addition as it was written here. is that how the motion was made in past? >> when commissioner moore made the motion, in leading up to the motion, she mentioned about the common wall for the addition to be in line with the adjacent wall. during the motion, commissioner miguel also " -- clarified that the changes that are being requested are not a defect to approval. that the commission's intended to approve but as future reference, take a look at the revised plan so that you have something concrete in terms of how the plans will look like, but whether to approve the changes or modify some of the changes. is still up to the commission. commissioner sugaya: the motion

included a strong suggestion to reduce the addition back. >> that was by commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya: but it was voted on, is that right? i am trying to get a sense of the commission -- the entire commissions understanding and direction. >> commissioner moore is raising her hand and perhaps wanted to clarify. commissioner sugaya: i am part of the -- during or after the motion, there was a suggestion that these conditions be substantially address or something to that effect. >> right. commissioner moore: what is commission agreed on is the elements which were of concern to us was first to recognize the large deep lot to the west has a

second residence. and occupied residence that has been staying in that family for five generations, this is an established residents to which any new addition or jason lot should be sensitive to. that is the way the world turns in an urban setting. the conditions are the observations we made were supposed to be invitations for creativity. that is exactly what i said. i do not see any real new design here. i see mincing and snipping and snapping of what ever. the challenge which i believe this commission posed by answering concerns have not been created in two -- turned into a more creative way to approach this building. 6 inches from the left or the right and this line, 350 square feet, 362, 400, does not mean

anything. what i expected and i said that very clearly, i want to see a small mock up model, so in context, with or without addition could be looked at 3 dimensionally. there is not one single three- dimensional drawings in the set. not even a block diagram which any competent architects can do in 3d mottling or a sketch. none of that is here. i have three sets of the same drawings. the only difference i could find is the date on one set of them. in that sense, there is only one drawing that shows some changes. to tell you the truth, based on the spirit by which i asked for a continuation of this, i'm not prepared to do this project. it just does not meet muster. i want to be really honest and i'm not going to sit here and say it will be fixed -- 6 inches from here, 6 inches from here.

it is correct. woods has given this project the most competent guidance a planner can give but it is in the hands of the architect who is being paid to make these changes, and i do not see those changes being made to my satisfaction. >> thank you, commissioners. i did want to respond to something that i think commissioner antonini mentioned a few minutes ago about encouragement of the planting of trees, landscaping. that would have to be something that would be agreed upon, agreed by the project sponsors, not something that we can actually require a landscaping per se.

anything below 3 feet above grade is not something that is under our jurisdiction. that is not something we have control over. president fong: i have to agree with commissioner moore. i was extremely disappointed when i received this revised package. knocking off 6 inches here or there was not the spirit that i expected. maybe it was. but not what i wanted. i do not think this is -- there's no way you can call at creative -- it creative redesigne and i do not feel thee has been a real give-and-take, either. there is nothing we can do to force that. i'm not prepared to vote on this

today. commissioner antonini: well, in terms of the trees which was brought by the zoning administrator designate, product sponsor, you are ok with the trees? if you want to come up, maybe you should agree to that on the record here. if we make a motion to -- >> we have discussed the trees in the past. we are amenable, where a greek -- we are agreeable. there has been some suggestion about the type of trees. you have to be selective to make sure the purpose is met and it is not a new problem. commissioner antonini: the motion will be made. we will agree to place the trees mutually acceptable to d.r. requestor is an project sponsors

and will be over 3 feet in height. we will have an ability -- quex can we do that? >> anything under 3 feet -- within 3 feet of great cannot be part of your motion. it is nice the project sponsor is willing to tell you they're agreeing but it cannot be part of the motion here. commissioner antonini: i thought if it exceeded 3 feet -- >> is a tree. landscaping generally is not under the jurisdiction. >> to have my agreement to it. >> i was going to ask that it be over 3 feet. i am not going to do that because it sounds like we have the agreement anyway. you may end up with a tree that is too tall to include it in emotion. that is my -- it in a motion. i was going to make a motion and that would be to take d.r. and

approve the project with the following conditions. number one, work with staff to reduce the upper roof deck to more than -- no more than 350 square feet. the reduction being gained by eliminating the space from the east side of the deck, and we will have a notice of a special restrictions attached to the same to make sure this cannot be changed in the future. reduce they were with the of the rear addition by 6 feet on each -- the width of the rear addition by six inches. on each side. >> is there a second to the

motion? >> without a second -- commissioner sugaya: just to reinforce one comment of commissioner moore's. i had gotten to the tape and i paged through tons of drawings which were irrelevant. there was no as she mentioned three dimensional presentation, no massing diagrams, nothing that told me what the relationship of the building as proposed in its rear yard configuration and addition to the rear and the positioning of the roof? , relationships of all those elements to the adjacent buildings. i was going to send staff a note, but, maybe i should have.

that did bother me. that said, i think that again, having looked at the video and around it back once or twice, it did seem to me that after looking at the proposed revisions that there did not seem to be a very substantive response to the comments from the commission. whether that is something along the lines of what mr. williams is suggesting which was to sculpt the addition a little bit more to reduce its apparent size, to maybe reconfiguring the floor plan itself. you have a substantial amount of square footage in the upper unit. maybe if you had to reduce the bottom unit, you could have gone up one floor to the bedroom or something like that. some kind of response that

showed some thinking went in. in -- rather what we got was 6 inches from either side and a reduction in the deck which i understand one of the dearer questors is ok with. that is fine. as far as the other kinds of discussion that took place up here in my absence, it does not seem like there was much effort put into answering the concerns of the commission. commissioner moore: i believe the commission has given to an applicant the type of guidance and a generous extension, there should be a substantive response. i do not believe this commission in the second round should sit here and design 6 inches here or 6 inches there. it is up to the architect. we were generous enough to make four broader ideas.

there -- they were basically points of guidance and a request for creative thinking. the commission has the ability to deny the project. or send it back home. and i am open minded about it. but if it is being sent home, and it comes back, it better be different and better be more responsive to their requests we're making and there'll be no further design guidance other than what we have all expressed. there are guidelines within the areas that have plenty of

examples of how to do it. this is not a green field design. this is designing within context. commissioner wu: i wanted to add on to commissioner sugaya's comment. if we do to to continue this and have it come back, i would be very disheartened to see the bedroom on the first -- the ground floor diminished in size to the extent that the first unit is unlivable. i understand that diminishing of the deck for the extension would mean that the to come back to just show that would really be a problem. i hope to see something that is much more reasonable that does not have the small first store unit and a very expensive second and third story and that if this deck is really the point of contention. commissioner antonini: what it

appears from the testimony that 1 d.r. requestor has agreed essentially to the revision of -- mr. williams, maybe i could ask you for some comments. sounded like you had said that if the bedroom remained on the ground floor where it is designed to be, you had talked about perhaps some rounding of the corners. what sort of shrinkage would make you more comfortable or revisions to the plan without reconfiguring the entire floor plan? you hinted it would be ok with some kind of changes to make it less intrusive. >> you heard from us and i submitted a brief. i think this is a faux merger that is being done.

i do not think it is right to make such a tiny and that -- unit and have this huge, large, luxurious unit. i think it is a way to get around the code. we put this out there a long time ago. that jagged edge along the yard is going to be difficult to look at. we talked about trees. if there were sculpted in, set in, i do not begin should be there all. i was looking for something creative from the point of view of hiding it, digging it down, there is a slope there, you could dig down, you could shrink it down. the floor to ceiling heights are large in the unit. it could be hidden behind the fence, that happens out in the sunset all the time. when you have these extensions into the rear yard. there is a lot of but there isn't any

communication. the problem is i sent an e-mail to the architect eight days ago and i got a response yesterday. >> thank you. i appreciate your comments. the way i'm seeing it is with short of the commission redesigning the entire addition, or the real objection especially from one set of d.r. requesters is the presence of the extension of the bedroom where it's visible there and it would be nicer if it were less visible. that's what i'm hearing. obviously, it can't be any smaller. commissioner wu talked about you have to have a decent size unit and this is a very nice, smaller unit with a bedroom, dining area, kitchen, bath that fits in well with that. but you do need that rear extension. so project sponsor, i don't know if you're amenable to changes that were spoken about, perhaps if there's a chance bringing that down a little bit, maybe a few feet lower to make the unit less visible from the adjacent

property. i'm just asking if that's a possibility here. sounds like a is solution. what -- >> bringing less -- >> the bedroom portion of the addition, you would end up probably with a ramp or some stairs there to go from one part of the unit to the other but perhaps if you went from your dining area there on the lower unit and had a little step down of two or three steps down into the bedroom or a ramp or something like that and you dropped it down. >> the bedroom is excavated two feet down. that's why i think there was a misunderstanding about the rear yard being raised. because we had to add a couple of steps to get up to the yard. this whole addition is sunk two feet lower than the existing rate. >> what's our height there? it should be on the plans, i guess. >> it's a little hard to go through these. i think there might be still some misunderstandings because there are two sets of plans. the ones stapled to the front

are the old plans. the ones at the back, if you look at sheet a-11, can you see the height of the railing, the height of the solid portion of the walls versus grade -- let me actually look at the different drawings. >> it looks like -- >> ok. >> the elevation going. >> it's 15 feet from 15 feet from the top of the railing from the new grade. the new grade is lower than the existing grade. let me look at my floor plan. >> but the great of the actual -- it looks like 11-6 to me on those plans. >> the grade has been lowered two foot four. so right, that would be about 12 foot eight.

to the top of the solid portion of the railing. >> solid part, yes. i don't know, the only other thing that's been hinted at is rounding of corners but i don't know if that will really -- maybe on the deck itself but don't know how much we're going to gain from that. if that makes project sponsor, d.r. request happier perhaps rounded corners on the edge of the deck railings might be helpful, i don't know. might make it a little less -- look a little less like it's a square out there. that might be something i'm going to suggest. >> right f we put the trees in then, it will be from view as well. and then i would just like to say, my understanding of what i was supposed to present here was i thought i just had tookt on the motions and that the -- you made a comment about the details needed to be seen in drawing form, i did not know that meant

you wanted a 3d model. i can do that. it just wasn't something i realized was proposed. >> thank you. i appreciate it. those would be suggestions either tonight or if we can't get approval from the commission tonight, then if we do have to hear it again, i don't really see any way that you're not going to be able to have that extension because the unit has to work. and i don't feel it's our place to start redesigning your entire project, sponsor's entire plan to change all of the interior dimensions of it to create two different sized units. but we're supposed to address the d.r.'s in my opinion is the impact on the neighbors and if we can minimize the impact on the neighbors, then the configurations really, you know, are within the code and they're within the compliance with the unit mix. so i don't really see where that's our place to do it. but we will see where we go from there. we may have to have a continuance.

commissioner moore? commickser moore: i would like to make a motion this project is being continued. the challenge which proposed to this project would be -- the architect is encouraged to reconsider and work with these considerations including the depiction of the three-dimensional impact as well as potentially looking at resizing, rearranging in order to meet modification of the building as it stands. >> second. >> continued to when? commissioner moore: it would take six to eight weeks in order for this to be done correctly. >> let's pick a date. >> are we talking the august 16th hearing? commissioner moore: that sounds fine.

>> ok. president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: my feeling, although i only speak for myself the architect for the project spnser worked with the d.r. requesters in regards to impacts to the d.r. requesters, that is what the d.r. is about. and i'm not in favor, if you did come up with some sort of redesign, that probably would satisfy some of the thing that's have been brought up by the commissioners, but we have been down this road already and we know that this is compliant and there's not a problem here. and they want a distribution of the units that makes one unit larger and one unit smaller. and that in my opinion is sort of their privilege to do as long as it's in keeping with our particular guidelines. went also have already -- and we also established the addition is even compliant with the radar extension allowances for the cal

hollow guidelines. anyway, we will see what we come back with on the 16th of august. president fong: commissioner wu? >> i want to echo the sentiment asking project sponsors to work with the neighbors. although i will vote for the continuance, hate to see it come back to commission again. i really would hope you can come up with a solution outside of this room. president fong: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i thought that the four points were actually conditions. but that doesn't seem to be the way the discussion went. and miss wood's interpretation of one of those conditions was that it be brought back, the addition be lobbed off and they bring the wall back. that was never even addressed.

so i'm kind of surprised that we are even sitting around talking about this except that somehow there seems to be some -- not miss understanding but interpretation that maybe that wasn't really the case and maybe that wasn't really part of the motion but it was discussed but not everybody agreed on it. i don't know where it is. all i could go by is what staff presented and it seemed to me that not addressing it was just flying in your face of the commission's condition. and that's what i didn't like about it. so i think -- i still think we don't have agreement on whether or not the addition has to be removed or not. but i am of the feeling that it should -- should be or if it isn't, there has to be some kind of creative approach to it, even to the extent of putting the bedroom upstairs. so that i think is all on the table for me at the moment.

and that's why i will vote for the motion. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: everything commissioner sugaya said i fully support. i understood our conditions more as conditions. there were suggestions and conditions on the other hand. i don't want to go there. it wasn't quite delivered today so we're giving it another chance. >> just as a reminder, every d.r. case is code compliant to begin with. so to continually make arguments that a project is code compliant , it doesn't do anything. commissioner moore is right. because every -- everything that gets d.r.'d to us is ultimately code compliant in the first place. commissioner sugaya, i understand that but there's a different between code compliant and neighborhood guidelines that

are extraordinary and we have those in different then. so the cal hollow guidelines are not part of the code but they are what is cat hollow association likes us to address and it's compliant with both. so it's not just the d.r. condition. >> that's not what i heard on testimony. >> with apologies to mary wood, i will call the question. >> commissioner, my understanding is the motion on the floor is for continuance of this item. the commission has made further suggestions for modification and change of the project, including working with the neighbor that are affected by this and the public hearing has to remain open because you have requested change. and this item would be continued to august 16th on that motion.

commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> that motion carried 6-0. thank you, commissioners. commissioners, you're on item 16 a and b. case 201216-a, 2012.0039d to 318, arleta avenue and 16b, case 202.0157d. arleta avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners and staff planning department staff. the splan to demolish a two-story dwelling and replace with a two-story one-unit dwelling. the new structure will be in conformity. it has front and backyard and

other applicable requirements. the building has been substantially demolished. in 2009 the owner received building permit to remodel interior. according to the field report filed by the department of building inspection, all interior room partitions on the first and second floors were removed. and the building collapsed subsequently on october 3, 2009. the property was barricaded to protect pedestrians from possible further collapse and hazards. a building was filed and approved on october 8, 2009, to allow emergency partial collapse debris and removal. on november 12, 2009, the same owner filed the building permit to reconstruct the building. since the majority of the building has been demolished, the project has determined to be ten amount to demolition. management discretion to review was filedian 2012. since zonesing allowed for single family dwelling and demolition was not act of god,

replacement of the nonconforming two-family dwelling is not permitted. overall designed scales of materials and replacement structure are combustible with block face and residential neighborhood character. residents will review the proposal and was in general support of the project scale and design due to the mixed mid-block contest and since the project is similar in blueprint to the previously existing structure on the lot, resulting in minimal net new impacts. so there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the project. the project qualifies for administrative approval because it is in general conformity to the existing building footprint and cost repairs or structures to its previous liveable condition would clearly exceed 50% of the replacement cost since the big building has already been demolished. the project would create one family size four bedroom dwelling, no tenants would be displaced as a result of the project. given the scale of the project,