somebody somewhere to put something in it that if anybody does anything structurally with their building, that that issue becomes addressed. because it's been a real pain. these are lovely people, but i have been there, spent 35 years of my early life there and another three years there when i had to move out in order to come before the planning commission and build my current abode. been there, done that, know all the pieces here, ok? and i've had a terrible time with people who weren't so considerate. so i don't know what you can do or what anybody else can do, but i'd like to have it down on the record that this has been a problem and somebody needs to look at it. if they can't do anything, maybe in the future, if they can't do what they want to do and they have to sell the building, please, can somebody put that in the record because it's a pain.

thank you so much. president olague: thank you. i don't have any other speaker cards, but at this point, if people want to come up and speak, they can, or if they want to stand up to show their support for the project, they can. and then -- because i don't have any other speaker cards. and i assume that you're all in support of the project. ok, thank you. i don't want to assume, but is there any opposition? i don't have any other cards before me. no? so does anyone want to speak? seeing none -- seeing no additional speakers, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm going to maybe a motion to approve, but i would like to comment on the last speaker and just encourage the church that, if it's possible -- it's colonel not a condition, but if there's a way to do something with the front door, as time goes on, it might even -- i think one of the speakers

representative of the church said we really would like to have a nicer entrance in there. so if it becomes economically feasible to do that, it would be a nice thing to do, but certainly not a condition at this point. but something to think about. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i'd encourage the church to take a look. one of the conditions of moving it to the opposite side, toward the corner, is that there's a utility room in the basement. and i don't know what's in there. but it might be really expensive to take out whatever is in there and that kind of thing. but if you can take a look at it, other than that it doesn't seem to be, on the face of it, having looked at this just for this particular approval, any reason that it couldn't be switched. but, you know, it's not a condition. but we'd encourage you to kind of take a look at it, if you could. president olague: commissioners, the motion on the floor for approval with an

encouragement to the project sponsor to look at possibly moving the front entrance to another location if that proves to be possible. on that commission, commissioner antonini. aye. >> aye. >> aye. commissioner moore has stepped away from the room. commissioner sugaya. aye. aye. aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on -- >> i was going to ask that we take a 10-minute recess. i want to make sure that commissioner moore is here for the next discussion because it's based on clarification. president olague: the president olague: ok, the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you are on item number 13, for 3987 20th street. and this is a hearing to clarify a previous planning

commission decision. it was on a d.r. case adopted february 3, 2011. the building permit application proposed to construct a roof deck and a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling. it's also in the delores heights special use district. and commissioners, the only reason i read that through is because i really want to emphasize that this item is before you for clarification. the d.r. case it not before you. it cannot be addressed at this time. it was not noticed for a d.r. hearing. the only thing before you is clarification of the motion made at that hearing. >> good afternoon, president olague. michael smith. planning department staff. you have before you 3987 20th street. i'm sorry that we're here today, but if you refer to the

overhead, i'll try to clarify the area of dispute. the motion that was written after the february hearing reflects -- is reflected in this plan, which shows a notch right here, a three by eight notch, approximately. the neighbors or the d.r. requesters received that action memo and it was our understanding that it was to encompass this area highlighted in yellow as well. i have since met with the maker of the motion and clarified that it was indeed to include this yellow area that's highlighted here as well, which would be a setback for the whot depth of the addition -- whole department of the addition. this really concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions or comments. president olague: i'm sorry. i'd like to open it up for public comment at this time.

>> madam president, let me just say one more thing. this is not a typical d.r. hearing. the project sponsor does not get five minutes. each speaker can have up to three minutes, depending on the rules that you've set. president olague: thank you, secretary avery, for clarifying that. >> thank you, president olague, jeremy paul for the project sponsor. after the public hearing we spoke to commissioner moore, who made that motion, and used this set of plans to get clarification of where this line should be. and the markings that were made on this were made by commissioner moore at that time. she was very, very clear that we were lining up to the furthest projection in the

adjacent building, which was here. and i'll show you some ph this reflects a substantial cut into the existing deck at this site. this is a photograph of the existing deck at this site. and there is the property standing at the point at which we need to cut this deck back to meet the motion as it was recorded. if in fact we're being asked to push that all the way back to the house srks the doors that are there, the existing french doors that enter that balcony will no longer function. this changes this project substantially for mr. copp, and it does not improve the situation in any noticeable way for the adjacent property owner. this is ms. todd's home.

this is the deck that must be cut back to meet this extension right here. so we're cutting back about this far into this existing balcony. the area below it, as you see, that we'd be eliminating our infill from is fully solid. so if we were to cut this back any further than this, we're not giving any substantial benefit in any sort of way that's going to mean something to the adjacent property owner. when you make a d.r. decision that find a way to form a compromise and to re-design a building that gives both neighbors a way to move forward, it improves the situation for both parties. that makes a lot of sense to everybody. but in a situation like this, where we're cutting into a balcony that he already has. and in going all the way back

to the house, eliminate ago french door that he has accessing a deck, eliminating the possibility of a table being anywhere on this deck, it becomes just a walkway. so i would ask that you uphold the decision as it was previously made and let this project move forward. this is the sixth time we've been in a public hearing with this thing and it's a very minor thing. thank you. president olague: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? everyone has three minutes, because it's all based on the clarification. commission secretary avery clarified that at the very beginning, that this item is not a d.r. it's basically to clarify -- >> oh, absolutely. president olague: yeah, everyone in the audience who's

like to speak to it has three minutes. >> i was only going to respond to mr. paul's comments. all i would say is that -- president olague: if you would identify yourself. >> oh, i'm sorry. my name is chris boettcher. i'm one of the original d.r. quers and i'm one of the neighbors -- requesters and i'm one of the neighbors. i thought that notch was in fact going to be the full length of the deck. after all, the new project basically -- the point of departure for the new project is not -- that deck won't be there anyway. so my understanding was that as it was shown on the overhead projection was that that notch was going to extend all the way back to the building, because that whole portion of the house is actually going to be rebuilt anyway, so it's not like they're really losing anything. they're gaining all that additional floor space that's going to be included in the remodel. and when we left the hearing, that was our impression of what

was decided. i think michael smith, the planner, drew on the overhead to show exactly what the modification was going to be, and everybody agreed to it and it was voted on. so when we left the hearing, that's what our understanding was. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> pam, delores heights improvement club. and if in fact the decision that was seen on tv is what is being put forth here, i think that is quite acceptable. it was a bit unnerving to have one decision on tv and then another one on paper, where there had apparently been a meeting behind the scenes. that included the permit example pe diedor is what we were told and did not include

any of the d.r. requesters. but if in fact the original decision is being honored, then i don't think i have any more to say about it. thank you. president olague: thank you. dd >> good afternoon. i'm the project architect. i would like to just respectfully disagree with the d.r. requesters. it was our understanding that there was only -- we thought it had been expressed at the hearing that the notch was only going to be eight or nine feet. so looking at the drawings -- that eight or nine feet is taking space of both the living space and the deck above and what was part of the original deck that was on the house that jeremy just expressed. but also realize that at the

ground level of the adjacent neighbor, their building is actually -- is partially supported on a column. so their setback is much wider at the bottom level of the property. so they are getting light in a substantial area already. i'm repeating what jeremy has expressed. the notch -- the neighbor has a shrubbery tree along this property line for privacy, and that's the dilemma that we continually are example expressing is that the neighbors insist upon having privacy, but at the same time they want openness, so we're caught in this dilemma. i think the decision to cut back the notch eight or nine feet is appropriate and it gives us a deck that is at least functional. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> i'm jim, one of the neighbors, it was my

understanding that miss moore said that the building was too wide at the back. and so they were trying to narrow it somewhat, you know, to ameliorate some of the damage that it's done. we really thought it was the new part of the building, you know. that was our understanding, not just eight feet. so we were somewhat confused. seems like it was changed after we left. so i didn't understand how that could happen. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? no? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: this is not re-opening the d.r. hearing or negotiating if it is or it isn't. i will have to basically state for the record that i did not meet mr. williams and discussed behind closed doors or independently the decision which was not on the verbal

recount by people in the room, but it ultimately relied on the drawing which was handed to mr. smith. that is the drawing and that is what is accurately reflected in what he in yellow outline showed a few minutes ago. i went back through the entire case, looked at what the intent of the motion was, and that was indeed to cut back all the way to what i believe is really the critical edge, that is the edge where the two building masses, the built-out masses meet. and in order to respectfully stay away from the gardens which meet in-between somewhere, that might require to cut the back of the deck back, because that is the intent of that yellow line. in addition to that, just for the record, the architect had not shown in his own drawing that is the roof plan on the first page of what the

commissioners have in front of them, that there was indeed a deck protruding into that notch. and i believe that is the right decision when you plan an expansion as substantive as this will be, although one which has been approved. so i have always -- i've gotten numerous emails, responded simultaneously to secretary avery and mr. smith. i do not than gauge in independent communication with -- do not engage with independent communication with any of the parties involved. and i always say go back to the drawing. that is where the interpretation and the meaning of the motion lies. ends of story.

>> i don't understand the disagreement. there's a feeling that's not accurate. >> well, what people are referring to is there was a side meeting after the hearing to clarify what the motion was.

and this drawing is from the project sponsor. but this is a different notch than what is reflected in the -- this is a smaller one than what is reflected in the yellow that i showed you. and so this was drawn after the hearing. we didn't have the benefit -- it was kind of brushed -- didn't have the benefit of maybe looking at the same scale of drawings when we did that. but when we tried to clarify it after the hearing, it didn't match what i drew at the hearing. >> my feeling i have to go with what your showed that it was consistent with what we had seen and approved. i can't remember because it's off memory. >> commissioner miguel.

>> i do remember. i looked at where commissioner moore was and listened to her as sfar as what she was doing. that is my memory. consistent with her previous comments on this and consistent with the yellow markings. i do not -- i was not party to any post hearing discussions. i know there were some that were carried out on the floor. but i was only looking at them from a distance. so i can't say what happened there. but as far as what happened during the hearing itself, that is definitely my memory of it. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: oh, i thought the director was -- i make a motion -- do i make a motion?

ok. i'm just going to say then if there's no motion necessary that my recollection along with commissioner miguel is what is shown in yellow on the plans. that staff has given us. which means the notch goes all the way back to where the other building comes to the property line. >> if that's the way to describe it. >> commissioners, if i may, usually after a hearing, i go back to the office and i do a summary of the actions that you take. on that particular hearing or after that particular hearing, my summary of what took place at the hearing was that the commission took -- approved the project with a modification of a three-foot notch on the west side of ground floor deck and a more picket fence like look where possible around all the decks. and i didn't say that it was a three-foot notch for five feet. but it was on the west side.

so my understanding of the motion, it was made by commissioner moore, was in a it was for the whole -- was that it was for the whole side. if that was wrong, i'll also say, commissioners, that in order to avoid this type of thing in the future, i -- with a there -- in a it be cleared up before the -- that be cleared up before the meeting is over. this unfortunately, although think it was necessary for us to do because there is a question. but it should not go beyond the hearing. it should -- the clarity should take place at the hearing. before we adjourn. >> i think the city attorney could clarify on the record for us. >> could i add a comment here? >> sure. >> just reflecting on what secretary avery is saying, the

difficulty with this particular drawing set and i would like to use that as a forward-moving comment, the drawing set is represented in two scales which makes it very difficult to read. the first is the one on which the setback or the cutout was documented as the first drawing was the roof plan. which clearly shows how the massing of the building next to each other come together and how this notch indeed would reflect some form of a compromise for the building next to each other. and since we were all struggling to help the building applicant to get its approval, but also give some pushback relative to the -- in front of us, that is where we compromise. and it was that scale drawing which was used to indicate how far it would go back. so i think i appreciate claar fige her understanding because

in the confusion of using two scales of drawings, you can very easily get lost. president olague: thank you. and city attorney. >> deputy city attorney marlina o'byrne. i recommend the commission does take a motion on this issue. you can call it a motion of clarification. something like that. but because it appears to have been very unclear what the commission as a body decided with regard to this setback issue, i think that the commission does need to clarify that as a body and not just have this general discussion. president olague: commissioner miguel. vice president miguel: i would move that we certify the intent of the previous action on this matter be clarified according to the presentation made this evening by mr. smith and the department.

>> second. >> call the question. >> may ski a question? -- may i ask a question? >> the presentation that she gave today is that in keeping with the summary that we produced last time, that the notch goes back -- >> yes. the presentation i made today was for a three-foot setback for the length of the addition. >> thank you. exactly. >> incorporate that in the motion. >> so on the motion to clarify the action of the commission is that the three-foot notch goes the entire length of the side. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner borden: aye. >> commissioner fong.

aye. commissioner miguel. commissioner olague. thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, you are now in general public comment. president olague: is there any jub public comment? seeing none general comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.