r. and approve the project with project sponsor working

with planning staff to redesign the front facade. >> second. president fong: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: in support of what commissioner sugaya and initiated by commissioner antonini said, i do think that there are three examples of facades which together read better than what the position does. it's not as important when you look at building one and three but the demonstration wood frame, windows, volumes we expect the garage door is much too prominent because it's carved out in white and looks like a large hole and what was supposed to be pedestrian entrance, we normally refer to as front door, is too narrow. i think we need reproportioning

here and the rhythm and scaling of the facade, which is reminisceant of the others. president fong: president fong: there's a motion and second. >> i'm assuming commissioner moore's comments are included in your motions? commissioner, the motion before you is to take discretionary review and approve the project requiring that the front facade be reworked with project -- with department staff and incorporating the comment of commissioner moore. on that motion? and commissioner antonini. i'm sorry. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye, >> commission mare gel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you. commissioners, i'm assuming that the motion is for both the demolition that has no condition and that the new construction is basically as we have just

stated. thank you. commissioners, you're now on item number 17. >> case number 2012.0577d for 264 dore street. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. the case before you is request for discretionary review of proposed new construction two-story approximately 26-foot tall automobile repair facility at 264 dore street. the proposed building would cover the entire property which was just shy of 2,000 square feet in area and property is currently vacant and most recently used as a parking lot. the d.r. request is the 465 tenth street condominium homeowners association which represents the building at the rear of 264 dore street. their concerns include potential impacts to historic resource building, property values and lying to the rear deck area. they recommend that the proposed

be modified to create rear step-back at the second floor or have the rule wall of the proposed building be angled to allow more light and air into their deck space or some combination of the two options. regarding public comment, the department did not receive any written comments regarding this case, however, we did receive one phone call in support of the project as proposed from someone who works on the block. this project was not reviewed by the residential design team because it's not a residential development and subject property is not in a residential zoning district. therefore, the residential design guidelines do not apply. compliance department considers the project to be a reasonable proposal considering it is located within a 40-foot height district and primarily commercial and industrial zoning district that does not otherwise permit residential development. relatively modest proposal was also found to have no impact on the historic aspect of the d.r. requester's building and as such the department does not find skepsal or extraor therefore, we recommend the

planning commission to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. president fong: project sponsor? >> president, i'm sorry, this is the d.r. president fong: my apologies. >> we need the d.r. requester. i'm sorry. the d.r., yes. >> my name is themeous mickous. live in the condominium association. i'm the designated representation. i was very happy to hear all of the wonderful remarks about the new republic bank because i incorporated that bank. so naturally my comments will have additional weight. i think i boil down the argument into two basic objections to what mr. teague said.

the area is zoned service light industrial. as i have argued, that doesn't justify the allowing of new construction that would severely diminish the uses and liveability of a pre-existing use. our status in the neighborhood is grandfathered in. we were there first. before the zoning was adopted, i'm pretty sure. it's a severe setback to the liveability of these units and i don't want to get into an argument about values, but the collective decrease of value of our units in our building substantially outweighs any -- necessity possible benefit the developer is going to have. secondly, i don't know what your policy is on this. this is a registered national landmark. a member of your staff has already commented to me that it's of historical interest in san francisco. it's where the stage sets were made for all of the silent movies during the 1920's.

it's a very important building. it's true new construction is behind the building. but we don't think there ought to be any additional desecration to the building. the past buildings went up to a per apet level that we have. we don't think anything should go any higher but we are willing to compromise if that is necessary. we sent you some extensive subject drawings. i'm sorry they didn't get there until yesterday. i didn't realize one of our residents was a licensed arc teblingt until quite recently -- architect quite recently and that young lady is willing to speak to you and answer any questions you might have. i think we have been most troubled by the absolute opaqueness of the developer, this absolute refusal to compromise and talk with us at all. initially, there was talk. it was immediately squashed. members of his staff came up with some ideas. he said absolutely not. he's going forward the way it is. it's the type of bull headedness that i don't think belongs in this situation. i think this is a classic case for the exercise of your

discretion under the d.r. regulations to mitigate the obstructions to rather the desecration of the land mark and diminishment of our use. we will hope that you would act accordingly. and i would like to introduce now miss erica shlick, who would talk more about the plans we suggested. we have suggested these time after time and absolutely hit a stonewall. thank you. >> hi, my name is ericia, i'm a licensed architect and an active member of our community. i want to start by being clear we want the applicant to build on this par cell. he should respect and work with the ability that he is building in and not negatively impact the outstanding residences. the primary use is residential. further more, those of us who further more, those of us who work in the building also live