anything else that exposure wants to add. >> for clarity commissioner kwon of the conditions is clear you want to work with the historic preservation commission department staff - was the condition to actually have the architectural review committee have that review it. >> that's what mr. frye and they thought that was a good i personally it is an informal advisory but they decided to do i'm okay with that has a maker of the motion however, i would not want to see any dramatic changes in the basic form that is established this is done with well with the people with the modifications as brought up by commissioner

moore. >> i think as we said the unit design is tree appropriate and appropriate for that this location not a change in buildings but a general attitude that captures what will reflect the historic conservation nature this is as fast - the department themselves has to comment on the green glazing no green glazing on the ground floor and the window detailing and how that is done is probably wag they'll talk about. >> just to be clear the motion will be that with the approval with the condition that primary facade be reviewed by the architectureal review committee toe give advise on hangs that are more in keeping with the secretary of interior standard tsf. >> director rahaim you caught that well, i mean all the other

things are part of what they hear to wasn't we're talking about anyway so, yes. >> why not. >> do you see a problem city attorney. >> deputy city attorney kate stacy commissioners, i think what our scoring for at least with with respect to the architectural review committee is that planning department staff work in consultation not giving them an approval authority but they consultant with. >> that's exactly the discussion not imapplied we want to shift responsibility but to it was informational and checking with each other for the best results that's all it was. >> as a maker he agree very good. >> commissioner moore did you second that motion. >> yes. i did. >> just to the project sponsor just to be clear i want to make sure you understand the motion

as laid down out. >> can i clarify a couple of questions i sense that came before that discussion of the consultation by the way, franklin fong for the project sponsor the architectural renderings is done with software that depicts glass that a clear glass not meant to be the color that you see just the nature of the architectural rendering, and, secondly, a couple of the questions related to the lightwell and the windows on the side on the west side that lightwell is predominantly at the stairs for that building and that there are two windows that are windows that will have to be covered up the last comment i'd like to

make was perhaps just a sort of summary of progress that we went through over the past two years now the discussions with both in terms of the preservation staff of the department the urban design group we've gone through discussions on a lot of the issues that commissioner moore brought up the questions of depth of materials and shadow lines, we've gotten 5 basic redesigns of the project to look at issues of both materials the demonstrations and the detailing and the deputy of the detailing those bays you see is reflective of staff comments i wanted to add that in terms of

history. >> i appreciate your explaining that but i think that additional review will help all of us i think. >> thank you. please call the questions. >> is very good commissioners on that motion to approve this project with conditions as amended to include that the project sponsor continue working with the historic preservation commission staff and in consultation to the review committee to further refine the primary facade. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards. >> smoechlt unanimously 6 do zero. >> thank you, commissioners. >> and on the variance, close the public hearing and and grant the requested rear yard

modification. >> do we need to do anything about our chair switch. >> that was a temporary appoint commissioners, that places you under your on item 11 california street. >> good afternoon chris planning department staff the item before you a request for conditional use authorization to modify an existing planned unit development in order to convert the ground floor into parking add four new dwelling units and

combine 10 dwelling units on the 7 and 9 and 10 floors pursuant to the planning code section 204 the process allows for a modification to the rear yard and dwelling unit on august in 1983 the commissioners allowed a mixed use building continue with 47 dwelling units and 87 square feet of occupies and $8,000 thousands mrs. retail use and self-services below grade with 200 and one off-street parking the subject property in the c-2 zoning district and a one and 0 thirty e height and bulk after the building was completed the property was substantially rezoned to the rc-4 and became

part of van ness special use district the project is located on the northwest of california and van ness it is sloping with 200 and 50 feet frontage - the concourse below grade on the west side and at grades fronting van ness avenue is 7 seven hundred square feet restaurant the two floors above are off-street parking and approximately 79 square feet of office uses all the dwelling units are not subject to rent control about the rent stabilization ordinance to convert 5 thousand plus of the ground floor garage space in the northwest portion of building and 4 new amenity

spaces the existing one thousand plus one story of the building will be demolished and would be used for the private rear yard of those 4 units the project proposed to combine 4 existing units on the 7 and 8 and 9 floors and no net change in the number of dwelling units and none of the proposed unions on the ground floor will be more than 25 smaller than the upper floors to be combined and the project will not constitute a merge for planning code 317 and considered to be a rearrangement of the existing units if the building it proposes to convert above grade at the southeast to new health services along

california street the main entrance that be relocated approximately 20 feet to the west the planning code requires the minimum rear yard ever 25 percent of lot depth but no case less than 15 feet at all levels containing the residential uses proposes the 15 feet and the project sponsor is requesting a modification through the p u d process and all dwelling units are faced both a public street and side yard and code compliant rear yard the proposed ground floor from the 15 foot deep rear yard kr5e9d by the demolition of the building and give this rear yard is not code compliant the project sponsor is requesting a motivations to the dwelling unit exposure requirement the department continues to remedy the planning commission recommend this as the project is

the under utility off-street parking and reduce the number of that concludes my remarks from 200 and 1 hundred plus that encourages walking and cyclist and other uses and results in a total of 25 two bedrooms and 3 three bedrooms which will be suitable for families with children and the amenities by providing open space and outdoor dog run and fitness places improves the transparency of the building by adding other things with the facade that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you project sponsor. >> thank you, john with reuben, junius & rose on behalf the project sponsor and he did a good job of talking about the aspects of this project which is essentially proposing the modernization of this existing mixed use building

that will result into conformance with the city planning policies as well as the planning code as mentioned the building was originally exhausted by the planning commission in 1983 if i could get the overhead please you'll recognition this building california and van ness 47 dwelling units in the rent-controlled and 87 thousand square feet of office use and 200 and one off-street parking that is thirty percent grandchildren allowed and 12 bike parking 20 percent of bike parking requirement it proposes a mix of changes to the building doing a number of greener with the transparent to a large blank wall as you approach the corner of van ness this blank wall right here will add transparent that will face into the not

medical office area that is created by at the conversion of 5 thousand square feet of parking area we're eliminating 37 parking spaces and reconfiguring the main entry an california street there's a number of things going on additional outside open space by again open that up and bring it into a modern design and reconfiguring the residential uses at the project there will be merging and reconfiguring of existing units the thinking on the upper floors where the mergers are going on a lot of great private outdoor open space and decks but they does not ever units has assess some units don't have access to a private deck we're trying to increase the number of united with private outdoor cleanpowersf so 3 units that

current don't have that will have their private open space and also be a smaller roof decks added to the building that increases the open space to those units at the same time we create 4 new denials on the ground floor each is provided with private outdoor open space out grade into the mid block open space if i can get the projector again to give you guys an idea here's the end of the building and amongst the buildings that is facing into it is pretty nice open space that they're going to be approve access to like we said no loss of units and a greater diversity of units 3 new three bedrooms and 3 new studio units so providing more diverse housing opportunities and finally we'll be bringing

the bike parking up to 84 spaces because the project is - the building was originally approved at the that you had we need the planning commission approval to modify the that you had in short, we' increasing housing diversity with no net loss of units upgrading california street for 4 ground floor and consistent with the greener guidelines and does this without expanding the existing envelope for those reasons we ask to you approve these modifications on california street thank you i'm available to answer any questions. >> opening up for public comment on this item.

>> good afternoon sue hester again i listens to the excess discussion you all had two hours ago on supervisor kim's amendment on hours it was really good discussion because the commissioners with were really getting into what happened to housing stock in the city that's the discussion that we really need and you need it on that case as well there are certain things happening in the proposal that are objectionable reducing the amount of parking this is good at this location but changing units from an upper floor to the ground floor it is

substantial change family units that are on the upper floors are desirable for families and can live there with their kids when you shift them down to the bottom you have more of a problem of liveability and i would just ask you to rethink what you were talking about in terms of transformation of housing you were really struggling with how you track changes this is a change it will not show up on any of the reports that i think you would have prepared for you. >> but it is even more important for you to really dig into this when we lose desirable units by mergers merge means much more

expensive that's the reality of things and even if if so not rent-controlled there is expectation of how much money you pay there will be a lot of money transferred internally and a lot more revenue created for this project. >> it troubled me when i saw it on the calendar from 4 to 2 units it troubles me listening to the staff report but i have a lot of confidence because you all spent a lot of time back only kim's item i'll ask you to spent a lot of time here thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> yeah. in regards to the last speaker i have a question for project sponsor surrounded to me like the units that are being created i think

you're creating 2, 3 huff 3 new 2s and 3 new 3s by making those mergers; is that correct. >> the count of studios that are 3 that are existing are proposed we're going to go from zero to 3 studios and 7 to one one bedroom we're going from 3 two bedrooms to 3 three bedrooms and zero three bedrooms to 3 three bedrooms we're increasing the family-sized housing it is on the upper floors the ground floor the four ground floor units that be 3 studios and one bedroom. >> that's fine this is the program the project does all the right things including that you had units up below for the close to family sized and certainly can be used by families and at

the trade off a good photographed and eliminating parking and replacing that with medical office buildings make sense because of the cal pacific hospital that will be in great demand and you are not rent-controlled units as pointed out and the size of the units meets the test of 25 percent that they're not mergers their reconfigurations of the unit so i think that a very good project and does all the right things and aesthetically makes the building better not so sterile in the 80s i'm going to move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i think the adjustment in this building raises a couple of

questions, sir the changes you're talking about regarding the animation of california street facade i did not see any documentation of the facade changes you talked through them, however, i don't see any elevations can you explain that i see plans no elevations i do have a problem with what i consider to be unit mergers if this is a project that come forward with adding units because of underutilized says that a that's an interesting idea, however, to only make larger units in exchange for sixth smaller units and inferior location is not doing anything by which this project is contributing given the finding smaller units dealing with the issue of the dwelling units and this is a trade from medium size

to larger your description is somewhat accountant misleading no existing rear yards particularly because you're asking for veterinarians of what is already a variance previous arrangement the conditions of the pud barely meets today's requirement of open exposure now having 5 units facing next to a dog run didn't do it for me the units are small studio units they'll be permanently in the dark to the rest a tall church building that passes the entire rear yard a 15 foot sliver smaller a length of a parking space i think those are tenement units and i can't support what we're moving forward in this city rob pertaining to paw paul

and saying we're creating housing stock we're not we're diminishing the housing authority housing stock i walk from polk all the way to - i've seen this building for the last 20 two years and none on the badge and not being improved to justifies larger units i unfortunately don't buy it i just can't and he would really get back to our discussion in terms of what is our responsibility yes. the

department is creating and trying to create policy around the veery dwelling unit the supervisors are struggling we're trying to put our best foot forward and only coming up with inferior units are we to have four additional exemptions i think we're not doing it i appreciate that you respect what i'm saying i can't support what you're asking for . >> the questions i have i think along the same like sir, i was trying to understand from the drawings which will be combined i think i get a handle not clear but the square footage of the 10 units that are subject to change what are the squeegees of those and the number you unit numbers. >> okay. so what are the existing floor areas and the proposed floor areas? >> right

of the units the 10 units in play are the ones we're not adding i understand the square footage the 10 existing are what is the square footage of the 10 and there are one bedroom that is 797. two bedrooms is 01387 and one bedroom on 653 are that two bedrooms that is 1195 and one bedroom is 934 you i get it and >> and one bedroom it is 666. >> okay. >> and then a one bedroom that is 753. >> i get it. >> lovingly 95 and one bedroom at 883. >> so which of these you mentioned are going to be the condos. >> combined. >> okay. >> so there's 4 different groupings happening; right? because some of them are one unit and giving to two different units so the person with the one

comes in to a 2200 two bedroom. >> on the 7 or 8 floor. >> the 1497. >> the one bedroom as assess to an enormous roof deck at the rear and the other units as zero access to any open space an enormous roof deck that's the thinking. >> got it. >> one bedroom and two bedroom and one bedroom that are thank you for the opportunity u turning into a one bedroom and two bedroom. >> what's the square footage. >> it is a 750 and - >> those are turning both a 15 hundred square feet three bedrooms and 1 hundred square feet two bedroom. >> and the next grouping. >> i wish this was in the

staff report. >> well, i'll know to get more keep in the future we've got the one bedroom and one bedroom into a 13 hundred square feet two bedroom. >> and the final group is we've got a one bedroom and two bedroom turn 0 into a 15 hundred three bedroom and 13 hundred square feet two bedroom. >> okay. >> that was a lot of what i was going to ask looks like these railroad appropriate sizes speak goes up to 15 hundred that's a big edition small units or relatively although you gave us all the things i think only two of them over one thousand square

feet and a number were in the 6 homicide range so again creating more family housing that's one of the things we're supposed to be doing it only make common sense and the lower units are 5 hundred plus studio down below that's small may not be desirable because of that tend to be more favorable by the nature alcohol, tobacco & firearms fact they've not as appealing so maybe it might be time to go out into the market-rate housing if their that undesirable they'll not be rentable but plenty of people that want to rent close to cal pacific and may not be the greatest unit in the world i had a small part time in my dental practice by the way, a desirable place to be i'm in support of

project. >> it is an interesting discussion when the project sponsor came to me to discuss this project i said obviously the unit reconfiguration will be the thing that folks are interested in; right? so in looking at what is going on here we are creating smaller unions on the ground floor their naturally more affordable than the units that were on the upper floors creating 3 new you know family-sized three bedroom dwelling units i think i said in any letter i'm not telling the commission what is correct we've got a lot of different policies that are kind of over lapsing and so you know it is a conversation that we engaged in i thought i told the project sponsor that was reasonable to come to the commission to propose this it wasn't some you know obscene project and something reasonable to bring to

the commissions consideration i recognized why the conversations is happening and i understand. >> yeah. no thank you very much and a lot of good things i've heard talked about in terms of making the building more attractive and creating more and more medical spaces and other things. >> commissioner moore. >> i just want to point out we looked at a large project approval that was pushed out on today's calendar if you compare unit sizes of contemporary housing given we need to pack in density and understand how we live including the family housing you're designing here one project which is 2200 and all of the rest 5 of them over one thousand square feet i think that gives us an idea about what the variables are by which we need to understand the units are so in addition to that i think that is well understood i i

don't have children many people with shawl children don't like to live on the upper floors it creates extra work to escalate up and down but it is a hearsay than an actual fact the other things i want to bring to the commission attention i understand someone want to urban design and attract a higher paying clientele we should labor market the roof deck with private roof decks their small and being assessed by the hatches but there is a lot more here to renovate, upgrade the building and make that a higher building then what is currently and again, i spilling still believe the unit size that we're giving up the unit size we're creating are not necessarily

meeting the profile or the numbers that we need to be striving for in our own policies. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i agree with the speakers we need to look at the unit mergers i think that is the bigger issue this does a lot of good things this project in converting garage space to other uses and unused upper floor space or first story space as a commission go and the city is a little bit schizophrenic we want more three bedrooms homes and want what we category as less desirable units on the ground floor and passed legislation or encouraged legislation to have unit similar to the one you're proposing in the back in residential areas so i'm balanced i'm okay it's not as if

you're building an enormous penthouse and changing that for studio units if you came in and ask for the 4 studio units and asked for this project as proposed i wouldn't have an issue with it want to intentionally you're keeping the units a legally unit measure under our existence i'm in balance with all you're doing it works it meets the three bedroom goals and some of the goals to create units in space of that wouldn't be here on bottle tend to be not as desirable they're in garages or behind garages so i'm fine with the open space on roofs has been an issue we've looked at. >> open space on balance is good especially you have kids that are in a family that want

to get out of a relatively dense part of city and enjoy some open space it is there and not necessarily in this area issues about privacy i'm fine and move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm looking at the aerial photo it is hard to see tell was the building next to the unit patios. >> on the ground floor commissioner wu. >> can i get the - there we go that's the van ness frontage and the building is in a l-shaped we're talking about this building the one that fronts - that would be. >> sacramento.

>> sacramento thanks. >> okay. thank you. >> yeah follow-up question at the end of the 15 feet open space is a building there's a wall excuse me. is there a big wall there. >> at the end of the 15 feet. >> no we've got the 15 feet on the property is meets urban design u up with open space on adjacent properties so this building that fronts sacramento didn't go to the very edge of its open space it is not a park but opens that area up not just the space that is provided on 17 hundred california site. >> do you know what the setback is. >> the earth is suggesting it looks equivalent on this

section. >> yeah. >> thanks here's the rear property line the shaded area hatched area is diminished and turned into the ground floor open spaces here's the adjacent property and so we've got the building right here it blocks 15 feet as well and i mean it looks about the same depth. >> i mean, i think i agree there's all these different policies we're trying to meet maybe the building could added the unit without reconfiguring the other ones but i think i'll align myself are commissioner hillis. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm perfectly in favor of the building owner to renovate, upgrade they're building we should currently in

san francisco it is funny it is in bad condition and dysfunctional that building was not before this project our focus should be on upgrading what isn't good rather than discouraging people of improving. >> the question for commissioner moore what would you like to see in these new studio units or the bigger units on the greater that will make them better or more higher standard. >> if these units would be added under the idea of gentrifying the city those unit will be added under the legislation that speaks to the accessory dwelling units using underutilized space and adrc in any units i'll support it including the changes on the front that are not disclosed with the entrance and all of it as far as this building a garage

a paid garage not fully occupied because of that area it is well probably over part of garage with a huge capacity now a transit rich corridor that doesn't exist at the time that was built with the parks with the self-containment of the park the church uses i think other opportunities on the wednesday they have space and i think this building would make the right point by adding in turnly adding units rather than changes - those will not rent cheaper the building that be upgraded but the smaller units will par take

in a higher rent there's - the only thing the people are occupying the building on the upper floors maybe have to move to a smaller units what we consider to be their home from a basically philosophy and point of view at that particular moment i would subscribe to you anyone can do the same thing similar situations with the larger buildings with the project and i don't support it. >> what's the status of the units were people are living in them now and rented. >> some of them not all of them that has building going through ongoing vacancy and the building is operating we've been in touch with the tenants on those units annual leases and plenty of time before anything

happens we'll not 0 do the interior configuration work for another year so everyone is aware of it. >> to commissioner moore's point i could get behind the project figure we get my type of a net gain of units out t of it has your client thought about that. >> to your statement about not simply keeping a neutral amount of uptsdz and making the

statement that the project increases it we'll be happy to work with the staff to work out at least a net one increase in unit. >> okay commissioner antonini. >> that's fine i don't think that is necessary but we have policies sometimes that are you know not what i necessarily agree with but if you can add another unit not the worst thing to do but we went through all the numbers that was clear purpose creating units actually could con accepting be opted out and i'm not saying who will be in there you're making improvements it is good because the rent are going up and plenty of cities love to have this problem as long as somebody is willing

to pay for it we'll know we have a problem when they stop taking a and i will be happy with addition of another unit to satisfy what commissioner vice president richards was talking about. >> we can amend the motion; correct? >> i'll add the permission that the project sponsor work with staff to have an increase of one unit. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask the director and staff that next time when a building come forward that changes to the exterior of the building are being prove or disprove documented for this commission to also be able to comment and a on and that's not given the high floor you have to climb and steep set of stairs to get to the liquor they'll be changes this may or may not look unproportional and then it

raises the issue of with whether or not the medical offices at the corner of california and van ness is 9 right use that should be an animated area to compliment whole floods and on the south side wall so most people yield going alongside that a medical building will not add anything it will be unanimated as now i know the offices are in that building which i've gone too many times that building is pretty dead building and we make changes they should be properly shown. >> no? commissioner johnson >> thanks yeah real quick i'll be supporting the motion as it is amended we want to say that to me that sounds like a victory we

recently had legislation about family-sized dwelling units in which the dwelling unit mix if it buildings comes to us today in the configuration that is being shown as the planned unit development alteration here the only way to get plus one is probable not doing one of the mergers as planned those mergers will have created the units in the mixed use we're looking at bans the previous legislation about unit mix so just put u i want to put that out there i'll be supporting the motion. >> i guess one comment to the commissioner johnsons point one of the reigns he asked we have a three bedroom of 15 hundred and a 3 three bedroom of 2200 that's why if you have 3 three bedrooms at the 15 hundred and another studio at seven hundred you have one that stuck out and back to

commissioner moore's that's why i asked i'll support that. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as amended to continue working with staff to include a net increase of one unit. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner vice president richards. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to one with commissioner loo voting against. >> commissioners that places us on item 12. >> a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners alexander with department staff the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow the demolition of a one story over garage single-family home and construction a new 3 story renal

building on the subject lot in the rh3 with three bedroom and it will be 8 thousand gross square feet 40 feet in height with off-street parking the subject block is 2, 4 story building and the buildings on the subject lot from single-family residences to maul multi unit building the residential design team has reviewed this with all the alterations were met the conditional use was filed in march of 2016 but following the alterations to improve the building with the dr facade no additional opposition was received and one letter of support was received in order for the project to proceed the commission must

grant the conditional use authorization as the project has demolition within the rh3 zoning district and recommend approval the project is in compliance with the applicable codes and necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood it demolishes the residents is unsound and increase it on a presently underutilized lot that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you very much project sponsor. >> good evening earl architect al i didn't pointed had a very good presentation essentially we have a two bedroom building like to remove that with 3 family-sized occupants one 4

bedroom and 2 three bedrooms each of has it's deck over off the primary living space and comments about the access to family units those actually have private elevators up that for that exact reason if there is any questions i can answer i'll be happy to it is straightforward. >> opening up for public comment on this item mcallister please. >> this is truly a pleasure i'm pamela i've lived on mcallister street for 11 years i am i came to san francisco when i was 20 and been in san francisco for 27 years going on 28 i'm - i don't know if you have a picture of the lot you do? >> we do. >> a picture of the house. >> we do. >> the gentleman was 95 years

old i had the fortune of living next to him and his family so if definitely - to basically, he guess what - i live next door and if you have a picture i'm in the brown ugly two-story probably one of the you go allow it houses on the flock that is my - i a have a motel 6 type of buildings with an outside hallway i guess i have a fire escape that the architect low basically put a lightwell but the building will be 40 feet tall i guess my major

issue with the building is that the original building. >>was build in 1909 and it is unstable never fixed up and the gentleman passed away but the proposed building is nothing like the architecture within our neighborhood i'm on mcallister between willard north and willows 0 a monk on the corner of fulton and willows 0 north that is well known he feel that - the building was purchased for one million dollars plus what is going took proposed is that these floors

are going to be go for $2 million each if not three or four million dollars which completely changes the socioeconomics and i i pay one thousand 79 rent if i didn't live here and have that rent i couldn't science a huge immunization on the neighborhood that was spoken about in terms of - >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> is there any additional public comment on this item 2755 mcallister seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that is a very good project and a lot of good

things and you know it creates 3 large family-sized units which probably will be sold i think that is a condos development they all have either three bedrooms or for all are dens have adequate parking and if i lived in the neighborhood i'd welcome the audition of 3 units and someone will buy did they'll pay whatever it costs to be here i mean, i don't think that is code compliant it is 40 feet that is what the height is and i assure you they've been lightwells whatever they have to do to take into consideration the light and air for the vanity structures as far as i, tell from the plans but certainly - >> you know is a property that is not sound and not historic conservation resource and i think the architecture i wish more historic conservation but

not aboard it is contemporary at least it has some of the features you'll see in the neighborhood i would have preferred to see something that replicated the architecture but there is a variety unfortunately, the structure that they of the public speaker that just spoke is probably not a good-looking building from the 50s or 60s and not historically indulged either not a bad looking building i hope they'll continue to work with staff and see if they can make it fit more into the neighborhood in which it is being placed. >> commissioner moore. >> cute building high ended i think the building captures in the rh3 adds 3 units versus one unit that's positive, however, the units are high-end

and what is interesting is that the two luxury units on top of 2 and that have a private elevators as the roof decks are private which is kind of interesting given a lack of open space with the on the units the question i have is why the lightwell from the adjoining property is not brought to the ground floor i think would be important in order to maintain the functioning of the adjoining building not enough to disclose to exactly what is facing the elements but if you are looking at the drawings i'm referring to it is a-2 want 2 you can see that - it carries to drawing

a-2 want 1 and 2 starts at a-2 want one with a lightwell and not that's a great question properly matched the lightwell only to the second story not the first story the building overall is approvable, however, i have issues with the built in grill on the roof deck we've talked about that b and that would be something i would challenge because in residential having permanent facilities with intrusion of smell into a adjoining lightwells mostly with bedrooms and living rooms being affected by next door cooking didn't work. >> otherwise i think the eastern neighborhoods you're looking at drawings a and 2. 1

is blocked in and as i said earlier i'll prefer to see the elements extend from the ground floor up in order to properly deal with that type of intrusion otherwise i think the building is approveable i don't have anything relative to the smaller contemporary appearance and suggest that we - extend the elements to the ground floor that's a motion. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i said to oh, do you have a response. >> i was just if there were any questions about the lightwell i think the residential design guidelines they extend from the second

story but for the light untuition that's for the element we can accumulate. >> i appreciate you're saying that in older buildings the same kind of common areas from the second story didn't work so with that, therapists acceptable to the after all you. >> i think see real quick any comment to acknowledge the neighbors that came out here i want to thank you and appreciated our comments i want to say since your first time addresses it a little bit for me this project is acceptable because of the rh3 they're on the memoranda to large size two across one floor from 16 hundred square feet up to 2000 square feet we want here

i understand that the prigs may seem high in today's marketplace but the brand new affordable luxury you hours is tomorrow's home really an opportunity to maximize the zone and put in units that work for the type of people we want to see coming to san francisco meaning hopefully, they'll having units at some some point so that's why it is great especially with the changes that commissioner moore suggested. >> commissioner hillis. >> well, i share the comments of any fellow commissioners, thank you for coming too i first look at it i thought it was going away into a that building we struggle with that that is the neighborhood that is predominantly second story not a lot of cottages but think of your building i mean, i'm sure it was not a welcomed sites to

the person that lived in there when you have a 1950s building next door to it is the bit of evolution we deal with it on a weekly basis from a single-family home to a two or three building it is an area we can definitely use more density so appreciate the comments we struggle with that but this project is good and approveable. >> commissioner moore. >> if we have any probation officer thing to say we did ultimately the the devil is in the details is how the silk simple in psi it's appearance with details this building can a lot of good with detailing and can be affordable if it is slapped together a that's where the delta and putting trust into this building will be brought forward in a thoughtful manner

and designed in a simple way and compliments itself with detailed and well excused materials. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this with conditions as amended to receive the built in grills and extend the lightwell. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore. >> and commissioner vice president richards. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 13 exhilarated a conditional use authorization. >> in an rh2 zones the

demolition of dwelling unit requires conditional use authorization per planning code section 303 and 317 the property contains two buildings a 10 foot tall detached single garage and a 26 second story single-family dwelling constructed in 1909 at the rear of the lot this existing units contains one bedroom the proposed 4 thousand plus square feet system will be thirty feet at the street for the first 15 feet and extend up to 40 feet for 4 stories the new building will accommodate up to 2 off-street parking and contain a total of 4 bedrooms since publication of this staff report the department get 6 letters in opposition to the project i'll distribute now it focuses on the

massing the 4 floor and it is irrational and inconsistent with the neighborhood context and above the 3 and 4 mid block open space and a request that it provides a 3 foot setback at the first story roof deck in general the department is in support of the project as proposed the four floor is safeguarded an additional 15 feet with the roof deck for the puddle after the property lines that is consistent with the 2 1/2 to 4 story context of that further the roof deck above the 4 floor is without an exemption and includes the railing a setback from old property lines with the lightwells and 20 feet from the building and further it approves the open space for the neighbors by demolishing a non-conforming unit and adds to

the housing stock beyond a doubt beyond the containments the department is recommending approval that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> project sponsor. >> you have 10 minutes. >> project architect i'll be brief what i want to say i live in the neighborhood and practice in the ashbury area live 7 blocks from the project and practiced architecture in the area since 1977 i did take commissioner antonini's advise in 1977 bought a 35 hundred square feet victorian and had 5 years of plaster dust renovating it is a welcome comment to hear that i believe the project is a big improvement what is there we're

here because of demolition but the existing house one thousand square feet of habitable area sits at the back of the lot and blocks the light and ventilation of the two hours on elm street i want to say that it is the house was designed with the design guidelines no attempt to maximum it in the last six or seven years this is might project all the times i've been here about a window i think i do a pretty good trying to follow-up with the planning guidelines with the design guidelines i want to say a couple of things about the community outreach in terms of the 4 floor it was yesterday he had the first idea any opposition we did the original meeting with the neighbors at that time, both just a few

minutes neighbors all four adjacent neighbors amongst other people came the - there was a compromise worked with the neighbors to the ceda david after the meeting he requested an additional meeting and drawings we are cement to him we worked out a compromise i increased do lightwell and provide him at our cost with additional windows to compensate for his loss of light what's i that's what i do i typical try to work with the city and approach to those in terms of of how it would impact me, me marjorie and her brother not here they were requested drawings drawings were sent to them 15 months ago and mary sent me a couple of e-mails asking about the hearings i responded to her i heard no complaints whatsoever about the 4 floor

from anyone else thank you. >> good afternoon shawn rb a usually the evening before a case we know exactly that is going on what we're presenting and exactly what the issues are up until 319 yesterday didn't hear of any opposition in the last twenty-four hours things are fluid and perhaps a continuance might be the best approach yielding the project sponsor in the last twenty-four hours made several phone calls and text message and e-mails and attempted a conversation in the hallway we're eager to try to work 0 for a compromise some ideas and concepts in the last twenty-four hours that we

are open to include creating a ground floor units it would be two bedrooms with pretty much the light will be in the bedroom a thousand square feet with its own separate entrance we'll take that extra bedroom and move to the top floor the first floor deck we can set that what can back to 3 feet the roof deck didn't need to be there and by eliminating that roof deck we'll get rid of of the spiral stalk we're interested in accounting if the continuance is in order and the proper thing we're glad to come back we're also prepared to do it tonight if you want we're open eager and willingly thank you for your time. >> thank you, sir. >> any additional speakers for

the project sponsor no opening up for public comment (calling names) please line up on the side. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is marjorie crockett owe live next to the proposed house at the 1233 shadeer street it sounds like the folks are willing to

meet the objections i've e-mailed i'm happy to hear that i feel that the fourth floor of the proposed building is out of character for the houses in the neighborhood and i'm going to show you the arithmetic drawings that puts that fourth level adjacent to the area of my house as you can see the fourth level here my house it is blue that's the height of my house it rises up well above my house and, of

course, the area above on the fifth level would allow the owner to have a go look at all the houses backyards on the street this house is basically at the corner of alma and shadeer it has the ability to see from that level both 3 observation areas outside of that room and from the ground level of that room plus the fifth area of observation they can see all the way down alma street and down into the backyards of shadeer and this is an intrusion both on

our properties and in the neighborhood so i have another illusion here of how it looks and we are very happy to work with the architect to change the - >> thank you, ms. crockett. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm kate i live on shadeer street 3 doors down the hill we apologize we didn't submit in time we thought we had a deadline but happy to resolve our issues with the

property i lived in coal valley and last year, we boy scout our apartment on the three story we love looking at the hill you see the lights and houses on the hill the proposed fourth floor and deck blocks 3 of our main windows on the south side of our property when we look out of our sons room or bathroom, that view is obscured by the fourth i'm not sure about the deck i think feel that is okay. but literally that fourth floor room is a problem for us in addition some other concerns noise we're worried about the multi city decks we've worried about the metal staircase people up and down and worried about the privacy issues and the value of our property so thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. reader.

>> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is darlene he live two doors down at the shadeer street isn't everyone really sick of outside developers cashing in on the neighborhoods expense i mean, why do they think they have get a conditional use permit they went the tall it house awhile locals are abiding by the laws where did it stop next the times someone will want to build a 6 story building i think that everybody is pretty upset about the president to put a deck on the top of the roof kind of right in the middle of the houses hobo in the middle and look out on everybody's

backyards no privacy and i feel they've not reached it out the community they say they've talked to everybody about a year and a half ago i heard from marjorie they were meeting with the architect in the garage and he was going over the plan we all said that we didn't approve of it and that it was way good big and it sat there for a year and a half and nothing had been done and we just can't figure it was you know things had changed so we had not made any comments on that i feel that they're just they don't care about the neighbors they're not living in our

neighborhood this project is not only too tall and huge but ugly it is totally out of character of all the others houses on the block that are many victorians that gives it character and make that a deliciously place to live this project is not necessary and desirable for the neighborhood and i know that is what the conditional use is it is necessary and desirable please reject this thank you for your time. >> thank you, ma'am. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners my name is sammy live on shadeer and president of the shadeer homeownership's association the owners couldn't be here but submitted strongly opposition my

wife and i have submitted strong opposition to the plan the building is too much middle-income out and it will be loom over all the neighbors and summarize the top easier areas number one none of the 3 units have been included on the design and no community outreach to us number 2 the multi roof deck on in the four story about create an impact on our privacy number 3 the multi roof deck will create noise for the neighbors in the area and number the plan didn't fit with the character of the streets to modern and imposing for context shadeer street is a lot of children and sidewalk traffic in the evening voices even soft voices carry a long way they misrepresent the shared 2-way street and omits

the roof deck on the sunroom it extends the 40 feet height the detailed privacy concerns the roof decks on the four story and on top of the four story will move circle sweet spots windows including do master bathroom, our 6-year-old sons only window and our living room our building is 8 feet learn this and given shadeer street the sunroom blocks the light out of our sons windows depicted on page 3 any best rendering to detailed noise concerns they'll resound with the noise into the neighbors backyard and the external no roof deck on shadeer street the metal staircases are

resound from the steps to detail fit for the character concerns shadeer is classic architecture it didn't fit with the street that is a picture of the other half - relative to the housing balance one replacement of an single-family home of three hundred plus a giant home we've engaged in the conversation we've discussed and looking forward to working on a solution we can agree on thank you for your time. >> thank you, sir. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is alexander crockett we apologize for my short sleeves i found out this cast will not allow me to

put on my jacket i'm interested in the project i live 3 blocks away i've lived in coal valencia since 1993 including mire current home by my son and mom live in the right direction i'm concerned on her behalf and has a house to have her greater than and like to come and visit her, she and my father lived moved here my mother is now a widow she ask feel comfortable in her home and grounds mites why i'm interested two concerns i want to brought to your attention the main concerns first of all, in terms of the deck i guess the

first story is the main living floor and the deck comes out from the kitchen and family room area into the roof deck this comes to the property line even though the building is setback 3 feet for light and air and privacy to the side of the both houses here the deck instead of being limited to the ends the family room and kitchen goes all the way down to the property line people can look being so my mothers kitchen about 4 feet higher than the level the kitchen people can look right in there we talked to the architect he suggested that they could move the edge of that deck back to the edge of the building that way you'll have a deck that serves the family room and kitchen area and have enjoyment of that deck but not up to the property line so greatly reduce

the impacts on privacy on my mothers enemy home on the side of her property the architect proposed that and submitted to the planning department a revision we'll ask it as reasonable accommodation didn't take away the enticement of that deck and the height and bulk all the single-family dwelling buildings are two stories a lot of the garage the downstairs with the living room and case in chief type of areas and the said with the decks flats buildings are flats all the single-family homes are second story and then it stops it goes above that and a fifth level on top of because

of that roof deck oversee are our concerns thank you. >> thank you. >> any additional speakers on shadeer street from the public. >> hello i'd like to add. >> ma'am, i'm sorry you get one 3 minute periods the commissioners may ask you for questions. >> all right. thank you. >> public comment on this seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i actually like to commend the gentleman for saying things obvious and hit the nail on the head and there as follows as we discussed earlier we are in our age to so demolishing a single-family home and suggesting to replace that with a 2. 87 times larger than what was under it is difficult to

bring into balance with our need for gentrification with that said mr. key admits to well sized units ♪ building and because of it including many of the concerns was a raising by the neighbors i suggest we continue to have the ability to work out as designed i'll agree with the concerns with the first story deck it overshadows the propelling so the issues of privacy would have been caught the sunroom on the fourth floor is not necessary everything is fine you, however, i think working from to well positions units will create others issues we're best served not trying to redesign the project but let it mature in its

own discussion because the gentleman at least mentioned all the sensitivities i'll have mentioned in reviewing this project that's a motion to continue >> i would have to look to secretary owens advise on that. >> well, sir how long will it take to redesign this project. >> can you speak into the microphone please. one i think that would be good idea to look at that and meeting with the neighbors so that will take certainly not next thursday but which i'm not here anyway but the thursday after that. >> july 28th. >> july 28th.

>> you need to remember the drawings need to be back to staff a week ahead of time you need to take into consideration that's the process so the date and come back with a process. >> i think one more week i'm leaving and seeing my family next week. >> two weeks would be the minimum in order to make it work. >> so the fifth. >> the 28 is three weeks away. >> august 11th. >> 28 is fine three weeks. >> let's take the 28. >> i strongly recommend nothing until august. >> august is fine. >> that's fine. >> i would like the gentleman suggestion to be the basis for the start of discussions. >> correct. >> what you said resonated with all of us that's great. >> just to be clear your direction here is what i'll

hearing a minimum this project should include two units. >> yes. >> two well sized units. >> not units crammed next to a garage or hidden in an alleyway two fully developed wall sized units. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. it is too bad this discussions couldn't have occurred but letters from the opposition a little bit sooner would have crafted and got it could done today it is what it is so the suggestions are good ones and a lot of space on the ground floor that has a patio included and that quo could make a noise sized unit with two bedrooms if have you to take a floor up that's a possibility too then the next thing is the

first story deck behind the family room everyone is interested as far to the sides as the house itself does what you have marked as a family room so that will have to be narrowed and he agree no roof deck therefore the staircases the fourth floor i don't have have problem with that i mean in san francisco lymph every house is absent different than the height of the house next door that is code compliant if there is an upper floor i don't see it as a problem it would be mreementsdz you have a nice sized house but particularly if you have to steal something from the lower house to create the second unit that floor maybe an market-rate bedroom we do know how that comes out in the plans and the other thing the design

have been comments it is seems strange whenever someone remodels an oldest home their admonished they have to match the windows - i really in my opinion like to see double windows with vacuum and something that fits in more with the street your building on i think the neighbors will be happier and look better on mcallister which is is a historic conservation street along there and - you only have to change the appearance but having them breakdown more not justice all glazing so those are the things i see during the

continuance and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say commissioner hillis. >> yeah. so germany agree with the comments made i think the massing of the building is appropriate i get the concerns with the neighbors about the fourth floor the height is appropriate for here i mean, i know that area well spending a lot of time in the grattan playground and a four story modern structure across from the playground i mean this should look it was built today and not prevented it was built in 1915 it will be bigger there is a rub on this you know if we adds another units ever significance you'll want more impactful to the neighbors you're going to want to put more massing on the building given was a single-family home we're

demoing i'm more declined do look at an accessory units a in-law unit type of units give that i think the policy is not that it is - this is a single-family home you're going to be more impactful on neighbors if we go to flats and adding nor things to the fourth floor i agree it is over decked and the deck in the front could go and a we see this a lot not consistent what is there but a modern building and should look more than the massing is appropriate the front and spiral staircase i think could go given the - i've always wanted to know the history of the building to the south it has an empty lot. >> we did.

>> but the building to the south the hill has a building and an empty lot it is used for parking. >> not an empty lot it's strange but the over sized property with an 15 foot front yard. >> it seems strange but given selling us the extra 15 feet we'll have two nice townhomes that didn't happen. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards that motion carries unanimously 5 to zero commissioners that places us under our discretionary review calendars for case no. dr public works on

florida street good afternoon, commissioners jeff department staff the item before you is a request for discretionary review of a permitted project on florida street the proposal is of a horizontal single-family dwelling during the discretionary review is filed as the rdt are the reviewed the discretionary review application and requested a 3 foot setback on the top floor along the northern property line it is to comply in a discretionary review since june 27th in the commission packets we've received 4 copies of support as the project provided setback along the northern and southern property line and removed a portion of rear wall the departments recommends the commission not take dr and approve the proposal as here

that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> dr requester you have 5 minutes. >> you do. >> thank you good afternoon my name is david i live on caesar chavez i'm here representing all the neighbors who are greatly concerned with this project a unified effort between neighbors we've brought a letter we all signed we're not sitting down against the property being renovated we're against the our concern the three story addition to the project there are no other neighbor's home blocks that extend as high as a that project into the. >> (speaking chinese.) that significantly blocks in e tradition and others property

may be their open space stagnant and effects of the privacy the prompt is boarded by a three story wall it is occupied by people with mental abilities and substance abuse they tend to smoke a lot and use a lot of profanity in that echoes throughout the whole area then the project will dramatically effect and create more of an echo space and block their sorry about that creating shade limit their airness of the yard by blocking the south side of the property by a 20 foot wall why trade storage space they tell us they're not interested in building down but were up to create storage spaced and do that at the neighbors expense this sets a persistence for

other neighbors that will possibly buy out that most of them said if they do, they'll continue the neighborhood can be trying due to the busy caesar chavez and the backyard openness is a welcome repressive from cesar chavez we're aware there was housing shortage but not trying to add nor units but only personal space solutions we've asked them according to the proposed plan a large amount of storage space and like to see the storage place in exchange for the closed addition we'll be open to a three story deck while we understand the rear yard variance might require them having a variance to boulth the tables in as i said a letter

they'll agree they want a variance we'll not block that and in the spirits of feeling of the existing neighborhood we want to maintain the openness and allowing more and more square footage on the ground floor would be a reasonable compromise or compromise some of the loss of living space on the three story there's a proposal or the reason they've told us an elevator needed we requested we've just suggested that we have a wheelchair assessable space in our house on cesar chavez street that works well and other neighbors that are adjacent to them are couple in their late 80s or 90s that button putting a stair lift it works well, for them some next steps we've requested story poles the owner

and little architect said they're not interested in putting them up and not open to putting them up and still want to see if they're interested in doing this we are interested in seeing a shade study we can find out how the 3007 prompt might be affected more specifically we've invited the owners to come to see the project from our preserve so far they were declined and the other issue is that they don't currently live in the neighborhood or have a field for that backyard and your whole communities of people back there. >> i have some photos if i can show them. >> what they're proposing to

continue from this point with the rear wall and extended to basically this shed here in that space possibly another (inaudible) in the the three story wall (inaudibl (inaudible). >> thank you thank you, sir, your time is up. >> you'll have a two minute rebuttal. >> speakers in support of dr requester. >> please line up on the right-hand side support of dr request requester. >> hi, my name is delores i live on caesar chavez street

actually, i'm the most effected on this project been living there nor 16 years i always have problems you know one way or another with people coming to the area my property is close by and i think this project will effect my side of my house especially, when it is windy you know the wind comes and stays on the area for a while and also when the rain comes it backs into my backyard so this side of the project will effect my living on that area there. >> so we would like to see f you guys we're willing to work with them you know to do anything else besides the

addition on this project thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is rossi live on that blon block since 2001 i'm opposed to the fourth story addition and a bunch of the neighbors were here in the room had to leave because of picking up kids and stuff like that they signed a letter and i just want to point out that is it unique block the open space in the back is very nice a welcomed reprieve from the busyness of the street and having the three story addition in the quasi it would set a persistence that will allow the neighbors over time to greatly

effect the welcome openness of that backyard area and. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm maurice i like to show you some pictures of my house the one that is effected. >> this is the one one of the walls on the house and i got some more over here this is our backyard their effected by the plan on top of this

this two walls over here makes like a finally when the wind is blowing on the wintertime this is the next building on the left and the wall in front of us we are not opposing for them to build we wanted to make some changes that's it thank you. >> thank you any other speakers in support of dr requester seeing none, project sponsor you have 5 minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is jason with at 6 project architect i'm here with the pardon this is her families home

excuse me. this (inaudible) is a view of the existing north elevation facing the dresser on the top and the proposed on the bottom as you can see a modest go addition less than three hundred square feet we don't feel a major impact on the pattern the residential design guidelines criminal of mid block open space shows the variance in the back of the walls as you can see a little go green square is our proposed addition the three story and a couple of hardly see them some other additions ♪ block that jetted out the residential design

guidelines discouraged alleges that are uncharacteristic deep an tall don't believe our project approaches that description we used all the design methods recommend in the residential design guidelines to mitigate the impact and reduce the impact to the neighbors including the side sixth district of the upper level and setting back at you were level and reducing the deputy of the existing lower level i'm sorry the existing second level we're pulling it back we're actually giving up some space in 3 separate instances bias groups said it didn't have an impact on the northern neighbors without the 3 foot setback we're now proposing on the upper level in the bernal heights eastern letter after the meeting with them in december of 2014 they

said they're generally supportive and went 0 on to say quote from the neighbors in chevrolets expressed concerns about the light to their yard and not substantially cast new shades and the residential design team found the project was acceptable and i'll remind you that didn't include the 3 foot set back and after the dr the rdt met again and quote said rear yard depth to the northern neighbors provides relief and requested us to do a 53 foot setback at the northern side we complied with throughout the project we followed all the outreach procedures suggested by planning and involved the most impacted neighbor our south

adjacent neighbor during the design process before the preapp meeting and made provisions that were cemented we cut it badgering back further on the south side during the planning review process and their acceptance was reiterated during the dr process and left hand to with the design review boarded and addressed all the - few concerns of the design review board but focused on the south side we cut those back during the 311 we are not not contacted didn't reach out to the planner and the planner asked me to go reach out to her it took me 6 times before i could reach her she's worried

about the wind paernsdz in her backward and approximately dpo or 50 footed setback between our building and they're building i don't believe that it makes a major impact on the winds the wind patterns to helper backyard but we've offered a setback as a compromise but not accepted they wanted us to remove the entire edition we've held any meetings and telephone discussions and sought a fair and reasonable compromise on the impact and the - we're consistently offered solutions to concerns but not able to reach a compromise they're not exceptional or extraordinary and the neighbors have generous relief and they've received a sargent not overflow room required we find we've

responded and the - >> thank you very much a two minute rebuttal. >> speakers in support of project sponsor. >> my name is stephen i live about - i live in the neighborhood i'm very encouraged that people from the neighborhoods are moving in with families and are willing to take an older home and make that family-friendly and you wanted the current standards and are willing to put their own money into it it should be encouraged the neighborhood needs more of it not less and such additions get some neighbors relaxing ♪

way the neighborhood and i'm in full support of it >> thank you is there any additional public comment? >> in support of project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is bruce i'm the real estate agent that sold the property i think your approving this permit and not taking dr on it would be you know the end of a great story that is a family that has been looking for a place for their family to move on to live for a long time multi generations and items all those things young child this is what san francisco needs to have families to come in and be able to modernize what we took in negative impact situation a weekly a quite a few of the of

deferred maintenance with quite a bit of obsoleteness a two-story building over a garage this 36r9 three story is not a real three story the wind is this we're not looking to get an extra parking space that is one car parking and staying one car pca and bicycles and bedroom for an elderly person to live on the first story great design elements and it is emblematic what you should look at in san francisco moving forward i urge you to support the permit. >> thank you nancy pelosi any additional speakers for the project sponsor seeing none, dr requester a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you it is what be good do workout some kind of compromise

there's on this so much you can hear in f this room without being in front of my house and living in their home that faces two 28 foot high walls that encloses their prophet and make it uninviting we've lived on that side for 16 our neighbors 40 years and we would ask you to see if we can work this out process so not so encumbering thank you. >> project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> hi yeah. a couple of points one the owners lived in san francisco for 26 years this is her home her mother may live with her we have an elevator as

part of project as as aging in place the downstairs storage place no plans to develop it into or else space part of it is financial seeing the highest is 7.8 the lowest so 7.2 not a great space even if it is 7.8 for a living space for a family it has nice proximity to the student street so an abilities for more aging in place living space there as far as compromising and discussing this project with the dr requester we've - we never were contact by anything with 311 the dr happened on the last day avenue 311 we spent that three hundred plus days between the filing and a lot of that was spent having meetings and phone

call and trying to get compromise and unfortunately, the flut part trying to find that compromise never any discussion from the other side we proposed setbacks and more setbacks and discuses never any stofrts discussion there so again, i feel like i'll appreciate the dr not to be taken and this project to be approved thank you for your time. >> thank you. this portion of hearing is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. this is a well-designed project no impacts on the neighbors you've got large separation but is backyards on the caesar chavez properties as well the backyard for this property at the 1120 florida the project sponsor has taken the 3 foot setback and it is a fairly modest addition as stated three hundred and 4

square feet on the upper area the three story and that makes somewhat a dysfunctional somewhat into a nicely single-family homes the project sponsor shouldn't be asked to cram the addition into the lower story with the raising of the roofs or lowering of the building by compliant a that's why a dr and don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary. >> commissioner moore. >> it is a sensitive addition and sculpted bans staff recommends to deal with the conflicts and that's been accomplished i don't find anything exceptional or extraordinary because this is one of the most mildest cases i've seen in months and what we've been struggling with so i really would like to suggest that the neighbors who are opposing it take a deep breath

it is normal and well, well within expansions if not even marginal what we normally see consider yourselves lucky the architect together with staff hit the sweet spot with this project is easily approval without taking dr i make a motion to approve it. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve the project commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero. >> public comment i have no supervising. >> opening up for public comment anyone have any general public comment they want to make seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor

the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisc

>> good afternoon, the commission will please come to order and the secretary will call the roll, commissioner pating, present. commissioner show rks present. commissioner chung, present. commissioner sanchez, present. commissioner carsh nu, approval of the mchbts of june 21, 2016. i nut revised minutes to the right of you as i e-mailed you, i had left out section 6 and the minutes in front of you have that so apologize. >> commissioners, the minutes are before you with the new section 6 filled in. is there a motion for acceptance? >> so moved. >> and a second. >> second. >> let people have a moment to read section 6, if you had not and are there any