for some parts of the year, it might move towards oakland rather than san leandro but this will go right over our homes, this will not have a significant impact on the light that she received and we are grateful for it. as for the question about the shade steady, there has been some misinterpretation about some conversations that were had. instead of telling an extensive and unnecessary chatter a steady, the story did not reveal any problems with the shading for the very reasons that i described. this is facing directly east and west and this does not create a problem. miss von has said some things about the addition of fact in the neighborhood character and i will tell you that my home is the shortest home and what my

addition would do would be 5 feet taller than her home. you can see that where i stand is actually smaller than the difference in my home. this was also set back 15 feet from the front and quite a bit more from the back. this will not be a monster home, this is quite a modest addition. there has been alternate plans submitted. i would respectfully request that you reject that. she is asking the board to come up with a new set of regulations to govern our home and the city. if my plan can be blocked than any business owner does not have a prayer of doing anything with their property and that is not the way the public policy works

in this town. >> there was mention made of a project in 2004 in your letter, could you talk about that for a second? >> with great sadness, yes. i bought his home in 2000. i believe there were a key homeowners that had the home. they did virtually nothing to the home. i had several outlets that were extra wide. you could run a hair dryer and a microwave. you needed a new roof, new plumbing. it took me years to save the money to come in into a renovation. part of that plan was to also do a deck at the same time so i'd planned to do a deck. i would say that we had a quite nice relationship. i invited her frequently for get

together is and this was a good relationship. as soon as i wanted to put a deck in the back of my house, that -- dramatically. she represented that i was building this without a permit which was erroneous. she called the planning commission to make a complaint. i was there the investigate -- today the investigator came. she took the note off of the building and then came to the hearing and said, i have proof that they were worried that it was a without a permit. this was a cascading said of misrepresentations that really started their relationship. what you are seeing is a hangover from 2004. >> thank you.

>> i don't have much to say. this is an extremely modest addition and this is set back substantially from the front property line and from the rear building walls. this was approved unanimously by the planning commission. the department fully supported it and this is fully code compliant. the residential design team supported the project. we would like to put plans on the overhead that will answer some of the questions. >> this is the subject property, this is a very modest addition that they are doing at the top level. >> can you tell us what page? >> this is the planned said middle. -- submission.

looking at the property, this is two weeks out and this is set back substantially from the front building wall and this extends further to the rear them the proposed addition will although there might be some shadow cast upon the rear from the house of the appellant. i see no reason why this board should deny the permit. >> the mind but in that picture back up again? -- do you mind putting that picture back up again? >> this is the top floor setback? >> that is correct. >> where is the rear of the project? >> that is right here. i believe that is the building wall. >> i was going to ask why you

would not have them pulled this all the way back to match the appellant set back but it looks like it be in the garden? >> this would have an adverse impact on the rear yard. >> that is not a requirement. the project sponsor agreed to do this. >> that is often a good idea. >> that is not required. they don't see any need to have a shadow steady. >> is there a need for this study? >> i was interested to see that this would not be needed because of the size and location of the edition and the location of the appellants property. i don't see how there would be much of an impact on the property. going further and doing a steady

does not seem necessary. >> what about these from the park? >> i don't see how this is negatively impacting any views of the public open space. this is a very modest addition. >> thank you. i have won public comment card here. >> this project is in deeper

tora neighborhood. i have attached the neighborhood to show the eastern neighborhood planning area and all of the blue area is in deep in that part of the general plan. this is attached with the showcase area plan. the subject property is in deep in that area and subject to its requirements. i understand this was not required but it was offered and agreed to buy a key architect. >> the letter has said that they would provide the steady and this is also included in the discretionary review. >> this is wonderful to see. they don't show everything that the shattered study shows because they show this at least two times of the year and

usually the equinox or the solstice. this would show things that the story could not show unless there were left out for an entire year. the last item that i want to address is the issue of the size and scale of the edition. the simple reality is that it was built up to the lot line. the two adjacent houses were not. there is no averaging of this possible that is the averaging of the setbacks and this approach is the second story addition. >> i think that the other point, this is about civility and --

they wanted me to read a letter to clarify one of the points. there are claims that this would be derailed by the proposed addition. the truth is that the original system would be inoperable in the shadow of the edition. this is a matter of record. we chose to move ahead despite the shadow. this is an abbreviated system. this will work and deliver something in the summer. the loss of available solar energy will be considerable and in retrospect we should have demanded compensation. instead of some kind of relationship going sour, this is on the public record of just to the data that this was not issued. i did not want a contentious relationship at all.

>> we have two minutes for the permit holder. you cannot speak under public comment but if there mr. moody went to give some time, you could speak. >> you are probably wondering why i'm spending so much of my life savings building on a lot like this. i love petro hill, we generally have fantastic neighbors. this is a wonderfully supportive community and i plan to spend as much of the rest of my life on this property. i don't want to build down the property. there is a circular stair that goes down from my kitchen down to the room below.

i have parents did come visit me and i don't want them to stay in downtown -- downstairs bedroom. i would like them to stay as long as they need to. i appreciate your time. thank you. parts anything further from the department? >> commissioners, the matter is submitted? >> would you clear up what implications if any paris as to what is and what is not showplace square. >> there is no provisions which would prevent the project. this must be viewed as a whole,

not in pieces. it anyone could find it policy that supports his or her position in the general plan so we need to look at this in total and in total this project complies with the general plan. >> thank you. >> there are two issues. one is the issue of the shadow steady and therefore what impact this has on the home. as far as i can see, the permit holders property is due north. if there is any impact from

that, this is probably a relatively small sliver. i don't even think that would be the case. this would be the reverse situation where the appellant really has some kind of shadow on the project therefore the question of a shadow steady is really a moot because there is no shadow. secondly, in terms of sustainability, the home faces south. how she chooses to balance her heating and cooling is up to her. this is really not impacted by the addition. lastly, i find that the position is very modest, as mr. sanchez has said. i think that this is sensitive and sent back on both the front and rear of this small-scale and

i am prepared to uphold this permit. >> my comments would have been exactly the same. it seems as though the same issues, i agree with this. the shadow has been dealt with, the orientation is that there was never a need for a steady and there is very little need for an impact given the orientation of the houses and therefore on the sustainability issue, this is a modest addition. this complies with the planning code and with the general plan and is consistent with the residential design guidelines and i intent to uphold the permit.

>> i think that this is pretty straightforward. i would echo the other comments of my fellow commissioners. there is not here -- enough here to work with for the appeal and i would uphold the permit. >> i would tend to agree. i've suggested and i would have liked to have seen maybe some averaging of the setbacks. that was not done public has the appellants property seems to extend further in the rear. i agree with what has been said. >> i have nothing further to add. i hope that you all get along in the future and i understand that

this has been tough for all parties but this is a relatively small edition. the shatters study would be moot. -- shadow study would be moved. i move to deny the appeal. >> on the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit for the reasons stated -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> there's no further business. >> we are returned -- adjourned.

item 7b is also mandatory discretionary review.

and 7c is a question for variance from planning code section 132. item 8 is case 2010.0676c, 445-447 sutter street, request for conditional use authorization for a massage establishment. item 9 is case number 2005.0963e, crystal springs pipeline number 2 replacement project. this is certification of the final environmental impact report.

commissioners, it's my understanding that item 7, a commissioner has questions regarding it, which would pull it off of the concept calendar. with that, commissioners, you would consider items 6, 8, and the or the consent calendar. president miguel: any public comment? if not, public comment is closed, commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i questioned item 7 to be pulled. i think it would be to the benefit of everybody to have staff take us through the cases. and i have received a letter et regarding the citizenry project. perhaps staff can comment on it. this is, again, a critical issue, because on the massage parlor issue we have questioned. i received a letter i would at least like to ask staff to comment on.

president miguel: so you want to pull that off? commissioner moore: yes, sir. clerk: so pulling items 7 and 8. so before you on consent would be items 6 and 9. president miguel: vice president olague? vice president olague: i was going to move to approve -- clerk: is there any public comment? if there is public comment, that would -- president miguel: i asked for public comment. clerk: ok. president miguel: you wish to comment? ok. i asked already, but come on up. [no audio] clerk: just a moment. let me make sure your mic is on.

>> is that better? clerk: yes. >> good afternoon, my name is monique martin. i am a former executive director in district 11. i would like to ask the commission for a stay a item number 6 and give public comment. clerk: that would be items 6, 7, and 8 off concept. so when we call that item you can come back up. >> thank you. president miguel: that leaves tim 9. commissioner olague? vice president olague: i would like to approve, really, item nine. commissioner antonini: second. clerk: thank you. vice president olague: or certify -- clerk: yes, certify the e.i.r., for the motion for item number 9 --

[ roll call ] clerk: thank you. that item has been approved. mr. president, are you wanting to take items 6, 7 and 8 now? president miguel: why don't we take them at the beginning of the regular calendar. clerk: ok. thank you. commissioners with that, you are now, then, on commissioners questions and matters, item number 10. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i was happy to see in the president the idea of using abandoned city properties as residential dwelling units for teachers and

other public employees, and i think that's a wonderful idea. however, i think it doesn't go far enough, and i have always been an advocate for a system to help us address our middle class residents, particularly those who are critical for the operation of san francisco, most notably public safety officials and others whose presence is essentially. i would like to see a system where we would perhaps have an available bonus for these people and that money would have to be applied towards housing. i think it would eliminate a lot of the problems we have on some of our items where we try to provide affordable housing or target affordable housing. this would be an additional method to be able to keep particular public safety

officials in san francisco residing there and available for emergencies and available for things that might happen that are not emergencies but require their presence. i am old enough to remember it was a frequent occurrence when off-duty officers would intercept someone in a bank robbery, or other types of critical activity. you don't see it as often today because unfortunately a large majority of our officers are not san francisco residents. the same is true of firefighters, you know, and other public safety officials whose presence would be critical in an emergency situation. it would be a situation where you wouldn't have to worry about instances like shared equity, because this would be a bonus paid each year and if for some reason they were to move, that would have been that bonus for that period of time. but it would have to be used towards rent or purca