3771, excuse me, 1371, she did not want the fence. i believe all of the neighbors here, here, and here, here. would want the fence. and would provide very good for them. and given the fact that we are literally right on top of the play area that fence is not going to do much for us. we will accept it, for the better for our neighbors, and i mean,... >> yeah, okay, thanks i appreciate that. and i will make hold off on making a motion unless other people rule on the fence situation. we are trying to come up with the best solution for everyone, not everyone can be happy at the end. i think that we need to discuss it further. >> commissioner antonini? >> well, i am going to make a motion so we can get this thing moving hopefully. i will approve with the restrictions that are limiting

it to 42 children which is already in it and the staff work with the project sponsors and the opponents on the fence situation between 3771 and i think that it is 3781 whatever the properties are to deal with those who want the ten foot fence and those who do not. and which i think that could be done as part of the motion. we would ask that the proposed acustical with the exception of 5, 6, and 7 and i would say item 11 to give 14 days notice on the celebration and we would limit the religious to 12 people except for the four holiday or holy day i am not sure when those are. >> all right.

>> that will not be part of the motion then and we can enforce hours of operations for the daycare. and could we get a suggestion from my motion. what is typical for hours of operation for the daycare? are we talking 7 to 6? >> i think that the project sponsor can address the typical hours of operation. >> thank you commissioner antonini, 7 to 6 is exactly within the span, although, our day is much shorter, we do need to have that flexibility for certain parents. >> and then that would be the motion that i would make. >> commissioner moore? >> i have a question for mr. sanchez, but i think that i want to bounce that back sbaoen him and mr. sanchez is there a maximum number of occupancy?

we have the children 42. and each of those children have two parents, and as an active religious community and it would be the desire on the peshl holidays, and that is a practical and the type of building and not seeing any plants except that it is in the buildings, how many people can these two buildings or this property accommodate and still have all of the room for fire exit and because in the public assembly which is the facility and that comes when you use it in the larger intensity. and (inaudible), congregations cap able of accepting the projected number of people, 42 children times the two at a

minimum plus that we need to help them figuring out what some of the issues might be, because ultimately it is a safety issue. >> building a permit during the course of that department of building my guess on it would be start out at 49 people, and i don't know for the, if there are any issues of the building code and for temporary events and like a one night or so of having more people within that and you need it for an exiting requirements and if you go over 49 and then the exiting and then the fire code issues and the inspections of the fire department and it will be born out through the permit process that they must undertake and my first guess will be 49 and then maybe paul has a more educated guess than i do or the answer. we brought out a fire code consultant who reviewed on the

situation, and found our exiting to exceed what we will need for the amount of occupants that we can sustain at our largest gatherings a lot of which will depend upon the use of the garden space for an afternoon or evening party. the simple answer is that the building code will regulate and the building permit will be determined with a maximum occupantcy load. >> and when you had the code consultant, what number did you propose to them? >> he thought that we could get, we could have 82. based on the exiting that he observed. >> i am sure that this way that things go at dbi they will do a more indepth study of this and this will be during the four... >> and the four of the events. and the events have the characteristic of a typical

house party that you might experience. and in your neighborhood. i know that i do in mine. so it is not going to be that, you know, packing in a lot of people beyond that. >> i appreciate that you have thought about it, because it will be a very big thing for whoever is spending a lot of time trying to work this out if all of a sudden you find yourself having the expansion for what is important to your community is not work or find (inaudible) by what it becomes conditional on xyand z, and i am very supportive of it. but the one thing that i would like to encourage you. if you would live at the other side of the fence of those people who are for better or worse impacts by the noise of children, would you find a way to remain open and how you deal with them day-to-day. that would be the one that i think that i will leave you with, i am convinced that you are doing the correct things.

>> this process has opened up the avenue to do that and i think that it is important to note that this expansion will increase the essential financial stability and availability of funds to do these hard measures and these physical up grades that this property needs to sustain the additional children without over burdening and we will work with mr. summers and put that sound barrier in and work with him and his wife in terms of the hours that we are having recess and having the kids accessing the outdoor area. we want to be as good as we can. and i think that the process that we have started here and

the financial options that we will have, it will make that possible. >> commissioner sugaya sf >> yes, mr. paul. >> one of the gentleman that testified thought that a solution to the noise issue was a switch the garden with the playground. i understand that i have not seen the garden, but, given the landscape plan and i assume that it is fairly luce and fairly mature. and it would be difficult to transplant the two spaces. or switch the two spaces. because you would lose the landscaped area. >> that is correct. however we are willing to

create play space in that garden that there is not quite now. we have discussed relandscaping so there are certain times that recess, can be shifted over. but as far as doing it over all and paving over that garden is too big of a hit on the qualities of this space. >> okay, thank you. >> and i just like to have the record note that the project sponsor is giving consideration to perhaps having some additional place space in the garden area. >> item three the proposed measures and the alternative play spaces. >> okay. >> commissioner antonini? >> i think that i made a motion and i am not sure if we have a second. >> not yet. >> yeah, part of my motion was

for the project sponsor and the concerned neighbors to work together on the fence between 3771, and i think that it is 3781 and there may be other addresses to allow those neighbors who want the 10-foot fence to have it and the neighborhood did not want to have the shorter fence. >> commissioner antonini i did not hear you add these proposed measures. >> yeah. >> with the exception. >> and i actually did and with the exception of 5, 6, 7. >> that is when we said with the item eleven to give the 14 days notice and the hours of operation are for the daycare of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. >> i am sorry, it is 7:00 to 6. >> okay. >> and i think that

commissioner borden suggested a monitoring provision. >> and i am fine with that. >> but a memo from the staff. thanks. >> i will second. >> let me just kind of clarify one of the conditions here about the parking and a monitor, and a parking monitor, and could we be a little more specific about a parking plan and no double parking. i have seen it in other schools and we and part of this kind of condition we will have an actual program. and i will have the language ready that would, i think address that, and i think that do you have any? i think in the past we required a parking management plan. >> if that is the condition of

the approval that we have a parking monitor on site during the drop off and pick up times? >> public comment is closinged. >> my concern seems to be in the motion. >> there is a motion and a second, commissioners, and to approve with conditions, adding the conditions of limiting the total number of students to 42.

that the project sponsor and neighbor and staff condition to work on the fence height between neighboring properties. three, that the daycare hours of operation be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and that the acustical measures submitted to the planning commission with the exception of 5, 6, 7, be adopted as conditions of approval and under item 11. and there be a 14-day notice and that staff report back in one year's time.

>> i don't think that there is a mention of a traffic monitor. >> i suggest that paul talk to the school, up on jones street and california. where the pick up is skag tered and that the children are ready to be picked up and somebody who knows the child and the parent of the child that is put in the car.

>> a little more attention and to make a better situation. >> i understand president fung we have not implemented that yet and that is what will be in place before we move up the numbers for the kids. >> thank you. >> and could that be submitted to the staff? >> yes. >> also? >> yes. >> and it would make... >> i am comfortable with the parking and plan b and the parking monitor and plan b and that be submitted to the staff to show the evidence that it has been taken care of.

>> so just to add that condition of condition of approval to the original motion, that the pick up and drop off solution, with a parking monitor be submitted to staff. >> sounds good. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> moore? >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> and president fung. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes 6-0. >> do you guys want to group break? or do you want to stop? >> yeah, okay. >> next item please? >> maybe we could wait a minute for the room to clear a little.

2166 12th avenu >> the department received two discretionary review applications. one was filed by the department owner's at 2162, 12th avenue which is immediately north of the subject property. the other idr application was filed by the property owners of 2158 12th avenue which is the second house, north of the

subject property. rdr requesters have the similar concerns regarding the proposed work. they include one and the project and the subject house with the third story addition now become ha bitable with the surrounding homes and it does not preserve the neighborhood character and the reasons that are going to allow the subject face there is only one house and has a third story addition.

and the last one >> the proposed rear is casting a shadow and on those two dr requesters slots and both dr requesters have limited open space because the rock walls. and steep hillside. and rdr requests subjects and that source will be removed second, reduce the depths of the two story rear addition from 15 to 12 feet and is set in seven feet instead of five

feet from the north side. and the number three, modify the windows on the north side and to mitigate the privacy impact. and the department and the staff are analysis on all of the dr concerns, first, the project has to be reviewed twice by the residential design team. and the guidelines does not necessarily prohibit the additional source for the addition, even in this situation. but the guidelines do require the source be set back, which the proposal has done. and it has a buried from the front set back and 12 and 16 feet respectively. and then the rear addition, is thes limited to 15 feet that is

not deeper than both adjacent houses with the five foot to allow it on either side and then the roof deck on top of this, the two story addition has been limited to ten feet by ten feet and that is a study of five allowing the south side, and further away from the dr requestor's house and immediately north side. and regarding the (inaudible) the map from the... this the line shows the subject loss and this line means the land slide

boundary and this line is that is the current rear wall of the subject building from the rear wall to the beginning of the land side and that is approximately 50 feet in distance and with the addition the rear addition of 15 feet and three feet stairway will be a total of 18 feet and after the addition there will be 22 feet in between and between the project and the land slide zone. since the land slide will not be disturbed, is there no environmental review required and that has been verified by the department's review. and another concern is regarding the houses and after the additional houses to the garage. currently that means that the purpose of the addition is also to make the current house into a family sized house with four

bedrooms. and that is part of the it is not really again, prohibited by the residential design guidelines. the reason that the department recommends the approval, the project you have to be on the south side of the rear addition which is only three feet but the resident and the design team requested five feet instead and this was found by the project sponsor after the notice had expired and the reasons by according to the sponsor is to make those a little and a more spacious for for instance the furniture layout purposes. and at this, for these change

the department does not agree and because the residents and the guidelines still require in this situation the ad dish to studying the five feet on either side, even the south side. and so we believe that this project does not present any extraordinary exception circumstances from the rear addition. and the planning commission and we are happy to answer any questions thank you >> thank you. >> okay dr requestor number one you have five minutes.

>> when i show you the picture of this and people think of the golden gate heights it is a single block of junior five houses, so it is, they are very small homes and two bedroom and one bathhouses without the dining room. so, any way the reason that we are bringing this to the discretionary review we have actually made a number of

attempts with the owner, and many are around my dining room table to come to resolve around with that expansion plan will look like and the short of it is that we have agreed to disagree on the third story, primarily. that is our number one sticking point. the attached discretionary review this was an eye sore and was built way before the guidelines were put into place and it creates more and doubles the current size of the home and it clearly impacts the rear yard to the space and i think that we are going to expand a

little bit more on the way that the back yards are shaped due to that rock ledge that is behind our property that actually impacts and the second thing is that we will address the shadow study and some of which is done in the sponsor's architectural plan that you have and that shadow study was actually the month that is captured is during the foggy month and that helps the magnet for fog and so the sunnyist month are not the ones that were captured by the study. >> there was no issue with the

property just south of 2162 and that property is actually owned by the sponsor's son. and so, and that sponsor actually made a comment to me at one point that had he been in the country at the time that my house was on the market. and i am a little concerned about the precedent of actually adding the third floor and that might become what the neighborhood looks like and maybe changes the neighborhood from being a medium price of a san francisco home and have a block that is over one million plus. and so that is one issue and the other thing is that there is evidence on the record that the owner and family members of 2166 avenue, have developed numerous residential properties in san francisco. and we have actually spoken with them 2170 like i said just south is the property's owner's son and that there has been recent work