know requirement the demolition criteria work stopped as soon of the notice of violation and we requested a letter how to move forward we saw the demolition application and we're here today the project is almost the same as in 2013 with modifications made all property line windows have been removed open the north and west property line we've removed access to the roof and specifically engaged the northeast neighbor to get his input on the privacy concerns there's legitimate privacy concerns regarding the two lots and we've agreed to add the privacy screen and removed the windows in the notch f facing north towards his property

he was still requesting we had a east privacy screen along the eastern side that 0 boxes in the notch that's in the necessary to protect the privacy of any hope full board home for several reasons we've done a site line analysis i'll put on the screen basically, what you'll see is actually - so this way is north and someone is looking at from the far end of the window this is the farthest line they see across the property this is the view corridor that is potential from standing at the most extreme point i want to show you the pictures of lot looking at this direction it looks like because there's construction going on tarps covering the building but significant amounts

of trees blocking the verify in this direction so we don't feel like the privacy screen on the east property line is necessary and in fact, will box in that part of the project we have the support of the occupants on the east and west and if we lost this we lose a lot so we respectfully ask our support. >> we'll open this up for public comment (calling names). >> hand this out are you going to do hand those out. >> yeah. 0 go ahead and thank you very much for linking to me,

i'm steve worthington the owner on congratulating to that backing up to david proposals i've been working with david and john with over a year in trying to work this out and actually nothing is really come together in my real conclusion until i saw the package that went to i all some of the things that are resolved the east boundary the previous structure was booelg there are view into my property that was not there before those are the drawings that were first no windows and roof access at all this contrary to what was said about poor construction we have

photos of the entire construction this building was purposely hidden from view so the whole foundation was placed in this site under a permit that was for adding remodeling bathrooms and kitchens and some anywhere foundation work those are photos of the new foundation we let the people into the property to deal with the foundation we become concerned when the upper parts of the skin were starting to be removed that is not just a kitchen, bathroom remodel he had a permit that was not for public review this is what's built there now there's actually a window in that is built this is not pie in

the sky a window facing north and east and actually windows cut out along the 239 property the plans shows the stair the stairs currently goes to the roof given what i've been through with daniel i'm mostly concerned about combhafs going to happen this is a property view with the notch this is a view from the window a lot both any property with the screen if you add the scene you'll see this you can see through the screen that is a view from the lower bedroom and the stair he said he's eliminated the window but this is his screen this is a set of drawings i gave to daniel. >> thank you. sir, your time is up we have your presentation.

>> can i say one more thing. >> i'm sorry. >> next speaker. >> hello my name is dorothy i'm steve woshth tons wife and the co-owner of gratton my office my home office i'm a landscape architect sticks anti into the backyard i've been watching the construction i finally left a note and said d can you call me and let me know what our doing he said we're not making changes at all to the building you see i said okay. fine i let him work on the foundation as mr. worthington

said at this point, i saw over a three or four week period i have time dated and stamped the old side was sawed-off with a new foundation i checked the permit and said that's not a minor go foundation and over the period of weeks they finished that part and took the siding off and left the roof up and then over one can i they took the roof off so officially not one stick of the original thing that was very sneaky and methodical and i don't bye for one minnie went and all of a sudden the moss house is demolished in one day i mentioned i said why did you tear it down i'm not trying to stop you but we don't want

changes we've been there 23 years he said daniel told me there was dry rot so we had to take it down i don't think he is forthcoming about the demolitions i don't trust they're not going to leave the windows and have a roof garden and after the building is signed off punch in another stair and butted put in a roof garden we've lived there 23 years with complete privacy we're there everyday in that backyard my office sticks anti into the backyard a that's it i want them to not come back and add a roof duke deck thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is carl i live on

gratton directly behind the current you construction i think my main concern a cottage was back there for many, many years and somehow completely demolished under the presence they were going to remodel a bathroom and do some plumbing and anywhere foundation work well, the entire building was taken down and windows that were looking into my backyard and there was a misrepresentation and i think it's our concern we want him to go forward with his property but want to make sure we have the privacy we've also had i lived there for 45 years it is a unique property we're in the backyard and we're concerned

about having a roof tape garden open a 2 story building that was originally cut ought to be a cottage so i wanted to reiterate that would have a guarantee we're not going to have a rooftop and their windows will be alternated thank you. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed commissioners. >> commissioner richards ma'am, i'm trying to understand the timeline i hear the building came down in a day and the pictures were over a week is there comments can i help to constrict the timeline and as far as the dbi complaints i believe the complaints were in late october

and maybe around the 29th and the nova was filed on the first, we have documents. >> add a few more dates the permit that was issued did have inspections and it looks at as if the building inspection was there prior to pouring of the foundation and i think the date was on september 18th and then we have the statement by the project sponsor that on friday the 18th of october they left the building was standing and they came back at the end of the day the building was down and we didn't hear anything that week and on monday the 28th there was work going on that caused a complaint to be made complaint is filed and the building inspection said on the

29th that states on the 28th it was objective that the work was exceeding the scope of work 33 and they issued a notice of correction saying they hadn't gotten the correct permits. >> another question for mr. worthington or his wife may you come up my question if i knew the scope of the work was exceeded with photos from the prior week did you make any attempt to call dbi. >> yes. we filed with dbi electronically. >> do you have copies of those. >> not with me. >> mr. sanchez a record. >> it will be available in a publicly i'm looking at their website they're showing there are two complaints one files on the 29th and 30th of october and

those are the only complaints in the system. >> just to be clear on broad with the remodel of the building as is and so up till you know what major foundation work that was not until we really realized the envelope was changing contrary to what was said we become alarmed so we're not i mean, we bought our property our backyard it's 18 feet high loans it stays benign we're fine but not with the windows and stairs. >> my issue if you have a foundation a bathroom or kitchen whatever the permit was for you cut holes in the walls clearly

this was something that's not authorized that concerns me thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. is a question for staff as to the and a half of what was before us this plan we're asked to approve includes the windows as they've been places on the building can you show me which drawings. >> i'm trying to figure out - >> when i look on sheet a-2.1 and sheet a-2 point zero. >> yeah. >> i don't see windows that face north to the neighbors property. >> oh, yeah. >> there's a window facing east correct and yes two - so on

a-2.1 sort of a dashed line on the left which is at the north property line so that's where the privacy screen is proposed opposite on the wall a door to the deck and perpendicular there's walls those face east so they don't face to the neighbors property. >> the objection the stairs there's no decking in this project. >> there's no stair. >> our approval will not allow that and any addition will be contrary to approval. >> so one of the things i think perhaps when there's a wall there that exists where this door is on the same plane leading out to the deck my understanding is there are

windows left in there but under this permit those rough ends up will be no windows there they're waiting for the bring out to take those out you can ask the sponsor or the architect. >> the other side if it's approved as sketched there won't need a screen because there's no window. >> the screen. >> the screen is there. >> they want another screen open on the east side of this notch that's currently open the neighbor wants a screen there he feels his privacy is not - >> officially a cage previously expands to the notch and in terms of windows that's a very difficult thing to address when it comes up at the discretionary

review hearings no notification is required for adding a window on the previous building they could get the windows they have to be fire rated limitations but no notice required even as a non-non-compliance structure not a surveillance is to add a structure our plans today don't have the window it's a window on the landing for a stair again, it's giving the idea of the window by a stair that could be added at a later date unless you take dr no window every there's a screen in the plan that is not invading their privacy those windows need to come up this is

in rear of the property that's an issue to consider. >> thank you maybe i can ask carol you commented are those the same windows. >> they took the windows out there were looking into my garden and those have been removed. >> they're not part of the plan now. >> no, not now my concern was the stairway up to the roof are we okay. and they're to open up the roof and have an area up there which is above everyone in the neighborhood. >> i can address that under the code of a non-complying code you can add a roof-deck providing

it's a minimum roof-deck with a railing that's open on top of of the non-complying building i will note if there are no plans to do that they would have to do it without the penthouse because not only would that trigger the 311 notice by the way, it's in the radish building requirements do the patches in some cases it is possible without a satire penthouse but again, nothing in the plan and not an ability to add a roof-deck later without a notification. >> we have those discussions about privacy easement and generally we are on the side of if you're concerned put screens up on your property if someone's is looking at our property but

this is a different situation we had plans that were did not involve the windows and now the with these are there so it's a little bit different because what was originally proposed is not the same so i'll be inclined to support another screen that allows latin-american for windows that will be placed by block out a view of the backyard and concerns and taking dr and not allowing an upper deck to be built that's a notice of special restriction or make it part of the motion itself. >> that's not part of the proposal currently you know that's certainly something the commission can do i'll note the window not it on the plan it maybe roughed in they wanted to do that that's again in the

staircase and actually carotid to the plans actually on a step so just to kind of keep in mind the privacy concerns maybe from a small window and a stairwell but one screen that is being proposed dribble on that property line and what's being proposed is another one to cage the open space. >> that's my inclination i'll see what the other commissioners. >> commissioner johnson. >> i agree i see a lot of cases where privacy is one or more of the issues that run to the dr requesters i'm not for changing the design of the building to accommodate neighbors if they feel it's a concern generally speaking san francisco is a city and privacy is no in the general

plan there are ways that has nothing to do with to the building structure it can be used to accommodate those concerns until further notice so i don't disagree with that being part of the motion in terms of the potential for further alternatives to the finished property that we see before us i did not that needs to be part of the motion times change and any proposals that you have a roof area that is habitable could require litigation as a zoning administrator said and would probably be back before us for another dr in which case we can discuss that job agree with talking those yet so i'll not

agree with commissioner antonini on either one of those potential additions to a motion on this project. >> commissioner richards. >> a question of staff if i take a look at the original project is interest a difference in the original design of the building. >> the only thing changed in the original design move the windows and the stair penthouse or stairs up to the roof after that it's virtually the same project. >> the project sponsor has something to add as well. >> police commissioner yeah. just to emphasize the original permit did include property line on the west and property their roughed in that's part of the original permit we've removed them and to be

clear the window on the notch that faces directly north that's window has bhn removed there is no window there we're happy to put the screen on the north property line as well that's part of the proposal on the other hand, so eve your left with the a notch facing east and that north facing window is gone. >> there's a question about the condition that that scene be there on the north property line. >> it's in the plans. >> as part of the plans. >> if you're offering it we'll take it if the neighbors are happy. >> yeah. i think that for me, i have concerns about the fact that the demolition did happen i will accept our story but what's

in front of if his with a eastern screen i don't see the need so this sentiment from the commission in that direction and commissioner fong and based on this information i think an attempt by the project sponsor to accommodate some of the neighbors requests in this recent round i'm going to move to not take dr. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a question for staff if we vote with the project as proposed it includes the private screen and there's no window at least at the present time in the eastern direction. >> there's a window facing east but that view is diminished by the screening on the north and then the proposed window facing north is also screened by the screen that's happening. >> there's no window facing

north. >> no window facing north. >> it's roughed in but not under the permit. >> the other thing if there's an attempt to add a deck it will have to come their notice will have to be generated to the neighbors and done administratively if someone obtained they can bring in another dr or stopped. >> given it's a non-complying a it will trigger a notice to the adjacent properties additionally if it has a stair penthouse a public hearing through the variance. >> thank you. >> one other question mr. sanchez draefgs between an attached structure can we do that without a permit.

>> it will also yeah. >> okay. thank you commissioners, we have a motion and a second not take dr and approve the project as proposed commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner johns and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously zoning administrator what say you close the public hearing. >> thank you, commissioners item 12 for the next case at 5420 mixing is request for a mandatory discretionary review. >> commissioner richards. >> i want to let the commission know i don't have a conflict of interest but i sit open the board in my neighborhood that

will not make me impartial in my sense to this project. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the planning commission the item before you is an application for a mandatory discretionary review for a building permit application on mission street project side on the north side of admission on ottawa in the occurred mission district and mailings falls within a height district proposal so establish a new mcd the now vacant space is seven hundred plus thousand square feet with 25 feet with frontage along mixing and no physical expansion the proposed mixed use will operate and dispose of

medical cannabis and have on site smoking the density will not incorporate the medical cannabis on site and the tenants will have to comply with the mayor's office subject property located in the excelsior outer commission where the medical cannabis is under the mandatory discretionary review and it is located within 5 hundred feet of another medical cannabis to go through the mandatory discretionary review process and subject to the restrictions of the planning code there are two other medical cannabiss on the 2 hundred block of mission street since the project falls outside of the community a mandatory discretionary review is not required it is one hundred and 66 feet the second is approximately 8

hundred and 70 feet away doing business as as tree medicaid medical cannabis on february 16, 2012, a third mcd was approved through the same process and to date the department has hundreds and one letters in support and additional calls and letters in opposition to the project since the case was pushed and the department has received 15 calls and 31 letters of opposition brown about concerned of the approximate to the childcare and a public utilities how it impacts and crimes and another mcd the