>> este es el programa número uno de la televisión humorística "el chavo" interpretado por el súper comediante "chespirito". ♪ >> con carlos villagrán como "quico". ♪ >> ramón valdés como "don ramón". ♪ >> florinda meza como "doña florinda". ♪ >> angeline fernández como "la bruja del 71". ♪ >> y maría antonieta de las nieves como "la chilindrina". ♪ >> dirección, enrique segoviano. ♪ >> como ustedes recordarán don ramón encargo al chavo del 8 que

le trajera algunas cosas de la tienda, pero doña florinda penóo que aquello era el producto de un robo. >> tenía que ser el chavo del 8. se la voy a llevar ahorita mismo, no vaya a pensar que fuiste tú que se la robó. >> por otra parte, la bruja del 71 perdón doña clotilde llego a la vecindad con su pequeña sobrina y encontró una muy desagradable sorpresa. >> ya llegamos a la casita, y verás ahorita te voy hacer en esta vecindad están prohibidos los animales y los niños chiquitos. claro esa ortografía no puede ser de nadie más que de don ramón. >> sí, pero mi mami se lo mandó hacer. >> ¿tú mamá? >> sí, y dijo que si a mi me pasa lo que al perro, a usted le pasa lo que al perico. (risas). >> bueno, ahora olvídate del perro, a mí lo que me preocupa es que tampoco le gusten los niños chiquitos. >> uy, no los aguanta.

(llanto). >> y si los oye le da un coraje. >> ya no llores mi cielo ya, pero esta niña no es mía, es de mi hermana, y tampoco se va a quedar aquí, solo mientras mi hermana encuentra departamento. >> pues tendrá que darse prisa porque >> sí, si, como no, ya lo creo que sí, pero te advierto una cosa, si tú le llegas a decir a tu madre que tengo a esta niña, te rebaño los cachetes de marrana flaca. (risas). >> mami, fíjate que la bruja del 71. (risas). >> ¿qué pasó mami? no que le me impacting so many people without a clearer articulation of what the net benefit actually. >> commissioner antonini? >> i think for the other

tenants there are some benefits just looking at the new rendering. the whole facade on the outside has changed. it's much more attractive. you have french windows as opposed to whatever those windows are now there and they don't look very good. you have got the fires escapes in the inside are placed in different locations and it appears that the railings are much more attractive and just viewing the building from the outside, it looks like a lot more pleasant place to live. it looks like the entire exterior is being changed. and there is a much nicer treatment to the outside of the building. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i think as far as impact, i mean, the architect did point out on property line windows that the other properties don't enjoy that either because it happened to be at the time that

they built the build they couldn't put the property line windows on the other side. the other impact, if views are not protected, i don't think there is impact. >> commissioner moore? >> i don't think why we need to design an office building height, which is about 13', even 8' floor and 10' is perfectly fine. so i think the motion should consider lowering the upper floor to a 10' floor to ceiling height, which brings the upper floor to 11.1' and solar peanut butter panels are flat and we have something to consider. >> that is a proposed amendment? >> yes. >> we're talking about a total

inez tenenbaum of 11.1. basically replicating the existing unit floor to ceiling height, which is very, very nice for a generously sized unit. and working on the solar panels to be in the flatter configuration. >> if the secretary is okay with it. i will second that amendment. >> second. >> commissioners you have a motion and second. amending the proposal to incorporate a floor to floor height no greater than 11' 1" and flat solar panels.

(roll call ) >> so moved commissioners that motion passes 6-1. commissioners that will place you on your final regularly calendared item no. 17. 27-29 sutro heights avenue discretionary review.

>> excuse me, commissioner secretary, the gentleman wants to raise a continuance request. >> i apologize. there was a request for continuance that the project sponsor and staff was not supportive of commissioners. >> yes. president fong, members of the commission. my name is bruce prescott and i represent the discretionary review requester, lawrence rambling. this case was initially set to be on hearing on the november 15th hearing as a result of a procedural error, apparently, it had to be continued. at that time, the requester himself, there rambling had a

commitment today he could not rearrange. i had requested that we had the hearing on a different date and apparently because of the 90-day policy there was no alternative for doing that. i think it's important that mr. rambling is here. he is the requester and i would ask for a continuance for that because he cannot appear. it has come to my attention this afternoon that apparently the neighbors yesterday, while trying to find if there were other neighbors who mountaining be able to attend today learned from one of them that there is apparently an underground stream that runs under this project. leading us to believe there might be some environmental impacts that have not been addressed and i think a continuance would be appropriate so could you investigate that further. although we have been here a

long time today, i am requesting that the commission continue this hearing. >> [ inaudible ] >> >> hang on one second. if we take this item, you are going to have that opportunity, correct? >> he is going to speak to the continuance, i believe? >> okay, go for it. >> it has taken nine months since our 311 neighborhood meeting to get to this point. dr made extraordinary efforts. the dr requester repeatedly delayed communications and beginning june 24th refused communications entirely. between march 15th, the 311

meeting and june 24 when they cut off communications as is documented in your package, i sent 20 emails requesting meetings and made more than a dozen phone calls and dropped byhir home four times. i explained that we are living in a rental unit and these delays are costing my family approximately $5,000 per month of delay. the dr requester allowed one meeting and the dr request he was not satisfied. we presented plans with further setbacks and a lowering of the remaining development by several feet, the elimination of multiple windows a bathroom and other reductions all to avoid being here for to the east of the property is another property with bedroom

windows in the back. right here where my finger is the backyard of one of the neighbors on 46th avenue. if you look at the packet provided to you, the pictures taken by mr. ramblin, you will see that the views from those windows look straight where these decks are going to be. these decks are going to have glass railings. essentially you have people sitting on a deck, looking directly into the windows of their neighbors. bedroom neighbors windows of their neighbors and bathroom windows of their neighbors. this top facade shadows it. >> thank you. we may have further questions. >> okay, i hope you do,

because we have waited a long time. and there is more that i have to say. >> your time is up, sir. >> speakers in favor of the dr? speakers in favor of the dr? >> good evening, i'm bill and i'm live on 47th avenue, which is around the corner. and my concerns are the loss of light, that the proposed project -- we would incur from the proposed project and the open space feel that we have now, something of this size, i think, would take away that feeling that we have, which was described as like a park-like setting. so just the density

of the homes and how tight and close together they are. i think would take away from the ambience and that is my concern and worry. thank you. >> thank you, any other speakers in favor of the dr? if not, project sponsor you have five minutes. >> good evening my name is brian lafco and i'm the architect on the project. and i was going to say good afternoon, but their concerns

break down into three basic aspects. first is the impact on the rear open space and already reported to the planning staff and design team -- you can see this is the site plan of the existing conditions. where in the existing situation, there is 63% of the yard is uncovered by structure. and this includes a large concrete terrace, or hard scape of the rear yard area. our proposal effectively replaces the hard scape with the new addition, resulting in non-hard scape portion of the yard being exactly as the yard today at 42% and when compared

to the joining properties the resulting open yard is by far the most open among them. you can see that the drr is 33% and we would be at 42%, 23, 17, 30, and 9. the second aspects of their complaint is privacy. the dr's two-story wall looms over my client's as seen in this image. as well as seriously impacting views for everybody beyond my client's house for many, many years as you heard the age of building. can see right here the red-dotted line approximates it. there are no openings with the exception of the light well. our proposal develops along

this large, bare wall and goes no further. it's also designed to be below the overhang, the existing overhang in order to preserve the view of others. this is the existing condition of that wall. and that is the profile of the wall. looking at it in true elevation. and while the structures are indeed abutting as in the tradition of the san francisco, the decks in this proposal are all setback at 5-feet-2 inch. we redesigned twice this project. this was to address neighbors' concerns of privacy and view and this resulted in a smaller,

less improsing proposal. although my time is limited. the printed package shows the down scaling of the design. third and final issue is the rear yard facades. after the first redesign, we were contacted by the eastern neighbor. you can see on this plan, that there is a diagonal line which is the unobstructed view line from the very same windows. our proposal stays within the shadow of this large extensive wall to improve the value of the windows of eastern neighborhood this current and second design eliminates new

obstructions. this maintains the existing plane of facades created by the two-story overhangs that is indeed referenced by the drr's complaint. while the window pattern has changed, as one of the drawers for the property is a fantastic view of the pacific, the plane of the multiple rear facades, a set of very few facades can see and certainly not the drr is maintained. you can see that line of facades right there. to sum up, this is not a superunit. the solution is a simple one that allows a family of six. >> your time is up? >> thank you. >> speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> hi, my name is yasir harim.

my wife and i bought the property intending to move our family into it. we did our homework. we realized it was a two-unit building and we had to maintain two units. so we talked to the planning department, and worked out how we could do that and we realized we would have to extend into the backard in order to create a family home on top. with regarding to the drr's issues presented, we feel this project should be approved because as stating by planning it falls well within their guidelines and as well made huge efforts and gone to expense to address the drr's requester's concerns and delayed by months to work with the drr, although they didn't respond to us after one meeting. we twice redesigned the project

solely to address their concerns, specifically we created setbacks and square footage and eliminated an entire floor of expansions and lowers the floors among other changes. the dr applicant has failed to demonstrate any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify the dr. contrary to the points, there is no dramatic impact on the mid-block open space. we're merely building on top of an existing concrete deck. the expansion is not uncharacteristically deep or tall and falls behind the dr requester's home. it breaks the rear line of buildings to the east, and falls behind the buildings creating a more harmonious line. it creates a home on top for my

family that is smaller or comparable to other homes in the neighborhood. with regards to the petition, we don't know what the dr requester told the people who signed this. if they have concerns, they should have expressed them in the nine months since we had the 311 meeting. we haven't heard from any of them. we made efforts to reach out. we are a family of six and required by code to maintain two units. it's not a superunit. we believe we have been more than reasonable and we request th