i have lived in this small 750 square foot cottage for almost five years and during this time considered various alternatives to develop -- development plan options to accommodate the growth of my family. we have chosen this plan based on a control set forth in the code in conjunction with the choices financially feasible for my family. the planning code encourages preservation and, in fact, requires extensive planning process to remove our rear cottage. the alternative to add the cottage will require a rear yard variance and demolish it would require both an automatic staff initiated dr and historic preservation study. given these extensive alternatives, we have decided to develop this code complying plan and bring it before you for your consideration. i would like to also include that i did get those three letters of support from neighbors and also today i have over 100 signatures from neighborhood residents in support of my project.

and to address the e-mail that i sent earlier this morning, i was notified by the commissioner -- by the planner that i would have opposition from the commission and i kind of got cold feet and jumped the gun by sending an e-mail to withdraw my case, but after further thought, this is the plan that i feel that would meet our needs and make the least amount of impact to the neighbors. based on the facts -- based on these facts and on behalf of myself and my family, i would like to ask the planning commission to approve the building addition for our home. thank you. >> thank you. speakers in favor of the project. good evening, commissioners. my name is anna wong.

i am mr. crock's new neighbor. i acquired this property only within months, knew nothing about building next door. i met -- well, i won't say that. i do support this proposed plan as having two structures on his lot. with that said, i do want to share that we came to this agreement after meeting with him. i initially met with him and told him that i was very disappointed because i purchased this property because the south side of the house is freestanding and it enjoys plenty of sunlight, air, and view. however, i did continue to talk with mr. crock and we came to an agreement to his revised proposed plan which was

submitted today, and that is he would have a complete three-foot side setback lowering his building height to 40 to 29 feet 6 inches. i support this plan and mr. crock assured me he will not build anything that would deviate from this pro poed plan. i would not support any proposed plans next to the front of my house bigger than the plans proposed today as it is already quite an imposition to have a house built next to yours when you didn't have one at all, and now the sunlight will certainly be impacted. if your decision today is not to support the building of two structures on this lot, i would ask that you consider a rear variance which would allow mr. crock to extend his existing

cottage and not demolish it, which is something i do not support because the rear property is his home. and i understand that, you know, his family is growing and he needs a place. i also believe that a rear variance would serve the interest of the neighbors as it imposes not so much on their sunlight, air, and view. i want to thank you for your time and i support mr. crock's proposed plan as submitted today. >> any additional speakers in favor of the project sponsor? good evening, commissioners. my name is theresa and i am stephen's wife and i'm also the owner and occupant of the property in question. we are a growing family and we need space. we have a 13-month old daughter

and we're currently working on baby number 2. [speaker not understood] i am also working on baby number 3 and number 4 in the very, very near future. since we are both working parents, we would need a nanny day care service for our kids which is quite expensive which is why my retired parents agreed to move in and help take care of our growing family. as my parents are aging, they would like to be close to us, which is why we want to keep the rear cottage. it is the perfect set up for us. we hope you understand our situation and i thank you for your consideration. >> any additional speakers in favor of the project? okay. seeing none, dr requestor, you have a rebuttal. if you choose. we have no problem with two

structures. in fact, three proposals we agreed to with mr. crock where -- but each of them involved removing the kitchen from the rear building and putting it in the new structure. that we have no problem with. we would support that. we also supported the remodel of the existing structure with no building of a new structure. so, i think we've, over the years have been willing to compromise and, in fact, supported those compromises. we only had a problem when at the last minute they changed and wanted to leave the kitchen in the existing structure and not put a kitchen in this big structure in the front. it just doesn't make sense to us. so, that's one point. i don't understand the building being in compliance. i suppose that means it's an

accessory building. it fits that specification. it seems odd to me. we didn't pursue the demolition after mr. crock decided it was not feasible financially. we didn't push that. there's -- if there is a remodel of the existing proposed, we haven't seen any plans for that. i don't know if any permit has been or application has been made for that. we haven't seen it, or any notifications to the neighbors of any plans. so, we don't know what's going to go on with the existing building. that's it. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. i would like to address the

concern about the relocation of the kitchen. initially in my original plan when i sent out the neighborhood notification, i did have the kitchen relocated in the front building. but later as i progressed through the progress, i have found out that if i do relocate the kitchen from the existing building in the rear to the building in the front, i would need to file a loss of dwelling unit application which is similar to a demolition application process. and that would have to require me to do the similar requirements of the demolition. so, given the difficult requirement to do that, i have moved the kitchen back to the existing rear building and that's why i have changed the plan and that's why the plan is as it is as proposed. thank you. >> thank you. okay, public hearing is closed and opening up to commissioners. commissioner moore.

>> mr. smith, would you perhaps help us explain the issue about the kitchen? i've never been asked to consider a building in approval of family housing which happens to lack a kitchen. and since eating is an essential part of how we live, it should most likely occur within the same envelope we do everything else, particularly since the dwelling unit is now the primary place for the larger number of family members to live. i'd like to get some guidance relative to the last statement the applicant made, that he would have to go through a dwelling unit declassification [speaker not understood]. >> the project owner, sponsor is correct. the project went out for notification, had the new kitchen in the new building. i was -- i was subsequently

advised that that constitutes the dwelling unit removal. i'm the zoning administrator so therefore the kitchen had to remain in the building at the back of the lot in the existing building. so, this is kind of a situation where kind of like maybe the process has gotten in the way a little bit. >> well, if that is the case, then i would assume in order to really meet the need of the family and i'm fully sensitive to the requirements of generational multi-co-living, et cetera, i think this commission, particularly given what we have in front of us here, this very undersized small building in the rear yard would be a demolition issue, and we would move forward with approving the appropriate building for the needs of the family. at this moment i really cannot at all support something which would indeed invite just by

necessity, invite to have two placeses of cooking, particularly when the layout of the space leaves clearly where the kitchen needs to be backed up against the utility and all you have to do is hook into that and you've got your kitchen. i just cannot in good conscience do that. we have spent a lot of time with other units where we had a situation where a garage and a build out basement had people do certain kinds of things in order to foreclose that there is a second unit in the property. so, i cannot really move forward with this, but encourage the different kind of application as many developed to deliver a building on this lot. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'm not clear on the issue of the loss of a unit because you really end up with the same number of units. if the kitchen is the requirement of there being a unit, you still have one unit

with a kitchen in it. it would be the new unit. and then the cottage would be accessory. >> it's more dwelling unit removal, not loss of a dwelling unit. >> well, i don't really -- it's a relocation. we have a lot of situations where we might have a merger and they merge the units and they take the kitchen out, but this is not what we're doing here. we're just redistributing it to another place. i mean, that's kind of my -- i don't know. i understand it's a difficult situation. but the logical thing is to put the kitchen where most of the family is going to be most of the time. and, you know, then the smaller number of occupants would proceed from the cottage to the kitchen when it was dinner time. bring everyone, all those children into the back cottage to have dinner. so, it seems kind of backwards. >> commissioner wu. >> well, is there a world in

which we can -- [laughter] >> where we can say it doesn't trigger mandatory dr, we are we can circumvent the fact -- >> yes, we can just make a finding. >> well, i think [speaker not understood], i'm not sure. without scott here, i'm not sure. what i would suggest maybe it sounds like you're supportive of the project if the kitchen is in the front. >> yes. so, maybe make a finding that you would prefer that solution and ask staff to -- and ask the za to look for a solution that allows that to happen. ~ because the way the current situation -- we have been advised on the current situation the removal of the kitchen in the rear unit constitutes a demolition and therefore a mandatory dr which means coming back to you for another dr. so, obviously everyone wants to avoid that. so, if there is -- so, maybe you could take dr, ask that the kitchen be moved to the front and ask us to figure out a

solution to make that happen. >> this particular finding would be associated with the mandatory dr that we would have to evaluate and that's what would trigger that process. >> can i ask the project sponsor what he thinks about that possibility? if i were given or allow today relocate the kitchen to the front building without going through the expensive process of doing the neighborhood notification, loss of dwelling unit and all the other requirements needed for that, i would be willing to do that. and from my discussion with the rear neighbor, they were supportive of my project if the kitchen was located in the front building. >> among the possibility -- a required change in the plan, but would require the two -- excuse me, the plate, is that

the two buildings were connected. i mean, i don't know if that's the possibility. it would require some change in plans and some physical enclosed space connecting the two. it would require a variance. that's another hearing, but it's not a dr. >> i would rather -- i make a motion to take dr and i think instruct the zoning administrator to find a way so that the project sponsor can move the kitchen to the front building without mandatory dr, without it being considered the loss of a -- what was it, the loss of a dwelling unit removal. >> second. [multiple voices] >> wait. >> one second. >> can i make a suggestion that maybe you take a motion of intent to allow findings to come back to you that may satisfy the mandatory discretionary review findings? >> yes.

>> that way the action you take will be a discretionary review and you will be adopting findings that are specific to a mandatory -- [multiple voices] >> we'd have to have another hearing. the matter could be placed under consent to adopt the findings of the dr action. >> the public hearing is closed. >> okay, thank you. ~ for the suggestion. i believe that is a motion of intent to take dr given the circumstances i outlined earlier. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> mr. hillis, did you want to -- >> no, i'm done. >> okay. i just wanted to add to the motion -- not add to the motion, but i think that the commission's feeling is that there really isn't a dwelling unit removal in the sense that there is still going to be a dwelling unit. there is going to be the smaller cottage in the back and

there is going to be a brand-new building in the front and in essence i think you can say that there is no removal. we're just moving one component of the cottage to the new building in the front. and, so, i think the technicality of the way the legal language may be written doesn't apply in this case because it's a special situation. and we really aren't removing a dwelling unit per se. so, if the za can get his mind around that, then i think that's the intent of the commission. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask staff perhaps to also work a little with the applicant as you are now figuring out exactly how to package it. instead of putting on these plans that there will be a subsequent permit for the cottage, i would like to have

the department give the applicant a little bit more guidance of one, the removal of the kitchen requires, but also when remodeling, this does not all of a sudden become a foreign object, but that it follows your guidance in terms of what he can and can't do. it is really important because the way it's currently drawn, and that's why i called you, is we have a thing there where no plans shown, we'll have a future kind of [speaker not understood] application for improvements, but we are not dealing about two houses in this kind of zoning district. that's where my concern come in. i i'd like to see a little bit more guidance at least in kind for them so there is no future disasters. >> commissioners, i'm sorry, i didn't catch who seconded that motion. >> i did. >> commissioner antonini, thank you. so, commissioners, on the motion of intent to take dr and

approve the project with the kitchen being moved to the front of the building and continued to next week or -- >> it would have to be two weeks. >> which would have to be april 4th because the 28th is -- >> continued to april 4th to adopt findings that would satisfy the criteria for dwelling unit removal. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? i'm sorry. commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i just want to clarify the public hearing is closed? >> yes. >> aye. >> well, it will be an agendized item. we have to take public comment if someone chooses, but we'll be placing it under consent. >> we'll change that in the rules. >> i don't think you can unless you can change the sunshine ordinance. >> the board of appeals does president do that. >> that was aye, commissioner sugaya? thank you. commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under

public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment this evening? if not, commissioner moore, you had -- >> the dr applicant was trying to add a comment when i talked about the rear cottage. they had an agreement [speaker not understood]. perhaps that could be communicated to mr. smith so that it is indeed properly put to record. >> okay. >> thank you. >> seeing no public comment, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned] >> bonnie banks. bonnie banks.

my definition of noise is uncontrolled music. without format. pretty simple affair. pancakes, and you're -- people get up on sundays around noon, weekends or whatever. should not be too hard to walk into place. have your audio alarm clock go off for two hours waking your up while you are eating breakfast with many interesting visuals once in a while. improvisation. listening or not to the person you're playing up against or people or machines. trying to get as many different people in as possible. different

genres, experimental noise, electronics, dissonance some drums.a tiny bit of ambient -- the first noise pancake shows, 1999, the first waffle noise, 2001. god-waffle noise, noise pancake came out of cubist art, place on mission street, brutallo, where the church -- opened up his house and saturday morning cartoons. a big space.

you can have everybody set up and barely move equipment around; small room for an audience to move around, walkover and get pancakes without getting burned up in the kitchen. there's like people in their hard-core gabber; people into really fast death metal; black metal. people who don't listen to music at all. guy like larnie bock (sounds like) set up huge, motor driven harp. i don't know how to explain it. 40 foot of motors that he had running over strings and wires.

and then played each string individually with the mixer. there is a feeling of euphoria when somebody's really good at what they do. experiencing a buffer, pushing your bowels out your rear. different. a lot of noise. you don't play clubs with a cleaning schedule, a guy coming in the morning emptying the beer bottles. you play the warehouse. if you travel around you will see the exact same kind of weirdos doing their own thing. it is like in the bay area it's even more absurd. there seems to be more people that in a place like new york or tokyo.

we did a show in new york, i didn't think that anyone was at hardly, and people come up and said i saw the show. i wish they had some kind of breakfast noise going on over there. i think a lot of people were being, walking out of the shows. that was incredible. i can't believe it's over already, after two hours. if you are reluctant to enjoy something like this it will probably take a mass of peers to sell you on it. it's fine if you stay away. most of the people that come to the shows are pretty happy to be here. you may not be one of them. which is fine.