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.

>> it afternoon, everyone. welcome to the -- good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the january 27, 2012 meeting at the san francisco local agency formation commission.

my name is david campos, i am the chair of the committee. we want to thank the following members of sfgtv staff who are covering the meeting, tom and nona. >> item number one, call to order and roll-call. call at the role, commissioner avalos. present. commissioner campos. present. hope schmeltzer. present. we do have a quorum. supervisor campos: thank you. call item number two. >> item two, election of the chair person and vice-chair% for 2012. supervisor campos: colleagues, i do not know if you want to take action on this today or wait until the next meeting. supervisor avalos: i was ready to take action, but if we feel like we need more members, that

is critical. if not, i am willing to renominate supervisor campos says the chair of lafco. i think your works beats -- where it speaks for itself could you have done a great job steering as the past year, looking add cca as well as the waste contracts in san francisco. i think your leadership has shown in many ways, and i would like to nominate you. supervisor campos: thank you, supervisor. commissioners? >> i would like to nominate supervisor of the los for the vice-chair -- supervisor avalos four vice-chair. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor campos: we have nominations for a chair and vice-chair. let me add to the vice-chair, i have worked with commissioner avalos in his capacity as a member of the board of

supervisors, and i cannot think of anyone who better embodies the leadership qualities that you want to see in an elected official. so i would be proud to support that nomination. why don't we turned to ms. miller to advise us as to the best way to proceed. >> nancy miller, you can proceed on the item concurrently. it can be by affirmation. supervisor campos: we have nominations for a chair and vice-chair. before action is taken, let's open it up to public comment. >> good afternoon. i represent the san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization in the city. i know you'll probably get through the agenda pretty quickly today, but i cannot let this moment pass without saying how important it has been for myself and other advocates that

commissioner campos has exercised the incredible leadership on this issue. between him and ed harrington at the at that -- at the sfpuc, we have made incredible advances because of that leadership. i would just say that i would very much second the idea of having supervisor of a los -- supervisor of a lusby the vice- chair, because i have worked with them on various grassroots issues for very long time, and i think that he would be a very good advocate. there things coming up that i will suggest later that will be helpful on a digital inclusion that we should start taking up here, too. i think the commissioner would be excellent for that, as well. i wholeheartedly support both your motions. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the

public who would like to speak on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have nominations. madam clerk, take roll call, i guess. >> on the motion to appoint chair person campos and vice chair% avalos. avalos. aye. campos. aye. pimentel. aye. supervisor campos: i want to stake my colleagues for their nomination and for their confidence. i think it has been a very exciting year for the local agency formation commission. the year has maybe been more exciting in 2012, and i look forward to continuing the work with the members of this commission, and i know that we will be gaining another member on the commission soon. my understanding is that

supervisor olague is interested in serving on the lafco, and i look forward to welcoming her when that appointment is finalized. the last thing that i will say is to simply think the public utilities commission and the advocate community for all the work that has been done on this important issue. it really has been a team effort, and i think that the fact that we have made it this far is only because of that collaborative approach, and that will continue. ultimately, that will ensure the success of community choice aggregation and any other endeavor that lafco undertakes. with that, madam clerk, please call item number 3. >> item 3, approval of lafco minutes from october 11, 2011 special. -- special joint meeting. supervisor campos: colleagues, we have the minutes. i do not know if there is any changes.

before we take action, is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this minute? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor avalos. a second by commissioner pimentel. madam clerk, please call item number four. >> item four, lafco calendar for 2012. supervisor campos: this is the proposed lafco calendar from the 2012 year. let's hear from mr. jason fried. >> what you have in front of you is a calendar for meetings to help us make sure we're able to get the schedule far enough in advance. we take the traditional fourth friday from the previous year and continue to that, with some exceptions in may. we went to the third friday because the fourth friday, and because the fourth friday, and that leads into memorial day