commission had a letter they shared today. i want to make sure they are involved in this thing. it would be those parties, really. >> we are happy. we want to do this peacefully and cooperatively. president olague: one of the communications is a project shall appoint a community liaison officer. that is part of the standard conditions. that is already in there. this i am not sure about, that neighbors have evening cell phone access to a contact person. is that something the project sponsor would be agreeable to? so neighbors have phone access to the contact person who is able to respond to noise complaints at all times the roof deck is an operation. >> we will even provide an alternate number.

president olague: the other -- the posting of the conditions -- a sign security staff to maintain quiet and order. maybe that is something -- >> we do that already. there is very tight security. >> another is that i think is reasonable -- visibly post siphonage requesting patrons to be considerate of noise impacts on neighboring residences and how the rooftop restaurant is a neighbor. i think some of these are pretty reasonable that the neighbors are requesting. some are already included in the conditions. the sound and some of the other things, we will hear more about. the layout -- will see the plan there. the mandatory hearing we will have, and a hearing every two years.

we will see. maybe in six months. we will look at that again. the hours -- we will go with what they have. maximum occupancy 175 as opposed to 300. there are a few we obviously did not include in our motion, but i think that is a good start. i think we are not going to go anywhere if there is no trust. it seems there is a lack of trust coming from the people here the were in opposition. if there is a way we could improve that, i can't that would be good. my concern in part is that right now i think there is a huge unemployment rate, and economic diversity in the city is something we want to try to preserve. there is a large number of

youth, i think as high as 33% of san francisco young people are unemployed. 45% of working age adults are unemployed. that is the lowest rate in 60 years. i think employment is a critical issue right now for the community. when people talk about violence and youth, sometimes if you cannot employed it will lead to them resorting to other activities, but i think the employment piece is critical. i was the one coming years ago, one of the people who observed the illegal use of the medjool. i would like to see it work on some level. we will see. we have faith that there is a way of making it work. so i'm going to support the motion.

commissioner sugaya: i just want to help commissioners understand the closing times are just for patrons. the workers are going to be there forever. vice president miguel: isn't there a one hour restriction on that? i'm sorry. i do not have it in front of me right now. >> let me double check. i do believe i put in the condition that the workers would have to leave by one hour after the closing. vice president miguel: that is normal. maybe i missed it if it was not in there. >> on condition 12, hours of operation, second paragraph states no patrons may remain in the outdoor activity area after closing time. staff may remain in the facility as necessary for cleaning and other duties related to the operation of the area one hour past the closing our stated

above. non-remain in the outdoor area of the cleanup time. president olague: i guess we do need to discuss the rooftop deck issue that has come up. >> i think part of the dilemma is that the code is not well written. it does make sense to address the president issue, which is a concern. you could ask us to look at that issue with better language to address this in the future. president olague: we are asking you to do that. >> commissioners, there is a motion on the floor for approval with conditions that the

department has recommended, plus lowering the occupancy for the outdoor use to 175 persons, and they come back for a six month review, that the project sponsor will continue to work with staff and neighbors on sound problems -- president olague: and enforcement of all the conditions. >> the project sponsor will meet with the buddhist center and the other patrons or people who are in opposition to the project that have stated they designate an evening cell phone access for the neighborhood, that they visibly posts linage to inform the -- visibly post signs to

inform patrons to be quiet. the department will come back as soon as they are ready to approve a permit and give you information. that is what i have. commissioner sugaya: to clarify what i wanted to hear back from the department -- it would be additional consideration for sound based on the wilson report. also that specifically staff look at sro open space requirement and the necessity for additional screening and protection for the residents. vice president miguel: 50% of

the employees are from the community. i think that is something positive about what they are doing. i do not just want to be negative or critical in my tone. >> the motion as we have stated with those conditions is before you. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. we're taking a 10-minute recess.

>> a request for discretionary review. >> good afternoon. this is an abbreviated discretionary review request. it is a three story proposal for a rare extension. it will be a rear addition to an existing -- can you hear? i am sorry. the proposal is to construct a three story horizontal rear extension and a one story vertical extension. it will be an extension to an existing first floor and basement level, creating a new basement under the extension. the rear extension will be set back 5 feet from the east property line. the vertical extension will create a new third story that will be set back 15 feet from the front building wall and 9 feet from the rear building wall. the will be a steep down slope and a lateral up slope from the

west to east. it contains a two-story over basement single-family building. the property is in the nunnelee valley -- noe valley area. the majority of parcels measure 114 feet by 25 feet and buildings range between two and four stories. the residential design team has reviewed and suggests that a five-foot side set back along the east side of the rear addition at the two lowest levels. the project was reviewed by senior management and they agreed with the design recommendations for the top level. however, the recommended having a five-foot side set back on the east property line was only required on the second level of the newer addition, and the bottom level could extend to the property line. there is one dr request filed.

the planning department has determined the addition would not create significant adverse impact two adjacent buildings or the dr requestor' property. all of the lots facing the street are steeply down slope. while the building addition is steeper than the adjacent building, it is at a lower grade than the other residences on the block. the rear addition's east facing windows are set back 5 feet from the east property line and have limited visibility because of the existing footprint and build up. a solid railing has been added to the third floor rear terrace, which is set back 4 feet from the east property line.

this will provide additional privacy to the dr requestor. we find the project does not have exceptional circumstances and the commission should not take discretionary review. i would be happy to entertain any questions by the commission. president olague: dr requestor? >> do we use this? i am sorry. do i just set it on this? sorry. good afternoon. i work for the san francisco unified school district as a bilingual special education professional. i support children with autism in a regular classroom. my brother and i own the

property next door to this property. my parents purchased this home in 1960. we grew up in the home. it is still unoriginal edwardian detail. my mother took very good care of it. it is 1200 square feet. in 1989, 6551 through major remodels and went from 900 square feet to 2700 square feet. my mother had just widowed and did not speak much english. she was very upset when the model was complete. she had a green thumb and loved family holiday dinners. it not only cast a shadow on her garden and dining room -- it caused drainage problems in her basement and left her with a massive 30 foot tall property line wall. i would like to start by referring to the 30 foot existing property line wall on the plans, highlighted in

yellow. i have also brought color pictures. when coming out of my rear basement exit to the yard at the stairs, this is what i see. this is the 30 foot tall wall. the proposal wants to add more height to the wall, as well as push it up 14 feet, plus an additional 12 feet. this shows the same wall. this shows how out in more height to the wall will take away light and privacy, as well as a more bulk to an already massive wall. note there is lots of light and privacy. this shows where it was pushed out to its maximum in 1989. it was not average.

this was taken from the upper rear bedroom window. this is the top of the 30 foot wall. they want to add an additional 3.5 feet tall terrorist wall to the existing 30 foot wall. this will interfere with privacy and test showing. this was taken from the rear dining room window just beneath the bedroom window, i am already boxed in. they want to add a property line window and extend the building. these are taken from the rear bedroom window. note how close the rear homes are on 23rd street. this will create privacy issues with the rare properties.

this is a rearview of what property. note the three houses on the left are flush with one another, and the houses on 23rd street are set back on the lot. this is my deck looking out to my neighbor. they want to push out 14 feet, which will cut me off from my neighbor. this was taken from the deck. she will be cut off from me and the neighbors. i will be boxed in. the block will be divided in half. this shows my rear basement exit to the yard. this shows the property line fence. it starts at 4 feet high. it is level. it measures 19 feet 6 inches in width to its end point, where it measures 8 feet 3 inches tall to

the retaining wall. this drops as the yard steps down. this shows the front of my home and the orange building notice in the window. this shows 655 is already set back. these show my home is located at the top of a hill between two slopes. we do not agree with adding a property line window as seen on this plan. we would like the penthouse level to be pushed forward toward the front of the building, since it is already set back, so it does not add more visible bulk to the 30 foot wall and maintains privacy and light, as seen on planned 8.5 --

as seen here. i am very concerned about the negative impact that would result from such a massive project. the book tower over my building. it will also impact my neighbors. i would have thought that a project this massive would have required the architect to meet with the adjacent neighbors to properly notify all of the neighbors that would have been impacted prior to the building department issuing the permit, but this is not the case. >> i hope that after all i have demonstrated to you that you understand our plight. commissioner miguel: speakers in favor of the dr against the project?

>> you just need to start talking. >> thank you for hearing the us. my name is bill, i am an author. i wrote the book on the valley. i have lived in my present house which is just four doors down from the subject property for 37 years. and i have raised two daughters there. never have via post -- i am here

because of the massive this of this structure. the line shows the extent that this thing extends into the bloc. it is practically half way to twenty third street. commissioner antonini spoke about trees. there has been a lot of talk today about open space. i would like to point out that everything north of that red dashed line is, i would say, if this is built, everything north of that red dashed line is in jeopardy because of the precedent that the scale of this

property represents. first of all, it is my understanding that buildings between two other buildings had to be averaged in depth. this one, clearly, is not. if it's taken as precedent, anybody can use that as an example and extend back. losing the trees into the open space in 13 at a time. one issue that is a particular concern and one that i think needs to be addressed is the fact that we have a lot of underground streams. these underground streams flow, and i am afraid that this

basement going deep into the ground is going to upset water flow and cause impact to neighboring houses and to destabilize their basements. the knows what is going to happen. we have never seen any evidence that the architect has even considered this issue. >> my name is nathaniel. my wife and i live two houses away from the proposed development. we ask for your consideration of our opposition of the scope of the presently proposed project. we have the number of concerns. the-and that is inconsistent with the character of the houses.

the extension into the open space is unprecedented that could very detrimentally impact open development and the preservation of this space. it is an important amenity. we are very concerned about losing that. we also believe that this would diminish the enjoyment of the adjoining houses of their homes crowding out there and privacy. we were surprised to learn this project. we don't believe there was appropriate notification provided. this has been documented in the details that has been provided for the discretionary review. the concerns that we expressed were not met with any significant response. we will remain open to dialogue

in the manner that is consistent with the other neighbors. thank you very much. >> i would like to echo the sentiment that you have heard earlier about the concern that we have for this project. i live at 681 l loretta street. i have never opposed the project on our block. we have had massive remodels of around the corner that we can see from the house and we have never had problems with them. the big difference is that there has been dialogue between the neighbors, architect, and homeowner. the first time we heard about this was a week before it was filed. we got the information from the city and apparently the addresses were wrong. the streets were substituted for

avenues and a bunch of notices were sent out listing them as occupant. we are sort of at the table at the last minute. we did try to meet with the architect in the last few weeks. the best thing you can do right now is give us an opportunity to meet with the architect and to meet with the owner and try to work something out because we do want to have good neighbor relations. we want to live together on the street, but we are afraid with no modifications that our bloc will be forever hampered and the way we enjoy our open space and the loveliness that we have in our block. many people look at the front of the building and frankly, we have no idea the lovely enjoyment that we have in the backyard and how much it as to

us living in the what other neighborhoods would be considered or other cities would be considered small spaces. we have daughters that are raising families and spaces that are 1800 square feet. they're raising two kids or three kids. part of that is because we have access to backyards and space. we want to be able to keep the trees, have gardens, and joy what we have, and we want to work with this neighbor and get along, trying to figure out a compromise. without doing what seems to be harm to their adjacent neighbors and their block. thank you for the time and consideration. >> my name is john, i work for

the city and county. i element the address along with my sister. i am not opposed to accommodate their growing families, but this project is extreme. i feel like we were purposefully left out of the loot. we did not have the opportunity to attend a meeting. their meetings were conveniently held during the busy holiday seasons and there is the bogus application where people attended. they wanted to push this through with minimal opposition. i am concerned about the excavation for a second baseman level for their garden room. our homes have only one basement or garage. the homes in our block are three stories. i believe they want to build a

hot tub on the fifth level. it makes their extension even worse. all of their levels will be way above my property line fence. at the end of the building. i feel sorry for my neighbor. she is a senior citizen and is not here because she does not want to cause any problems he is like my mother in 1989. she feels like she participated by supplying copies of the plan she received because she knew that we were not aware of what was going on. a total disregard dense of the neighbors, and how well negatively -- and how it will negatively impact them. the only care about their own house. this fails to maintain like to

adjacent properties by providing adequate setbacks. minimizing impact of privacy and the like. we have sent it open for open space. to address the immediate contents, to design a scale of the building to be compatible with the surrounding buildings at the open space. preserve the neighborhood character, preserve the community and consider that it can leave residents feeling box dan or cut off from open space. if the proposal were to go through, it means the largest house would be next to the smallest house. this is not only massive, it fails to comply with the planning code section. commissioner miguel: