window. it throws everything off. in 1979, the cottage was preserved because of the historical influence. six years ago, the planning department said that you cannot have four levels next door. i have got a few friends with me. they said that we were the only ones complaining. as you can see, i am not here by myself. >> are there any other speakers are in favor? into the mic. >> i am not very comfortable speaking in public. >> name? >> my name is bruce smith.

i went to high school in dallas lyell. i love san francisco neighborhoods. -- in galileo. i love san francisco neighborhoods. i would normally say that is the property owner's rate to do what they wish with their property. there is a line when you start affecting others. i think that compromises should be reached. i have not seen or heard any effort by the people the proposed deconstruction. i just want to stand up and say , thank you for hearing this. i wrote something here. the 900 block it is as important

to the residence as are the painted ladies to its neighbors. i hope that the h-- that our block will be treated with the same respect. >> are there any other speakers? project sponsor? >> good evening, president miguel, members of the commission. i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. you have to hand it to them. nobody else produces the foot soldiers to come out to the planning commission like they do in that member to read. i have had a number of der's and they have all been similar to this. we are confronted with a dilemma. on the one hand, we have the

planning code and design standards. a thorough review by professional planning staff, which reaches a conclusion based on the adoption of standards, which are probably the toughest standards in the country. you have an organized krupa of people, very lovely people, -- group of people, very lovely people, they speak well and they appear very nice. they are advancing beren and economic interests. that would be obvious, -- their own economic interests. that would be obvious, then they took a poll, there would be no changes to the neighborhood. i have none of live -- met

anybody that live 10 or 20 years in a neighborhood and wanted any changes. they are slow to adapt to change. it is human nature than it is perfectly normal. we have to weigh that against our planning codes and professional staff. the professional planning staff left little doubt where they came out in their staff report. i read it cover to cover. they had nothing but positive things to say. if we are going to pay attention to our planning staff, we have to take that into account. i want to address a couple of things that the request hor mentioned. there is some degree of talking points. everybody is referring to the

building as a cottage. it is a three-story building. there are a number of a four- story houses on this street, contrary to what was presented to you. the tallest is 50-feet high. i would submit to you? hills -- you that hills are not extraordinary in san francisco. they are ordinary. this is what he refers to as a light well. it is thought a traditional light well. it is a cut-out. it is apparent that when you start here and you go 30 feet down, there is access to air in these windows.

you do not that much light w hen you are behind the eve. you do not -- i do not think he is interested in light. this is a rectangular shaped light well that those of three stories. i think that is pretty generous. my response would be, less than you want more like -- light, you could take some responsibility and remove your eve. you are not going to get much light at the bottom of the 30- foot tunnel. air, but not much light.

i have to tell you that we have received no response. with regard to the building scale, we agree with the staff's conclusion that the buildings may extend one story taller than the adjacent buildings as long as it is said that 15 feet. i went out to the site the past week and i walked up and down the entire plot. i included photographs in our package. is that it? >> yes, it is. five minutes are up. >> thank you. >> speakers in favor of the project sponsor? if not, der requestor, you have

a two-minute rebuttal. >> hi. the question about the light well and the roof, i would like to show a photograph of that. that roof has been there. it covers the whole roof. this has been there for 104 years. there is so much difference between the walls of our house and then next door. there has never been a question of whether we needed to remove tit or not until now. we will have to do something about that. there is plenty of light in the

rooms below. if they were to drop the light well below our windows, we could get light in that space. that is my argument about the light well. >> the project sponsor, two minutes. >> i will use my two minutes to finish my remarks. i did not find the last argument persuasive. he said that there was no need to remove the eve until now. the time has come. if you want to have more light in your light well, you should

take the steps necessary on your property to makes that happen instead of shift the burden to your neighbor. during my tour of the neighborhood, i took the number of photographs which i included in your packet. there are a number of a four- story buildings. there is no uniformity stepping down the hill. you find some houses that are shorter and some houses that are higher. you'll also find additional vertical stories that have donbn added. that is nothing new. there is nothing new about a vertical elements deco's up to

-- that goes up to 40 feet in this deborah. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> i am just want to make a couple of remarks. i went out and look at the property. -- looked of the property. i live on a steep hill. it creates, what in san francisco, is an extraordinary circumstance as the property itself in the location. anyone who did not extend a matching light well to go below the first floor windows of the

adjacent house should be shot. you are blocking what is a very small v-shaped well. it is ridiculous not to go below the bottom level of these windows. >> i was going to start with that. i think the staff of's reasoning about a six-foot fence does not hold water -- staff's reasoning about a six-foot fences does not hold water. that is the minimum if we are going to approve something. that is all that i have for now. commissioner antonini: i would

agree. bring it to the level of the sill, which is what the der asked for. they would have to work with whatever they do on the bottom floor. the only other changes i see, and this is just architectural, the house to the north, the uphill side would probably be west. they did a very the thing on be roof treatment. this deal emphasizes the fact the biggest steps down -- de- emphasizes the fact that it

steps down. i would think that this might be something that was architecturally look better. we will see what the other commissioners have to say about that. instead of looking completely square, you have thisgroove -- this groove on the watson house. that helps to make it not look so square. >> of this reminds me of a discussion we had last week. i do not think it at all fits the setting.

i regret the staff did not properly interpret the light well. the dust not have anything to do with them and raise the --does not have anything to do with an unreasonable enlargement to the home. that could be a very comfortable, very large home with of all of the extraneous things that this has. the top floor, i have never seen a living room with two bathrooms off the living room. the bathroom powder room. right next to it, a bathroom with a shower and a full bathtub. very luxurious.

a lighthouse can be accommodated in three stories. i do nothing the light well is an issue. i will not be quite as verbal about my reaction to it. having said that, i believe the project as it stands to needs to be modified. i was very appreciative of the other architecture. by email, i received this. as an architect, this is incomprehensible.

this is not quite honestly the texting what is going on. d --e -- depicting what is going on. there is a little slope. you do not really get it unless you know the street. i think it is a little bit disingenuous. >> i was able to walk up and down the entire block. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i have a couple of questions. ken staff c --an -- can staff comment on the previous the

nile? >> i believe this is a situation where this project is flanked by the smaller building. that was the logic that they used in allowing this building to get to that height. >> has there not been a code change? >> i am not certain about that. i could not answer the question. >> the requirement for the upper floors have changed. four years ago, you have to have a full fire exit polling done. >> i do not know if that was a rationale. typically, they have allowed a story taller than the residential areas. the letter to the medical sunset.

rushtypica -- typical sunset. in this particular case, it is going up a story hire. -- higher. >> previously, an additiona has been allowed on this pr operty. the cottage in front was considered to be historic or have historic status. push the addition to the back. we have a situation where the building with the addition is

not considered historic. if and were originally considered historic, do we have a situation where the building has lost its integrity? we no longer care about the building? between that building -- question and the question about the other building and some other anomalies -- i do not know. the current design does not work for me. the reasoning behind it does not work. the reasoning that we will allow one story on every building 14 higher and everything else everywhere the stuff makes sense -- one floor

higher than everything else everywhere does not make sense. therefore, it is analogous to some other neighborhoods where we said, no, that does the matter. it does not matter fifth that is the policy. that is my feeling -- if that is the policy. that is the feeling. the light well, at least for some of us, is not an issue ofk. nockinknocking a floor off is wi

would go weiith this. >> if you look at the family room and you have two bathrooms, one of which is a tub, i do not know why you need only a powder room up there. you could probably knock off 12.6 feed can knock that second bathroom off. you could do the same thing with part of the deck. by doing that, you would make the top floor of much less intrusive on in neighborhoods. you could put dormers on.

you could make that a lot less square and cumbersome to the adjacent places. the other four is fine with me. i would say, to extend the light well down to the adjacent room. do some work on the facade in the front and make the corners fit a little bit more. on the fourth floor, remove one of the bathrooms. the one with the shower tub and two sinks. you could take some off the front deck.

that would be my motion. >> and do i hear a second? the motion fails for lack of a second. commissioner moore: how would like to make a counter motion that we take it to three stories have and have the architect find ways to redistribute bathrooms on the other floors and to our range of things in a more logical way. really emphasize for the department that on steep hillsides, the overriding concern for not having an additional four has something to do with the fact that under all circumstances, we want to

maintain the quality. that is one of the main motivations for the building on san francisco hillsides. this particular property -- old buildings does not the place to do that. >> is there a second to the motion? >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to approve the project and to require that the light well extend to the lower window level and to remove the fourth floor and the project sponsor can reposition the spatial needs on the third floor or whatever they're building

program is. commissioner antonini: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice-president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> the motion passes 5-1 with antonini voting against. you are now on item 18 on a number of street. >> good evening, members of the planning commission. the item before you is the request for a conditional use authorization to modify the conditions of approval to convert two-thirds of the foot massage treatment room into three bedrooms and four shoulder

ne,ck, an -- shoulder, neck, and back massage. this is within a commercial zoning district. the current proposal involves improvements to the existing crown for commercial space. condition number 3 have allowed extended operations for a one- year period. after all of which, the hours of operation were required to be reduced to 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. monday through friday. the extended hours of operation may continue following an

informational presentation to the commission regarding the massage operation during a one- year period. this covers the informational presentation regarding the operation m of theassage during the last year. they have consulted with the department of public health and the san francisco police station. there have not been any problems resulting from the massages to supplement. that has them in operation since january, 2010. they would like to continue with the current hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. seven days a week. they have committed to the planning department. this is pursuant to the conditions, customer service,

information with a foot massage of parliament before july. this is still above the current hours of operation to continue indefinitely. the project sponsor will provide further details during their presentation. today, the department has received one phone call about this project. the planning department's preliminary recommendation is to approve with conditions. they are to meet the requirements of the planning code. they will continue to provide the uses in the area. there his is not an indication that thepp