contextual within the area and all the interior spaces seem to be well-planned and open and welcoming. i understand there are areas around the station that could be used for supplemental commercial use, which will be beneficial. i'm in favor and want to see what the others have to say. >> commissioner borden? >> i'm very supportive of this project. look forward to the way it will link up, you know, people coming from -- even the fact that moscone center will have a stop will be critical, in addition to the fact you can get to china town. for a lot of tourists that circle beltway basically of union square, moscone center, china town, there will be a real way to get around. it will improve traffic congestion, circulation as well as the 30 bus line, which is always a very

congested bus line in that neighborhood. i think that the design of the center looks very interesting. obviously we lament losing this. looks like it will be a great station. i look forward to the bigger process around the transit oriented development. that is something we are looking forward to, the replacement units, seeing what we can build. obviously we would have loved to have had that as part of this project. understand that wasn't possible. look forward to seeing next step. i think we are taking the right approach and moving forward. looking for creating more process around how we develop the right project that will support this station and help it be successful. i'm very supportive. commissioner moore. >> there is no doubt that this commission has and continues to support the corridor development. i would like to cast the

questions i asked a little bit broader. i am a little concerned about the piecemealing and fragmentation of process. when the eir was approved in february i think it was, there were clear instructions the description of station design, part of how the eir went, was not at all conclusive to what is intended, what is in front of us today has not added anymore detail but i clearly understand what is applied. i have had lengthy discussions with ms. wadi who herself doesn't have answers which haven't been created. what we are approving is really not much more than the head house with the implied understanding that there will be potentially the building, a three-dimensional object part of the review. and one part a station

entrance and one in part of t.o.d. that may or may not materialize. this implies transitory is an indication of use of site that is implied in the word that. is what the practice does. i do think that should be part of disclosure * by which this commission structures approval. i ask these questions. there is no programmatic outline of potential uses, or idea about what this building might contain, how tall, what architectural expressions it would require. we are in an emerging historical district. the state itself requires basically, ignoring the fact a building over 50 feet in width requires more modulation on the facade than this particular approved hardwood fascia is putting in front of us today. i'm asking again and repeating my question.

the piecemealing and fragmentation of process, or art piece, the main feature of the building is approved before we have created conditional approval to approve the structure which holds this. for me it a confusing sequence of steps. i'm bewildered that there is quite a bit of uncertainty and unanswered questions. i'm not even talking about those from a number of people in the community which talk about historic preservation and process related to eir and ceqa. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm supportive of the conditional use approval. i'm heartened to see there will be a process to see the transit oriented development and process to the elevator and escalator kind of going down and

taking space on stockton, if that could be shifted and capture more of that space. development in that space would be great. i understand. i see your point. i can distinguish between these two projects. i'm comfortable moving forward with the head house, knowing that design of a separate project, the transit oriented development will move forward. they will be integrated at some time but two separate projects. i mean, i commend the process and, you know, would approve the conditional use authorization. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you, commissioner hillis that you are at least acknowledging questions i'm raising. basically i'm not getting any traction with my questions, nor with my concerns. the only thing i would like to ask that the design or the potential building of the t.o.d. comes back to this commission not just as

a project which we get or poured on, but i think this particular building should be reviewed for appropriate fit, et cetera, because we are the neutral body where if you have a misunderstanding there is a larger city family. and as you can fully understand what i view and what design considerations are going into a potential t.o.d., including the open spaces. there are indeed a number of good open spaces. i'm in strong support for the right open space and right mix surrounding china town, but i do think this is the correct form for that to be decided and

supported. >> commissioner hillis. >> sure. i was going to add one note on that. after reviewing the code quite a bit i think it is very unlikely any project could come forward without required to come back based on simple planning code requirements, but i think we could make that a requirement of the t.o.d., that they come back for required approval. regardless of that, it looks likely anyhow. >> if i can talk with you for a second, ms. wadi. the letter from ms. jennifer matts makes it very clear of what she sees the process. my reaction is based on her letter. she works for the mayor's office of economic and workforce development, which clearly speaks to how she will envision the process. i assume she would know what is required or not. she makes it sounds as if it is basically a neighborhood consensus,

that is it, we will come back and record to you. that is the way that is written. if you wouldn't mind to explain that further. >> sure. i think -- unless there is a letter that i'm not aware of, you are talking about a memo from me dated august 20th. >> it is under her signature so might be from you. >> well, she is on the letterhead. i sent the letter. i see the confusion. >> i didn't read your signature. it is very possible that -- >> just to clarify, all we are doing is facilitating a conversation the community wants to have with technical experts to look at the possibility of these things happening. i don't think -- it is clear we don't know if an open space or next-door t.o.d. is possible. we want them to be possible, there is a very good chance. especially the economicks of developing next door are going to be difficult. nta will have to make a decision.

this is not a cash cow for mta. * mta will not see much revenue from this so there are decisions to be made. i would from the preliminary look we have done, this is pretty speculative. all we have done is agreed to look at it. i want to make that clear. if my memos made it sound different i apologize. we don't know until we have gone through this process. >> as long as there is an assurance in conditions that it indeed will come back fit turns into a substantive project, then i will be fine. i will support where we are. >> it sounds like, if i could, there will be two steps. there will be a step at which we will report back on the results of the sheret with the community and a second in the future where the project * will come forward for actual approvals. there is no reason why the commission couldn't add a commission on the conditional use that whatever project is proposed comes back to this commission for final approval before it moves forward.

that would be my recommendation at this point. commissioner moore. >> i'm assuming planning staff will participate in the community meetings in order to direct and prevent potential disasters, thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> i move to approve with conditions and the understanding we will see the results of the process are. >> second. >> just to be clear i think what commissioner moore is asking the actually project come back. >> absolutely. assuming there is a project, we would want to see the project. that is part of mine. >> the project will be part of the standard approval process as a project, particularly given this is a historically emerging district. >> commissioners, the motion before you is for approval with condition that the project will come back before this commission for approval. on that motion commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis.

>> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> thank you, that passes unanimously. * commissioners you are on item number 14. case number 2012, 04847d, toledo way, a disconservation near review. >> good afternoon, president fong and members. glen caberes. * the project is on toledo way. the request is the permit application for subject property, proposing large existing partial floor of existing four-floor, two-story building. the owner owns this east of

the project site. the concerns include reduced privacy, light and air access to their property. this project has been reviewed by the residential design team with the residential guidelines. at this time this does not create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. specifically the project has matching light shared with requester's building and alteration the proposed fourth floor provide appropriate setbacks from the front and back to minimize the bulk and visibility of the fourth floor. at this time staff recommends the commission take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i would be happy by to answer questions. >> thank you. >> project funds, sir? >> requests. >> dr request, sir. >> thank you, president fong and commissioners. thank you for hearing us. i'm mark davincinsi, mother

elaine, sister karen and her husband, gary. our family has lived at 2426 toledo way for generations. up until five years ago our family members have occupied that building. the death of my aunt, that was no longer the case. we have been fortunate enough to rent it out. we are here because the expansion that's being proposed next door we believe does not follow design guidelines. we have a compromised proposal we have presented. we will show you. in addition the people that are currently living there wish to have been here but because of work and because of child care issues they could not make it but we have letters. one tenant moved out. we have a letter saying one of the reasons she moved out was because of the

proposed expansion. i want to show you our compromised proposal. this work? >> yes. >> thank you. we asked an architect to draft a compromise we believe will be within the design requirements and guidelines. our design attempts to maintain the privacy of the residents that live there. it attempts to keep air flow and light as it is today. yet still enables our neighbor to expand onto the fourth floor. the roof deck setbacks we believe are within guidelines. currently the proposal is build up to the property line and up to the light well. we would like that set back. the railings in this

proposalal are solid walls. we think those should be railings that are open for air and light. we also do reduce master bedroom and study. the rooms are very sizable at 14 by 15 and a half feet. we also ask that a skylight be put in steady of a window that would look directly down into kitchen, dining room, kitchenette areas. we have showed this compromise both to the property owner as well as to the planning department but neither one has been willing to discuss it with us. we believe the planning department has been incorrectly led to believe there is, in fact, an existing fourth floor that is habitable space. the space right now is really not habitable. it is very small.

the first aerial view i'm providing distorts the actually size. if you actually look at where it is in the next photo the red area shows the line, then your packet i believe it was photo three from the rearview shows you how all this was. because we have lived there, had people living there personally, the creators was never designed for inhabitable space, from our opinion. we believe the new design could easily be converted into another unit, which we believe is not allowed under the currently zoning requirement maximum. going to the guidelines they state to articulate the building, maximum

impact on the light and privacy to following propertis the following modifications can -- it can impact light on the property. * and the recommendations provide setbacks on the upper floors. right now there are no setbacks other than the front, rear. the side is really important. if you look at the current structure it is actually set back. we would like the new one to be set back as well. it also asks that we -- guidelines say shared light wells, provide more light to both properties. this plan would reduce the light tremendously to the light well and incorporate open railing is a design requirement. now the plan calls for a wall. on privacy, again, the design requirements states that developed window configurations that break

the line of sight between house in plan calls for new windows in the light well that do reduce our privacy. one is substantially larger than is currently there. thinking about the building's scale and its form, the guidelines says the design of scale should be compatible with height and depth of the surrounding building . this new expansion will not be compatible with the current surrounding building. it will be substantially larger no. other home on toledo way will have anything of this comparable size. the sundecks will be the largest in the area. and introduce the potential for -- >> time is up but you can have speakers in support of the d.r., three minutes each. >> thank you. >> calling for speakers in support of the d.r. request, sir.

>> patricia voy, merchant. our association wasn't even notified of this issue. second of all, when a compromised proposal was on the table it should be worked on. this reeks of 273537 baker no. reply. no one inch. i'm going to get what i want. this bothers me. you are going to be neighbors, et cetera. it doesn't follow design guideline from what i have seen. i only found out about this three days ago. i fully believe the fact that they should have tried to compromise the developers. and they didn't. my suggestion is to the one side wants it moved back seven feet, the other side moves it back none. why don't you move it back three and a half or four.

see if you can come up with a compromise for them because the developer doesn't want to compromise at all. i thank all sides. i want to mention this. just so you know, this closing up of light wells and going wall-to-wall with not the proper fire codes, this mouse must be sprinkles from one end to the other. for 30 years i have heard fire people tell me without those light wells at times there is a high safety issue for the neighbors. this is something you are going to have to address with the fire department in the future, because i'm seeing it happening all over. my -- you have seen my offer for compromise. thank you. >> are there additional speakers in support of the d.r. request, sir? seeing none, project sponsor, you have five minutes.

>> good afternoon, dimitri zamski, owner of 3820 toledo way. my architect won't be here but due to the 13th was postponed i thought he would have time for that, so i imagine he will be arriving late. as far as the neighborhood i just moved in in january 2011. i love the neighborhood. i have no intentions of leaving the neighborhood. it is my current home and it will be my future home when it is remodeled. in terms of remodel scope that's shown in what we have designed so far, it follows the current i guess history of remodeling that's happened in the neighborhood.

one of the pages that submitted included an aerial photo that includes three properties within 250 feet of my front door that has very, very similar remodels. additionally, they all go to zero lot line development, which talking with the planning department you do support. then this also -- the idea was not something we drew up at a moment. we met with the planning department at the counter. they did advise us this is what we are -- this is what they were seing in terms of development and this is what they frequently support on their proposals. as far as the light well reduction, because we are removing the stairwell and smrin beinginging it to width that match, the net

reduction that increases light is only 13% so it is a very, very small light well reduction. additionally, my neighbor's concern for privacy, the windows get a lot smaller. the current windows we have there, we have -- each floor has five windows or so. this will reduce to four very small, narrow windows per window. one of the other things in talking to my architect, we did make a change on the second floor where our neighbors had a concern that one large window was a big privacy concern for them, so we did make the modification to move the kitchen and swap the layout for the second and third floor to match what the third floor has, which will have again very, very minimal small, narrow windows on either side of the stove. the proposal they provided, a seven-foot setback limits

what can be done on that floor. in terms of the scale of the rest of the remodel, this will not be in line with what current demands are and really puts in question the benefit of remodel at the cost to expand fourth floor, do a complete seismic retrofit, fire sprinkle the house and do the energy efficiency upgrades done to the home. additionally, as i mentioned before, with the reduction of windows and modification we have made to the second floor, the square footage of windows that will now be in the home after the remodel will be an 83% reduction to what is currently there. there will be roughly one-fifth of the windows that currently exist. which by every mean also increase the neighbor's

privacy. i did talk to one of the neighbors on my other side, who is in support of the project. he is friends with the girl that moved out of the neighbor's property. for all reasons cited it may have been partially because of the remodel that would happen. i know one of the other driving factors was moving in with her boyfriend as well. so just to put that into perspective. that is all i have to say. any questions, feel free. >> thank you. are there any speakers in support of the project sponsor, or in favor of the project sponsor? okay? d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. thank you. in terms of the light and air reduction, the unit is building right up to the property line of the currently building and

going up. the structure today is already set back. by going up you will lose sunlight. it is also westward facing, so we will lose a tremendous amount of sunlight because we will no longer have that at all. as y'all know, there is a strong westerly breeze through the golden gate. they will now be blocked almost entirely. in terms of light, in terms of air, we urge you to kind of consider this request and we appreciate your time. >> sorry, i need you to the -- >> sorry. >> we have two letters we'd like to leave both from the tenant that moved out as well as the current tenant. >> thank you. >> project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal, if you choose.

>> i think in comparison with remodels at 100 majorca, which did the same thing but did fill in light well. most recently at the hearing march 15th i believe of this year, where you i guess passed -- i don't know what the correct word is. you passed the almost identical remodel to this that i'm proposing, i really honestly do believe it falls in line with the developments that have done previously in the neighborhood. it is the trend we have seen. thank you. >> thank you. okay. the public hearing portion is closed. opening it up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> could i ask questions for the d.r. requester. i missed the very beginning of your presentation but i also am looking at the plans. from what i'm hearing is concern about the light

wells matching, i think. looks like the existing light well to the -- not sure what direction this is but i'm going to say to the north. i'm not sure if that is correct or not, is 20.6. he is going with 18.4 so what you might do is make that matching to the existing light well -- i guess it is your property. >> it doesn't need to match. the bigger objection is height of the expansion on the fourth floor. it actually going right up to the existing edge of the light well. by doing that it is basically blocking everything that we have today. >> okay. i'm just kind of looking to -- historically we try to match light wells, as a manner of preserving the light that exists. then looking the opposite

side, presumably the south, there is a light well carved out, which is smaller. i don't see that duplicated in the present plans. i will ask other commissioners to take a look at that, see if we should, in fact, carve out what appears to be a closet area or, you know, out of this addition to be able to match the existing light well that is there. then the other thing is the size of the decks, which i believe come all the way to the property lines, is that correct, or virtually? >> i can't speak to that. i believe that's come to the property line or walls to be erected as opposed to railing. >> that is something i think i would like to look at too. i think having an adequate-sized deck is important. i think one of the things we always try to do. i know the setback to the addition is probably -- it is 15 feet, which is traditional, but by bringing that deck back a little more you want to make se