you for your patience it's a long day we appreciate you are still here thank you for your time and this opportunity to present our clant. we are here together as three of the - and the neighbors against the project at 113362 you should see 97 pages report on this dr. we kindly have a small packet for you with pictures and a chart to help you follow along. so 153 is 1886 for row of houses between victorian and the recently (indiscernible) drktly to the east is 147 the oldest house on the block building 1883. the block is significant traffic of

clipper and significant foot traffic including [inaudible] which indicators to pregnant and their infants [inaudible] we have several shops and light rail at the corner 12 years that i know of the block has been encouraging the owners of 153 of upgrading the house it's a one though square foot two bedroom two bath floor with bonus room in your packet you should have - i can show it. so we have partially finished basement in you also have the existing state of the house where you see the

existing house which say tiny house. the layout has opportunities to open retaining wall adding a garage making it a simple construction project to double the size of the house. behind your cover page on the first page i just made a comparative chart of what's existing and what is proposed. on the first column you see 1,000 square foot house two bedroom, two bathroom 0 parking and one floor. in 2014 the project came alive the city granted permit 201404092857 for final house of 2244 square foot house four bedroom three

bathroom with garage. they were not happy despite one construction project. this permit approved open and with construction already done in 2014. the contested project is the third column which is 2015. in 2015 the current project with the house with the approved 2014 commit. and started the construction in october 2015 selling the whole house to bare frame with bobcats digging the basement workshops a couple months later a new permit was to the city changing the scope 5,000 square feet seven bedroom with a penthouse floor. today we present our case against 2015 and respectfully ask you

discount the permit and let the construction presume. since on the larger house we agreed to modification 2014 to 121. clipper street in this particular role for end rult of 23 to 2400 square foot four bed, three bed. if it approved we're removing small affordable housing dwelling pool [inaudible] the block finds this option agreeable as it is align with the aaestheticic of the block [inaudible] we request that you listen to our argument out of place, seven bedroom disproportion nate not affordable building thank you. >> >> good evening commissioners

my name is fea hor ton i'm an architect tect i have lived at 142 clipper street for eight years i have concerned with the penthouse at 135 clipper street the proposed third floor and penthouse is not thoughtful in design aesthetics and keeping with the italian architecture of our block. i'm going to reference a paragraph in your packet the current condition of 153 clipper. the proportion, scale and size of the proposed third floor does not fit with the adjacent houses on our block and i would like to show you -. >> could you speak in the microphone you are fading in and out.

>> i'm sorry. i would like to reference the paragraph in photograph in the next one the third floor penthouse and the garage which is is the back. my further concern if the planning commission approve. penthouse will open the door to the continuation of the degradation of our block and set a precedent in this noel valley and this his toric architecture that we all enjoy in this neighborhood. i hope you will consider disregarding the 2015 submitted plans and have them allowing continue with the 2014 plans. thank you very much. >> hi my name is brian donley my

wife and i have lived at 45 clipper for 20 years to emphasize what the first two speaker talked about all three of us are perfectly happy with the 2014 structure which allowed this to go from 1,000 to 2200 square feet. i'm personally happy a pamly family. it's important for us our neighborhood to be family friendly that permit there was construction started you can see from this photo that was taken from my house that the construction is in filling a light well there already then we learned that they wanted to then have a second permit go on top of this. to then add a third

story taking the house up to almost 3,000 square feet. and most notably, in that seven bedrooms. they call some of those bedrooms a media room that media room has multiple window that strikes me as add a media room is usual elooshgs a darkroom. they have a storage room that has an on suite bathroom to it. so originally appears to be exactly the same as to happened at 121 clipper which i thought is a beautiful project well done improved our street is now bohemoth of a house i don't understand why it needs seven bedrooms my parents

come to visit i think possibly there mating be air bnb rentals marlie on the first floor that look like bedrooms to me that have access to bathroom i have never seen a storage room with a bathroom access before i don't know what to make of that i'm concerned that that first floor of the house is going to become an illegal rental unit. i think the family of four can fit in the original 2014 permit which expands it greatly but will provide more than enough house for their family and also be very consistent with the block and the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. did you have some

time left? >> one second. [laughter]. >> you don't have any time left. we will open it up - are you part of the dr? the public. okay we're going to open it to the public that want to speak in opposition to the product. >> good evening i known 395626 street i own with my spouse dr. eliu the tic is the top eastern unit and located directly south of the proposed project with our backyard 143 clipper street. the architects plan show four bedrooms 3-and-a-half baths a laundry room garage office den media room huge storage area living room dining room and kitchen

with a nook that can be sprawled across three floors many of these rooms could in principle be turned into additional bedroom revised structure is intended by the owner for a large extended family with potential for increased noise and competition for the already limited on street parking in the neighborhood. the original structure has a historical peaked roof which will be changed to a visually unappealing big box raising the roof elevation from 30 feet four inches to 34 feet ten inches an extra 4-and-a-half feet. we will see from our rear windows a large obstructing block structure with a so-called juliet balcony while i'm not

against the renovation in principle i'm worried about the loss of our precious northern light. a modest scale project in my opinion would be more appropriate to the site. we have only one window six feet wide by 3-and-a-half feet wide which limits the light available to the back of our unit at the moment we're suffering from reduced light because of the unkept garden and over grown trees that further restrict our light and air. if i may show a picture just so you see this is the current structure the peaked roof you can see at the top is going to grow by 4-and-a-half feet giving you a sense of the blockage we will see from our rear window. try to expand that.

thank you very much. >> thank you. additional speakers? go ahead. >> my name is barry parker i purchased my house at 159 clipper street in 1974. i moved because i was tired of what was built on twin peaks i hated it i drove around the city months looking for a victoria before christmas 159 became available for sale i bought that because i travel a lot i wanted a good looking home i wanted victorian i had been to d.c. a lot philadelphia new orleans i wanted old homes this is not one it's 2 or 3 blocks with 30 of them if it was one i would have left it alone i bought this place because of what it was it

was built in 1896 not for what it could become. if i wanted it to be what it was to become i would have stayed on corbett. we have neighborhoods we get long we don't v need. 3,000 square foot homes it just doesn't work recently we had a set of condominiums built across the street it looks like all the structures we saw yerl lore big glass windows tall roof makes no sense. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello my name is brian prichard i live on this block i'm against it i want the architecture to be respected thank you. >> thank you. any other speaker

in support of the dr? project sponsor you have five minutes. >> good evening commissioners . >> it's up to ten. >> good evening commissioner and neighbor we are karen orbich and the owners of 15 clipper we were excited about the purchase of our home after seven lost bids in the area we had two babies at the time and no parking at the time in our condo we were not looking for remodel project but we fell in love with the houses we felt we could keep the historical structures than other models do after talking to contractor and architect tect guide lieps we decided to expand to the third floor to leap on the same level with our two children and have enough space for home office and family

visits this has caused us great financial and emotional stress and made child care and schooling difficult while we waste our money on double mortgage and house payments - we received letter of support of 159. clipper and 147 clipper have also been nice and agreed not to oppose this. we attempted to compromise on some points we're told my neighbors on the block there is official complaints no matter what because they want to discourage flippers we're not looking to be in the air bnb business we are two working mothers that want to be there the rest of our lives this has been standing there 100 years and we want it to be

standing 100 more. thank u. >> we will open it up to public comment for those in support of the project. >> we're not done. >> you are not finished? sorry. >> you want to pause it. >> i thought i could hook up mine. >> ready? okay. go ahead. >> hi my name is susie douglass.

i'm the architect for the project. we feel the project should be approved because we followed the city's guidelines we do not feel the project would have averse effect on the neighborhood and in good faith tried to negotiate with the neighbors which has caused my clients significant expense we previously made accommodations to not expand towards the west of the property and well as lowering the ceiling height from ten feet to nine foot two. i'm going to go ahead and - are you guys seeing the power point? >> yes we are. >> sorry. so i want to address issues brought up by the dr requesters in summary i will go

through scale and some of the privacy issues that came up earlier as well as the question about the vernacular. this is the existing condition as seen on the block. the subject property is sort of in the center of the one to the right of the palm tree. we did some analysis of how many 3 and 2 story projects there are on the block. i have copies of this analysis. basically, there's on clipper street between church street and sanchez there are 163

story billing and 172 story buildings and a number of apartment buildings off towards the corners, and we did a number of 3d. renderings of the scale from the street. this is the block i will show you across the street as well as either side then there were some questions about how ut would look from the corner of clipper and sanchez in the dr's so we're also going to show you that. so this is the existing view from across the street you can see the flat paraped existing that will remain as well as the peak of the pitched roof in the background that is visible this is the view of the addition from the street from the sidewalk you can see because it's stepped back 15 feet from the front property line it's very minimally visible from the street. again, i'm going to show the views from the angled views

here's 150 feet to the west at eye level then with the addition which is set back from the downhill view. with the addition which is minimally visible from the downhill view. this is from that corner of clipper and sanchez that was pointed out by one of the dr requesters this is before, and this is the after. it's very minimally visible from there as wavelength. i'm going to show some shadow studies as well. to talk about the impact of the project on the neighboring ones. so we looked at two times of day both in december and june to get a

sense. to the first slide shows december 21st at 10:00 a.m. this is the existing condition and you can see the change in the proposed condition is very minimal impact on the neighboring building at 4:00 pm this is the existing condition then at 4:00 pm the proposed condition which start to impinge on the skylights but is very minimal it's only going to happen towards the end of the day. this is in the summer months we got june 21st at 10:00 a.m. the existing condition and the proproposed condition. at pour pm the existing condition and the proposed condition. this slide

addresses an issue that was brought up by a neighbor about the view coming into their existing skylights because of the height of the proposed roof deck at the front of the building, the view will not really - will only access the very top of their building so we feel this is a very minimal inpingment or nonrealistic impingement on their privacy. i would like to address the question about ornament as well. originally the project proposed a detailed ornamentation of the roof line that was reduced upon planner request largely because

of the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation that create a false sense of development such as architectural elements should not be taken. the so the idea is an honest and minimal addition for this project. i also want to state, based on the comments about the project having seven bedrooms that is incorrect the project proposed is four bedroom, 3-and-a-half bath project it's very important to the pamly to have the sleeping rooms on the same level which is why we found it really necessary to put the addition on the upper floor. so it was not possible for us to find a configuration that allows three sleeping room on the same level on the

existing two levels. thank you >> thank you we will open it up to public comment for those in support of the public project. and opposed to the dr. seeing none, we will close public comment. did you have public comment? >> part of the project team. >> okay. dr requesters you have a rebuttal. two minutes. >> rebuttal a couple clarification points first not to repeat what was in our

written dr's there are inconsistencies with plans that have been drawn, plans that have been given to us, height there was inconsistency made reference to me, i'm the one with the roof windows the skylights they were talking about. i am concerned as i wrote in my dr about air and light. clipper street comes down from diamond heights all of the air comes from the hillside so the only way to air out the top of the house comes from that direction and doesn't come from the direction even though the photo showed skylights on both sides. so we are concerned that throughout this entire process, there's been a lot of scope creep or project creep where we're going to do this now we're going to call this that was a bedroom now we're calling it a

storage but leaving the bathroom there it keeps creeping so to say we're distrustful of what is going to happen at the end of this is an under statement. we are very concerned. with regard to this property, and it pains me to say this, actually, if it is approved to go to this massive three story structure i would rather it become a legal two unit building it's zoned. rh2 so at least i know my children are not subjected to people coming in and out of this house potentially every week or weekend and it got rented to someone as an apartment i would rather it be a two unit building than three stories than to be this four bedroom i call it a seven bedroom home. thank you.

>> thank you. project sponsor you have two minutes. >> good evening commissioners i would just like to say that first of all a two unit building would be difficult because of planning and building codes for egress out of the front of the house also with it being historical we would have to do a lot of changes to the front in order to get that entry, also, the wind we did a wind study regarding his skylights as you can see. >> that is. >> okay. as you can see the wind comes from the top of the north west goes over the top of the building there is plenty of wind and area for his skylighfor his

and area for his skylighfor hise no codes within the planning of the building that states how many bedrooms and bathrooms are allowed. thank you. >> we will close this portion of the hearing and open it up to commissioners. i will start. we see a lot of these expansion of existing home this is a nice historic home. but our bar is kind of for dr's are high. i don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary. i feel from a massing standpoint it's a fairly modest addition to the home.

granted they're using and reusing some of the ground floor spaet space and converting it to living spacece and converting i living space i don't see anything extraordinary nair i don't like the deck on the front you did a good job of pushing the facade on lowering that. that is the only thing i would support changing at this time. commission commissioner richards. >> question for the project sponsor. off the top of my head, are you going to blow out the inside and go down to the studs and start all over? >> we have to do some of that with what we started we care about historical fixtures so we're saving what we can. what we liked about the remolds we saw ut wiz metal and glass we

wanted it to look like it used to just stronger and better. >> i think i like president hillis i like it without i will make a makes for the roof deck. >> second. >> if there is nothing further commissioners there's a motion seconded to take dr and approve the project without the roof deck. on that motion commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> [inaudible]. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> president hillis. >> aye. >> that passes 5-1 to commissioner johnson voting against. commissioners that will place us on aye testimony

place us on 19. 2015-018164drp-06 (s. jimenez: (415) for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.04(h) of the san francisco administrative code.. >> good evening existing director of current planning before your discretionary review requests for the building permit with the associated projects at 2226 green street. proposed to altar an existing unit with 30 foot kitchen expansion as well as private roof deck for the upper unit will be set back approximate fatally 46 feet from the street and 38 feet from the building wall. an open stair along the west side of the 4th floor and include all glass railings - in the cow hollow neighborhood following the original 2dr. request. made

proposed changes to the roof deck. with a previously proposed wind screen reducing the heights to the code as wavelength and modifying to be all glass for transparency. the profit currently has issued for work approved over the counter. over the course of our review there have been several complaints ex-seeding the scope of those issued permits they did identify work be done including work that was priming the way for scopes of work listed in this permit the building department issued a notice of violation most complieses with the six inch deviation policy with the work proposed under this permit dvi has stopped the work and awade waiting from this commission before taking action. in addition after the 3-11

notification was submitted one challenged the height of the plan the result of that survey showed that the existing conditions were seven inches taller than the height listed on the original plans due to that discrepancy the department mailed revised 15 day notice as a result of that 15 day notice four additional dr's are filed totally 60 before you today. found the project to meet the standards of the residential design guidelines proposed roof deck is designed with open and transparent railings the deck is accessed through open stair minimizing roof clutter and new massing above the existing roof line. the new roof deck is subordinate to the structure and has significant backs. the

project which again is a roof deck open stair glass railings 30 square foot expansion and cantilevered deck does not present extraordinary nair constructions modified to this project. they have received 12 letter of support and no letters in opposition other than the 6dr requesters the cow hallow and specific heights communication with the staff and remain neutral on this project. - they not take dr and approve the project as propenal code section. >> thank you. we have 6dr's we will do 15 minutes by both part ees with five minute rebuttals. clarify that. 15 minutes for the

dr requesters ten minute for the project sponsor. five for the project sponsor rebuttals. >> thank you my name is michael i represent mike and kristen borseti i will take the lead on the opposition the borseti's are 2200 green street of the project sponsors they're joined here in opposition with five requestser and two other concerned neighbors i have circulated a packet of materials to which i will refer the project sponsors

are young couple relative new wed who brought their starter condo $4.5 million it's a condo not a single family home as the owners said in their brief it's a two unit building between steiner and filmore the top unit the existing four story building exceeded the height limit in this zoning district there is question as to whether parts of the existing 4th floor were even permitted before being built. i checked with mr. sanchez in deed he confirmed he could not find a record for that permission of the permitover the 4th floor. one of them, john, said he's from colorado and he and his wife love the outdoors and they wanted to replicate. the experience by bringing their dining and living room to the outdoor. the project sponsor

concede their goal is to create an outdoor party and entertainment space a fact reflected in their original drawings overhead please? you will see a dining room table for 12 guests, built in bbq fire fit outdoor living room with sofas and tables with other building tall perimeter screening something you would expect to see in the rear yard of a single suburb an family home it's inappropriate and extend non-confirming building that excides the height limit bringing it to a total of six foot above what code allows in that district. proposed outdoor living room is grossly oversized and inconsistent with context and architectural styles 700

square foot respecting 50 square footage of the floor below - it's not as though this makes up for a deficit in open space the project would increase the total square foot jage of decks and ball balcony to 1500 square feat for a single condominium n a dense neighborhood the outdoor will be surrounded by wind scream surrounded by six inch solid cur so rare to cur interpretation which prohibit solid roof wall. with today's roofing material curbs are not needed they are used strictly to limit visibility the project is going to have significant impact on the borsetti separated by the

project property by another property 2204-06 green street. that property is set back and lower hence proposed living room will look directly into the balcony and upper interior some of the most sensitive and private part of their home bedrooms for their children and themselves the wind screen will do nothing to reduce visual access you can see the close proximity in this photo from the borsetti's project. here the project sponsors are already enjoying their roof. if there are part ees you can imagine there will be noise, smoke, foot smells artificial light impacts

parts of the outdoor living room will cast shadows on the balcony of the interiors of the borsetti's house. at 46 feet the improvements likely will create a funnel of easterly and westerly winds effecting their balcony interior with wind speeds of 50 miles an hour or greater they have never commissioned a wind study now let me turn to the elephant in the room. in 25 years of doing this, i have never seen project sponsor play as fast and loose with the rules or repeated ly violated the law as these have. of this dr br getting permit dbi ish use not one but notices of

violation and stop work order i talked to dbi they confirmed the project they have ignored and continued to build by they attempted to cover the illegal work with tarp structures they claimed it was weather proofing they installed it last year in a drought year. you can refer to our brief they knew if they presented all work in sing application it would violate 188 of the code require roof decks to lie flat. under one permit they rise raised the roof three inches by their own acknowledgment without permits they raised tote lal of seven inches above the level you can

see in the photos i presented this evening they miss represented in their plans inaccurately stated it complied with the code when it was two feet over and their plans did not show the entirety of the scope of their work the project sponsor played fast and loose with this dr even though they were required to provide us with a copy of the response brief at the same time it came to you they withheld it it wasn't until i asked a copy of it this week they provided it. was was rife with inaccurate seas i can go through them. we tried to avoid the necessities of this dr they refused to discuss reconfiguring it or even considering reasonable use restrictions the planner recommends there be a

site visit of all dr requestser our request for a site visit was denied one of the project sponsor john told me i own the property, i have the right to build anything i want. i'm available for anything i want. now handing it off to jeanine. >> [speaking off the mic]. >> speak into the microphone. >> i am jeanine i have bent in 2243 for 21 years thank you for being here it's close to 8 o'clock this project surprised me wowo wow wow over the last ten minutes the they are working extremely hard the planner is sylvia we work with i feel extraordinary honor [inaudible]

mrs. walker is here as well. a couple of poibt points i want to bring to your attention. projekt rejection please overhead please? i wrote it down because we don't have the plan. this is approved. plan from the 2016 february and they have clearly written down the front roof 41 feet two inches the rear 43. that is for the existing and proposed for the aprofessored proposal i wrote it down because we don't have a plan that is one approved over the counter. when i first went to meet with the planner mrs. jim i asked her, why does the plan shows over 40 feet? and about 3-11 we have

received showed 39 feet and eight inches in june 2016. and she is explained to me because they're all parapid is so i have the photo before they demolished this that clearly shows in their measurement on the approve over the county 41 feet, two inches for the front kitchen and rear and this, you tell me, this is the front and that's the back. where is the parapid? there is not much pirapid to speak of. how can they miss lead that the building is 398 inches on 3-11 back in june 2016. basically, the main thing here is this building is already sticking

out. the problem here is they are already over 40 feet in 40 neighborhood you can see the red line of the roof they are already sticking out from the neighborhood they are not comply. they were approved based on 39 feet eight inches but they are not. there is no parapid there that is the main question they are noncompliance but approved come plied building to begin with. second point i want to reiterate they have not paying respect to the law and to the neighbors i don't want to use the word lying but untruthfully miss led neighbors and planning department this is the photo showing - overhead please? this is the photo from 2015 mls that is their 4th floor living room. going through, you can see there is a dining room,

living room that is the kitchen dining room, living room what i'm thoughing you is the interior seating height is exactly the same for the 4th. floor. when i had conversation with the project sponsor's architect after i had a meeting with mrs. jiminis the planner where is the discrepancy the different height coming from? they basically said the the ceiling height was the same. they demolished the attic now they're trying to change the height. the last thing i want to show you is they have a lot of outdoor space this is the current 4th floor patio if you look at the plan they already

have 800 approximately 800 square feet of deck they are expanding the deck on the third and 4th floor we are fine with that. so total, they already put the backyard with 2400 square feet it's not worth it to allow them to build extra outdoor living room to take away our privacy and everything else. thank you. >> hi thank you for the opportunity to speak my name is barbara laurence i would like to join the other dr requesters in opposing this development we are part of the fabric of this neighborhood and been here over 50 years my brother and i were borp here we raised our families here i used to baby the kirt's children it's part of who we are. we do not oppose

development but we do want one that is in a thoughtful manner the entertainment and party room is extreme and will greatly effect our privacy the light spoken noise without walls or ceiling will effect our home and our families my house is on a hill so it looks out over the tree level there is no buffer between this deck and my bedrooms i met with the project sponsor they would not let me visit the sight. people choose to live in san francisco because it's a vibrant urban environment due to the density of the city residents need to be respectful of their neighbors what is appropriate in the suburbs is not appropriate in san francisco for a treasured san francisco neighborhood we ask you not to approve this deck. thank u.

>> in 25 seconds or less i would like to say i'm james and my wife and i own 2239 green street for over 50 years and in my last 12 seconds, this is a residentual community which is very san francisco and it's roofs are typical of the kind of what you see and the notion of 5th floors decks being turned into 5th floors is out of character -. >> thank you but your time is up. >> thank you sir. we will open it up to the public comment for those in support of the dr and opposed to the project. seeing none, project sponsor you have

ten minutes. >> good evening commissioners i'm here tonight with the property owner we have the project architect and project manager hunter dale to talk about the project status this project does not qualify for discretionary review there is nothing regarding it they meet the standards of the planning code and roof decks are common in this area i will put a graphic on the monitor. included in the packet as well this shows an a number of roof decks nearby all three buildings have roof decks and duty r requesters have a roof deck and large existing deck as well they don't cause unreasonable sound, light,

noise, glare there is no reason to believe the iesh here would the main concern is protecting private views to accommodate them they have modified the deck including all glass guardrails increasing set back ensuring there are no stair penthouses on this roof deck and eliminating built in furnitures. neighbors have raised concerns of root deck height and provide multiple 3-11 notices for transparency after providing survey to document height. dr was in bad faith. they were numerous we don't have time to give them in detail here. are also totally

unsupported. work at this home has been subject to routine inspections the owners did receive notice of violation with installation of framing and roof joint joys the contractors did get ahead of themselves in the project they have complied and work has completely stopped on the sight pending the resolution of the distrek nair review hearing the project architect bud will provide architect and some of the other concerns. >> hi good evening commissioners if i can get the image from the laptop please. dennis bud architect. the project at 226 green street encompasses roof

deck on upper 2er floors of residential building are condo units owned by my clients. the work on the 4th floor includes four areas of four expansion two of which approved over the count ear, with 24 light inch expansion areas of expansion that require public notice included proposed 3 foot front balcony expansion and 5-and-a-half foot try angulry i

to hide the stair within the mass of the existing building the roof deck is an outdoor space located closest to the main living levels below which are the living and dining spaces. the deck as mentioned is located 38 feedback from the house. the existing building mass is the stairs as i mentioned a newly framed one hour fire aided glass with noncombustible fixes spanning on an adjustment system proposed to

be half inch thick glass supported by shoe which is bolted to the roof structure. where the glass is five feet. the glazing will exist to achieve one hour of fire aid resistance. there have been questions about serial permitting there is only been two building permits filed a third one which is a special trade permit for the sprinkler system - and over-the-counter permit which included the interior renovations and administratively approved i worked closely with planning staff at the counter to sort the scope of work onto two permits i was instructed on how to do

this. it's common practice to split between structural upgrades and billing expansions that require 3-11 notice so this is consistent with the advice received from planning. there is not attempt to disguise the scope of the project and tried to be as transparent as possible with the neighbors. this is the latest sight permit revision renders it attempts to show what one would see across the story of a street a 2 floor not street grade the cumulative revisions included lower from 7 to 5 feet. changing the front guard to all grass design relocated access to the north so it was completely

beyond light intrusion or blockage to the west setting back the roof deck 30 inches on the north side these were commons we received changes to and made a few changes after dr filing in terms of lowering the guard to minimum changing them to all glass on all sides we had a draft revision which proposed setting back the front four feet two inches of the south edge that didn't get traction it's not in the current submittal. we were instructed to put it back the way we had it by our drdt there is questions about the building site. our initial data collection is what we do standard practice we go on-site with a tape measurer and laser level and measure floor to ceiling we make assumptions about floor thickness and where we can measure two height spaces

at stairways we do that we do our drawings the standard of care after dr there's a lot of attention on this project because it was tented with tarps on two by four framing that make it look big and balloony so we hired surveyier the survey was consistent with what i observed on the site that is our new structural sheathing of the roof is two inches below the existing par eripa

peripad. that is the case here. now i would like to project sponsors to speak. >> good evening i'm john from colorado this is my wife megan i moved here ten years ago megan has been here her whole life we want to put down roots in the city from a usability standpoint the backyard is three floors down it's dark and sloping this is our functional usable space a lot of it is said about it a lot is negative if you have questions we're happy to clarify that i called donor to set up the meeting the only one they were going to have with us. they

said it was delay it two years as someone great said when they go low, we go high. >> thank you. we will open it up for public comment in the project opposed to the dr? >> my my name is mathew i'm a san francisco resident. i loved here 17 years ago i have been a resident in cow hollow the better part of ten yearses lived there as a renter had the opportunity to buy my property i have known john and megan ten years he's coworker of mine they had dinner at our house we had dinner at their we have looked after their daughter they are good minded people that san francisco should be encouraging to put down roots here and build

as a family. i'm frustrating with folks that hire lawyers and use the time of this planning commission as a stick and as bullies to prevent peak from making basic improvements on their house. i think i have spent time at their house what they're proposing is someone that is reasonable if someone that has an 80 month old child i can appreciate having space for the child. our daughter has to play in the hallway of eight unit building i would love the opportunity ot outdoor space characterizing this as a party deck or environment where they're goog to have a keg there every night is speciesous and irresponsible without any knowledge of the individuals themselves i think this is purely a nimble issue as a san francisco taxpayer i would

rather have the commissioner spend more time on something like housing to that point. they have tied up for the better part of the year to block forward progress on this. as a san francisco taxpayer i recommend that you all ignore the dr. >> thank u next speaker please? >> good evening my name sroin reynolds a resident of san francisco appearing in support as a concerned citizen and friend to john and megan the planning commission has the authority to take action if it's determined the case demonstrates an exceptional circumstances what are under pinning are legitimate to determine whether the project come mys with the

planning code and design standards and determine there are unique circumstances to be considered in light of the modifications proposed by the project i'm far from an expert in the city's planning code i find it difficult to believe that the definition of extraordinary fails to enhance the character of a neighborhood or strike the appropriate balance between development and impact on nearby properties was intended to apply in this instant while i'm sensitive and i believe such concerns form discussion. challenges undermine the purposes of dr's result in inconsistently applied standards and prevent this commission for dealing with issues that effect this city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> good evening my name is

jennifer and live in cow hollow eight years in san francisco i have known john for ten megan for roughly eight ii have to be honest, it's so sad to hear the things being said about them. john is from colorado megan is from california neither one of them are trust fund babe eveny these are two of the hardest working professionals you would find the party they would love to have the time for a party this is not trust fund babies that are buying a mega man chant they're two people you want to be in the city in the future and want to bring to the city so it's hard for me to hear quite frankly the character assassinations that are going on. deck, sure we would have dinner on the deck and would be a social event by no means the

blue angels party in marina.al i think i love to hear the neighborhoods_that have been here 50 yearses, my husband and i love this city we love the neighborhood we want to be here that long, john and megan feel the same way you got to some where we can't move here and be here automatically 50 years it's sad to see this is the choice and path that was chosen. it's truly combative rather than something embracing and trying to find commonalities where there needed to be or compromises where there can be. i'm disappointed in that. it's sad. and i would encourage you guys to understand these are two top professional individuals in

the city who earned their way here and i hope you guys deny this request. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> thank you i'm richard warmer my wife and i live in 224 green street which is the unit directly underneath 2226 the two units comprise the two unit condo building i purchased the unit in 1997 and over the years have come to know the neighborhood very well. there have been some negative comments made about the project sponsors we have come to know them very well in the last year-and-a-half since they purchased their unit and our experience has been entirely positive. this

experience has included the normal homeowner association matters rg involving repairs and maintenance of common area the garden the outdoor staircase the walk ways they have been fully cooperative when we received the plans for renovation we developed questions and concern and wanted reassurance there would be no impact on the structural integrity of the building the project sponsors were very cooperative meeting with us providing engineer, architect to talk through all of the issues we had a number of conversations and they fully resolved our concern in that process. as for the roof deck the proposed deck does not seem to be out of character with the neighborhood at all. there are four story buildings to the immediate north of our building they both have roof decks we

never had any noise light pollution fumes or other projects in addition with those roof decks i don't see any reason we expect to experience problems in connection with the deck that's been proposed by the by the project sponsor we're happy to have them as neighbors i see no extraordinary circumstances here. >> thank you very much. next speaker please? >> hi. i don't know if you are tired as hungry as i am. i'm jenny rubin wife to dick. as he said ewe live downstairs we have zone john and megan we have known them a year-and-a-half. during that time, we found them to be very descent, caring,

extremely caring hardworking thoughtful and very unaassuming when we made requests of sort regarding the project sufficient as the status or report of project access securing the property, etcetera or any discussion how it could be a better outcome such as soundproofing etcetera they have bns responsive to our needs one example my husband had an injury and broke his thigh the last two months i made the request that they remove part of a partition in the garage in order that we could have access in his wheelchair to the garage and to our home. when we came home from the physical therapy facility,

they had not only removed the partial, but removed the entire barrier for us. that is just within example of their character. from our knowledge of the neighborhood having lived there in the same building for 20 years, it's totally in keeping in the scale and the cope of the amenities being proposed. we and others that we know in the immediate neighborhood welcome them. thank you very much. >> thank you. any additional public comment in support of the project. seeing none, dr requesters you have five minute rebuttal. >> thank you i heard a moment ago there was sadness in a lack of compromise i share that

sadness there was out reach it was met with no, we will not compromise we get to build what we want to. this is an over blown enormous deck in a structure that is too high already that has 800 square peat of deck yes there are other decks early where in pa sufficientic heighting non-are so closely proximate none of the other buildings for a single condo 15 meet feed of square feet of deck. project sponsor have repeated this is outdoor dining and rifing room they wish to use it freakily one of the things mentioned was blue angel

parties it is inappropriate when it is so closely proximate and has so many significant impacts on proximate neighbors to allow it to proceed. thank you very much. i'm going to turn it over now to barbara barns. >> hi i ju wanted to reduet a few things this is not character assassination i'm not a nimble over you would see me over the 58 years over san francisco when there's been so much development in my neighborhood i have not been here before on this overhead you see my teenage sons and i did a physical inspection there are not roof decks are rare the reason is because the fog comes in the golden gate in

the evening and it's cold people go up to look at the blue angels but it's not that pleasant on the roof. the architect said there was no privacy issues i live across the street and my house at at 2225. green street it's on filmore you have to walk up two flights to get to the front door so mine is above the level of the condo's house. so that's why two of my story look above the treat so there are serious privacy issues that the architect didn't understand i would be happy to show them the view. i asked the property owners if i could see their property they said no one came out to reach out to them. i reached out and said, i can see the sight in this does not enhance or beautiful neighborhood. this is not

conducive. thank you. >> overhead please? there you go. >> speak into the microphone. >> there is a number going around with the height and everything. this line kind of shows you the actual height they're way over 40 before and even way more after i immigranted to taiwan to the united states 30 years ago i'm proud to be a u.s. citizen and their responsers, the public comment as you probably know mostly, they're friends and neighborhood directly below them there are no neighborhoods within 150 feet actually speak at the public comment. i just want to say if they love the neighborhood they have lot said

already they didn't say no to the expansion for the third floor and also the back 4th floor we understand they want to spend a little bit. we did not object to them we just don't want them to have outdoor living room on the 5th floor there. i feel the public comment say we're wasting taxpayers money as a 30 year immigrant i feel like i'm glad the system is here there is justice here to find out what is really going on. just one photo i want to show you before we run out of time this is overhead please? this is not complied already they stick out that is the main point and they ignore the law and neighbors viewed access stairs before the permit was done this is way before and look at this. >> thank you. your time is up.

commissioners have questions they will ask you to come up. >> project sponsor two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. to sum rye this is a fully code compliance ininstalling a roof deck in an area we showed they're common there is no reason to believe this deck of the many in the neighborhood would cause unusual noise or impacts in fact the deck would be separated by 35 feet from the nearest dr requesters the neighborhoods have taken measures to modify to install all glass guardrails pushing access stairs back not includek penthouse removing built in furniture pushing back from the rear of the building

the deck does not add height to the existing building the three inch height measurement won't make a practical impact to the neighbors it's within the dbi six inch tolerant standard i will turn it over to the project sponsor and architect to speak. >> i want to clarify we have never received a request to come to our house we have never received request to meet with us we have one meeting at the lawyer's office i would it's more of a deposition than a meeting one photo i want to show you real quick this is immediately to the left of us. all of them have penthouse staircases we know they're important to you we have chosen to design our deck without a penthouse staircase all have blockage we have gone xheetly clear so we tried to build a neighborhood friendly deck as much as possible we try to pay attention to what this

commission is focused on as far as roof decks are concerned. >> thank you. that concludes this portion of the hearing we will open it up to commissioner comments and questions commissioner richardses . >> it's interesting the last photo you used was in the last dr 2720 as something wrong with the neighborhood and photos reused for these properties this commission is kind of record on roof deck we have a high level of scrutiny we don't say go ahead and do them because they're permitted by code we want to take a look at what the impact is by the neighborhoods this roof deck reads aas an additional floor like we had on 2720 lion street the question for the dr requester the attorney mr. donor, please? so

this roof deck is pretty much the entire area of the house. on the steps what does the roof deck look down on? what does it look out at? i don't see neighbors in light wells and thing what are they looking into. >> what is the view from the proposed outdoor i can show you a photograph of it you are looking into the bersetti's property there is a schematic showing the location of the project. it's marked with an x and you can see the other dr's the borsetti's are close to it looks directly into their third and 4th floors their bedrooms and study and balcony. there is a photo that i believe i showed

overhead here. that is the view - i will move it up from the bersetti's . >> across the street? >> no. sorry no directly across the street this is the borseti's . >> it's on filmore. >> dr requester what on your map? >> can i show? >> can we finish this one which dr requester is it? >> this dr requester is jeanine. >> the number on your map. >> four. >> four. okay. >> this one i apologize this is the borseti's which is dr requester number two. >> i just got bingo by the way. a joke to lighten up the room.

>> it is late. >> this view you are showing from the borsetti's requester number two. it looks like it's from a roof deck of their own f. >> it's noter. >> can you put that back up? >> it's hard for me to folsom of these . >> this is the balcony. >> what does the balcony open up from? >> from a bedroom. there is a balcony here, this is the roof deck here. >> so, again, we're trying to show me something, this balcony open up from what kund of room? >> a bedroom. >> bedroom. so 35 feet would be the width of this lot. so 35 feet standard lots are 25 feet i'm imagining what 25 feet looks like to view another building on

my street where i live it's not far facial recognition starts at 65 feet. something like that depending on where you are. okay what about the other dr requesters? i want to understand the impact of the roof deck on all of the dr requesters it looks like there is impact on number two. >> this is close to where dr requester number five is the bedroom of the next to it. >> that is the construction. >> construction and the roof of the deck would be where i marked it. >> this is the sight lines they had when they had the tarp up there. consider is this the same situation you are looking across the roof of a building . >> 35 feet. >> yes. >> [speaking off the mic]. >> what room are you taking that photo from? >> that will be a room of a

seven year old and it's a bedroom two bedrooms actually. >> okay as we move up here, is this new owners letter . >> yeah. >> dr number five [speaking off the mic]. >> same looking at the roof deck? okay. it doesn't look like one is much of an issue three might. >> dr1 and 3 which is 2225 and 2231. i will put this picture. up. this is the view from the second story bedroom. >> you number three. >> i am number one. >> so you are looking across a building? >> no. it's just across the street it's 50 feet. just across the street. my heart is right on the sidewalk there is flush

there is no set back . >> i'm looking at the map on the building here . >> [speaking off the mic]. >> dr request number one. >> i don't know who prepared this map. >> this is wrong. >> she owns both. >> got it. >> that is the house i'm talking about is my family house at 2225 green street. >> all of these rooms across the street you are saying are effected. >> exact eloo and the reason i want you to -. >> because of typography . >> we're up on a solid hill you have to weight up two flights to get to the front door so they're on the front of the deck what are they looking into? >> into the second story bedroom and then into the third story

bedroom . >> that's for all of these houses? 3, 4, 6? >> that is for 1 and 3. >> got it. 1, 3, 4 and 6. would you show me? >> overhead please. >> so this is their roof deck top. literally standing on that they can see my living room, dining room and kitchen this is taken from the kitchen this is photo taken from can you imagine if they have people there they can look into my living room, dining room kitchen . >> in a house i used to live in my front room looked into the front room of a house. across the street it was not a huge deal. in a bedroom, it's a lot

more of an impact. >> right we have three kids there is a sofa bed in the living room: right here is the sofa bed. it's one of the kids sleeping right here. >> thank you. >> mr. richards can i add one thing we always have people looking in our bedrooms in the san francisco neighborhood the difference is there is no walls around this outdoor living space so it's not like we have ray window here whatever it is people looking without any sort of buffer or privacy. >> okay. thank you. commissioner richards i will add green street is less than 50 feet wide and the deck itself is set back 40 feet of the property line. >> un115 feet . >> it's more than 100 feet across green street. >> i beg to diver i looked on

google maps it's 60 up to the point we're talking about. >> based on city maps it's 68 feet. >> as i look at the dr requesters 2 and 5 are pretty much the ones effected. because they're 35 feet away. the ones looking over -. >> folks on filmore on the same block. >> number six like i said. >> my opinion on 1, 3, 4 and 6 with the 115 feet or 15 feet it's not that much of an impact i'm sorry i can understand 2 and 5. >> an overhead this gives you a scale. this is taken from the balcony of the bedroom you can

see how big the person is you are close this is next to what will be the roof deck. >> requester number. >> two. >> in the future you can put the request numbers on the photos so we can see. that's two. okay. so i guess project sponsor, a couple of things resonate with me we had issue with open space on 20th. street i made a statement i had friends that lived in the yard didn't use it it's three floors down you don't use it you wouldn't use your yard you have open space already but you don't want to use the yard in the back is it deeds to the other condo owner os . >> from our living space? it's three storieses down from our living space this would be a

much more functional space for us to use. to understand, the other dfrment r's along filmore their roof line is actually below they actually can't see our unit. i got a photo here. to artake late it a little bit. >> please. >> so this is the borsett's deck first of all the orientation is the opposite dregs they did not want a solid wall. >> so they're dr requester number two. as you move down filmore you can see the roof to the left that is the next one down. >> help me here i'm trying to understand this. >> this is the corner of what would be the cloeest corner to the borsetti's . >> the yellow house. >> they're all yellow. requester number two on the corner . >> the 1 on filmore street are

below the roof line in terms of where the windows would be. i had to go outside and go to filmore street i couldn't see the dr requesters house from our house. >> in the 35 feet from the subject property and the borsett's and dr number five is there an abrupt grade change. >> it is a steep hill. there was a flyer that went out to get neighbors to hie pile on we never met the other neighborhoods that filed on filmore. >> there is say balcony off. i like open living space my house actually opened up a wall so you can look i have a deck on the ground floor. i go down to the yard. i see you have this roof deck that comes right out of the kitchen. here's a clear view basically from the living dining to the roof deck what is the

square footage of this balcony? >> it's actually the floor below the roof deck so you walk out of the kitchen then upstairs . >> right. so there now is a balcony there. >> there is always a balcony there. >> what is the square footage of that? 35 feet long? >> the cumulative square footage is 750 square feet it's three other small -. >> so what is this one here? on a2 dot two the 4th. floor the balcony outside of the kitchen? >> that is proposed for the bbq outdoor kitchen cooking . >> what is the square footage . >> give me one sec. >> sure. this is inaccurate.

we're good. >> this is from 3-11. [multiple speakers]. >> we need some order. i'm asking the architect please everybody just sit down. architect i don't mean to be a hard ass we're cranky and hungry and want to get this as fair as we can. >> sorry it's 87 square feat extending it will make it 87 square feat. >> what are the dimensions? 87, what are the dimensions of this balcony. >> 12-and-a-half feet to the inside of the guard wall and

seven feet beyond the extear yor wall seven by 12-and-a-half but it goes the whole length of the property? >> no. >> okay. got it. >> what is the wind screen on the roof deck . >> seven skweer they said no thanks at five feet so at this point we don't have a wind screen we have a 42 inch guardrail it's a tight balance we're thinking about privacy versus solid prefers transparent so we have it to deal with furnish chur so what do the neighbors want. >> i get what you are trying to do if i've living in the space i

would want to do the same thing the top reads like the floor below ittive living room , dieping room we generally have a high level of scrutiny especially this large of a size we cut them back or eliminated some of them. that is our track record i would like to hear what the other commissioners have to say i'm concerned about 2 and 5. >> commissioner moore. >> there is something unusual here this is a condo. the owner of the lower unit apparently having agreed to making what is typically common area condo restricted common area saying you can build a roof deck up there, there is some form of independent important agreement between the two parties however, where it comes in for us is to

speak about the size and the appropriateness of what is in front of us and the one thing i question is, i do not believe in this particular area roof decks of this kind fully equippeded with kwas gas water are typical they showed picture of add jouning roof decks which is the old fashion they were done and held to the center line of the roof while they were visible they were like some form of wind protection but didn't try to be more than simply a place you can put the table or get a tan which ever way you do that. what i don't like is the incredible amount of animosity between the parties. by the way, whatever you all say about each other is not going to make any difference of what we decide here it doesn't matter. i would like you

would get along because you are going to be neighborhood no matter what that is it. i would suggest given what we typically do we try to size down the roof deck a little bit from the east side that particular roof deck to sit on the property line despite the fact there is minimal planter doesn't quite work for me. if you look to the left the west side there's a roof deck of the way i know them from knob hill russian hill telegraph hill, etc. i'm not prepared to let this roof deck become something of something that is really somewhat in the detriment of others i have seen some roof decks with similar function allities being built in neighborhoods for typography that are totally disaster, there is noise, smell, light pollution these are nice at particular

times of year however they are detrimental to people on either side across the way for that we look at the roof deck downsize it a bit pulling away from the east side if the agreement between the condo owners exist that the other party can use the roof there is nothing we can do. that is independent agreement that needs to be in place. will change the property description incolluding the ccnr to who maintains what and who is liable for that. that is in condo law nothing we look at here. i would suggest let's take the east side and bring it in line with the skuper ones and make the deck similar in size not the same size as the adjoining building

and find ways that perhaps there is some form of screening, some form of greenness by which the deck is used at night there is not a lot of light or noise interference. again, when we do the roof deck it will make it still a functional deck, just more size to the things we see on adjoining roofs that's a motion. >> commissioner koppel. >> is the building over the height limit? >> yeah. a portion of the building is legal noncompliant above the height limit. >> under the planning code you are allowed to provide roof deck even on existing noncompliant portion of the deck roof building . >> can you explain notice of violations were for if you can

give us a brief summary. >> it appears they did start work on their desired project before getting the appropriate approvals the building of inspection did a stop work order from my understanding that was in the packet it was not stop work order for the entire building it's explicit nov that portion must stop they have other permit they can continue with. >> that was with the roof deck they were starting to build star stairs and structure from the roof deck that's why dvi had them stop. what about the height? we are hearing also is part of the permit to increase the height of the structure that is something they were doing without the benefit of permit notice of violation on it. >> under the planning code what they're proposing is code compliant they're making the structural strengthening to support the roof deck we would allow that in any cases .

>> there is issue of extra three inches that had to be removed. >> on the finished roof they did add joust the finished roof to provide adequate sloping because of the slope a portion of it increasing in three inches . >> that wasn't the permit didn't have that slopes roof . >> right that exceeded the slope of the work to conduct and the department of building and inspection did issue a stop order with that. >> that back to the original height. >> that's been cleared because it's within the building department six inch deviation allowed to work. everything is signed at this point the remaining scope of works issue with permits are on hold until the commission makes decision they didn't want a correction notice and have them rip out everything they stead stop where you are wait for this to be

adjudicated and then move forward. >> what is that tarping? >> there is construction two by 4's up there not an actual volume that will be built but just extra pertnance up there the tarp is over it it gives the appearance of a larger structure than what will actually be built. >> my general take is we hear a lot of roof deck. it's crazy we hear them. i think somebody said it if you were to build a structure up here or add onto this building which obviously you can't on this floor, you can have walls on the side on the property lines and there would be walls and windows so it's a different animal when you put a roof deck especially when people are up there. it's not necessarily problematic but when people are up there, the impacts are fairly significant. i think that's why we see a lot of these

you wouldn't be able to look out the side of your building because we don't allow windows on the side along property line with roof decks you can get up there and look every which way and somewhat be a nuance to everybody around you who doesn't have a roof deck that's why we see a lot of them. and why they tend to have big impact and why we're sensitive about them. i share my commissioners concerns the size and scale given that fact are you starting to look out to other people a balcony in their built space not on their roof it starts to be impactful it doesn't sound to me there have been sub substantial discussions among the parties, to resolve this i would like to see a smaller roof deck that is

pushed to the north west side of this structure. we get the north is what you want it's the money shot out to the bay and the bridge that's where you want to take advantage of the view that is good that is least impactful to the neighborhoods to the east and south. so i don't necessarily want to design this at 9 o'clock at night. i would say, go talk to each other it doesn't seem tliek there has been dialogue i'm inclined to approve some level of roof deck you got to talk to your neighborhoods and say that's what you want or what you want you want it to the north i leave it to you to figure out it's unfortunate i move to second this. >> second. >> commissioner richards? >> if i can make a quick interjection here the project

sponsor did mention they proposed pulling the roof deck back to grid line if you look at the plan on 82.2. it looks like that is likely an alteration they're incleaned to for the dr requesters on filmore. street . >> i think it's got to move to the north [multiple speakers] i think we're not going to - i think we're going to flail around on stuff. it's late. we saved the best for last. consider it can't be pushed back much further due to code compliance reasons and the stair is. >> you can have a stair and in essence. [multiple speakers] ask them to move the east side back

to four. and south side reduce it minimally a landing off the stair. >> i think the neighbors should weigh in. i know you want resolution on this hopefully, this never comes back to us you can all work it out. you can come back on consent in dr we don't know the windows of neighbors and where they look out to. we don't know the program of the project sponsor commissioner moore. >> i think mrs. ladi is hitting on the lines i i was mentioning staff should be involved in the negotiation the animosity is much too large that is relative to what the code is asking for for the property line is extremely important which creates the distance between those buildings were you looking for i have an interesting question how does the construction company get away

with these kinds of things? how can this happen? i have to assume that the applicant does not exactly know what is within the permit unless he's architect which i don't think he is. how can this happen . >> they violated the law. it's plane as that there are penalties they will be assessed a penalty. in terms of the concern is was it a one time mistake or consistent pattern of abuse we do investigate with the city attorney's and department of inspection repeat violators i'm not aware of that being an issue here mistakes get made sometimes purposeful sometimes not. >> call the question. >> we got a couple other commissioners to recognize you were finished with comments ?

commissioner johnson? >> so i could be okay with some changes i think most people understand i don't like drr's very much this one in particular there are 6dr requesters there is a lot of animosity here commissioner moore is right. i don't care what they think about each other, but i think go back to staff is a punt because they haven't been able to get to agreement thus far there are six of them. i don't know what any of them want they're not going to get to any conclusion this is one of those cases whereas much as i'm normally opposed to spending a lot of time on these frankly, they got here, and we need to make a decision. there is clearly no compromise. this is a code compliant deck if we feel there may be some so i'm not going to support anything that is no deck if we think there is impact to some of the

neighbors we should figure out a reasonable pull back or compromise and go from there. i don't agree with spending any more time on this continuing it having staff essentially have to be the referee it's not like they're going to go off separately into rooms and come to it. and come to staff with here's what we agreed to. clearly there are six parties respected by one attorney and the project sponsor they not going to come to agreement. >> you are out of order at this point. >> i'm talking. i think they're not going to come to agreement we need to discuss a reasonable pull back at this point and move forward with the project that's what i think. i don't support continuance. >> commissioner richards. >> i'm involved on a project in saturn street and corona heights i told the managing part ear don't do it that do it 300 feet

we will have dr's's all over the place don't bbq don't plummet make it a roof deck that's where this needs to go and i think should be cut in half. i think mr. donor have enough integrity and hammer out something and come back and say this is what they agreed to and don't have to waste any more time i see a nod from mr. donor. mrs. hardipor? no? >> [speaking off the mic]. >> talk into the mic please? >> hi. you was just chatting with sylvia she suggested i come to the microphone and suggest a design change on the architect

of the project i would like to reoffer a move in of the deck south side eight inches so it aligns with the stair and move it in from the property line to reduce 36 inches so it's not cutting on the two sides but the south of the east side two bites. >> could you diagram that and put it on the overhead so everyone can understand the proposed modification. >> floor plan of the roof deck what i'm suggesting is line e here moving it a full eight inches then set back from the east property line 36 inches. >> we will get into back and forth and start do you want

privacy or do you want clear glazing we're guessing. i think everybody's of the same mind the deck's got to come down pretty more than what you proposed. commissioner richards proposed by half. in that ballpark you have to work together and come up with a compromise i agree with commissioner johnson i don't like to continue these. my optimistic hope it comes back as a consent item and we take it you hear our concern we're not saying to the neighborhoods there is not going to be a deck and we're not saying to the project sponsor you are getting a deck when you come back there are details i'm not comfortable working out now at this poi commissioner johnson? commissioner moore. >> i fully agree on what you summarized the department is

clearly they will be able to negotiate that fine line in between. >> can we refer to the maker, and the seconder on that motion? >> did i make the motion? >> yeah sure. >> shall i call the question? >> with the instructions. the project sponsor and dr requester sit down and hash this out. >> yeah. [multiple speakers] hopefully it's clear. >> what date commissioners? >> first available. >> hopefully this comes back under consent so it doesn't matter right? >> april 6th. give it a month. >> very good. on that motion to continue this matter with direction from the planning commission commissioner johnson.

>> not here. >> you have to vote. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye . >> commissioner richards . >> aye . >> president hillis . >> aye. >> that passes 4 to 0. >> all right we will open it up to general public comment today th then - thank you. seeing none we will adjourn the

>> i have 2 job titles. i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected mayor of san francisco in 1912. he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of 1913. in december 1915, the building

was complete. it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art. those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an enormous french population. therefore building a palace in the art tradition is not unusual. >> jimmie was an incredible individual he knew that san francisco had to regain it's place in the world.

he decided to have the tallest dome built in the united states. it's now stands 307 feet 6 inches from the ground 40 feet taller than the united states capital. >> you could spend days going around the building and finding something new. the embellishment, the carvings, it represents commerce, navigation, all of the things that san francisco is famous for. >> the wood you see in the board of supervisor's chambers is oak and all hand carved on site. interesting thing about the oak

is there isn't anymore in the entire world. the floors in china was cleard and never replanted. if you look up at the seceiling you would believe that's hand kof carved out of wood and it is a cast plaster sealing and the only spanish design in an arts building. there are no records about how many people worked on this building. the workman who worked on this building did not all speak the same language. and what happened was the person working next to the other person respected a skill a skill that was so wonderful that we have this masterpiece to show the world today.

>> welcome ladies and gentlemen, to the this is the regular meeting of the of the san francisco ethics commission and i will call the roll. >> commissioner keane commissioner chiu commissioner kopp and commissioner hayon is not present but we anticipate she'll arrive shortly item agenda item 2 public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda anyone wish to speak on - >> that item? >> commissioners ray hart for san francisco open government. in december this ethics commission held a