been having that with the westermann planning that has been going on. others that were upset about the historic survey and how other properties were impacted. they did not seem to know until it was much further along. i understand that the issue of having property owner survey was an advisory opportunity. that might be a good idea. at an initiative like that where people's property is actually being impacted. people should have a perspective on how that should be done. i think it could be done on an advisory level. it is nice to get feedback when we look at these sorts of things. i think the wonderful strength of our neighborhood groups from

across the city would be a wonderful place to start when doing that some -- sort of survey with property owners. the standards we have been discussing would take the secretary of interior standards and would it make how we implement them in san francisco. it would help with the consistency. it is often the discussion we are having at how people perceive historic value as being maintained or improved upon or denigrated based on the person's perspective. we have home remodeling projects. in terms of things being visible for the public right away, commissioner sugaya raises some interesting points. there are some things that are considered historic or might impact the designation of a

history with the building. to understand why you would want to include anything that would be visible from the public right away. in terms of the tdr's, it seems to make sense. we have a lot of open opportunities. i do not think we have anything to add on that point. priest -- we for started talking about articles 10 and 11. finally, in getting to a place for codifying some of these things is important. they are actively involved in providing feedback on how this could be done.

>> the heritage comments were most true to me. we get into a sensitive area of historic preservation and how it is being capsulate it. the commissioner is entirely composed except for perhaps one person out of a preservation architect. i look for their expertise. none of them is just coming out of school. these people have been practicing for a long time including many years of an uphill battle for getting a voice for historic preservation in the city. i have been referring for them to take a close look at the writings of supervisor winner, how it fits, how does not fit. that is too much for me to

comment at the moment. i also look at the preservation staff to work in tandem with the preservation commission. because of the way we conduct this, it will ultimately be a balancing act no matter what. we were looking at the next level of discussion. >> just want to thank commissioners' chase and martina's for being here. -- martinez for being here. it has been a long day. >> i just wanted to thank staff for putting so much time into this. it has been a long process. i think there's still going to be another opportunity to

discuss this. since the preservation commission is looking for a november 2 date for supervisor wiener. the intention to pass article a levin has already been made at the commission level. i hope that this can be done at this level. we are looking at a 10:00 hearing, possibly as an action item. there are a lot of changes on the calendar. it is looking like one of those states would probably work. it will be after the hpc has w eighed in. there will be time to review their perspective on it. commissioner, did you have something to add to that? >> not acknowledging the work

that has been happening and their group of experts. i wanted to be sure to say that. the largest dialogs occurred not in this room, but in the many months before. i think for the further development of the final ideas. >> like commissioner miguel, your comments have echoed my sentiment at this point. i do appreciate the comments of mr. chappell when he mentioned that the planning commission does have a broader mission. we are not dismissing prop j. we are also looking at the other priority principles and aspects

of the general plan that also have an influence on how we use land in the city. we are not a singular body that looks at things through a singular lands. we have many things to take into consideration. i am glad that supervisor wiener is at least starting the conversation on the economic hardships in historic districts. that is a concern about members of the public at many times maintaining property within a historic district can be cost prohibitive to many. that will be a really good discussion to have. i think that it has been fair. the specifics will be worked out between now and when we get it back here.

everything that supervisor wiener is at least asking, the questions that he proposes in his recommendations are important ones. whether they are adopted or not, it is important that those things are highlighted. these are concerns that i am hearing from the public. the san francisco preservation standards are important. commissioner sugaya mentioned that the better our reach for historic survey requirement that a certain percentage of property owners sign a verified property of initiation. this is an interesting one. this is a little bit related to the economic hardship issue in some of these districts, which is limiting the highest preservation standards to the a part of the building that is visible to the public right of

way -- right away. i think that is something that is still being considered. i would be interesting in knowing what the current practices are. to mr. sugaya mentioned that there are some. what are the practices? how can we support folks that may not always have the means. the example that i thought a few months ago was a liberty hills discretionary review. it had to deal with a traffic enclosure. the extent to which this can go is a concern for me. when we start to meddle in people's lives to the extent of how the trash should be closed. we need to set the parameters in invest so that people have

certain expectations when people are living there and what to expect. i thought that conversation got a little bit extreme. two women tried to raise a family that had property in a historic district. how they kept their trash. i do not know. if that is what people are expected to have certain standards around that, then you really need to think about to what extent we want to control people's lives in their neighborhood. i would like staff to weigh in on the section that he mentioned. that is the standard for reviews of applications. the secretary of the interior's

standard and whether or not that would apply to non- contributory buildings and vacant parcels. that is the first recommendation. i just want to know how that does or does not relate to ceqa. there is always somebody that supersedes local authorities. i just want to make sure that we are in line with that. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i would just like to make a slightly different comment on the trash cans. that was a discretionary review. it was not part of any historic preservation review. >> then we were talking about how we should set standards in historic districts. commissioner sugaya: there are

standards in to start districts. >> and did go to that extent. commissioner sugaya: there are standards in historic districts. >> for trash and closures? commissioner sugaya: not specifically for trash and closer -- enclosures. >> i do not think that they are of a singular mind that historic preservation is the only thing that they consider when they are looking at various issues coming before them, certificates of appropriateness and that kind of thing. they may be limited. i do not think you can characterize the commission members as being blinded by their historic preservation. >> i apologize if that is how

you talk it. that is not how i met it. he is involved in that issue and a lot of issues that have to deal with a portable housing and other issues. i do not doubt that as individuals or human beings that you care about other issues. even if new look at the charter, the historic preservation is only help to certain things. it does not mean that you do not have a heart. you are not held to it. >> i just want to thank the preservation community. we have come a long ways. you look at pictures from the past where those buildings are still there. i think we have done a lot of good things in preserving buildings rather than destroying them. it does not seem like the new ones are quite the same in many instances. we have to weigh the

preservation against needs for development, economic growth, all of the other needs that need to be balanced. we need to find a way to make preservation affordable for the owners of buildings. we are a better city of if we can upgrade our aging housing stock. this is something that we have to look at. >> thank you again for all of your input. we were going to take an item out of order. i do not think anybody is here. we were going to take the last item out of order. it would be 14 a and b.

>> i am trying to turn the microphone on. the commissioner is taking items 14 a and b out of order. >> good evening, president and members of the commission. pursuant to section 317 of the planning card regarding residential demolition, we propose the demolition of two buildings on the lot. one existing building is a five- story car building. one is a building that holds an illegal dwelling unit. the legal use of the lot is six

units. one of the six units is an illegal location on the lot. both buildings are proposed on either end. those are four-story, a two-unit buildings. the rear yard requirements will also be heard by the zoning administrator. a few items that i would like to a point out and bring to your attention. on page two of the executive summary, the number of legal bedrooms should be seven, not nine as listed on page two. staff would like to include three additional standard conditions. to the final motion, if you improve it -- and approved it today, it will have a conditional use authorizations. those three conditions include a

clause regarding the conditional use authorization. revocation of the conditional use authorization if the conditions of use are violated. lastly, i would like to mention, as written into the conditions of approval, the department is requesting a direct interior connection on the ground floor to a unit one of the main floor above. the plans are drawn out in the project sponsor would like to request that. those stairs would also be subject to a variance. the department would like to recommend approval with conditions for this project so that the buildings would be more consistent with the size and density of the community. the project is appropriate. the project is necessary in

creating the four family size dwelling units that would have four bedrooms. they would have increased size and efficiency with more family- sized housing. the project would bring the unit density and to agreement with the zoning district. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. but its sponsor. -- budget sponsor. >> president, honor commissioners, distinguished members of the planning department, i thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. i want you to know that i am not a professional developer of any commercial projects or any other projects. i am just a regular guy who likes to work every day, nine hours a day.

we spend some time doing social work or helping communities. i've been living in this neighborhood since 1981. this is my first home and i am still there. the intention was to keep the family there. the last four, five, six years, the property has deteriorated a lot. we had some problems with some leaks. to the extent that we were not able to maintain some tenants, who started going out because the water kept coming down and they did not want to stay there. in this property, we have nobody that is being asked to vacate. we have short-term tenants that asked to stay for a while and then they go about with wherever they are going to transfer to.

we will be getting some documents here. this property is meant for the family. it becomes in our culture where everybody lives together. that is what we are trying to do. our family and children will live there. that is one of the main reasons i had to ask that the circus that i had built would be outside the building. the reason is that the bottom unit behind the garage is really meant for the grandma to live there. i did not want the children to go through her every time to go to the yard. that is the purpose for the backyard. we are not building a fence. we have a common yard where children can go up and down and enjoy. my request would be that if

possible, if permit it, the circus be outside. she will be nonstop bothered with kids and family going in and out. i appreciate the time you give me. i request that you will approve this project. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional -- >> i am the project architect. i would like to point out some additional points. can i have the overhead please? thank you. i would like to comment on the elevation. since the middle of last week,

we have visited the elevation and improved it even further. we added a more prominent overhang. you might not be able to see it real well here. we have also added an overhang with a notched out area for planters to create a more inviting entrance. we also wanted to discuss the draft motion conditions of approval regarding the internal connection on page 13 as he pointed out. he pointed to the spiral stairs for the rear yard access. it is extending his kitchen to

the backyard as a preferred by style. i would like to give you a brief history of the development to each of us. in 1999, a variance for lot size was approved. the subdivision and construction of two four-story buildings. a few months later, the owners sought a variance for buildings that would extend into the yard for the full height of their four-story building. on the other building as well. this leaves nine feet of space. the two sides stairs are 5.5

feet. per code section 130 c, these are allowed. we respectfully request that the proposed stairs be approved as is. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i appreciate the changes that you are making architecturally. the rendering was a lot richer the way the bays were separated out. maybe it was just the you rendering where the greenwich facade looked flatter. i would ask that you continue to

work with staff on design, as we always there. i think the project is a very good one and i would move to approve. >> second. vice-president miguel: i have a problem regarding the department's request for an interior stairway. i think the exteriors stairway works. i think the space it would take is excessive to the size of the roof. i understand why the request was made, but i do not think it is a problem here. and that being part of the motion.

>> are you ok with that? commissioner moore: spiraled stairs, why they are not considered exiting stairs. the fire department does not allow them anymore. your concerns are about intrusion in the rear yard including that the weather be primary and it's not be necessary to have an external stair. the buildings are very large for what they are. it doesn't become excessively space consuming. i think that the stairs should

be inside. this building reminds me of a discussion we had on california and 20th street. it was a slightly different situation. this is different than the comments we made at theaat time. it doesn't take a stand in being a more modern facade on its own. it could do a little bit more. if you feel comfortable taking that on, this exterior needs more help. >> we could add that to the motion.

>> he has worked with us so often. i am sure that it will be fine. >> that is part of the motion. absolutely. >> the concern about these stairs in the rear yard is actually two fold. the issue is a variance as well for the rear yard and the lot size. the concern is the connection to the usable open space. for the copper unit, it is on the roof deck. for the new lower unit, it is in the rear yard. the stairs provide direct access from the common area down to the rear yard. the biggest concern is the property on greenwich, which has

the stairs going down to the rear yard. that is why it is important from the common area down to the rear yard. otherwise, you have to leave the unit to get to become an open space. -- to the common open space. >> you are the maker of the motion. >> i second it. >> it is confusing appear sometimes. >> i would have to go with the zoning administrator's advise as to the location of the stairs. it does not look like a can be done exteriorally. i would leave the flexibility in there, but i would approveas