across or something to that stent the bulb out on a normal street a good idea not having the support by the fire department because your bundling into a minimum right-of-way i suggest we that had another project about 6 or 9 months ago it was a alley project rewanted to make sure that the alley is kind of addressed not an additional turn it's backside to the additionally this is extremely positive but the alleys are the new neighborhood street is more and more mid block former commercial buildings are being replaced by residential so the residential has the benefit of the commercial frontage on sutter street the benefit of activation

commercial on the alley and creates a dual building in a narrow lot this is very, very positive i just generally made a comment we should encourage all developers that wish coming one by one to par take to coordinate around larger ideas like the one perhaps the gentleman presented what can the alley be what do we need to do in the interim and in the lutheran it long run it is creating positive what you're doing positive years about the future transformation of those alleys that's where i left it i think the moving the building 10 feet from sutter and 10 feet from the rear is a better way of

mediating that. >> commissioner johnson. >> i guess i have a quick question is sounds like the schematics don't reflect this change. >> they does not. >> what you're showing open the screen is reflective of this change can you show changes more clearly and the front facade of sutter street? >> those rendering are reflective of that 10 foot set back from front street. >> so will eliminate the need for the bulb out. >> that's correct. >> what do you have for sutter street. >> this is this one as you can see with the 10 foot lesser set back the building is almost actually very close to the original 20 foot set back didn't

change off of sutter street. >> my only comment would be that i understand maintaining the alleyway has its own level of space the 10 foot reduction the set back from sutter street i feel multiple sclerosis the design even more con reimburse with the facade of the building the larger i believe it is a 20 foot set back on sutter originally read more it looks like a brand new building with very interesting design on top of something older i don't think that the concept behind the original design works with the set back i'd like to hear what the commissioners think my on the comment. >> commissioner hillis you i agree when i was first reading

this case report why are you keep that facade who - >> is there a staff directed. >> when the project was reviewed the request because of the adjacent building is are historic resources i think certainly at the corner of van ness and perhaps polk street those are historic buildings with historic facades they all have the brick material at the facade so the thought was to try to retain some presence of that original material and original facade along the block strengthened the block on the other side of sutter street we don't want to retain those they're not historic so the

thought was by maintain this facade it will make that side of suitor age stronger in terms of looking at the territory the. >> did you request that. >> they did they requested the two foot. >> they requested the 20 foot deck about the frontage and sort of light getting to that alley the sponsor responded to the concerned by splitting the difference. >> i share commissioner johnsons concern i first didn't - i don't like where we keep a facade paste it into other this i've regretted seeing it built but i think this one was mitigated better than most you have that 20 foot set back and

worked with that volume; right? we maintained the volume of that space when you walked in it was the same volume it worked well, i agree we shift the building back 80 up to the front we're making compromises on both sides on old facade on a new building i share the concerns an front alley but we're having a typical facade it is not going to be pretty. >> i guess at this point the option would be to you know change the facade or if you're asking for a larger set back on the front your compromising the unit size those units are not that big already your by tang away the 10 feet you'll be compromises. >> keep the facade as is what

is - is it only a temple foot set back on sutter. >> sorry. >> does that end up being a 10 foot on sutter. >> from both sides from the property line. >> yeah. let's see what the other commissioners have to say i'm not excited about the front on sutter. >> commissioner johnck. >> i hope even other commissioners concerns this is the worst facade in toronto it is pasted and didn't look right is there something in the middle that might look like the building is crushing the facade is there a 15 and 5 or a 4 and 7. >> i was about to say. >> i'm already 6 feet that's

not a big building. >> we're willing to compromises and do a front facade. >> i'll wait for my fellow commissioners audience i like this i think that is important to keep the facade and do something on the two story or the 3-r report to make that conceptual once our up 20 feet then the building even if it is set back it appears to be a different building you've got something two floors of context you will site i like historical and traditional stuff but i'm not going to weigh in on that one laughter. >> you can mitigate it or usual

suggestion a good one to say cigarette it a little bit further in the front. >> absolutely we're willing to work with the staff on your suggestions. >> commissioner moore. >> yeah. i think mitigate between 10 on 10 to 12 and 8 or 13 and 7 i think that is some kind of a proportionately with taller diechltdz i'm not set on temple and 10 i understand your concerns on quieting the residential building pickup on what commissioner antonini said it is a spate discussion to bring all the levels down but that staff what figure out as the transition zone that's

another discussion you have a better discussion when you start looking at the set backed. >> make a motion to approve with the provisions as suggested by department as well as the commission. >> i do have one modification condition 5 e is all about refinancing the sidewalks and the bulb out since the bulb out is not part of the proposal i'd like to strike that and have that condition articulate more about working on the commercial front and notary republic some of the nationals we're starting to see in the alley. >> this is acceptable you should talk with the fire department because the bulb out is technical not possible the street is two narrow.

>> commissioner richards. >> i'd like to second the motion but amend it to say with a minimum of 13 feet anything above 13 between 13 and 20 will work. >> it's definitely acceptable. >> commissioner antonini and i'm in favor i want to make sure that the project sponsor can with work the staff and taken some of the challenges we've bought up and make the two building fit together. >> we shall. >> commissioner richards. >> one thing to add to the some point the building the original historic building stops looking like it's a pasted on the front 50i678 i'll defer to the experts and hopefully not much more than 13 look it make it look separate.

>> the pasting on the front is the huge craft of materials that is a more than building and beautiful but sitting on top of that older foundation is in staircase craft but commissioners the set back. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate you're saying that commissioner president fong the building is too dark for me and unless 2, 3, 4 a light neighborhood it is designed around light hues of color this is a dark building and because of the dark it attracts more attention i leave that up to you i prefer it to be a slightly different building. >> commissioner moore are you amenable to the condition of the minimum 13 feet sent. >> commissioners there is a

motion and a second to approve this and also incorporating the design comments from the commissions with a minimum 13 foot front set back you commissioner antonini. >> sutter street. >> front set back on sutter center of very good. >> on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner richards commissioner johnson commissioner moore arrest commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously zoning administrator, what say you? on the variance, close the public hearing and be granted to the variance will hold the decision until the final revised plan it is a through lot and they're keeping the existing facade. >> very good commissioners, the first item on your agenda under your discretionary review calendar on montana street a

request for discretionary review. >> all right. good afternoon commissioner johns and members the commission before you a question for a proposal to modify one story dwell on montana street the proposed modifications removing a 7 foot wide locked south of the encroachment to the adjacent dwelling on monday night street to the east with and constructing a staircase go 7 feet from the western property line oriental 55 and 59 montana street was a single lot containing a dwelling constructed which was now 51 montana street this was subdivided not to encroach on 45

montana in the 1964 it was established with the offer lying pop outing it out 0 stay in place 55 movnt is rear edition was originally skruktd under a 2010 permit that was approved for the construction of a 26 feet deep roof deck with a health more than 10 feet above grade that was brought to the attention that the roof deck was in addition more than 10 foot above grade and the deck was suspended to require that the owner of 55 monday night file a new permit to legalize the rear edition to allow the rear edition duo to allow the department to look at the planning code and the

residential guidelines and this is the permit before you today dr requester lives on montana and has concerned with 55 montanas rear edition that will block 3 east facing windows open the pop out and it was turn around the roof edition before it went through the level of notification it it was reviewed by the rtd that requested the pertaining to maintain a 7 foot cleaners from the western property line which out of respect to 55 montana legal south facing window on the pop out concern the 3 east facing windows dbi issued an nov against the mopt for the

installation of those windows without a permitted legal listing those east facing windows will require a lot agreement to have them closed as a result the 54 windows on monday night have not protected property line windows and their edition is not topper 55 mopt the rdt reviewed the application and found the permit meets the standards he and it was to provide inform blockage to the east phasing windows and shortly debt than the adjacent buildings and the proposed roof deck has been revised to mediating mediating meet the firewall requirement and for those reasons the department finds this project didn't demonstrate

exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends you not take discretionary review that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions >> okay dr requester. >> hello commissioners, i bought 59 montana in 1987. >> we need ainterpreter here. >> we bought my install congressional built in 19 hundred came in with an easement agreement they gave me this map and my deed of trust and the offer will

you explain agreement also that's my house and 55 montana that was built in 1965 according so they wouldn't interfere with the privacy of 55 montana in 2010 april 2010 mr. leon bought 55 montana and then applied for a permit in a october 2010 i close to thanksgiving 2010, i presented my first complaint they start excavating all around the lot around 3 times 6 feet

deep i started calling the believable they came mr. duffy said to the work and said to get a surveyors measurement and until now we're here with higher than 10 foot walls my south windows have been covered they're my east side windows and south side belong to the birth bedroom in the house that was the master bedroom the windows are covered facing south and that's why we sent e-mails we need your help this is almost 5 years we're getting not only mentally ill but physical because we have no air or light

ventilation has been covered all around this area completely we have no light no air we need your help we're getting very ill thank you. >> other speakers in support of dr requester. >> i also live at 49 monday night that's my mom i lived other 59 monday night all my life i'm asking you no legalize this was not subject to 311 review so the original permit as you can see it didn't go above 10 feet that was the original permit therefore we're not getting in the proper 36 review once that review came up that was already built as is so there was no continuing building go on

what i'm asking because we didn't have the 311 review we didn't have an opportunity for input more our neighbors i'm asking for significant restriction to be made to the structure of the expansive project i'm asking for the six 5 montana ownership to provide a timeline and realistically of what this is going to occur it is taken 5 years of us to get here today i do want to clarify the windows that are in discussion throughout the dr there is a total of 3 windows two facing south one east the two are the original and opening that up i look into no time electrocute by privacy right now my son and i

can't get out because of an earthquake we'll burn in our room i'm asking the commissions to look at what's been presented as the only one window shows commissioners i'm asking you to please review this project my son my family is also or has been effected my son has ripper infections there is significant mold for the past 5 years i thank you, very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners i of accident born and raised inside of my home on 45 monday night street yes, this case is important for health concerns for me and my family especially

sentimental value wildlife and the moonlight to now only a dark plywood 7 inches away from my window categorizing the planning code the purpose is to provide adequate light and air and sequence for safety and other dangers the proper deprivations on 59 montana is a planning code violation the ignition of water shown in the pictures has caused dampness and odor to accumulate they've gotten continual musty and odors since the building of the illegal edition they have a

bathroom window this is not showing and the air in this room has been spoid by doirtd bank water in the channel the improper drainage channel increases odor and allergies into the air we strongly request the commission not approve the plans without significant review of site drainage. >> commissioner president fong and members of the commission my name is lee i'm an retired architect had my business in san francisco and specialized in problems and project the problem projects. >> excuse me. sir are you the architect retained by the dr requester. >> i am an architect. >> you're basically part of

their team your presentation needs to be with them you may use the 2 minute rebuttal or the commissioners may have questions for you later. >> okay. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners thank you for the opportunity to ask for your help in asking the owners of 55 mopt street it rides this project this the coursed of this 5 years has human trafficking alternated the quality of life for me and my family so my brother and sissy think i forgot to present myself and jennifer i'm the oldest daughter i'm asking for your help we have fought vigorously over year and

requesting the planning department to look at what was going on when we noticed the building that was e reblthd didn't look like a deck they were digging rebash i am not an architect but i know that reembark is not architecture we've called everyone in the planning department asking for their help asking us to help us endorse enforce the code with no avail i plead you you ask the owners of 55 montana to take into consideration and take their neighbors into consideration we've been there almost thirty years our quality of life has been changed to dramatically over the course of time we hate to see my mom suffering and going through

everything she's going through our family house get lost by this enormous building we can't open our windows without the breathing the dirty air please help us save our house. >> thank you. any other speakers in support of dr requester? >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is kathy i'm the merry of ace the lions of californians for community empowerment isabel came to our group years ago for help thank you very much for holding this hearing this is an gunpoint family from el salvador

they've suffered because of the because of the neighbors on monday night street the deploying and dpw have looked the other way as they built a monstrous deck of the perez and lowered their property value i've asked myself how government institutions allows one neighbor to treat another so badly we're a city that has values above the normal awhile on the perez family will point out the glazing scandal behind the permit process almost 5 years ago i'd like to remind you an article widen i written of the wall street joum called for new

scrutiny how city hall works san francisco looks to boost transparent at the building inspection i've told them a copy please accept i mean no disrespect for the behavior of the 99 percent of the employees as dbi but if you were to visit the perez he home for 10 minutes you'll experience disbelief and drarment of what has been loudly to go forward the fair thing to order the removal of anyone stare deck since the c pe failed to constrict a review a neighborhood review as is required for decks above grade level the owners are seeking a fourth permit to legalize game