professionalism to meet the larger common objectives you're trying to tell you would be encompass on you i'm a little bit taken back by your attitude those changes are easy and whether it involves structural engineering is not an issue at the time those drawings come to us we're talking about ideas of buildings and you if you don't get commission approval because the commission denies the project altogether all your calculations and everything is basically nothing we're trying to help you modify the building that is appropriate to the state in which you are here in front the commission you're telling me i'll lose my structural

engineering doesn't mean anything i'm sorry to be rough i've never heard anyone that speaks gating quite the way you do i have to be clear you're probably emerging on a successful practice and next week time you'll knows where you are which when you are at this stage this is annoying. >> i'll continue. >> to commissioner moore just i think what we're trying to do i'm getting the rational for making this move staff recommend it be approved as designed they seemed to be fine but you feel for visible purposes it is better to have a set back i'm not quite sure what we're getty need the rational for the set back. >> for the simple reason if we set that back you don't get a

reasonable closet so your two common lines by which you agree that is a reasonable project and we have a variance to push it out and gain the extra space your lou gehrig's disease or gaining the space. >> i understand it seems like that makes sense but you'll gape more in the back than the front if i'm reading that correctly i'm supportive as long as no net loss of square footage and the other question of the variance how will that be handled if we approve the motion by commissioner moore with the modified project that requires a variance does that have to go back to the zoning administrator for a different hearings on his own separate from us. >> yes. a separate hearing gastric to the zoning administrator bus the variance

was not needed that's why he is not here. >> we can approve it today and the other hearing with just the variance. >> yes. like he normally does. >> not involving the commissioner. >> it appears about 3 feet before the rear yard that wouldn't trigger a variance there could be an expansion of the bedroom space without encroaching. >> i'll be more in favor of limiting it to 3 feet but if it didn't work they get less bedroom space that will be better off to go back and take the chance with the variance. >> i'm prepared to go driver's license i'm using the edge of the light well because architecturally it's easier to do and that's all it will do so

whether or not we want to you hear you secretary allen i would look for the gentleman that has more experience since he is coaching a colleague. >> i think there is no question we'll agree to a set back autos your prototyping in the front a push back of 3 feet we've got 3 feet of flex room not to get a variance it is you think appeal it is a small variance we wanted to limit that and go to the absolute back a thought set back line and pull that back 3 feet that's a great compromise and we're ready to do that. >> i'm prepared to work for that and leave that within the zoning administrators app. >> commissioner richards. >> at this point the hearing is

closed we might have a question for you. >> to commissioner hilliss point eave sat on many many projects and questioned the size of the roof deck it is more modified as 6 or seven hundred square feet past the roof so pushing it back to the end of the light well causes more spites we have more light in the alley and actually a better project for all that's why i've seconded the most. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm fine i was going to suggest a set back to the variance line the roof deck is different the only open space we've seen a lot of roof deck and decks and backyard i'm comfortable with the size of the roof deck taking the rear yard so i support that motion and i

make a motion to take dr. >> i'm sorry there is a motion. >> oh there was a motion i mean - >> are you. >> i amended the motion based on the idea of staying within the set back line and not requiring a variance. >> in your oriental motion you had another thing on the second-story. >> no, no that never went anywhere only the leaving the notch on the upper floor third-story roof deck and cutting that back and cutting the roof deck back the walkable occupyable part of the roof deck to the yes, ma'am of that hatched line by which you have a perception of the large roof-deck but the roof deck starts at the edge of the deck. >> commissioner moore you're

talking about the north side strip the new portion of the deck. >> you're right. >> i'm not sure - i don't quite understand that second part of the motion i think know that this set back. >> the now portion commissioner moore is suggesting to pull that back to the corner notch dimension so there's is basically a set back from the north side of the building of approximately 3 feet from the neighbor >> what. >> and you want the roof deck set back. >> okay 0 so i wouldn't be

supportive the dr requester asked for a notch i think we're kind of randomly taking off portions of the deck no one asked for i don't know if it's a noise issue i support moving the building back but not the notch. >> as you know the notch is currently for the existing stairs which means the existing building is had has an open stair in what is the notched area instead of filling that in i want to encourage to have it partially filled b in but have the last portion be cut back again so you're not having too much of an expansion into the property line. >> i'm not sure i know where it

is. >> it's that piece they can share that. >> it's west. >> this is where the deck would be. >> it's up here. >> this portion here is this what you're take the opportunity. >> no, no, no, no. >> third-story. >> right and exactly where mr. jennings is pointing. >> this sliver. >> no 3 feet on the corner. >> no, no. >> it's the part that is - >> it's where the current

stairs are. >> we're saying not fill it in do you have the drawings? and the existing stairs are on the north side. >> sfgov if we could get the overhead overhead. >> he the drawings we have this is - >> yeah. >> is that little piece. >> okay. >> so this is right here and

even if we agree to leave the deck all the way out here i want to pull the deck back to here if we cannot get consensus i ask this piece stay open and this piece comes back. >> again, i get it now i don't who wore trying to help the adjacent neighbors who owns the property and didn't take the request. >> this is the vallejo neighborhood. >> she want a 3 foot by 3 foot cut out. >> that's part of the proposal. >> to keep the roof no deck on 3 by 3? >> this is out of the ordinary do you have a drawing of the

request can i put that on the overhead for a second. >> it's really small i mean, you, do whatever i want to do but it will help holmes and help me. >> that's essentially what commissioner moore drew. >> it that what commissioner moore drew she understands it. >> you want that on the second and the deck. >> the second-story is the deck if you - yeah, it's - what is is stairs are here existing they want to in fill beyond 3 feet i'm saying doesn't do the in fill outside of stairs if you get 3 feet fill we'll get more

light there's a misunderstanding this picture we do get light. >> put that open the overhead. >> there's not a light here we get the light streaming through here because of the cliff we get the light two ways through the light coming in here that reflected to the light we will and light streams that way so it comes both ways it is tricky i have a 20 feet cliff and one last thing did you follow what commissioner moore drew. >> is that right. >> i thought i drew what you have been pointing out. >> yes. in fill up to the stairs. >> we're going sideways. >> just for clarity commissioner moore was talking

about reducing that number of the deck not the second-story. >> the third-story it is this wall the roof deck open the third level not the second-story in fill. >> that's correct. >> i'm not sure i understood that. >> commissioner moore thank you. we'll ask if there's any more questions of the commission. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> just to clarify we're moving the living spates back to the line a that's allowed without having to generate a variance and then american people appropriate amount is being taken off of the corresponding front and the deck the notch where the stairs now exist on the third-story deck level is not being filled in it goes back

as far as it is drawn and if this is what the motion is i'll support it. >> i think we need to clarify we're talking about not living spates on the second-story but bedroom space on the third-story. >> i was talking about the third-story and some days i have a hard time when motions are repeated i would ask secretary allen to repeat motion. >> the way i understand the motion is to increase the set back at the third level of the master bedroom area the same excitement that can be increased to the rear and rear property line approximately 3 feet to the right. >> ; is that correct commissioner moore so for that portion of your motion that that dimension to me appears

probation officer to be 14rig9 less than the depth of the closet. >> the architect will probably tell me it is more than 3 feet i would say 3 8 or 4 given the width how wide is our bathroom then there are dimensions going on there. >> the four foot quarter or something like that . >> the abruptly. >> the third-story bathroom. >> is 8 feet. >> no, i'm not talking about length but width. >> it is 8 by 8. >> i don't think that is 8 by 8

that's impossible. >> it is is the bathroom or the closet. >> it has to be more clear so it is the angle to the bathroom. >> it is 2 by 8. >> is that about a 4 feet closet? >> the criteria move it so you can close the variance. >> sir i'm working with the stair opening we can't fix it i would like to have the front come back to the evidently. >> understand it commissioner moore so the motion is 0 reduce the third level by eliminating whatever the dimension of the closet up to the stair

and then increasing that same level up to the rear yard you'll go within the variants. >> that would not require - >> the problem is the closet length is probably not 4 feet. >> right you're losing about a foot. >> at this level of drawings didn't show the walls even though it is difficult to say i'm sure we can skillfully have a late out they're not effected there's enough creativity in the expansion that the architect can work without. >> commissioner hillis. >> because we're getting two detailed i'm trying to eliminate the closet she's got a two foot closet i'll give them the flexibility of designing it and

moving it under the original motion to the line take that same in the front and let them design does we are trying to design the landing to the stared as no, i'm not i'm trying to leave the stair into the building design unchanged that's the most important part that tracks all 3 floors that means using the yes, ma'am of the stair uncombufrmd that's where the demiss is. >> it would be possibly going on beyond that. >> but you can't do anything with the space. >> that's on the other side not right front of the stairs. >> i'd like to toss the question back to the gentleman

so i'm asking you. >> no worries about andrew i appreciate the detailed back and forth i think we're okay to push it back 3 feet and set backing the building from hodge's consistent with the existence of the close even though it doesn't have to be equal. >> i think you understand it is clear in the design we can manage that this is basically, what the motion is. >> i'll - is there a motion and a second to increase the set back the same width of the depth of the closet and increasing the depth to the rear yard set back line as well as reducing the third level deck at the north corner equal to the depth of the

adjacent building commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu. >> commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes national anthem 7 to doer commissioners that places you on general public comment i have no speaker card. >> any general public comment any public comment on this item? okay public comment is closed. and the meeting is adjourned.

>> it seems like everyone in san francisco is talking about housing san francisco housing prizes are among the highest it tops anyone million dollars and rent rise unfortunately, this is not the first time housing has been in the news thought california the cost of a home has made headline the medium prices for a house in the the $207,000 in california it is more than twice that amount and the laura u bay area is higher it's more than doubled the states so while more than half of the americans can afford the medium fewer in california and quarter in the bayer and now fewer than a 6th of san franciscans can afford it so why

it housing in san francisco so go cheven condition tharz the obviously a high demand to live here the city is known for cultural diversities that attacks new residents and the credible opportunity our city diverse and will daytime committee grows jobs as a result we estimate the number of jobs is at ann an all-time 0 hive of 6 hundred thousand in the 80 the population was 6 hundred and 75 thousand now, it's grown steadily and quickly the recent estimate is 8 hundred and 40 thousand the highest in the city's history and it's not only san francisco it is greek the bay area has $2 million for residents and jobs then in the 80 and the growth is expected to

continue by the year 20403.9 million people unfortunately, our housing supply does not keep up with the demand i might not realize the majority of construction is housing that's been suspended for years due to the 2008 recession while population is increasing the housing is only increasing that i 9 percent if we don't pursues housing the cost of housing about only increase how do we plan the regional allocation identifies the total number of housing unit by affordable level to support the new residents san francisco incorporates it into the housing elements that guides the housing policies the arena

data places it in the investment plans for the growth throughout san francisco those plans developed by years of community planning laid the ground work for the construction so the city he e sets the goals in broad terms the private sectors builds market rate housing and non-built affordability housing that majority of housing in san francisco as well as throughout the country market rate houses built by private developers within guidelines of the city some below market rate you howls paid pie public and private dollars and prized to be variable to certain population housing is considered affordable if it costs less than 1/3rd the medium income for a 2 percent householder is $70,000 this householder will have to pay no

more than $7,150 to be affordable san francisco has see long applied federal, state and local money often built and nonprofit tint for individual families the news cities in california what the inclusive program requires that 10 or ottawa more units to certain blow income levels or contribute to the fund that supports the blow market rate unit almost 25 thousand have been supported by city funds and more than 6 nous thousand of the unit were built between 2000 and 2012 what you can't afford a million will home you're not alone in response san francisco mayor ed lee has set a

goal of creating thirty thousand now e-mails homes by the year 2020 most will be in outreach of the san franciscan with federal and state funds drying up the san francisco ethics commission is, taking an iv i of actually roll is providing housing across all levels we're working diligently for everyone to live here and mr. chair protect the housing semiand strengthen goals against evictions we're commented for housing needs for all san franciscans to learn more visit highway food in san francisco

isn't just about expensive eat but food for everyone and there's organizations in the city that are doing really good work making sure that healthy food it assessable to everyone. more and more as follows are are becoming interested in upper arlthd they want to joy the open green pace sea know where their food it coming from we'll look at 3 programs talking ushering agricultural and garden to new heights. so what exactly it, your honor agricultural >> it the growing food or

flowers within city limits traditionally we've been referring to communities gardener that is a raised bed over and over upper argument has a more a farming way of farming. >> so tell me 0 what's growing in this garden. >> a really at all plant. in the one of the rare places, you know people have access to green space 24 is one of the places to grow things like the purple floor. it is sort of recognizing that the more diversity in given space the better not to just have one thing by everything supported each another

>> it provides the community with an opportunity to get their hands dirty and reach 0 out and congressmen with the community in ways they might have not otherwise to engage with one other. >> now the dpw urban planning program so see how the garden community. >> so i grew up on a farm in air force base we picked the foods open the trees and share with other families and as i drive around san francisco i see any trees with apples or mrumdz and lemon trees i can see the food going to waste and brought that idea back to the department many of the trees where the fruit would go to waste we origin or crop and