take part in this commissions process of public participation and input. before the last hearing in may, the neighbors attempted to meet with mr. teed at supervisor farrell's office and he refused to participate. didier specific directives to the sponsor and neighbors to work on four issues. -- you gave specific directives to the sponsor and neighbors to work on four issues. he screamed at a neighbor and an attorney saying he would never negotiate. three weeks past -- passed and the neighbors received a letter from the architect. the revised drawings did not respond to the issues the commissioners had raised. you will hear from his staff now is try to meet with the neighbors but this is simply not

true. since last hearing, and none of us have met with mr. teed. the research extension is out of the spirit of the guidelines and is an extraordinary and in appropriate. i request the commission not allow the rear yard extension or the deck as they're not necessary and disruptive to the rear yard neighbors. two patios and one rear yard deck are more than ample. thank you. >> i am a member of the adviser board. since the may 10 hearing, i too have been in e-mail discussions with mary woods and she has a halo tonight and she should. she has been remarkable. i was asking her how this

proposed project complied with the town hall neighborhood design guidelines. she presented back and forth a discussion -- the discussion points and we have disagreed. that is why we presented a letter to the commission that we wanted the commission to take d.r. on this proposed project. we did not feel the projected comply with the guidelines. -- complied with the guidelines. back in may, it was presented to the commission that they policy of a 45% rear yard was a basis for the project compliance. the 35 foot height limit is intended -- this 45% policy is just that. it is not adopted by the commission. nor is the section in the appendix on height.

the 35-foot height limit is intended to be absolute. no roof appurtenances such as parapets, elevators, or penthouses are permitted. a policy not adopted but why was this not -- the section of reference to the 45% policy was? this building measured from the curb, i calculated it at 38 feet, 6 and 1/4 inches, 3 + above the association policy. reading the adopted section, what was he was the respect of the rear yard and adjacent buildings. the line of development on the rear building wall. in the adopted section, building patterns and rhythms which help to find a visual character should be respected. adopt a section, intrusions into the rear yard even though

permitted may not be appropriate if they fail to respect the mid- block open space. we feel this project does not respect the mid-block open space. in addition on roofline, in the adopted section, as important as the patterns -- is the perception [unintelligible] the checklist that cal hollow has where a project complies and where does not and somewhat. where there was no complaint was the building design and its respect for the rear yard patterns. where did comply somewhat -- president fong: thank you. >> thank you. >> i have been in city hall for

30 years and in the planning department. i have never seen a plan that was okayed without a second means of egress. the only second means of egress for the upper unit is through the bedroom of the replaced unit. there is no intention of using the second unit as a rental if the second means of egress is through the bedroom of the adopted unit. my question is, where is it going to be? should there be special restrictions that that second unit must be used as a rental unit, and i do not want to have this be a precedent for the rest of the city. this is something that has bubbled my mind.

with deep regret, i am making this speech. and this also has bothered me because the second unit is being expanded outside of the existing square footage which goes against the master plan, against the demolition replacement plan as written. this down the line is going to cause future lawsuits for this department. someone else is going to probably take it to the hilt. i want you to be well aware that affordable housing is being demolished, there does not look to be a fair replacement apartment, a legitimate one. the fact that there is no means of egress in the second unit in the first unit and there must be some work if there is a second means of egress applied when it finally hits. it should be under the special use of restrictions that the

neighbors should have complete input and work on a solution. thank you. president fong: thank you. are there additional comments supporting the d.r.? if not, project sponsor. >> good very late afternoon. thank you for your patience. i will be relatively quick and turn it over to the architect. >> would you state your name? >> i am brian soriano on behalf of the project sponsor. this was analogize to the old program "the bickersons." i do join in the praise of mary

woods. because these two sides could not get along, she did act as the go-between in she was inundated from both sides and she deserves if not a vacation but everybody is appreciation. there are only two d.r. clusters but there are a number of people banding together here out of loyalty and friendship. i'm a big fan of loyalty and friendship i do not think there is an appropriate concern about the impact of this project. throughout the afternoon, we heard concerns about projects that are great to have serious impact on neighborhoods that make these pale by comparison. the city agrees and we believe that we not only comply with the city code requirements but their own neighborhood association code requirements. we believed that we came here laugh -- last time. commissioner antonini made some suggestions about reducing the size of the deck and moving it to try to adjust -- address legitimate concerns about privacy and keeping things

consistent. we have done that to the extent we can. i will turn it over to kellie content to show that we have reduced the deck and moved it to the west. we have a privacy screen and the terror questors have said all the concerns have been addressed yet there is -- they are still here because they are -- there are ad hominem issues about the project sponsors. let me turn it over to her. commissioner moore did raise the concern about the outdoor area of the open space in the backyard. we have some photos to show this elevation issue is an existing condition. that is not part of our plan. any concerns that are coming about a raised platform, we're not raising anything, that was at an existing condition. that was when it went to address last time we did not have the of brittany. let me get kellie out here -- kelly out here.

>> on the overhead, i am kelly condon. this is to illustrate this portion of the backyard with the patio that was being discussed is already elevated. we are moving the stairs which are back in the corner. you cannot see them, they are in shadow. we're moving them in the center to go there. this is slow to just enough -- sloped just enough. there would be plenty all around the patio and the one change i did make since the previous presentation before i had shown the planters as flat and they should slope up to the retaining walls. there is an existing retaining wall at the back of the property. the remains and that is the wall

we will be sloping the great back up to at the patio. that is the patio issue. one of the points in the -- this is the memo. that mary would put out to explain what we did and did not meet. there were two motions that contradicted. one was to move the orioles in 6 inches and the other said to possibly reduce the addition to be in line with the adjacent buildings. the adjacent buildings are flush to the existing buildings. if we reduced to the addition, there would be no edition at all. if we reduced the addition, the rate distributed units would not exist because all the living spaces are crunched into that far corner. is that all the time i have?

president fong: 30 seconds. >> this is just the four plan -- floor plan. this is the addition re here. it ends of comprising the whole bedroom. and all the living space starts from this point back. everything leading up to that is usable but you're not going to hang out there. it will hang out in the kitchen, dining, living area. president fong: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor? dear quaestors, u.h.f. too many rebuttals. -- d.r. requestors, you each have two minute rebuttals. >> i am here on behalf of one

of the neighbors. not much to rebut. the project sponsors seem to say that they have complied and the memo and produce as they have not. the recommendation from the planner is set out there. you have heard from the neighbors. you have heard from the direct neighbors as well as the surrounding neighbors, you have a petition with 24 immediate neighbors and you heard from the neighborhood association. this violates the guidelines. if we're not going to reduce it to land with the existing buildings which i think is the proper thing to do. if you are going to respect and enforce the design guidelines, if you're not going to do that, what's shaping. let's move it off of that so we do not have this wall, this towering wall on this tiny backyard that the family has had for the last few years. it would ease those corners

away. and the plants and trees. the views are blocked of that large new extension in the rear yard. again, we urge you to use the notices special restrictions to make sure these items are enforced. we had a difficult time communicating with the project sponsor throughout this entire project. fairly confident that if we do not have the nfr's, much of this will not get done at all. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> i am going to be speaking very briefly to the process, the mediation process. it has been a difficult one. even when working through the city planner, the sponsors on several occasions claimed our previous agreements to indicated

to us by the planner were misunderstandings. subsequently one week -- they tried to whittle away the grim and time again. on may 17 we agreed to a compromise of the 5 foot setback. we called it the original [unintelligible] the sponsor rescinded this compromise claming it was a misunderstanding by the planner and then attempted a confusing barrage of revisions. on may 19 -- 29, they were parsing the words, removing space from the east. they started moving space from the south. pages a3 and a7 of the same plans did not agree on the dimensions. may 30 saw a lone a7 page. may 31 saw the planner receiving a3 showing a larger cut from the

east. when asked from -- to confirm this, the designer revised it back to the smaller concession of may 30, discarding that of may 31. and submitted it on june 4. if you find this litany of revisions and kemp -- maneuvers confusing, you're certainly not alone. on thursday, they submitted the current plans. thursday and noon. -- at noon. there is a disagreement of the five-footage. we ask that you set in stone with a notice of special restrictions to avoid any future misunderstandings like this and definitely determine the location and size. thank you. president fong: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> the conflicting plans she is

referring to was the site plan sent to mary woods to ask a question about the spirit of the motion of reducing a deck, which was privacy. moving the eastern rail is a view she is concerned about which she said she would be happy with so that is ultimately in a roundabout way, i discovered because no one ever answered my question that the point of the concession of moving the railing was just to make her happy. it does not matter with the bases is. it does not matter if it makes sensor not. it is not in line with her property. i had sent the plan to ask a question and it was the wrong plan. the male was only sent to mary woods -- e-mail was only sent to mary woods. it was to the notion of, does this make sense? i never got the answer. ultimately, we did the 5 feet

and turned it in and no one else was supposed to see that e-mail. everyone here is talking about the conversations they have had with mary woods. we're not privy to any of these. the lawyer that said we tried to contact him, he contacted me two days after my deadline to ask me to put trees in the drawing. that was the first i had heard of it. there's a lot of misrepresentation going on. there was a drawing mistaken i will admit that. that is a human error. i was not trying to beguile anybody by sending marry this drawing that had the wrong dimension on it. we tried to make everything that you proposed for us to meet. and the only reason we could not meet again was because there were two motions that contradicted each other. they're calling it a reduction of the building. it is an elimination of the entire edition. that is all i have.

president fong: thank you. a number of commissioners want to speak. mary, could i ask you to come up for a minute? i know you work on alert -- a lot of large projects that do not take this much time. ?t

is it your opinion that would be the way to go? the decks and over the counter and that type of thing. >> typically 40 our cases, we do not propose conditions. this may be an exceptional case, since decks with then buildable areas, one can get the over-the- counter permit. if he is unaware of past history of the project approval, may want to increase and so on at the planning -- someone at the planning department be able to approve it. commissioner antonini: think that -- you would think an nsr was appropriate. >> i will ask you to come back up again.

let's talk about some of the things that were brought up here. first of all, there were representations about the residential guidelines which i know are not binding but there was talk about a 45-foot rear yard allowance which is more than 25% -- 45% vs. 25%. what i did this in my -- mhy math would be -- could be wrong but i came up with -- the nine foot two addition that would be proposed brings us back to a depth of, i think it was -- a total of 75 feet with 62 feet being the rear yard. and 45% of 138 feet is 62 feet. i do not know if i'm doing that wrong.

>> know. -- no. you have done that correctly. >> that is the first thing. there is talk about secondary means of egress in the rear bedroom of the proposed lower unit. i do not see any second means of egress there and i am not sure it is required. >> i guess this is a building code issue. i think this unit being on the ground floor, you have to have access to the street. it is something i can follow up with to see for ground floor unit, whether a second mean that -- means of vigorous is necessary. >> the speaker was talking about the second means of egress from what will now be the upper unit which will be the larger upper unit and i guess they do not have unless the deck does not have a staircase. there is not any that i am aware of but i am not sure if anyone

is required. >> if the deck is on the second floor, the fire department is may be seeing perhaps if you have a deck on the second floor, maybe they could have a drop ladder, not necessarily a staircase. >> these are dba issues. as long as there is some sort of emergency exit or egress offer of the deck or wherever, they would probably be satisfied but that is not before us. let's talk a little bit about what is proposed -- thank you for your work. it is very clear here. there is talk about the illness are -- nsr which i am fine with. reduce the size of the upper roof deck to, you said 400 feet and i am writing it is 300

tricky square feet. i am not sure the number is going to be or maybe it is the douzable portion of that debt. >> the original proposed is 450 square feet. at your last hearing, you intended the roof deck should be reduced to 350 square feet. >> that is fine with me. that is what i remember. during earlier presentation, you talked about a couple of numbers that had to do with, or someone did. maybe it was the d.r. requestor. >> i think there is a small portion of the roof deck on the west side near the elevator. it is a tiny space which is not usable. i think that could be the area. sitting versus non-sitting roof area. >> we have to render its crest -- 350 square feet with a deck

being eliminated and that looks like 5 feet from each side or maybe -- was that part of the thing, too, that the elimination is coming from both sides as far as the shrinkage? >> the west side was going to remain as is because it was -- there were concerns if he shifted westward, the adjacent neighbor's deck would be somewhat in his field. the reduction came from the east side of the roof deck. 5 feet. >> that is what i see written down here and that is what i remember. there is a reduction of the rear addition by 6 inches on each side. >> right. >> ok. that is the two points. i do not remember specifically the commission asking for alignment with the rear walls of the existing adjacent buildings but i know there were

commissioner comments that suggested that. i think the project sponsor makes a good case and if you look at the plants, you have to have that addition to be able to realize the square footage down below. reestablished even with a nine- -- the 9 ft. 2 addition, there is 40% rear yard after that. i do not see a reason why you would not allow that. when you determined the rear yard, it is not the rear yard of the adjacent unit credit is the rear yard of the -- in which they prejudicing bill. that is the determining factor, i believe. >> right. in cases such as this one, it is kind of like an anomaly where you have a very deep lot adjacent to almost a lot that is half the size or have the deck. typically, 45% requirement is

the standard. because of the deepwater -- deep lot, a small one story addition encroaches into the open space but the department feels that it is only one story, it is set back and meets the open space. if it were a two-story or three story addition, i think the department would probably have a different position. >> i understand where you are saying by you have an unusual mid-block open space. the space is fairly uniform. this happens to have one the plot and the others are shallower. -- deep lot and the others are shallower. i cannot see enough here to cause a need to move this back. i think we're in is written, it

seems to be fine. the fourth part was about the rear yard patio which already seems to be in place as was shown on the earlier visualization. as long as they're not -- and looks like they're keeping that level area there and they will put some planting area there. and they will have a patio further towards the front. that will be in the rearmost. >> there is a clarification that the commission has directed staff to do to make sure the rear yard is not burdened with lots of features. that takes away its natural feature. the slope, the greenery. that was basically to clarify that point. >> i remember that part and the trees would be -- if it is a ruble to a private sponsor to put some screaming trees --

screening trees. it would help to provide a visual barrier to the adjacent neighbors. if they would like that, that is probably appropriate. we have to have the right kind of tree because we do not want it to be too big or too small. if it is good enough to block it visually without causing a loss of any kind of light, that might be a good solution. i am basically fine with the two changes we have made. and put a notice of special restrictions. i am not making a motion yet but that would be my intent as we go forward. commissioner sugaya: is it the commission's understanding, when i watched this, i was not completely sure that the four conditions were the roof deck, the 6 inches on either side