proposes to one and the propose structure is the residential design guide in that it does not ensure that the building scale is compatible with the surrounding buildings. the proposed increase in elevation slightly reduced in the modified drawing drawings is not compatible with the adjacent buildings. in my previous testimony i refer to 23 of the residential guidelines which define incompatibility as "unscaled with surrounding buildings "mbo anden i think you can see from the overhead which, is there, that this is clearly -- with the surrounding buildings. and i also provided photos of nearby buildings that achieved the same modernization that the current sponsor is seek with the compatible of scales.

unfortunately the sponsor made no attempt to respond to this legitimate concern and i understand that some members of the board believe it's not within their authority to over cruel the planning admission on these rules and your standard vote on this issue would set for future project that may be plopsed the proposed structure do not enhance the neighborhood's character the board has the reasonability and the authority to promote the architectural vitality of san francisco and failure do sonthis occasion will perpetuate immediate i don't care credittity of san francisco actech tour celebrated by speculator and is come placement city boards thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. thank you. >> mr. sanchez before mr. sanchez speaks i wanted to ask the board members if he wanted thissed to serve the

companies the photographs that were submitted. plans are attached. >> to mr. commissioner commissioner lazarus can take them and mr. sanchez you have provided those to the other parties. >> instructor: i don't have many comments but the board will understand their powered and they have the ability to turn the planning commission and you understand that you have the ability to over turn the zoning administrator and i learned that on several occasions and i did review the revised plans and i shared some of the surprise that the neighbors had as well because there was a summary that i received that outlined the change and it was not clear from there that there was an expansion from the rather and there was a rather yard calculation and they were doing a straight 34% and now averaging

the adjacent properties under the code and so that is something that is still allowable and also, there was that chink in the height which i didn't notice until today. there were two points in regards to the plans and we will go ahead and accept these plans, but as noted by the permanent holler, they can have that balcony on the third level that is not permitted obstruction over the pop out at the back ask so the third floor bay widow that they have in the back can be removed in the feel did feel accepting these plans i would suck sog that the plans must be code myings and we can review that with the board's office so that these do not immediate any vawrns exprairns so the other point is that i have a little concern with is that it's good that they reduced the height and the four to four height as a good way of doing this but burying this further into the

ground and putting this deeper into the ground and it was not clear that the previous project required a minor encroachment permit and in work grading right away the public would have concerns with that and i'm not sure to what extent but that could be have negative impact on the street escape and so generally, the least amount of manipulation to the sidewalks the better in order to accommodate the scope of the driveway. and we do have a latter rally slipping rods and other rods and it would are so meet b. k. w requirement and is it's a miernlg minor concern that we have to raise but urine there is no other way to satisfy the requirement and is so if heavy the alternative that would be preferred. so those are the two points that i am i wanted today raise and i'm available

for any questions that the board may have. >> did you receive these documents before tonight. >> yes december 6th. and in your review or your staff's review, what happened to the changes? there seems to be a little bit of a disagreement between the prompt sponsor and the appellates in terms of where the hybrid reductionheight reduction occurred where is the profile of the front vs. back changed? >> i was not aware of the concern about the change at the front the e-mail i that received the dated december 6th and to the appellate and it's passed up and i can put it on the overhead and go through it. could you just speak --. >> overhead that would be nice. and so it's represented

and overall it doesn't have reduction three-4 feet to 17 inform and is this was achieved by floor to ceiling heights and pressing the building further into the ground. i don't know if that was previously required or not but sounds like it's new. b increase front set back at the top fourth floor, set back from face to front base is now 16 feet and it was 12 feet 6-inch and is is to 3-foot increase more than what is required for front floor set backs achieved by eliminating a personal property office study in the front floor and c redesign has been revised to be more compatible with prevailing neighborhood code and this was achieved by increasing the height of the bay windows and giving the building more vertical emphasize and finally d. facade appearance has significantly improved and

achieved by back stair configuration with lower level pop out and greatest depressioning the expire entire building into the ground and restoring the building and the entire building will be spring lettered and so there was not a mention of the building extending to the yard and that was a notice of the hearing and i discussed that with the project sponsor to make sure that was addressed. >> and you said that the bay widow is not acceptable. that is correct the bay widow at the third floor and you are allowed to 12 feet and 5 feet back from the sides and you can put a bay widow in the same you know as a projection into the rather yard with you in order to qualify the bay widow you have to have a 7-foot head clearance and so

they can have a pais bay widow on the third floored but not the second widow because it's expanding the widow on to the deck there and it appeared from the rendering that the rendering didn't have that and so may be it was a drafting error that the bay widow was not on the third plan and so certainly that would need to be addressed of the. do you have any revision on the blueprint. >> they are using the bay yard averaging, i don't have clear photos on the adjacent property to the -- i don't know what direction it would be to the left, i don't have the north arrow on the plans unfortunately yes, unfortunately there is no but the property that does have to pop out we want make sure

that,that is at least two stories in height it appears that it is and in order to qualify you have to be at least two stories high and so we want to conform and i look on some aerial photoing's on the ipad and it confirmed that and that is why i suggest if you go adopt revised plans that they are complying. >> okay. thank you. thank you. mr. did you havey anything? okay? we can take public comment then is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item okay seeing none, then commissioners matter is submitted. i'll start. i believe

that at the conclusion of the last hearing i made a number of statements related to the body and design of this building. my concerns centered around the rather and how it is related to the adjacent buildings and the rather yard. the question of overall volume of floors was not a mainly concern to me given the fact that there are a variety of different types of buildings in that neighborhood. it's the two adjacent buildings that are considerably shorter however, this the overall neighborhood area, there are a number of buildings of equal height to dispro pose project. it looks

like there was a trade-off done by of the permit holder by reducing the stair and the top portion of it they chose then to capture some of that reduction back with the pop-out into the rather at the bottom. that is of less concern to me in the sense that it does create a difference in the scale of the rather which, is one of my main hawaiian main concerns during our last discussion. and in the range of 3 feet, i don't have the specific calculation and is so i can't say which one it was in the range of that, i think will help a little bit it's probably not discernible in terms of the overall feeling of what this building does. i don't have much to say about

the designs of the facades and even when i was planning it a chose to avoid that and to look at the broader aspects of the overall scale. how set back and how it relates to the street and to the rather yard. i find that they have done some progresses to this and i'm prepared now to support the project. >> i guess the only question i have now is i believe the permit holder had made some effort to have the survey port blend in a little bit more and i just wonder if some further tweaking of that could make even more of a difference. i don't know elements well enough to be able

to say that but -- at the whereas meeting this matter was before us, i found that the body and everything was out of place. it was not an attractive building or anything like that but it seemed out of place and out of scale and i do prevent appreciate the work and effort put into trying to address the concerns raised by the appellate and and to an extension it's somewhat of a modification and some effort, i think. it's

certainly more acceptable than it was the last time we were here. i think the scale still i would have opted the top four being taken off but the reduction is some movement but, i think the back of the building looks dramatically much better. and i think more palatable to those who reside behind it and i'm willing to uphold it priding that it's code client and all of the issues held by the zoning and administrator are dealt with in this process. >> i have a question about this and if you were to grand this appeal and revise it's permit, i'm not sure how best we would implement the revisions if there were additional changes that were need does to make the project code compliant and may be you could speak more clearly

to that but my concern is that when the board does do take that action, the project sponsors is required to provide sets of plaps to my office to have we review them to make sure they are in confirmance with the court order and if there is in any discretion in what the plans look like to make them code compliant that does not lie with me, that lies with you. i can say that to the point that i noticed another discrepancy in the plan it shows a much wider 44 deck in the in the front with only a 3-foot set back to the property and whereas, on the individual floor plans it's an appropriate sized deck ask and so the building is much narrower there and so if we come across discrepancies of that type, i would assume that the board would instruct the department and to go with the

smaller of the i mean this is unfortunate. i noticed this thousand and the board can continue this item until we have full items that the department did review and in compliance and consistency as well. >> sure headache that motion i would move too continue the item until there is time to the department is able to review the plans and certify that they are code client. >> the other way to approach it what we would would do is take a marked upset right now and provide that to then and that becomes a basis for them. my preference is to continue so we do have do it on the spot. >> yeah, i'll like time to review and mr. sanchez continues to find discrepancies so ... and to the extent that anything comes up in the process and in the board it should be raised

at the time in the next hearing and so should it be continued to the next meeting may be mr. san dhez can propose a time. i think he has got until the next available hearing would be initiate and assume that the designer and architect can prepare drawings and make a review and i'll be here for the holidays so you can do it then. thraws you are here working. let's here from the permit holder. >> the light well on the outside is no longer there. but the not our light well but the a joining property on 538, sanchez, they do have a glass block wall and i did talk to those owner and is we will provide a light well not necessarily the size but we want

to give lights to this wall and so i want to put that on the record. >> can you resolve that then. yeah, and talk about revised sets. >> yeah and i want to alert to you that and i would also request respect fully that you could delegate this to the administrator, you know, we set back the front 3 feet 6-inch and is gave the dimension to this appointment here that mr. sanchez found a discrepancy and we set the feet 3 feet lower and set back from the front of the bay would be 16 feet which, is an additional 3 feet 6-inches in what you saw originally and the time and sponsor is under pressure from his lender and is so if you would not mind delegating it to the administrator and objective it back to us as an informational item. >> we could condition it upon

z a's final review and approval. i would appreciate that again bring it back as an informationle -- and i want to have an order that i can implement and at this point in time i do not -- and i understand the time contraits but i don't know how to implement that order. behave on the plans submit and the concerns raised. i think we need to be --. >> okay next available is january 9th it's a pretty heavy night but if this doesn't -- i think there may be a few items on the calendar that possibly may come off i'm not sure do you know if mr. donee's two' appeals may come off? >> i'll assume so, okay. so january 9th yeah, the next available date. and -- okay so

commissioner has moved to continue this to january 9th and i want to clarify this commissioner would you want to allout permit holder to submit to the board advance advance that, that hearing needs advancement? >> sure and so the thursday prior to that hearing would be the date when the revised plan should be submitted to the board and the thursday prior to the hearing and so on that motion then by commissioner whereas rust, vice president honk. and when okay so that motion to continue pass and is president there is no further business before the board for this year ... happy holidays. meeting adjourned.

♪ ♪ ♪ >> the san francisco playground's history dates back to 1927 when the area where the present playground and center is today was purchased by the city for $27,000. in the 1950s, the center was expanded by then mayor robinson and the old gym was built. thanks to the passage of the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond, the sunset playground has undergone extensive renovation to its four acres of fields, courts, play grounds, community rooms, and historic gymnasium.

>> here we are. 60 years and $14 million later, and we have got this beautiful, brand-new rec center completely accessible to the entire neighborhood. >> the new rec center houses multi-purpose rooms for all kinds of activities, including basketball, line dancing, playing ping-pong, and arts and crafts. >> use it for whatever you want to do, you can do it here. >> on friday, november 16th, the dedication and ribbon cutting took place at the sunset playground and recreation center celebrating its renovation. it was raining, but the rain clearly did not dampen the spirits of the dignitaries, community members, and children in attendance. [cheering and applauding] ♪ ♪