square footage. we hope you will approve our projects so we can improve our home and have a family and live in san francisco for a long time. planning staff has approved our project and have recommended to you to approve and not take d.r. we hope it will approve our project. -- you will approve our project. president miguel: thank you. >> i have familiarity with this project and i will tell you why. i can identify closely with the project sponsors. it was a mission revivial style in morira loma park. we had made it large enough for the family to be on the same for. we got -- bought another house in san francisco which we still live in. aside from that point, my office

got notice azide do for any sort of additions that occur in the general vicinity. my dental office is more than a mile away. i spotted about a year ago. i know this the setback was pretty severe. it seemed compared to what i am used to sing. staff had also -- it looked like a box on the top of the house. i call the staff, i forget whether it was mr. cabreras and said, what is going on here? he mentioned there was a historical issue that the addition to the top of the house was not supposed to look like the rest of the house. i said, that does not make any sense to me. the fact the original design apparently had a tile shed roof and where the addition was so it looks like everything else which is mission revival in the neighborhood and to put just a box on the top without the kind

of finishing is not right. at the very least, regardless of what we decide as far as the addition and how far forward it should come, i think the project sponsor should be allowed to finish that in a way that looks a program like every other addition whether it is the original structure where the other additions that have been done have all been sympathetic to the context of the neighborhood. i think even some of the d.r. requestors would agree that finishing at the right way it will look like it belongs with the house. there are other issues here. i visited the contact and the project sponsor and i visited one night and walked through the place and got a really good idea of what the needs were to try to locate the master bedroom and the children's bedrooms on the upper floor which requires a certain amount of space and i could see given what they were allowed to have, it was going to be pretty tight.

and i'm not quite sure why we need to have a setback that is almost 23 feet when most of the time, all we ask setbacks to be is 15 feet. they even said, 17 feet or even 19 would be fine. it would allow them to have a functional staircase and other things that work a lot better than to try and cram all the rooms and to that one space. there is another factor here that i noticed by looking at a map. i went on a rainy night but i returned on a sunny day to get an idea of the affects of additions and the shadowing and all that. there is not a north-south situation. this runs from northwest to southeast. therefore, if a house is -- it is not adjacent to the requestor, they're not to the

south but rather to the southeast. therefore, the impact of any shuttling is going to be minimized because maybe i and the heart of summer when the sun is most at its northern point in the morning hours there might be some shadowing but as soon as the sun moves toward the top of the sky, then of course, it is going to be shining right into the der requestor and all the other houses. even if this addition was the entire upper floor, it still would not block the sun or the house as to the north except for a few hours in the early morning and almost not all during the winter months when the sun is further to the south. i do not know that there is an issue for the shadowing. there is a separation, there is a light will -- well and letters from support -- of support from almost everyone on the streets that are in the packet who were not able to come tonight. i would be in favor of in this issue, i would take d.r. and

allow project sponsors to have an addition that went out to no more than 19 feet from the street, which i think would reclaim some of that lost space. i would say 17 would be appropriate because that is to feed more -- two feet more than what we require setbacks to be. as was pointed out, 27 rico is 3 feet back and most are not set back that far. we will see with the other commissioners have to say. commissioner moore: was that a motion or expression of desired? commissioner antonini: an expression. commissioner moore: i believe that what is in front of us, the design as proposed with the modification and the guidance the department give to the project is an approvable

project and i believe there is nothing exceptional and extraordinary here that would require us to take d.r.. the pattern if you look at the high resolution area, the majority of buildings and a random -- in a random fashion have a third story addition which creates an informality and compatible with the expression of the marina. i do believe given the nature of the street on which it is, and curving -- including that narrowness of the street, -- the narrowness of the street, the proposed set back is the correct way of doing it. it is a large house. i believe the spaces are quite

good. there is always a little bit more that one would want. there is indeed a certain amount of -- for a joining neighbors. it is not a perfect solution from the d.r. clusters -- requestor's issues it is acceptable and i approve. i move to approve as proposed. >> second. commissioner borden: i want to understand why -- the historic issue. is this building considered contributory? this is the first set -- time i heard anything like this and i am trying to understand. >> there are a revolving thist kasia maderah ins. there ise the his store group

you -- historical review. under the review it was determined this building is not individually significant or historic but does contribute to a potential historic district. that in itself makes it a historic resources. a potential historic resource. with regard to the setback being at 22 feet, part of that is because of the visibility from the -- across the street and with this building, instead of having where you have this straight up and down on most residences, this one has a sloping parapet. it makes the addition more visible. if it were at the standard 15 feet which the design prescribes by minimum. that is why the addition was pushed back to 22 feet. part of the environmental review. commissioner borden: i think it

is separately fine project. i do not understand the concerns of the requestor. i did not understand why they push it back so far. i can understand their concern with the distance. the street being so narrow your not going to see anything anyway because -- it will not seeing, you would have to be in the other person's house upstairs. >> i have to agree. i walked that streetwise -- street twice. across the street. this is the argument for story poles. that would have sold a lot of the questions had that been done. it is too late for that. i saw in the general neighborhood a number of bad

boxes and i saw a number that were contextual. i do not by the historical argument on 22 feet on this one. this is a misuse of the historic process. i won't vote against the motion, but i would have preferred that the setback not be 22 feet. >> if i could address part of that. not a setback but the architectural treatment. under the historical review, it was mentioned that the addition itself should not be replicating. >> i understand secretary of interior standards. i do not think it is applicable

here. i think it is bad for the neighborhood. >> my point was the project may be designed to appear compatible and seamless with existing architectural style but without replicating the features of the existing building. staff would be amenable to that not only from a design guidelines but from the ceqa review. it does not necessarily have to be a box with the parapet on it. there can be some kind of feature but it could not -- should not be replicating the existing parapet at that slope. commissioner antonini: i would hope there is flexibility in our motion and staff they could work with project sponsor to finishe the upper addition in such a way that it has more compatibility with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood

and whether it be an issue of -- eave tile roof, there are a couple of houses that were built before the secretary's standards were carried out. they are beautiful and they put on additions on the top their seamless with the bottom and that is what i would like to be able to do on my house and i ever did in addition to the top of it. people should have the ability to make something look appropriate if they feel that way. commissioner moore: the only thing is that if you would change from flat to pitched, it would add significant height. i assume that you cannot have it both ways. either you keep the high-tech row -- low or you do it pitched roof -- the height low or you

do a pitched roof. it creates a shadow and a more massive feeling. he should speak to this and keep this light and not as noticeable. we are minimizing the effect on the neighbor. would you like to comment on that? >> we can take a look at this drawing.

>> we did move this to a 15 foot setback and we added the tiled roof but with his returns on either side. that is the street you. have you from further down the street and more of an aerial shot. that would be one way with a tile roof here and here and here to integrate the upper addition with the lower house. one way to do it. commissioner moore: it is clear that would create a massive feeling. it would be much closer to the street. architecturally i find it somewhat in congruent. it is a top hat not quite fitting. i am comfortable with the setback and with the contemporary addition which is in keeping with interpretations of historic preservation staff -- style. i need to step in in defense.

i found myself calling staff and saying what is happening, you're not on this project. there is an independent review function within the planning department and i am glad it is independent. they need to step forward when they see something and even in my case, i did not quite agree with the observation. i took the facts as being what they're supposed to do. so i can only support what you have brought forward. and repeat my support for the project as proposed. >> to address the concerns in terms of adding an architectural detail to make the building more compatible, there is -- it would not necessarily increase the building height as it is now before you. second item is i would caution

the department and if you were to add or decrease the setback -- a lesser said back then 22 feet, that 22 feet is required under the ceqa review. by bringing this set back forward, the commission action because you're asking for something that was issued under the category of exemption for the project. >> i understand what you're saying. because you said it -- set it over 22 feet, it was almost not visible. therefore you did not have to go through a historic ceqa review to see if the upper element was compatible. is that kind of what you are saying? >> they did the historical review.

they applied for the application and 22 feet was the set back under the review. >> if there is an impact it changes the character. and creates a historic -- more extensive ceqa project. >> it was to be challenged it would be before the board of supervisors -- if it was to be challenged it would be before the board of supervisors. >> there is flexibility in interpreting standards and definitely i am in favor of that. this is getting a little bit too involved for an addition. i think to answer commissioner more, if you leave the flat roof, and you have the eave there that is tiled or harbor they decide to do it, that could be something that would not add any pitch to the height of the

roof. we would not make it any higher and it would be more compatible with every other house on the block. to have additions that go up another floor. they have kept the roof, the treatment of the visible were for the same as the rest of the neighborhood and that is a suggestion. commissioner moore: while we are entitled to our opinions i am not a big fan of pizza hut roofs. a pitch comes out of formal architecture but just pitching it at, i do not see any purpose in there. it will be expensive to do and it does not add anything of value to the house nor for the people who are looking at it. because when you see it from the side, it is like that. it is not completing itself as a form and people are saying what the hell is this? it is a pizza hut roof. that is what it is.

i do not think that works. commissioner borden: why are we talking about the roof? commissioner moore: i was just commenting. >> the motion is to approve. >> the motion is currently before it. commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye. commissioner moore, aye. that motion passes unanimously. thank you. you're not in general public comment. -- you are in general public comment. president miguel: is there any present -- is there any public comment?

seeing none, public comment is closed. we're adjourned.

>> one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. roll call. president mazzucco: here. vice president marshall: here. commissioner dejesus is excused.

commissioner chan: present. commissioner kingsley: present. commissioner slaughter is excused. commissioner turman: present. president mazzucco: welcome to the wednesday, february 1, 2012 police commission hearing. seated on the dais with us tonight is the director of the occ. police chief suhr is at a police conference. with us is deputy chief kevin cashman. please call the consent calendar line item number 1 with

reference to a donation. >> this is the consent calendar. it is approval to accept a $400 thousand donation from the sfpd wilderness program. >> thank you. in your packet is a letter regarding a donation to the police wilderness program, which has been in existence for 30 years. we take kids from inner-city and take them to places they would not ordinarily see. are there any questions regarding this? hearing none, is there any public comment for the donation to take children camping? is this about camping? come on up. >> being a girl scout, i survived camping. jackie bryson -- jackee pryson.

take the money and say thank you. and ask the girl scouts for money. president mazzucco: public comment is now closed. >> i move that we approve. president mazzucco: unanimous. please call line item number two, general public comment. >> reserve three minutes for your public comment. >> you have to recess this. >> i will do best. >> i am very honest. >> it was three seconds ago. >> this is jackeekee bryson, left-handed person.

i am the girl jakkee. i do not ride bart. i am here to think the san francisco police department for rounding them up and hurting them in, them out of state felons. it has been a long time coming, but we have a change in leadership. thank you, chief surh. -- suhr. there was a time when i send that person is an out-of-state felon. we do not arrest them. why not? because their states will not take them back. they crossed state lines, didn't they? those chiefs did not listen, and they are not here anymore. thank you, chief. and another thing. i also want to thank the house chief of police for having the

balls -- bocce balls. the bocce ball court is back. thank you. in addition -- you are good. you are good. >> thank you. >> there is only one way to do with idiots. do not get in the way of our san francisco police department. i am not going to have the same kind of riotous behavior here. i am so glad you left. in san francisco that is going on in oakland. i am so glad joyce got out of there before the stupidity started. occupy needs to be evicted off

the planet. what happens when you relax the rules is that stupidity takes over and, again, thank you, chief. thank you, san francisco police department, for not allowing stupidity to come to san francisco which should stay in oakland. i did not like it in high school. that was the mayor. high school class of 1964. >> go yellow jackets. president mazzucco: next speaker, please. >> i am back again. happy new year's. long time no see. hello, assistant chief. we met in august. i was going to go out to the castro and got arrested. against the law. false arrest. all the community liaison folks out there will do anything their clients want them to do to feel

legal. the wall street journal of 10 days ago involved in the attorney's office investigating the police forces of 20 cities around the country. we were singled out as the only city police department to be under investigation for criminal charges vis-a-vis the police. we are the only department the u.s. attorney is investigating for criminal acts by the police department. it shocked me. you should be proud of what you are doing. your oversight is working wonders. it has now been 70 weeks since the comptroller's report of august 27, 2010, advising you, the board of supervisors, and others that the patrol specials are a liability risk waiting to happen. i know you cannot do this by your lonesome. i do not know that you have done a single thing. i am still waiting. it has been 70