earing in 2005. some dr taken and changes from the record that i can access now and unclear what was made. and on the overhead -- sorry, so it was approved in 2005 and subsequently constructed. and if you want to see what there before. and this is what was there before, a single family home at the rear, and garage was demolished and the permit was to extend this home and extended further on the lot and vertically as well. and that was of the project that was approved it wasn't appealed at the board of appeals and a discretionary review and maybe some compromise reached and it's

encrist encrypted in minutes. and back to this project we probably count three stories but four levels. because the lowest level is a basement and not classify as a story. so it's a four-level building. the roof deck would be allowed as well. and certainly for the stair penthouse, that are often ungamely elements. depending, and often there are alternatives to that. you could retain a roof deck and have a kind of inverted access or roof hatch, and they need to work with building to make sure regression is met. and maybe alternatives if that's a concern of the board. the railing height would be required in the building code of 42 inches given that it's setback five feet from the property line, it doesn't need

to be solid so a modest material. and one thing to add, there is a bit of mix of vintage of the buildings, this is amongst three buildings that could be classified as more contempary and more modern than further down on the other end of the block, and buildings of older vintage, and that's the design team determination on this and available for questions. >> so i am looking at the plans, and looking at everything and looking at the size of the audience that has shown here to appeal this project. and then listening to the project sponsors counsel explain the other way. and what you spoke earlier that there was no one that filed a discretionary review. and could you explain the

notification process here? because i have one side saying there was no contact, no notification, and the other side saying -- and so i am trying to figure out how this is possible that we have this many folks here. >> so there was from our notes a pre-application meeting that was conducted march 11 2013 and the notes say it was attended by 17 neighbors, for an application meeting that is well attended. the neighborhood notice would have gone out the beginning of august 2014. would have gone to owners and occupants within 150 feet of the property. as well as an additional notice for -- and a poster as well, a bright orange poster for the property of 311 notice. and a 36-inch poster that goes up for the hearing. the orange poster is up on the

property for 30 days. and the 311 notice and larger poster 10 days before the hearing, and the hearing was on september 4, 2014. so this should have been clearly noticed between august 1 of 2014 and the hearing date of september 4. >> is there another notification of 311 poster? >> and 311 poster and discretion discretionary notice would go out and to a limited group. and we send to neighborhood groups on our list. >> is there any notification for the environmental portion of it? >> there is notice for environmental review but this would not have triggered a level of environmental review that would have required additional

notification. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i not sure it's an issue of notification. they had a pre-app meeting and got a notice of the dr and no one made an effort except for the lady that was ill everyone else thought they were traveling. i don't know why they think they are due one-on-one they made no effort to contact and raise their concerns. i understand their concerns however i don't see why they are bringing it up in this manner. yes, i am in agreement that the building is not contextual and contextual covers a wide of range. not only scale but covers the style and pallet and a whole

range of things. and this building is not contextual, and it's out of scale also. >> so where you are coming out then? >> >> my point would be to find some level of reduction, not exactly sure what that level of reduction. at a minimum, especially on the rear of the building. it definitely needs to be -- something needs to be done at the top floor of the setback. that scale is way off. >> i was -- >> that point is you know mr. sanchez knows that even my time at planning i tried not to get into the design. people deserve whatever they wanted. if it was a shity design that's what they got. >> can you say that on tv?

>> no he didn't say that. >> no, i heard butt ugly. >> can we back up a refined level. >> for an architect it's a close call to get too far into the design. i always tried to only look at the things that i think we as planners would look at which is scale. which is you know whether it needs to be preserved, but things like that. i always -- and project sponsors are always scared especially with larger projects that i would insinuate myself into the design process. and i tried to avoid that. >> so the question is that you would support a reduction. so the planning department has said they will knock off three feet except for the bump out.

what are -- what if any recommendations or thoughts? >> let's hear where evenryone is going with this. >> i agree with commissioner fung i always tell myself when designing hotels that my taste is my mouth and i should pay attention to the architects. and at the same time there a common sense element which is putting something into the context of the neighborhood and the context of the city. and there is just a common sense piece that goes along with that. i -- because of the late hour i won't be as verboise as a tend to be but i would give mrs.

larson's testimony almost verbatim. she said everything i would say about this project, i thought it was eloquent and reasonable. if i was in her position i wouldn't be as reasonable as she was, and i would be insulting. and i compliment your reasonableness and i support almost verbatim what you presented tonight and therefore i am in support of the appeal. and on her terms. based on the adjustments that she made to the design and for the reasons she said. >> i have another approach not unprecedented coming from me

and to continue the matter for a couple of weeks. and highly encourage the parties to get together with the assistance of the planning department. it's worked before. neither party comes back very happy, but that's probably okay. i am not comfortable specifying changes. i agree with the overall sense it's not to the scale. but i rather that the permit holder and the neighbors work it out. or try to work it out put it that way. >> i would support that motion. >> if we do that we need to give them a little more guidance. as an example, mrs. larson's approach cuts off the pop-out. the pop-out doesn't bother me so much. and i don't think that the pop-out impacts a lot of things

i have heard. mrs. larson's approach also takes the floor above the pop-out and sets it back. and then the floor above that sets it back again. so -- and also in the front. i want to make sure that we give some direction on a couple of these things. because otherwise it probably won't get very far. >> i think -- again, my taste is in my mouth, i am not a trained architect. but in the spirit and context of the neighborhood there are guidelines that is explicit. the corner house that is 900 carolina and if you look at it from whatever angle, there is lots of light and air. because it's stepped up and there is setbacks. and so if i was giving direction i would request that the

architect look at 900 and create an environment that was compatible and complementary to the 900 building does that work with you commissioner? >> as architects the 900 building its envelope is heavily arctic arctic arcticulated and it's determined the volume and design. >> let's have a motion. >> since it was my initial proposal. i will move to continue the item considered? i was going to try to get to it.

i don't think i can articulate this hour but i can try. continue the item to june 3 with a request that the parties meet with the assistance of the planning department to affect some change that is reduce the bulk and allow for the maximum light and air that will make it fit the neighborhood better. if you want to add something. feel free to arcticulate what i can't. >> this is scott sanchez, and that is perfect and for guidance for us to be involved and call upon our residential design staff to handle this. and the key points of the pop out of the rear and clear guidance if that remains. >> i don't have a problem with the pop-out personally. >> sounds like we can work with

that. and. >> and roof deck is to remain, and maybe look at an alternative for the stair penthouse that is not projecting above the roof line. >> the roof deck becomes redundant if there is set-backs and decks. because again mrs. larson's suggestion that i couldn't artic articulate better, there is setbacks and decks. >> and eliminating the roof deck and keeping the pop out in the rear and stepping. and i clearly heard stepping at the rear to better reflect the topography. and should there be some setback at the front as well?

>> i don't know looking at the plans it looks like it's angle so that the house on the left is not as affected by the right. and the way that it's cut back already i don't think it will make that big of a difference personally. >> this architect can develop a couple different alternatives but along the general theme of doing greater setbacks at those levels and removing the roof deck and the pop out. >> the danger is to get too prescriptive. >> there is a happy medium. >> i don't want to talk feet and inchs and to deal with the interior space and that that can be addressed. >> again i would simply for me pop-out aside, and look at mrs. larson's suggestion and that

artic articulates my feelings perfectly. >> okay. >> so is the june 3 date acceptable to the parties? okay. would you care to repeat that motion? >> always a wednesday, never a thursday. there is a motion on the floor from the president to continue this matter to june 3. the public hearing has been held and this is to allow for the parties to negotiate a reduction in bulk. >> i don't know if you want to include these president lazarus, one that you wanted the planning department to participate as well. >> yes, with planning department participation. >> and you mentioned also maximizing the light and air and improving the project to fit with the neighborhood. >> yes, that will work.

>> i think they will take the initiative. >> june 3 remains; correct? >> yes. >> on that motion to continue this matter to june 3. commissioner fung. >> aye. sorry, i fell asleep. >> vieps. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> swig. >> aye. >> this is continued to jun. 3. >> no present matters before the board. >> we are adjourned. [gavel] .

>> we all know a major

earthquake will eventually hit san francisco are reproerl presented san francisco is making sure we are with the public safety buildings. >> this consists of 4 consultants the police headquarters with the from 850 with a brand new fire station number 4 to serve mission bay swimming pools at office of economic workforce development in the fire station thirty. >> is the the hall of justice on bryant the new home for 2 hundred and 50 uniform and voiven compresses we all it was opened in 19 so sociothat is a 50-year improvement as far as structure and work environment had that will be a great place

to work. >> when construction began in 2011 this was with an clear goal to make sure with the big one heights the resident will will have a function police department those are the highly seismic standards it is up to operate up to 96 hours from the police department perspective that building is self-sufficient for a main made arrest in all disastrous zake ever after we will run our operational from here no matter what happens this building and the people that serve the businesses will continue to function building is designed to meet lead goal certification and also to art installations on the campus that was designed and constructed to better sense of

ability so for example we're using solar water heaters we're also urging gray water for reuse inform flush water and rainwater for the cooling and irrigation locked on third street and mission rock is it serves the motorbike neighborhood and motorbike i moiks is a growing neighborhood and the intent of the bond to have please and fire serves to serve the community. >> hemming helping to keep the building and the stay safe was the not the only opportunity it creates many jobs with 82 bleb businesses overall san franciscans contributed one hundred and 87 thousand hours to help to complete the project it shows the city of san francisco the elected officials and police officers and more importantly

the voters that paid for the building this is what we can do with when we wrorpt this is a beacon when we need to build new extra we can trust them with the money and the plan they did a good job the san francisco public is a reminder of the importance of being presented and will continue to serve the residents for decades to come good

afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hamburger for thursday, may 7, 2015, disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. italian-american commissioner president fong commissioner wu commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson and commissioner moore. >> commissioners, the first item on your agenda item one ab