preservation's commission of certificate of appropriateness for changes to the board's chambers to allow a.d.a. access to the board president chair and the clerk's table. and this week it was approved by a 9-1 vote. the board also approved a construction agreement for 1150 ocean avenue. this would authorize the director of the planning department to execute an agreement with the developer on behalf of the city to inensure the development of inclusionary housing and existing area housing plan requirements. last week as you heard, the director testified on the land use item and reported that while we are waiting for cpmc to submit plans enabling us to calculate the amount of housing that the plan would require, he also noted that the same plan does provide an avenue for a code complying project to avoid the requirement if approved by a c.u. by the commission.

the authorization is the current proposal for the project and the full board voted to approve this resolution 7-3. earlier today they recommended the re-nomination of commissioner borden. >> and the planning vote to update the vision valley community facilities infrastructure fee and fund to confirm to other programs and areas. that concludes my report unless there are questions. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini: i don't need an answer right now, but on the changes to what we had passed regarding transferable development rights with historic

structures and i would like to know what those were to what we had and what the concerns were voiced about it because it looks like it seemed to be fine when it was coming out of here. and finally, there was the mention of the van ess avenue special use district item that had been discussed at the supervisors and i believe a resolution was introduced if i'm not mistaken next week. and i just would like to see if we could get a copy of that document from the late 70's or early 80's, whenever it was passed to sao what -- to see what it does say even if it is not applicable, but interesting to have the documentation. >> i can get you both pieces of information. commissioner antonini: thank you. president miguel: thank you. secretary avery: commissioners,

i am not sure if there was a board of appeals meeting or report. historic preservation commission held a special meeting to discuss articles 10 and 11 and they got through both but they will at their next hearing next week, the staff will come back with the recommended suggestions for change. and those will also be before you at the joint hear iing on t first. with that, commissioners, you are now at general comment with a 15-minute time limit and memberses of the public may address the issues that are in the there. and keep in mind that this category has a 15-minute time

limit. these are for item 15. president miguel: is there any general public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. executive director of livable city. actually, commissioner antonini, your request to have a look at the van ess special use district is pretty timely and with cpmc and it bears looking at. the other thing, of course, that's driving all this is the importance and the increasing importance of van ess and polk street in the city's transportation system. polk street is a major transit

corridor, bicycle corridor, pedestrian corridor. and van ess is the expenditure plan committee will be one of the first to bus rapid transit corridorses and the land use controls which were passed in the early 1990's really need another look. it was the last neighborhood planning exercise which actually increased residential parking requirements. there is a parking requirement of one parking space per dwelling unit and that's over the normal requirement of one space for every four in our c4 districts. why it was increased, i don't know. that is kind of an artifact of looked at. of course, there's also very, very high requirements in the van ess for the nonresidential uses and they can't easily be got rid of. and even if you think and a project sponsor thinks cpmc thought they could do with less parking, and the problem is they

have the same limits that apply and rh1b districts on the west side of town for all the institutional and commercial uses and there is no exception that can be granted for those nonresidential uses. i think the automotive special use district which allows automotive oriented uses by right rather than with conditional use is normal and also needs to be looked at again because of the importance of van essen and polk streets that run through here and the importance of the east-west transit streets, we need to be more thoughtful as the planning department has increasingly done about things like driveways and curbs and those things located on important bicycle and transit streets. it is worth looking at the general plan amendments and the area plan for the corridor and make sure 15 years later, post global warming and post eastern

neighborhoods, better neighborhoods, that it's still current and timely because i think the time to really look at it is now with some of the big developments pending and i'll speak a little bit on this. we're very happy for the initiation of the changes to the orphan block, but we'd love to see the department use that as a bellwether and sort of take up the issue of what other parts of the planning code have really gone stale. and really don't meet the needs of san francisco in the 21st century and this is one of those. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there any other general public comment on items not on the agenda? if not, general public comment is closed. secretary avery: thank you. commissioner, you pulled three items off the consent calendar and the president indicated they would be heard at the beginning of the regular calendar.

we will go to case six 2010.0045c for 380-398 randolph street. >> good afternoon, commissioner. kelly andrew, department staff. i would like to propose something in the interest of time. i am here to present this case if necessary for planning assessor hayward, but the member who had it pulled from consent has had her concern answered through the project sponsor. and if you would like to hear from her again, we could perhaps do that first. otherwise, i am here and the project sponsor is here and willing to give you a presentation. >> is there public comment on agenda item 6? the individual who wished to have it pulled off calendar?

>> again, i agree with the commissioner's position and i represent mission takers ministry that signed a lease with the owner september 4 and we were concerned that that property of 308 and 306 which is adjacent to property 380 would not be affected. and the owner has agreed that it would not. >> for the record, would you state your name? >> monique martin and i am a member of nation takers ministry. president miguel: thank you. >> with that, commissioners, do you want to consider this item? president miguel: there sni further public comment?

if not, public comment is closeed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: move to approve item 6. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: as long as it's taken off consent, i would like to ask project staff and sponsor to work harder on the design aspect of this building. i had some communication with mr. kim and i think he understands that already. second. commissioner antonini: as the maker of the motion, i would agree with commissioner sugaya on that and i think we can work that out. looks like a good project with some design changes. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would ask that he would tell us what the discussion was and what it is you are comfortable with. commissioner sugaya: it wasn't anything specific. i took a quick look at the renderings and it seemed a

little -- i don't know. i haven't gotten into the details but seemed a little refinement of what is there would help. commissioner moore: and in terms of how it is computer rendered or the lack of differentiation or facade or windows? is there some specificity on it? commissioner sugaya: i'll just leave it to staff. secretary avery: the motion on the floor is for approval. on that commissioner, the vote. thank you. >> commissioner olague? >> yai y aye. item 7 has three parts in the wait 2008.1405 dv and 2008.1406

dv and 448 diamond street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i think i better stand for this one. it will take a few more minutes. ellie andrews here to present this on behalf of commissioner hayward who wasn't able to be here today. department staff has heard your concerns and the difference in the recommendation on this project and the project scheduled later on in calendar,

and although i will speak to the diamond street project, i would like to address briefly the differences between the two. the projects are obviously similar in several ways. both buildings are sound. both have deteriorated over time for similar reasons. and both propose to replace existing single family homes with slightly larger single family homes. the main way in which the projects differ which is the reason for the department recommending approval of one and disapproval of other is the perceived affordability. the diamond street building is not seen as affordable and, in fact, comes very close to meeting the threshold for which the project would be exempt from a public hearing all together. it has been assessed at a value of approximately $1.2 million. on the other hand, the russell street building is seen as a type of housing perceived as affordable and is subject to certain protections of the general plan and the planning

code. both cases require a careful ball lanning of applicable policies and criteria. and although the department intends to provide this commission with guidance, we recognize both of these projects are essentially close calls and we have provided you with recommendations for each, but we understand that there are a lot of similarities. if you would like, since we are addressing diamond street now, i will give you a brief presentation on that project and the sponsor and architect are here as well. president miguel: why don't we go ahead with diamond.

>> to construct a new sing three-story single family dwelling with the subject of the mandatory review and no member of the public has filed a judicial review on this project. as the project sponsor will attest to, this has substantial support from nearby neighbors. the project also requires a variance from the front yard and is 2 feet from the front property line and the proposal to demolish the building would result in the new building to comply with current planning code because of an adjacent situation and the planning code

would require a 14-foot front setback and to re-establish existing conditions with the two-foot setback. and to consider in this project that it is rh2 or 2 family zoning and evaluating this proposal in our recommendation and took into consideration the fact that they are single family homes and across the street from the project site, this is a mix of communities and including 50% single family homes and 50% multifamily buildings. as i mentioned previously this, home is in a dilapidated state and experienced maintenance due to an elderly resident. the current owners have been owners for four years now.

one last thing is this project went through extensive design with the department. i would like to share with you the changes that they made. in response to the review. and the original proposed roof pattern was changed with the slanting roof shape and made the garage door smaller and provided the setback on all the floors. and the review that it be pulled back and from the adjacent properties and may have complied with that request as well. in conclusion, the planning code and design guidelines and that con cluz the presentation. >> thank you. project sponsor.

>> laura abernathy and this is my husband. i am the designer. >> speak a little louder. >> can you hear me now? i am laura abernathy and this is any husband steven and we have purchased 448 diamond street as our home to raise our family and we have two daughters. they go to school here in the city. and this home is intended for us. i would like to bring up the issue of neighborhood support. we have 100% support from all of our neighbors. i have in my hand 15 signed letters from the adjacent

neighbors and copies for your commissioners and i will hand them now to madam secretary. >> the existing structure is not defined as an affordable dwelling unit by the mayor's unit and the demolition and replacement will not impact the supply of affordable housing. we are not removing an affordable house.

there is a deep setback which increases our reason for the setback and there are two reasons that we have proposed the setback of 5 feet and the first is that every single house on this block with the exception of the neighbor to the north has the same setback. the second is that our neighbor has approved plans to expand that house and decreasing its setback and after that house is built, our house and our neighbor's house will conform to the norm on the block and will both contribute and strengthen the street wall on our block and

conforming to the character's neighborhood. now i want to address the structure and the amounts of work required to renovate the existing structure to bring it up to today's building code as well as adding on it to meet the needs of the modern family was going to trig err demolition status of the project. we would be removing more than 70% of the existing structure and the home has an unreinforced foundation which needs to be replaced and all building systems need to be replaced with the disability and the home has suffered from an extreme amount

of vacancy and has been vacant for 10 yearses and prior to that uncared for for 20 to 30 years. we are not responsible for the deferred maintenance that have contributed to the poor conditions. the house was own bid an elderly nun who due to a progressive illness was not able to care for the house properly. the result has been the degradation of windows, siding, sheeting, roofing, exterior stair. given the need to expand the size of the house to accommodate a modern family, it is simply not economically feasible to try to upgrade and reuse the existing structure as it sits. in conclusion, please understand that we are wanting to stay here with your family and we are not

developer who is want to flip it and we want to build a safe, updated home and we have thought long and hard about how to do it and believe our best option is to deconstruct the existing home. further, the project has the support of the planning staff including the residential design team and i would really like to thank the planners who have been exceptionally helpful and professional in her review of the project. sophie and the residential design review team and myself worked together as a team to achieve the project that met the needs of our family. president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i fully understand buying a small house and wanting to enlarge it. i think the design is not the issue here. what is the issue is the prevailing zoning if zoning is rh2 and i am conflicted by

demolishing a house of sound quality which has always been a big issue in this commission but what i am more concerned about is building a significantly larger home that does not provide an additional small unit to fully realize the zoning. the fact that this resident on the entire mrok is quite similar and only says to me that we are encouraging enlarging homes in an r2 and without meeting the prevailing density standard. if we want to improve the home and say that megamansioning in an r2 district is cave, but then we done zone and we can't support this viable project, otherwise i personally see a conflict. the five homes going with this particular project all obey a

common setback. this house would move into the setback and also really starts to be much, much deeper than the houses which are on the south and you don't see that in the depiction within this packet, but if you go to a1-1 and a1-2, there are only three parcels shown. this is something that should show the ample information about that in oh sources. i am not against the building, don't misunderstand me, but the policy issues with an rh2 zoning and we are asked to approve the home which is significantly larger and without providing a small unit which would meet the objectives of this type of zoning. i am conflicted about what the

other securities will have to say. commissioner antonini: i have a little different position as was presented in testimony and staffing and even though the zoning is rh2, which may be a mistake with the homes thauz they are all single family homes. maybe that was done when we wanted to invite the type of thing that happened across the street, which i don't think is very pretty to tell you the truth. it is an example of the zoning that allows for a lot of multiples and aesthetically i and this was a product of the 50's and 60's when most of these were built. and you certainly can have multiples without having something that is aesthetically pleasing and the pattern is clearly single family. and the question raise bid commissioner moore and a good one is is this an

inappropriately large? i don't think so. i think for a family with two children, a modern family, and i believe four bedrooms with a couple of baths and the living room and dining room and other rooms on the main level and the garage area below. so it seems to me that is appropriate. whether the depth is inappropriate or not, i am not as concerned with the front. what's happening is because it's a new structure, it is triggering a setback that is more than the case now. is that correct, staff? and in other words, what we're saying is we're giving the variance because, in fact, we're pretty close to where they are now and since it's new, it would need to have a setback. >> that is exactly right. commissioner antonini: and reality is they're all pretty close to the street and we are not -- we are allowing this to be the exception but rather allowing it to conform close to what's already there. what i do have a problem with is the design.

i'm sorry, i understand completely the cost of trying to renovate the existing structure and would be nice if you could add a floor, but i heard from the project sponsor that the foundation is masonry and maybe not much more than that and would have to be completely redone and the cost would probably be a lot higher, but it is a shame that wasn't possible, but i can certainly sympathize because almost every home on that side is craftsman design and a nice looking side of the street and the adjacent side in my opinion anyway and too bad it wasn't something designed that more or less honored some of the things this were present in the other houses. we have an existing sun porch in the front which is a really nice feature. and the new house has a tunnel entrance which i don't think is

inviting in my opinion p and may not be able to be done in any other way and a flat roof on pitch. and i just think there are things that can be done that might be better design wise. and make it more in harmony with the re of the street. certainly a pitched roof would be nice and a little different treatment on the front of the house. so those are my feelings on the project, but i think it's a good project. i am very supportive of the project sponsors and what they're trying to do in size and staying in pedestrian san francisco and raising their family, of course, but i had concerns about the design. president miguel: commissioner olague? vice president olague: i support the issues that commissioner moore is raising and am wondering when it got to the residential design team if any of these points were discussed or anything?