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? i think it seems to be a logical sequence where commissioner moore went with this project. >> as far as the number of units? vice president olague: sure, and the zoning. >> and it is zoned primarily rh2, and that is where we are. feel like i know the neighborhood very well and probably 60 or 70 percent of the homes that are single family and it is a little block by block, case by case we do the analysis. we did take into consideration that this specific block is so consistent in single family and character. having said that, we recognize to commissioner antonini's

comments that this is a new architectural style for this side of the block and represents a modern character that's not currently present although it is present across the street. there is a mix of style and scale in this block. but the determination in the end is it was appropriate to replace a single family with another single family. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: in some ways some people don't want to be landlords if i were in a situation that would involve demolition and even if it was an rh2, i wouldn't be interested in being a london lord and wouldn't particular add a unit just because the zoning allowed me to. and i know that's city policy is to try to increase the number of

units if possible, so it is a bit conflicting here, but i do have some design issues with what's been presented. it's okay. president miguel: i also looked at the rh2 situation, but considering that it was sort of a blanket zoning more the area and considering the difference in each side of the particular block, i did not pursue that idea any further. i know the design breaks up the tradition there of the side of the block, but i personally don't think it's that drastic.

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: this is an important point on this and that i think noee valley shows us a situation where over the last 30 or 40 years we have found many families who have moved into this area and found what are now single family homes or that are zoned rh2 and it's a refuge for people because there aren't a lot ofs choice on the east side of san francisco that are anywhere near affordable, so the choice is if you want to stay on the east side, you either have to find a place that's going to be appropriate and that is an important thing because it's more important to allow places where families will be able to live and raise their children than it is to have an additional unit. increased density is not always the appropriate thing in all neighborhood. i think this is totally okay with me and it's actually desirable that we are carving out areas where people can still have single family homes.

i would -- i see commissioner moore has comments. i would make a motion to not approve, but ask that project sponsor work with staff to try to perhaps do some design changes to emulate some of the things that the commissioners have suggested on the design. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: as we are saddled with the responsibility of looking at equitable densification throughout the city, i do believe the rh-2 zoning in noe valley needs to closely be look at and specifically at this resident and a megamansion in small rh2 and you go from one car to two car. i think we are completely defeating any larger policy decision with which we are trying to sell everybody else. i cannot participate in supporting that project unless that particular issue has been

looked at where we have other neighborhoods we are very strict in what we are enforcing and what we expect when a home gets as large as this one. i cannot support this project not because i don't want this family to have a home, but in this situation the issue is framed the wrong way. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? >> we're never going to rezone the entire noe valley back to rh-1, so that's out of the question and the situation will exist anyway the next time around and the next time around. i'll second the motion. i had something else, but i can't remember what it is.other considerations, there is this setback calculation that staff did and perhaps one additional thing would be to bring it all the way to the front like some

of the others. i don't know if that's possible or not. >> on that issue since i am acting d.a. for this project, the reason is the bay window that comes, i believe, within two feet. most of it only set back 5 feet. and the variance states 2 because the bay window comes out for that 3 feet. so it's pretty close. >> the desire for a bay was an attempt to provide that traditional element onto the front of the building. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i like to ask the zoning administrator as a planning director and i like to have a policy discussion with you of how we bridge the guidelines and consideration for market octavia with densification and real control on parking per unit with this particular precedent setting decision.

>> i think there is a couple of things to consider here. one is the pattern of the neighborhood. and that is what we often will bring housing and there are as many places in the city where the zoning does not reflect the prevailing pattern of the neighborhood. the other issue with respect to parking is the availability of transit nearby. in market octavia is on the city's busiest transit corridor. and which is why we requested and why you have approved a reduction in parking requirements in that area. this area is not nearly as well served by transit. and for all those reasons, we look at these things individually and believe this is consistent with the prevailing pattern in that part of the city, recognizing that the zoning does not reflect that prevailing pattern, but that is true in much of the city. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i think in this instance it's much like some of the times looking at unit merger case and we have the various criteria and we look at and as you know, certainly owner occupied is one of the criteria

and functionality is another. and then we look at both the zoning in the area and the predominant situation as to whether it's, in fact, in compliance or not and we kind of weigh those two often as one of the five criteria. and it seems to satisfy all the criteria, although the criteria are a little different, but analogous for this situation. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i remembered what i was going to say. the current design of the house doesn't preclude using the bottom for another unit, i don't think. it's currently configured with a fairly enclosed stairway, a den i believe it's call and there is a bathroom down there and another additional bedroom. so it could be, i suppose, the only issue would be how you access it, but that can be probably worked out in the future if the situation arises

that a second unit is allowable and it can be, i believe, accommodated in the bottom floor if it ever came to that. some future owner, for example, wanted to convert it. secretary avery: the motion on the floor is to have the project continue to work with staff to incorporate the design features that the commission has offered. on that motion, commissioner apt ant. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner olague. >> no. >> commissioner miguel. >> yes. >> that motion fails on the 3-2 vote with commissioners moore and olague voting against. >> we understand --

>> commissioners, and directors, in the absence of the successful substitute motion, this project is approved as proposed. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now on item number 8. that is also pulled from the consent calendar. 2010.0607c for 445-447 suter street. >> i'm rick crawford of department staff and i have a brief presentation prepared to make, but in the ability to move things along more quickly, i would ask commissioner moore to question and address that satisfactory. >> i received a letter about three weeks ago of a particular individual, i don't have his name in front of me, stating

there was a previous application for a similar use that turned out to be a very controversial and very disruptive use for tenants in the building with the implication that there were activities which are not permissible activities under the current zone without being specific. >> i am not aware of any previous massages being approved in this building through the current process. they do meet all the criteria for massage use that have been fairly recently put into the planning code. i really can't speak to what happened with a previous use there. commissioner moore: if you don't have any record of it, i received a letter, so perhaps that was a misdirected letter to me. i don't have any idea. it implied there were prostitution on that floor disrupting people at night.

and i would assume that you would be the first one receiving such a letter. >> right. i did not receive anything. commissioner moore: i consider the letter i received as of no consequence. >> just to clarify, there has been no record, as you know, the police record on this -- >> no police record on this. >> the police department had no issues with this. commissioner moore: then we're good. i don't understand where the letter comes from and if everybody else gets it and waiting to hear somebody comment and if you wrote the letter to me, i can not accept the letter as part of the public regard because it is not. president miguel: i received a copy of it also but was never contacted otherwise. i presume there is a question that they would be here. commissioner moore: that is correct. thank you. we'll leave that as it is. president miguel: commissioner olague? >> move to approve. president miguel: i need public xhept. is there any public comment on this item?

>> good afternoon, commissioners i am the project sponsor for the massage establishment to include massage therapy within an existing street above an office on the eighth floor. the project would establish one 229 square foot massage treatment room in the medical office suite. no alteration would be done to the building externally. this project will provide massage service to the

chiroprater's office. president miguel: thank you. is there further public comment? >> it is my office suites that are that will be used. i am in support of this. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i think i would be supportive of this and maybe the doctor could answer a question. is it customary in chiropractic practices to have auxiliary massage facilities? is that often done? >> no t massage can occur under my supervision. but i wish for the patient to be able to access the massage directly. that is why i allowed the separate business to happen.

commissioner antonini: this is a separate business. >> but in connection with your practice. >> inside of my practice. commissioner antonini: i was curious and it made a lot of sense and in that type of a practice that part of the therapy might involve massage. view vi >> it does, yes. commissioner antonini: a little unusual and people could access the massage without being patients of your practice. >> yes. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> i have a motion -- >> second. president miguel: motion and a second. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval as proposeed. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner olague. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> thank you, commissioners. that passed unanimously. president miguel: why don't we take ar