i was upset to see that miss misleading information was sent out about this project. i've seen copies of the letters from the planning department. for example, in one of the jazz letter he falsely quotes the planning department as saying the project is and this is a quote from the planning commission not good to say the least. it rebels a battleship for the decks and balconies. thank you >> president fong and commissioners thank you for

thank you for the opportunity. i'm bill pope i'm a resident of douglas street i live a block from mr. brown. i've known him for 15 years. i've looked at the plans and several e-mails back and forth and i'm surprised we're here. it shows a house of 26 hundred square feet. it didn't seem like a motor vehicle mansion to me the front facade not being touched it was far enough from the sidewalk not to be up setting. the side elevator you can't see. i'm at a loss awhile we're here. he's been a honest and problem

solver i can't believe that this hadn't been worked without a public hearing but here we are. my thoughts are the planning department with the limited experience i have with my own project those are professional people. they know the code and try to balance the needs of the city and a take into account the concerns of neighborhoods. they spent a year looking at this. everything i've seen in the dr has been addressed and the planning department residential design and historical preservation says that is the best we can do. i don't know what we can solve by rehashing what we've enliven both. i don't think this is a motor vehicle mansion.

mr. curb way sent me an e-mail of concern and mr. brown can look into his backyard you can't live very close to people without looking at their backyard but as a neighbor so long as the outside of the house doesn't change when walking down the street it looks consistent with the neighborhood. they've looked at this and they're giving their best option so i hope you'll take that into account >> any other - >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm jack i'm a

long-term resident in the district and have a property on erect street i fully support the relocate it looks fantastic. thank you >> thank you. i'm paul i live cross the street when i think my number may have been included and one of the supports of dr was incorrect. i support the project it's atkins an improvement to the neighborhood. the remodeled house will be in character. i believe what happened in the past it should be matched to the neighborhood housing. the owners been sensitive to the

planning code and even though concerned stated to him. also the neighborhood this block does have american people eclectic building of sides and height. there's no pure form of residential structure so it's in character thank you. >> thank you. any more speakers in support of the project. okay. if not d r requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> as a planning commissioner, i heard it was eloquent. he can expand his house and not disrupt the mansions.

we've tried to talk with him and spent thousands of dollars and tried to talk to him and he went inside and closed the door. he's accommodate but he blocks our windows on both sides. he's willing to paint it white so it is reflect of light he feels is sufficient. it's up to you whether san francisco goes mcmansion or not but i see that i see an aerial of homes being mcmansioned in san francisco it would make the point. overhead. that's huge.

that's beyond huge. and here is our homes illness how much that will stick out it will stick anti 25 feet. heels have balconies and desks that look into our bedrooms and that's creepy. project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal >> i did want to correct some information. the proposed square feet of the house to 80 is not over 4 thousand i think that includes the ass actinic space and the plan t is four bedrooms it was mentioned 5. there is an additional parking

garage parking space that's been included. the gentleman did visit the home he didn't see anything he expected to see. i wanted to show a comparison of the profile of 234 next door. this area is brown and so the goal was this is an expansion we're not saying it's not we're adding space but trying to keep that expansion close to the building. this area here >> sir, i'm sorry but you need to speak into the microphone. >> this area we're going to cope it close to the outline of the house. this area is set back a minimum of 5 feet on each side.

north side it does because of the stairway this is an area of set back photo. we ask and thank you for your time and ask i considering approval of the project. thank you very much >> thank you. the public hearing is closed commissioner moore. i'd like to suggest to the commission this project is notable for us to be heard today solely based on the faculties not providing the information we need to see the application or the file on behalf of the application. the reasons are at the minimum the property needs to be shown on the map to it puts the property into the district it's shown.

it needs to be on all drawings the only dimensions we see on and on is on the existing site plan. the drawings are all not to scale and none of them shows the proposed expansion e.r. expansion with the context of dimensional lines in the site plan. for this reason either the applicant or the d r requester we don't have anything to approve. the drawings have to measurable state law scale could be anything. by approving this we don't have a concrete fully substantiated proposal. they could be longer or wider

the approved plans are item played and i can't tell me whether it needs an elevator and it's correct. i'm not taking a position whether or not the dr is justified or not but in order yourself to those to understand the project we need to see this properly documented which it's not. so i suggest this project be continued and the applicant including the dr requesters are looking at dimensions and properly rendered drawings in addition to the codes with a minimum you have to have dimension drawings with a side plan. i suggest that we continue this application we're not saying a yes or no but not able to judge

on it. to be continued >> did he hear a second commissioners? i don't hear a second >> i think the department themselves would be well-advised to second this you can't approve a drawing out of the context it's impossible. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have to understand i have a pretty good idea of how this particular property is being expanded and safes there's to variance but the rear generated is okay. and the house steps down in co-op the slope of the property so it seems to me and they talked about the minimum of 5 foot set badgering back on

either side is gracious because we require at least a 3 foot set back and the light well, is present i'm not positive about that that maybe part of what commissioner moore is looking for. i like the project and it makes senses and it restores what the building looks like and it looks better in the future from the other which that was stuccoed. i will not take d r i want to hear with the other commissioners have to say >> looked like to know if the project sponsor architect if f

is in the office. would you like to come up and talk about the questions raised will i commissioner moore about your drawings >> i'm the architect. sheet number 2 shows the full length of the lot the rear yard set set back and the fourteen feet 4 inches plus 4 foot is the back of the house at the first floor. as you come up the stairs

subtract of 4 feet and that includes the roof on the second and third floor there's a set back of 5 feet on the property lines. any other questions >> if i may. it is typical practice if you're a residential architect that proposed buildings additions and changes are pit into a side plan by which we can properly judged how adjacent buildings inspected in the configuration effect each other since this is a drawing that's not based on a verified site survey as sheet one indicates it maybe afterwards doesn't meet the standard of care as practiced by architects.

>> typically open our side plans we show the two adjacent neighbors the north and south neighbors. >> it didn't relief i from showing a drawing the intuply is not just express the generalized they're not 9.5 there are all kinds of things and the accuracy for this need to be considered whether or not the applicant has a real concern or as to whether or not your proposal is fully underline we understand the next drawings to each. i'm not trying to make you wrong there's a level of information missing to for us to judge your

application. i'm not taking a stand up for the merits or lack thereof i'm not able to judge >> if i might interject i know from a submittal for department of planning inspection they don't ask for alternative drawings. it's sort of a typical in those surveys such as this for an alternative if it was a new construction on vacant particles they don't provide a vary is a survey and that's a scenario and a but if i may. >> i do know you know yourself in the discussion of the dr like

that it's really in the subtle accuracy of where is the crux stand. we have many projects of this kind and they're submitted with the level of detail and i believe this is definitely a point where the department should have asked for more because in order for us to practice and act as a commission j e judging apples and oranges and apples and apples. >> that's well take place and it can and should be provided by project sponsor. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'll second commissioner

moore's objection. it's kind of out of reconciling scale i agree it meets the code but it's insensitive to what else is going on especially on the 3rd floor the roof should slope down more. i'm not against an edition i think you can do it better. i don't know if i have a proposal to start cutting badgering back on the 3rd floor it would cause trouble with the elevators and such. i recommend we make comments with general changes to the project but i have a hard time of the provisions here in what's around >> commissioners preschooler

that original motion to go forward failed. >> i'd like to re-up the motion in rorps to that that i i intentionally kept away from commenting i wanted to see it in the form we're expecting. i agree with our observations but i don't want to discuss the project outside. >> there's a motion and second. >> commissioner wu. >> if we were to continue is the public hearing still closed are public dilations. >> the public hearing in the plan has closed but the sunshine says any agenda listed order

must accept public comment. we have the final certification of the final comment that can be submitted under the agenda it might be awkward >> so should we accept general comment on this item or the dr hearing. >> that autopsying all depends upon whether or not there's alternate modified plans. we'll restart the hearing process >> i wouldn't not necessarily want to hear the defendant r hearing but i defer to commissioner moore's opinion.

but i'm a little bit struggling here. >> commissioner borden. i can see what she's talking about but i think we ought to look at this i see the adjacent buildings and the art scales but gaga again i don't get that. i'll say to the public if you all come to an agreement we don't have to see this again. we don't have to have it back again, if the project sponsor modifies the plan and you reach on agreement we don't have to see this again. it's in both courts we pick a time for it to come back or you

work it out interest it's easier if you come to an agreement then the community can hopefully fourth what you can live with. everybody does get everything they want it's not a perfect situation. we can be respectful when someone is trying to accomplish their project but be sensitive to the situation. it would make the process earrings for us >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'll be awe memorable to the continuance with commissioner hillis. but if we vote to continue the

project architect speak with commissioner moore and he's clear with what she wants done so we don't through go through another hearing. with regard to what was suggested by commissioner hillis i was okay with that the way it was. maybe the pitch of the additional floor seems to be square that's probably you have a little bit more of a pitch to the floor even though you don't see it from the street that would be more remedy sanity thought you pitch of the house so long as that's right room enough not to use the space on the side. and at the need to continue this >> yes. is there a date you

want to continue this to? >> i ask the applicant it's coming the holiday season so why not at the end of january? >> as the maker of the motion would you like to choose a date we have december 12th, the 19 and not again until january 9th. it's the first or second week in january >> the 16th. january 16th accounting is that be acceptable? commissioner moore >> would you want to hear the question or call for a comment. >> i think what i'm asking for is not what i'm asking for but i'm saying we as commissioners absolutely need in order to

better practice. the standard of care as defined in architecture would not make it even a question that the basic strings inspected while open your oppose property as well as those on the side. we're looking at this when we look at drs when we modify an application in front of us. this drawing lacks that information not only in the depay attention we need to know what the applicant says it's 26 hundred feet we're approving something we don't have the ability to see the size. if we're praying the drawing the number doesn't allow us to

understand what we're approving. i hope as the commission will be revising or looking at its rules and regulations i hope we as a department the residential design team will give a more consistent message for people who come to us with the larger and smaller projects to avoid what we've seen today. we're only asking for better information >> commissioner antonini. >> it that an adequate amount of time to proceed. okay. thank you >> i want to say in the on topic this is setting some sort of standard this is a small

promise. it might be helpful if we had some sort of sample or template or a check list of items because you know this is for the architect and whether he has an discussion with you or not in private t he would be guessing what you have in mind. >> commissioner. shelly call the questions arrest on the matter commissioner antonini. sxhrnd. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and president fong. no. sxhirgsz that motion passes 5 to one with president fong voting against and places you on item 17 case 13.1286 d and i have a

question. those plans are even more - >> i'm sorry. i want to understand are you looking the plans for barring let street because it's bans what we decided on the other case. it seems to me those plans have less information >> this is the project that lies completely different. i want to say that's a completely different thing it's legal listing something that's there so the plan is completely different. >> please continue. >> item 17. at 259 a request for discretionary review this is an

abbreviated discretionary review >> good afternoon, commissioners in the a discretionary review to legal liza desk on 2151 barring let located in the midgets strict this murders approximately 2 hundred square feet of desk area. you have the case report materials and at this time staff has nothing further to add the project was reviewed but he remain design team that noted in the dr are not usually and it's the departments position it doesn't create any extraordinary six and the department recommend it be approved. if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> dr