eliminate the pop out at the rear to reduce the impact of the imposing structure at the nine hundred and 35 quiet is the this year is large enough thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on that all right. ms. swedish. >> thank you, mr. ionin i have a trouble with that, i see it in the bucket of the demolition it is great they're not gaining the system and doing this fake demolition and i applaud them for that but i'm sorry they have their reason it is unfortunately ,those the hours their family-sized housing we know what that is they'll be gone and they're old and the other thing not that many projects like this in noah valley like having a

house replaced by two units one on clipper both unit sold for 4. $5 million i frankly when i looked at the i don't see that is that much different than what happens when you get one big home the begs the question are the decisions especially the 4043 cesar chavez street they're my friends it that necessary and desirable i don't think i can't you read the finding it talks about the affordability all the pages it is in under how have with regards to the design it is necessary and desirable i think ralph and alice have given a very, very good idea but what to do and think if you look at the picture this is within the first elderly can i have the overhead, please? this is from the project sponsor it shows the whole block first

of all, you see how great that 3 grouping of hours those two houses are gone those 2 up the street and the fourth floor on that one comes out i don't understand if they want a variance to demolish it why can't they get a variance to push the thing forward and solve ralph and alice's problem and have three bedrooms oh, please give us three bedrooms and get rid of the deck the other thing when you look at those two how's that are at all look down chavez that's the roofline i think that ralph and alice needs their privacy they property overview propose an eloquent solution get

rid of the windows and put the third floor pop out get rid of the deck and push it forward with three bedrooms and marketable and unfortunate the little go houses their little on the outside not that the on that inside. >> thank you, ms. swedish. >> any other public comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. oh, one more. >> or two more. >> you want to speak please line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon commissioners not too long ago instead of having had unit you'll have two very large single-family homes 5 bedrooms memoranda rooms large kitchen you name it we were here in

front of you with those projects instead you have two projects that are maximizing missing density the sizes of those units are relatively in balance each of those units go from the streets to the rear and we're creating four family-sized units the rear yard in each the houses is greater than the 45 percent the house has an incredibly stair stepped approach both from the rear to the front and from the west to the east that third floor kitchen is 12 and a half foot offer the property line how often do we see that there have been numerous modifications for based on the 7 meetings with the project sponsor has had with the neighbors next door including did two on saturday which lead to the privacy law

and the interior glass off the kitchen i understand that change brings a certain amount of anxious but o uptsd are being cut 0 down to the bare bone no 0 more meat on this bone a bedroom is - to go back e go back to the big hours we were in front of that commission 9 months ago san francisco is internationally recognized for so many wonderful things quality of life, economic vital, diversity we all the stories what brought up a us here the point others are still coming this body you as a commission my

organization as a stakeholders elected officials we're challenged every single day to deal with the consequences of people coming i don't prevented to have all the answers but most people will agree increasing density into the existing neighborhood is somehow a part of this evaluation in this case within an incredible amount of sensitivity that rear is like a double sculpture thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm john co-sponsor o'connor i think you have four units of housing and with the existence is loud and clear two units

you're getting compatible sizes you know they don't seem to be much issue with the 4043 cesar chavez street but on the 12 floor with 4043 cesar chavez street it is pretty chopped up i'm sure that you know when public comment is closed depending on the commission or planning department staff will address with the rdt been there many times and can explain how that happens again i'll ask you to approve both projects you're getting fuel go comparable sites three bedrooms and i think that is for the is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and, sir maybe a good place to start discussion of rdt comments

and change to the project maybe you can walk us through. >> the original project was 4043 cesar chavez street at the time 4041 cesar chavez street i'm not sure what was officially submitted the project sponsor requested that the rdt consider the development of 4041 cesar chavez street as their baseline the depths and massing the rdt was not comfortable with making that decision and their comments were based on the configuration of 4041 cesar chavez street as well as the 4047 this issue was appealed to the management by the project sponsor the senior management want to development of 4041 cesar chavez street considered as the context

for depth they needed more assurance than just a permit was about filed and the direction was for both projects to come to the commission together so that context can be reviewed concurrently so what the recommendation to remove that portion of third floor. >> the recommendation. >> to nominate the building of 4041 cesar chavez street. >> as management agreed with the project sponsor not to remove it but shift it to a point to the haired property line with 4041 cesar chavez street will be coming forward at at the same time. >> thank you i think to clarify what the process is here there the rdt makes recommendations and reviews the project many projects that you see weekly basis occasionally

projects are asked to look for a second review and senior management is requested to look at those projects there are two forms that we do that one is meeting that i conduct every tuesday looking at 17 projects another is managed by jeff and both of those times that brings the projects they'll like higher level direction they're short discussions because of sheer number of projects and usually 15 minutes we make the decision and move on those are not formal kind of hearings they're not written dissuasions you go they're in house meetings like we do dozens of times and make decisions wanted to clarify the process not a formal appeal process no hearing but staff doing the normal review. >> okay commissioner vice president richards. >> i i guess i completely

understand where you're coming from we had another project i think the expectation any change in the decide for a public point of view that will be documented two i completely understand the process and he format i think the transparent and trust is just we've changed the decision because of the projects will be necessary when they that got a sunshine request that's what we see i think interesting for me is this the first time i've seen someone bring in a sunshine ordinance and call out an line item guarantee embody for bid we don't want to down the road gosselin noted i don't think that is a big deal

the 90s came up the noticing. >> sorry. >> criminally i incorrect that was may 2015 a what type of noticing. >> that was a joint cu in section 311 where the occasion use goes out to the ownership at the radius i'm sorry the 311 at one hundred foot radius i didn't think we have a full conversation with the gentleman on the precise addresses we're expecting with the mailings to be sent. >> given his address within the radius. >> these are completed for the code section. >> done by a third party.

>> not like the project sponsor. >> approve preview for the third party i'm assuming those went out the other question the historic resource was brought up a block away both in turn of the district none was atom for this street maybe as the the - a

building california be a contributor but a different set of. >> you were on clayton. >> i saw that on your agenda i

did not understand. >> nothing was changed from perfect he look at this significant changes i don't have it off the top of my head it would trip over one or two not the same classic building we approval or disapproval. >> i see those historic resources it is design setting location the craftsmanship i don't know those will meet the 7. >> not as individual resources but in the past when i have done historic evaluations the planner asked one the questions could that building contribute to the historic district if one exists. >> they're saying not the case with those two. >> he said that i come to a different finding. >> and a question for the project sponsor about the

tenants first time i'm hearing tenants in the building and the decision maybe to throw out the tenants i'm the owner of 4041 i don't know what that has been referred to when i bought the project it was two tenants in that and they're still there too young tech there over a year and they're perfect tenants like i said i've not made any acquisitions it is a single-family i'm waiting firearm my permit. >> if we approve the demolition they'll have to leave. >> yes. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> known else. >> commissioner moore. >> the question i raised

earlier can be replayed here i believe that sooner than later we have to face the gentrification how we do that i raised the question on 29 street and here i'll say we have definitely a remarkable development of a project and just generically speaking i believe that the projects are two large they're two many stair steps and too many things when you look at the two buildings and assume for a moment they'll be designed by separate owners and separate porn's there is two buildings amongst themselves have conflicts because between the two buildings they're also issues of privacy not issues that still be with the adjoining

neighbors that spoke here earlier and that's a concern to me and while again, i said that earlier awhile i believe sooner or later we have to meet the need for that gentrification head on in an rh-2 i believe that note all the tools are in place including right sizings and right adjacent and right configurations of what is a contributor and how that plays endow dense phil ginsberg some said commissioners maybe a good idea to look at adding something in the rear yard for doing a enlarge time in my

concerns stand and applied to what guess in front of me. >> thank you commissioner melgar. >> thank you so these are sweet little cottages i hate anyone that demolish them with that said, we need more housing in the city i like it that we're building two units when one smaller one however, it seems to me that the immediate neighbors 47. >> uh-huh. >> were open to i mean they're not saying build next to us but we need the modification and things will be okay and seems like there is room there to still meet the you know desire to build two family-sized units

we want and accommodate the desire to have a farewell next to the neighbors seems like reasonable so i actually, i feel like this need to be closed a little bit more and more work with the neighbors so try to get to something that you know folks can live with so i i'm not a i hope we're not approving this right now. >> if i can ask the project arithmetic or the sponsor i agree with commissioner melgar it is tough i like those nice cottages don't like i think they give our city character but not i don't think if we disagree this we'll get to cute cottages

down the street they'll be comforted and larger homes not affordable we can look at like historically like that to stay the same realistically that will not happen i appreciate you all coming forward we don't see a lot of we see a lot of the larger homes maybe within an in-law unit that is what we've asked for in the past we'll do something on the sites and kind of maximize the density we want two medium you know descents sized homes those are the modern homes of two flat homes but commissioner melgars lines the neighbors seemingly ask for modest change on the third floor

not a lot of room a kitchen and small living room and dining room but there was discussion maybe by staff about changes since this is plan you've made to accommodate some of the neighbors concerns address their questions about eliminating that notch and adding a lightwell what happens to the windows on the upper floor. >> in terms of the notch the last meeting with ralph and alice for a one foot notch to protect the light and air to the became we are provided that. >> is it shown on our plans. >> it is, it is and substantially. >> can you pull that up. >> i'd like. >> the plans you're talking about and pop it on the

overhead. >> you've got the stairs and this sounds right. >> and again ralph said a one foot notch is fine. >> okay. >> doorway. >> i'm sorry what was your other question. >> on there the one not notch by 11 by two is that - >> you know length of that the upper floor the stairwells. >> up to the third floor. >> all the way down and not at the property line but fairly close. >> fairly close yeah. >> and then talk about so their request to that floor go

basically eliminate that kitchen not that kitchen expansion; right? and what would you do in other words, why not accommodate that. >> earlier they mentioned that and we said if we can't build the fourth floor planning are not let us have a fourth floor parapet so we desperately need that area to be able to make it a living unit. >> okay. >> i mean, i see that what about at the deck. >> in the back the third floor because we rematched the whole areas of the pop out we've lost the survey from the upper unit so the upper unit has the decks

to the usable open space so the detection on the third floor is basically, the only give and take off public space for the outdoor area. >> right. >> thank you i mean thanks i mean, i generally am supportive of the project this kitchen is 12 and a half feet from the property line or through buzz i get the concerns the neighbors not want to push the fourth floor you will and lose the setback on the center the it is important in every neighborhood to minimize the massing the building so you know, i don't think we can do a lot with the back and accommodate some of the neighbors concerns it is a fairly small living area with the kitchen on the third floor

commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess the organized opposition mr. weaver can you come up you've been following the dissolutions and i think we've been asking for and normally thousand square feet and three hundred. >> i'm sorry, i missed the first part of our question. >> a second they call that densification i look here and say zero 4 one the building was 18 thirty square feet but the proposed condition you're looking at 1977 marginally bigger and 1431 smaller and the second development 1920 square feet that is totaling and exceeding 207510 percent more and 1954 on the money so from a

densification this gets an a and the equality they look like they're in line what we've been asking foreclosure and the third one my sham units behind the garage didn't look like that to me other people are different opinions this is what we've been asking for months and months and years you have a list of four or five things you want to see one moving to the deck to the odds the deck on 4041 cesar chavez street moving it to the east side and then the west's. >> is the neighbor on the other side going to claim about the decks are they here. >> it seems to me from the diagram that will be there will be a wall from the building and . >> move the deck on 4041 cesar

chavez street. >> right. >> and the other things you're asking for we're calling the pop out the kitchen. >> that's the second floor deck; right? >> on 4041 cesar chavez street the second floor correct. >> the third floor and the third floor thovrn 4043 cesar chavez street i think that can be reconfigured - go around the stairs you can move did kitchen back and you know maybe i take it speaking hearsay but a 15 foot setback is not roll out of line in this kind environment because of street we're on and the fact there are already buildings that don't have those setbacks that are that at all. >> the trouble thing they're at a different time with a peak

roof their that way not a flat building hitting us in the face. >> i'm not saying no setback but didn't have to be 15 move that 5 or 7 feet you'll be adding more rooms. >> those 3 things the deck. >> as to the deck and the lightwell (multiple voices) you know i don't know with what kind of mitigations in those kinds of projects but they're both old buildings and presumably lead based paint and you mentioned the industry standard is there a code. >> i don't know. i was hoping you said it would seem the issues the containment and

testing to see was there lead balances paint and issue of notification of the neighbors as to who subsidies they'll be exposed to and scheduling when there will be those skrurnz. >> and containment with a showed you when we remove asbestos. >> project sponsor or the owner some numbers and tucks the notification seems. >> we have to do that are to the building department. >> shift the deck on 4041 cesar chavez street. >> that don't make sense we're happy but flies in the face of good planning we're moving a deck over so it towers over the

neighbor below we asked planning they said no way and the deck. >> that's the one i've spoken about we need that deck for our usable open space off the public open area. >> you priest to the bottom unit. >> basically no way to get there nonetheless unless you dgo outside of building and the lightwell. >> it is a property line window for a bathroom basically and light and air there those are not protected in san francisco the last time i checked they've got the use of their front windows. >> so this was i thought was for a light issue. >> no, not a light issue 3 feet between the notch and the window. >> okay. thank you. >> any other commission

comments and questions. joel, commissioner koppel. >> sorry. >> i'm so anxious. >> i think the gentleman's comments were staying with me more than others they could and have an single-family homes in the past they're being equitablely split into two unions and i think the project sponsor is arguing this why we can't change so i'm in support of project as proposed. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i sort of echo my arguments on the previous case i'm supportive of this project if there were some changes that we can make that actually help the adjacent homeowners or others who are impacted api i'll be open to those but sounds like many of

the there have been changes that have been made and ones that can be considered that will keep the projects with good xaeblt between the units given where we are and is characteristiction of this block the other changes that can be made won't substantially a change the preserved impacts to the neighbors if we can continue to talk about adjustment i'm not certain bans what we are discussing including what mr. weaver mentions as something we'll consider will help; right? really what people want for this to be continued continued to be a cottage or the lower scale home which you make it, too much end up having a single-family it is not in keeping with the priorities that commission has

stated on multiple occasions open to consideration of changes of their helpful not certain. >> sxhufks. >> i guess interesting enough i play in my head the hearings we've had a deck on i believe that was divisadero or in the pacific heights or cow hollow and we were arguing that the deck should be tucked in fact, i don't know if anyone remembers that when the architect mentioned that we were looking for that in the residential design guidelines you know i'm open to changes that don't makes sense and don't go against like the setbacks moving forward given the style the architecture maybe and so if any other

commissioners has an idea i'm open to them but prepared to move on the project. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm curious what people think about 4043 cesar chavez street deck facing the street that is and i typical on the upscale 4041 cesar chavez street is hidden within the slopes and you don't see that on the 4043 cesar chavez street building it is quite visual and i think it called out the setback additional on the fourth floor more than it wouldn't be that point you to think about that. >> i thought that was setback in the peak of the roof. >> that particular building didn't have a from that time roof on the lower part.

>> staff if i like to make a clarification commissioner moore is referring to the rendering the street front i noticed one is miss labeled the 4043 cesar chavez street the cable roof and 4041 cesar chavez street is the flat roof that carried over you see the side all the other renderings are referenced correctly. >> i'm looking this drawing the lower drawing with the address 4041 cesar chavez street float roof with a balcony in the street on the flat slope over the third floor and on the next building 4041 cesar chavez street the balcony is enclosed and this is a acceptable i think not like the other one. >> a typical for the area and it is calling the setback

addition further commissioner vice president richards. >> so will you prefer a roof with a deck like 4043 cesar chavez street. >> no the intent to let the building at least set by association didn't set because of the altering mixed roof and the flats makes that look go it is figuratively beyond the roof line. >> mr. horn. >> this figure the headings are incorrect and 4043 cesar chavez street is a gay bold

higher building than street grade. >> the deck on the flat roof. >> the deck at the 4043 cesar chavez street has a notched and 4041 cesar chavez street setback on the flat roof. >> (multiple voices) commissioner moore is uncomfortable with the deck she'd like to get rid of of deck. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> a motion to approve with the removal of deck on the front of 4041 cesar chavez street. >> no, she's right their switched-on the front. >> second. >> on the non-gambled revolver. >> commissioners, if there's

nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded with approve with conditions as amended to include do removal of the deck on the 4041 cesar chavez street at the front. >> front deck. >> on that motion commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar no commissioner moore no commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioner melgar and commissioner moore voting against supervisors that places us under our discretionary review calendar it item, 2783k diamond street discretionary review excuse me - jonas i have a few handouts good

afternoon the the item before you is a discretionary review application filed during the 311 notification of the building permit for a single-family residences the dr was filed by the adjacent property owner who resides on guerrero street but ounce or oensz the property on diamond street located on an undeveloped approximately 8 hundred and 50 square feet lot within the glen park neighborhood the parcel on the side of diamond street and the northern property line abuts a 5 foot publically acceptable walk alley the proposal to construct a new one

thousand plus square feet 4 story 38 foot tall, three bedrooms residence the triangle is unique triangular shaped plot 110 on-street parking all four levels occupy the level the upper is recessed from the facade to articulate the massing and allowing 4 hundred plus deck that provides usable space the majority surrounding property within the rh-2 zoning district, however, the properties near the street are zoned glen park and that extends towards dimension for the bart station this is within walkable distance at the time of the mailing 4 letters ever support from various

neighbors and letters in opposition after the mailings an additional 11 of support and 2 in opposition in total 15 letters of support and 14 in opposition pretty unusual for public comment the neighbors in support have indicated it is comparable with the neighborhoods are positive additions to the neighborhood given the highway quality architecture and all parties indicated the project is two large and out of scale with the neighborhood and some oppose the project that will take act away the landscaping that is intended by the neighborhood over the years and some development has a loose of open space an amenity to the neighborhood the dr requester has concerns for changing the mass and he scale into the public realm the

loss of open space and the negative impact serving as a amenity to the neighborhood and the front accordingly the dr requester has requested the following administrations reducing the height of building and expending the amount of green space more in character with the surrounding neighborhood and to conform with the established property line to avoid an encroachment into the city's public right-of-way it is within the residential district and reviewed by the residential design team the rdt found in quitclaiming and didn't recommend any changes to the proposed project the department finds that overall massing and scale to be appropriate given the underlying zoning height and bulk with the typography with -

and on balance compliant with the planning code and no variance and titles with the planning code undercover officer the department recommends the planning commission not take dr and approve the project proposed that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you dr requester you have 5 minutes. >> all right. thank you please turn on the projector and leave it on. >> commissioners good afternoon. i'm jeff my wife and i own the two units next door to the project and together with corey the attendant in one of the two tenants we're the dr filers he's out of country and a residents will be speaking as a member of the public that is the site it is a vacant triangle parcel of 9 had plus square feet the neighbors have attended to many

years you wonder how it was created it so many smaller that was intuftd from an adjacent lot before the adoption of the 46 and probably before the house was built in 1945 it is considered a legal but non-that complying lot we don't know it is part avenue sewer easement it is paved over my wife grew up and her cousins lived upstairs the kitchen look out over the parcel after diane's parents passed away as explained in the 1996 art in 1994 getting tired the trash was sometimes used by homeowners the neighbors cleaned up contrary to the lot was never

fenced and visited by the owner a local landscapeer asked for nature planets the neighbors have intentionally water the garden we heard a 4 story house was built we were floored couldn't believe that it only in the last foe weeks we understand the city can purchase the property through eminent domain according to the city records the lot was sold for one and 55 thousand it's not buildable that is a raeshld price for a pedestrian and friendly walkway that makes the neighborhood the way it is maintaining the open space is with the the better streets plan and the open space and the general plan and park plan and park rec and park strategy plan should you approve this project today, you'll add

zero to the value of the land we're not asking for sdraurl but asking for the project to be setback and for this lot if comply with the residential design guidelines awhile as it is redesigned we will continue to pursue the lot purchase. >> the immediate contacts of 3 story homes not four story the immediate average size is not the 19 hundred plus like the project you can see in the overhead no roof deck anywhere the privacy can't be overstated the residential design guidelines folks on the neighborhood context and part of immediate character the guidelines value that privacy and the presently of light and air those issues have led us to those requests first to the facadey design the windows and

lack of detail in particular are out of character and second remove the roof deck you've not allowed new roof deck and another speaker will talk about that it may result in addition changes and third the lightwell be naufld around the two property lines those limits were not added their original to the house like the property line in the marina we have the character defining feature those windows like the marina were intend to be maintained and fourth remove the fourth floor it is out of characterize with the immediate compensation the flour floor will be seen in the backyard and windows on the homes fifth reduces it been 5 feet the habitable rooms of the ground floor are 10 feet tall

and other - 6 set the building back from the walkway so the landscaping will be introduced it ignores the walkway that is a well-used benefit from the diamond lighting the landscaping for the land will be a softening thing thank you very much for listening appreciate it. >> we'll open up for public comment and some support of dr and opposed to the project. >> and you can come up and speak in any order. >> commissioners good afternoon and good evening thank

you for your time quote glen park community special character was created by the new combination of eclectic the pedestrian scale the green space and building and the cloimg through the canyon and a compact to transit in the canyon whether public or private must incorporate those faster than based on is principles of good design and human reconcile unquote the lair of green space in buildings really applies to glen park and helps define our neighborhood there are pockets of planet life and flowers scattered around the neighborhood that allow butterflies and others that reside in the natural areas this particular pocket part is

going straight up diamond street are elderly youth and all type of people stop and if you'll excuse the expression and smell the flowers this proposal turns its back on is guiding principle of our neighborhood opportunities exist that transform the underutilized areas this is one of the first lines of the chapter on open space this plan calls for not creating green space but taking away and also existing green space awhile there maifrptd possible to develop something on this lot this particular development casts shadows on the existing paths and the light in the path and it really should not oh, my god the path like it does thank

you all very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is francisco i live on diamond street next to the project site i'd like to say dmrerp is a great little village in the discussion how to deal with new projects with the low density neighborhood i understand you talk about the home size to lot size and the neighboring houses in close proximity. >> it is - the table shows the building and unit and lot size and far in the residential buildings immediately surrounding the project site i understand your planning department staff has told you that homes are generally 15 hundred square feet the average square feet home in the the closet homes to 9 park is 11

hundred plus their homes are smaller in our area the average lot size is 16 hundred plus so the lot size in the neighborhoods are also small two features of glen park a small home on a small lot from the table the smaller the lot the smaller the building habitable space which is what the assessor-recorder and uses the lot size is only 5 had had prosecute plus square feet so the project is learn the average sized home in the city and larger had an the average size in the immediate neighborhood at the same time the project lot size is much smaller than the city and neighborhood this tells us the building is two large for the lot and two large for the neighborhood a neighborhood that is defined by small buildings i support the drs requested

change and ask for a size that represents reassembling is the homes - thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> again liberty hill i have a graphic here this is policy one .5 of the glen park plan glen park village height should be loithsz to the pattern down there the interior occur that comblerp is two or three building has a comfortable pedestrian environment the vision to the height districts that reduces the maximum height only blocks should be catered

out to reflect the established pattern the live are buildings is one story above the immediate buildings nearby jeff showed in his presentation the owner account of the comblerp plan the organization or refresh my recollection or recommendation is the lower the height limits the r d g recommends looking at the existing character and all will goals and objectives to let a four story building get this far in the process far not only again does the four floor need to be removed by the 3 stories need to be loaders they're out of what can with the neighbors you can see the ceiling part of ground floor is almost 10 feet

upper stories are turn around they need to be i support the dr filers and ask for all changes they've listed i ask you give clear direction on making at changes and come back to our finally action after designed duran the intern periods neighbors will be looking at their property. >> good afternoon my name is gloria i was raised in glen park i want to tell you how important on 2783k diamond street in a neighborhood currently the lot has a community garden on it a green space that adds charm to the neighborhood on one side of the garden there are steps that led up to a beverage and a 5 foot path the residents come to the path and use it is as a shorted cut 0 diamond many of

the neighbors use this they're sitting on the steps or beverage enjoying the garden that is supported by the garden has a lead street lighting to penetrate the openness and a save feeling to hear the owner want to say replace the garden with a little we don't understand this is an oversight we hope to river the proposed building ignores the importance of the path many neighbors use this path no building that occupies this space should be allowed be able to ignore the natural street lighting and the proposed building above the property line is steeper than that had should be the steps will appear as they belong to a new building and if you push the building back two feet the strip of escaping can

be maintained and not make the path so cramped the proposed building needs to be redesigned to respect the - setback to provide lighting this project is not ready for prim time please send it back thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners good afternoon. i'm marilyn i live on ferry streets jeff showed us an overview here's a much larger area none of those buildings have roof deck they're not part of character of this working-class neighborhood small homes on small lots the roof

deck on the proposed homes should be removed because the existing character of the neighborhood but because of privacy brought on by such decks and consistently called for the removal the planner can tell you you can only remove the fourth deck because that provides the open space this is not true because there are other options every other house in the neighborhood meetings needs the feasible open space the reason the projects backyard didn't meet the urgeable backyard space that is two small and automatically shaped the zoning administrator interpretation allowed the project to have a triangular yard that applies to the rear yard and not open space the suspecting requirement makes the minimum requirement of open space that can't be met with a tiny triangular rear yard while

the staffs solutions to put the required open space on the roof deck it is completely out of character your yours can be to remove the roof decks and require the developers to design a building a smaller building to resist the small size of buildings in the neighborhood and a small lot needs time please direct the developer to incorporate the dr requesters changes and also to put the code compliant into the backyard or seek a variance thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening it is no longer afternoon sorry about that i'm helen lived in the neighborhood over 20 years let me cut to the chase i was happy

to have the glen park program adopted it preserves our neighborhood that plan foblgd on the core area around bos worth and places height restrictions of thirty feet just a property or two short of this the subject property the current development plans and design in 37 feet 10 inches it is higher than at the glen park the comblerp plan independence the character it is to there the two-story buildings if this is true why is this four story building be proposed in the neighborhood it is currently as designed it is clearly out of character with the neighborhood even if he removed that the remaining stories are turn around the building and this is the largest home on the smallest home in the immediate facility

like i said to open small lots you need small buildings a typical floor ratio in the neighborhood is absent less than one, however, the ratio proposed is almost two while the planning department may say this if you don't use to regulate the single-family homes this misses the point or if used as a description for the neighborhood you and the board of supervisors have adopted a plan that independence our neighborhood as a village the plan size glen park it has a small town charm doesn't 0 come with replacing a community garden with a four story building. >> good evening

my name is irony live on diamond street a couple of weeks ago you had a hearing on the proposal that changes the back and forth for more affordable housing for middle-income it is this is the lowest of although, the constituency is in the most needs this commission approvals one project after another with the one group that has more demands requires and here we have one more project of the same type that is the tiniest lot in the neighborhood there is another lots nearby under one thousand square feet located on diamond the home is 6 hundred plus square feet on a 900 plus square feet lot and the ball park of the neighborhoods far a

lot of 9 plus square feet merits the proposition to the lot size are perhaps 8 hundred square feet that will conform with the neighborhood character but provide for a measure of affordability for middle-income families a starter home in a city that keeps on approving one monster 0 home after another even though the planning department they've approved for houses for upper income homes why do you want to approve homes urban affordable especially small homes with small lots i disagree with the changes this is why they should according to the size of clot lot the adjacency of the pathway accommodate a small and naturally affordable home if it should agree to any homes at all

please send this back for a redesign. >> commissioners good evening. i'm john live on diamond street in a downstairs street that is near the garden the two property line windows in the dr said it is the same size neglected to say his response to the dr the developer also stated that owners that have property line windows must acknowledge they can be built this is a misleading statement those only apply to new construction today those rules never applied to windows that are original to

homes in 1945 no such rules existed the reason in 1945 buildings sdpeetd the property line as a result of the owners having a reasonable expectation from the layout of the kitchen the kitchen is focused around the two windows and the principle family gathering units they'll not be laid out the way they were had they be believed the windows - no homes not in 1945 or 1915 the owner bought the lot the price of a non-believable gardens milord grew up in my unit and accompanied in fond memories of homework as a child accompanied by a breeze and calling her brother's home the windows are

the reason he choose to represent the apartment i understand you recognition this is original to the building and the character of the neighborhood we ask you to protect did window but will preserve the character of the unit thank you. >> hello, i'm carol i'm glad to be here hungry moved into the area over thirty years ago we live at the top of dimension on 25 diamond and we live on a half lot one of the most wonderful things that happened to us i've been be able to join the glen park garden a member and past president and there from the beginning of the development of this property that we're talking about i actually have imitate contact with the precipitate i've been

digging and pruning and have been planting along with my friends we took this property as a weed i didn't garbage area and turned it into a precious precious property that the neighbors can enjoy we all meet in the homes for the garden meetings and we value our backyards we cherish our gardens and had our garden and talk about our gardens and add to the value of the community i'm concerned this property is taking up space and taking away valuable joy from the people that walk by it a walkway what the stairs and a beverage that was dedicated to one of the members and this property is going to overwhelm that space where people walk and enjoy not have a backyard because of decks i think we should really think about making the property

smaller we're very sad this developer has taken some promised us things not happening and hoping you'll consider turning this back into a valuable park thank you very much. >> good morning commissioners good evening can i have the projector turned on please. i'm here to discuss the environmental concerns as well as the group of people before me my name is michael i live on diamond i've had i read i've read about her playing in the

garden and with the written statements never fepgsz she knew the butterflies is present the snake is an ensdaurgsz species with the and california code of regulations you also see a significant tree in front of the sight the roots underlay that garden and will be removed that tree will die if you approve the project this project proposes the use of and the same curve cut by the neighboring house on diamond which will not only cause traffic between the two homes by double the likelihood that someone will be run over awhile using the steps and

authorizing body must be for the environmental review document i don't believe you can make that findings and you request the department to look at the habitat and curve cut issues i want to note i disagree with the request of the moving the building back from the walkway by 2 feet it should be moved back 4 feet thank you very much. >> can i have the overhead? >> good evening my name is learning i live on diamond street i'm about 7 houses up the street an article in the glen park the listing prices one and 99 he purposed that for one and 65 thousand this is not the price to pay for a lot the

leveraging the past privacy in san francisco exerting expedite that with the minimum process i saw he specialize in building towering residential homes in small footprints i commends him for his skill but the property is not like others if this is built in compliance the backyard needs to be substantially large for an open space variance must be obtained the buyer was made aware confirmed by the department of building inspection the property couldn't be built without the variance he's trying to create a roof deck no roof decks in the neighborhood this is privacy impacts for all families and the roof deck are contrary to san francisco well established policies based on the initiatives planning commission policy the roof deck and top floor should be removed those

plans need to be reviewed at the minimum the conditions should be enforced 0 he is lying unlike the past projects he's no longer the architect he's primarily interested thought resale and may not have a vested interest this project is two large in the lot size and two large for the walkway. >> two imposing on the privacy of the neighbors. >> next speaker, please. >> sfgov good evening i was born and raised on diamond street next

door to the lot i've heard a little bit about the site none expected it to be built even the prior owner that listed it for sale of one and 95 thousand we believe that is unbuildable lot that is why there was one offer and well below the asking rate we are glad that the neighbors are recently not having the city buy the property we would like to have happen architect a academy for the one and $65,000 purchase in the negotiation with the city the architect may not want to entertain the city voluntarily he didn't he can make $2 million

now if he can convince you to approve that and an unbuildable lot made buildable so eminent domain maybe the way to do a subset some of here working that many parallel to make sure that any project built on the lot it fits the lot and neighborhood the current project didn't do this is a nap of one individual signing a petition to oppose the project in the current form they ask the project be redesigned please keep in mind the changes will mean the project must be redesigned to accommodate the rear yard large enough to needed the open space requirement the project is not appropriate for approval tonight please send that back. >> thank you, sir, your time

is up. >> commissioners percentage good evening my name is jose i'm a san francisco resident part of this disclose for the property that could be built on with the variance needs to be approval prosecute approved variance are sometime approve or disapproveed and the owner was not assured approval for the variance the planning department, however, let him out of a evaporates first, the interpretation was applied to let the backyard be a small triangle and 99 percent of all single-family homes the backyard is the large rectangle part that exceeds the open space requirement so the requirement is never been substantially large and rectangle rear yard the usable open space requirement for this home is one and 25 square feet and a minimum

as i mentioned a requirement of 10 feet in each direction on every other property that requires a rear yard the rear yard is a small triangle that can't provided in the backyard so the architect was told to reduce the size of building to make room for the open space instead he put on the roof deck even though the planning department knows it is against your policy you see guys the person opposed our policy please remove the roof deck and instruct the sponsor to accommodate the open space in the rear yard somewhere around the roof deck if this is go impossible seek the surveillance he was told by the realtor before purchasing the property.

>> next speaker, please. >> i'm william i live next door to the project on the side of the 5 feet public assess walkway that continues along the established fenced and property line of surrey street homeowners tenants that use the paved park of the steps and walkway for access to their units there are several large trees in the backyard of one of the homes those trees overhang the project and will probably die after their, their cut back to compromised a four story house certain the large and big tree in front of the the project site will die a third of canopy is cut off and it's roots are removed during the excavation of site this is has it obtain

setback another 3 feet to save the tree and a huge curve cut that is already a dangerous area the street is a curve and the traffic is blocked by the tree and existing our garage sharing our kaufsh cut will double the traffic problem and the likelihood that a pedestrian on the steps will be injured or worse the project building should not have retirement board or parking it had been setback further from the front, rare and endangered walkway side should have a large lightwell for the longs existing legal property line with these at 2785 and 7 those are features that should be changed if you approve anything this is a ill conceived

development well expressed by the lot price the developer bought this 9 hundred and 14 square feet lot knowing it should not be built on but tried to do it on the designing feature. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> thank you. >> good evening it occurred to some of us what the neighborhood is doing we are speaking with the members of the board of supervisors and staff of the department of public works and rec and park and plan to speak that the rec and park commissioners purchasing land by the city we believe because of

because of a history in legal rights this public use is - this is objective not the price of buildable lot from the communists we believe the survey makes use of public land a 5 foot alley and seeking legal advice on this topic we if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer themably to sustain our option and finally like to make sure the developer and the few supporters understand we're not trying to take something away from the developer he was the only one who that made a purchase we are pursuing the legal rights with the prescription use only a judge can decide this not a developer go building a

non-buildable lot thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening the case report deferred to the address of dpoifrd there exists the house on 2075 and the city never expected the parcel of land to be buildable that is also why this house was sold under the asking price. 0 one and thousand dollars as is previous speaker statistics that's why the duplication as the 885 have two property windows on this site that's why the previous owner abandoned the site according to glen park news article the respectable owners we're told this needs a surveillance this is not the guaranteed right and entitlement

so it is in a variance is required one should assume the property is not buildable by default this is a non-starter the plan specification this is a two and three story neighborhood immediately, the adjudicate building are 3 stories if we reduces the height to 3 stories the proximate cause is the roof deck because we don't have any buildings in the neighborhood for the red-legged frog so what is appropriate we're proposing is to reduce actually reduce the size of building footprint it will allow for a real open space at the garden level at the property level instead of a roof deck and we're also proposing that the size of

property to come more in scale what the neighborhood i understand that neighbors will be pursuing the legal recognition is in my time up >> i understand the neighbors will be pursuing. >> sorry i thought that was 30 seconds. >> your time is up. >> put that down right there. >> understood >> good evening, commissioners ellen rose and chair of dmrerp neighborhood history project wrote this letter he submit in support of glen park community garden and her attachment okay the attachment is a photo from 19 excuse me - 1893 were the

earliest alley now enveloped by greenery from the western scombranls southeasterly to the location her letter devoted two paragraphs dating to 1860 and 1872 that appears to be the northern boundary of two early glen park with dairy farming and ranching quote the property line appears to be visible in our image of diamond from an engineering journal in 1893 all the historic connections what about contemplated on the bench in the gardens that is cared for since 1996 by volunteers she states construction of a four story ulcer traffic

building eliminates this treasure because of the proximity to the glen park village will 0 disadvantage the neighborhood character for which comblerp is well nope that is two large for the site and neighborhood and possibly part after a sewer line easement i urge the city to exercise eminent domain and protect comblerp community garden as well as our historic legacy. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening prius with the improvement club my comment is brief even compared with month projects in the city the proposed roof deck on this project has no justification whatsoever he can see thank you. >> any other speakers in support of dr requesters and against the project seeing none,

sir. >> for the dr requester. >> in support of project you have to wait until the project sponsors has an opportunity to speak project sponsor 5 minutes. >> good evening. i'm troy i'm the project architect and hopefully, this is my ultimately the home the future homeowner there has been much unsubstantiated misinformation spread about the home on the site i kind of don't know where to begin i hope you'll call on me after my presentation so i can respond to some of the statement it is called a monster home and mcmonk and posters saying no. you don't the project can i have the overhead,

please? i've reached out to the community multiple multiple occasions 60 pages of e-mails trying to contact people that have written letters against the project what we have is a family-sized home 3 bedrooms and has a kitchen and dining room and living room and a small den due to the small lot the room sizes are modest in bedrooms there are no spatial bathrooms no massive walk-in closets the rooms they back wall is 9 feet the 3 story facade close matches that of the adjacent neighbors only rising slightly higher than the slope of diamond street the floor to floor heights are

modest 8 foot ceiling at the ground floor and 8 foot ceiling at the second level and 8 foot and living level not the victorian they're similar to the adjacent building the profile of the building along the 5 foot public right-of-way follows the slope upwards toward a profile at the rear of the lot i'm sorry at the rear of the first level is significantly below grade the top is setback and sub servant to the main facade on a integral part of single-family sized the only windows are the bathroom and a stair landing not create how this privacy concerns to the adjacent property on the site

the home presents no shadow impacts on the rental property his property is inspiring to the south my rear wall is setback it is surrounded by mid block open space with the preservation of the street trees and not eliminate on-street parking that is the intent and stated language in the code i'm sure the planner here can speak to that language in the code if commission takes exception to the safety at the top level roof i'll gladly eliminate it and eliminate the stair to the top roof level there is a number of trees immediately adjacent and tint this for assessable but

provide a shift ladder instead if this is satisfying the commission concerns the existing lot is zoned for residential use that was not intend for residential use has from basis norway the statement of a real estate agent saying the variances are required no variances required the home leads to the meets the residential design guidelines and no negative impact there was a statement made the 5 foot public right-of-way is used author fair by several of people i'll show you a picture of that used thoroughfare. >> the fence line is one edge of the thoroughfare the yellow represents the top floor of my proposed home this thoroughfare

for one hundred feet is over grown and so you know this is another example of the misleading statements that have been made the purchase of this property to not huge to others was not inexpensive to me i'll say more in any my rebuttal. >> and speakers in support of the project and no in favor of the dr line up on the tv side of the room. >> i'll be brief my name is chris live a few blocks up from the the subject property and in support because we need more density and i believe that will be a quality build and add

character to the community and building that it will attract a family and love having families in the neighborhood that's why i'm in support of it. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is doctor michelle birch i come here in support of project i had the opportunity to attend the meetings that he offered in december of 2015 and it is my understanding that he's an architect not a developer and he's endeavoring to build a home for himself and his family i think that is an important point as must most you have us want to create and home in this lifetime i've heard i was and i pulled when i attend the meeting that's why i came here eager today

people have a calm demean but the level of aggression was no substantive complaints about the building instead he heard immediate neighbors complained their family owned the adjudicate prompt for 40 years and entitled to open space we live in a city where we have to share and there's a dearth of housing and people need to act as a community and coordinate and in addition to the statements he designed an eloquent building on a small lot where creativity solutions with a suspended garden and roof deck to accommodate the open space

the neighborhood would be lucky to have to project and wonderful man. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i think the incredible thing about the project is adds housing to a much needed shortage of housing stock as we know and the most incredible feature is it has housing without displacement to anyone we saw on one project one additional units of housing you had to demolish and house and build a huge undertaking to add stock to the housing add homes to the housing stock of city this man has had incredible vision and found a piece of land that none thought would be possible to build in terms of making an excellence and efficient use of this piece of

land and building a home for hierarchy and not displacing anyone and finally, i want to say that all of the people whose opinions they have one thing in common they all are of the community type not in any backyard i think we should all say we want more housing in the city by in the end yes, but not in any house next to my house this is a more than world you see people they're all talking about alternative energy and the sun and wind no, not windmills not here over there, etc. i rest my case and urge you to support this project and pass that is much needed housing stock to the city. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good evening commissioners i am a san francisco resident i'm here to support this project i want to call your attention to something when noah valley you look at the costs and benefits the project and here we're not just proposing to add one one bedroom or two bedroom the developer is trying to add a three bedroom with three hundred square feet that's the type of housing the city needs whether you look at that and the fact that is not displacing anyone and in the current location i think this project should be supported and the discretionary review should request should be rejected thank you. >> any other speakers in support of project and against the discretionary review. >> ma'am, please. hi, i'm a resident of glen park

and wanted to mirror all the comments on the support of the development this will add a beautiful property to the neighborhood that bringing in new additional families and/or the folks in the neighborhood i'm supportive of that. >> any other speakers seeing none, dr requesters two minute rebuttal, sir two minute rebuttal. >> dr requester - okay. go ahead. >> good evening commissioners i'm diane as my husband explained. >> can you suspend. >> overlooking the garden and raised my son at some point jeff and i will move back there our dr is not trying to preserve and

view but we're not drying to take away something from the developer had we known the lot were for sale we would have made it into a garden so we wouldn't have to be here could i this is a garden as that is as integrated part of glen park it is a place people stop and say he will and eat lunch and reminisce he made it sound like all of us in the neighborhood ripped down the fence to take away the property from the owner there was no fence for many years i neither here nor there died when i was 15 my dad worked long hours as a blue-collar job to support the family and if have time to

attend to the garden there was a time the lot was banned and littered with garden homeless spent the night and the neighbors decided to bring that back to life they saved the property and people told you we had the long featured use of garden but don't want to bring the developer to court i fully understanding the planning department wants inform part in preserving the space for the public we as the neighborhood take on the responsibility and a send this back for redesign and get the project reapproved this is not the right one. >> project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you dmirsz a lot of new information i'm hearing from

the neighborhood how they owned the property i've seen no legal document to see any easement and the exclaims that was a - glen park resident that actually take down the fence he met him at the preapplication before i bought the property i talked to the people to understand what the rules are this is a question of the rules and the rules law we have a code for a reason it helps someone understand you know what is possible and what is doable i understand this commission has discretion and to make accommodations i fully accept if but i did the homework and saw what it could be built the fact i was able to purchase it was remarkable it is a significant

portion of my life to - you know if i don't know what all this talk is about in the eminent domain i've not heard myrna melgar from the city choose to experience eminent domain i don't know what my recourse is that is not what this commission is concerned with and a lot of the information presented here want to was not in the packet so it is you know not 100 percent easier to respond to everything in regards to the strts they've been remained the city will advise on trimming and in regards to the curve cut directly in front of my property like the neighbors an enlarged 14 feet in length the standard is 8 feet

i'm available to answer any questions this portion of the hearing is closed we're seeing those all over the city on clayton they're like the piece of meat with the fat was thrown away and we're seeing a lot of those their exchanging sites and trying to make sure that their contextual first to staff or the director there was claims a variance needs to be had for the rear yard is that i'm sorry, sir. >> no problem i can answer that first of all, i'll say the required amount of open space for a dwelling unit in the zoning district is one and 25 square feet given the configuration off the lot that can't be accommodated because the code adds another layer to be open space

which adds minimum with the dynamics so that element the front yard, however, the planning code allows a deck for our commissioner caen. >> so that applies to single-family homes not only south of market. >> it is per dwell so this deck meets the open space if if goes away can trigger and variance. >> what is interesting i lived in my prior house block house was 25 by was 8 hundred carved out on noah street and my house was 15 hundred square feet no way this house what about built it goes against the planning requirements and the zone is a big house on a tiny lot with a 4

foot sized deck i can sympathetic what is like to design a house on a small lot you've heard what we did on the last project you know we take dr judiciously i feel this project will be a good reason that is a exceptional or extraordinary a huge house on a small lot i think the house should be built here but heard someone say we can talk about the project i think this is acceptable but certainly a more acceptable project if any fellow commissioners agree some of the things when i looked at this slide i actually went back to walking around tokyo this reminds me of tokyo and all

of a sudden a giant building with this kind of goes holy i didn't cow that is slapping me in the face to face we need to do something about the roof deck i think i look at the pattern of last how they were cut in the mid 40s and crazy the last lot was cut and the peace of meat was discarded off the steak when people are expectations that will not be covered up in 2017 i think some of the reasons why i say this the far is twice the size of neighborhoods context

we're using the roof deck for open space and have the deck as open space and then the height and the other equipment and as a guiding promise when we are looking 317 we're settling on far ratio be contextual and that's not contextual by any stretch the imagination that is actually coming into play in my thoughts one of the speaker said that actually hit home with me maybe we don't need parking reduces the size of parking with the garage and how to build a massive building i want to start the discussion with i don't know i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say we only have 4 members that takes 4 of us to take dr when we consider somewhere else. >> commissioner moore.

>> a legal non-compliant lot what can we build on the lot specific to the neighborhood when we look at the lots only we have very, very concerned about context i will mind us of richmond in the marina discussion a few weeks ago and we have others over town interesting problems and what happens here is that given the location given the geography of the lot given the curvature of the lot that is dimension we have a situation with what in front of us it seriously over built i appreciate mr. 2 henry adams opinion on the open space but don't believe the revolver is the proper location to consider

t a deck brings me to the third floor roof deck i consider far too oversized i think it creates privacy problems with the actual building of 2783 diechld and the fourth floor deck will be eliminated and the stairs will disappear there will be more space on the lower side of the lot to have a smaller sized deck of some sort of i'm concerned the building overhanging diamond street is for me will step back into the part of the san francisco there are homes on polk street for building that take over the public right-of-way and not it is laughable i find that dethat's a great question from the experience of being in the public right-of-way and if i

support the neighbors many reasonable requests this is right sizings no fourth floor roof deck and over the right away as well, i'd like to see that the department have a discussion with i think it is dph we have a concern about the safety of two garage exits and entrances coming from one curve cut yet into opposing directions that's a potential for moving conflict aside if you're stepping into the stair and the public right-of-way going up i think the name of the right away is shawn not on the drawings a

number of issues i would like to see the project modifying around the neighborhood concerns that deal with glen park and he roof deck and the project right sized relative to the over hangs over the public right-of-way and i'd like to have the dph look at the safety of body worn cameras i have two garage entrances coming out of a common curve cut i don't feel comfortable if anyone comes from the top and from the bottom turning into the lower building i see a conflict that needs to be examined further the big issue for me, the overbuilding at the top of the lot and the elimination of the fourth floor roof deck and stair

commissioner melgar. >> thank you. i'm a little bit confused about the layout and wanted to ask a couple of questions so as i'm looking at the first floor has the garage and you have something called the den in the back but in out another plan called the bedroom the internal bedroom can you explain. >> i'm sorry if it is miss labeled a deputy off of the backyard and yeah can i address other. >> no, no if this is as a matter of fact a den so - first, let me say i think that it is a creative use of a small

space in terms of architecture i kind of like it with that said the far issue for me is pretty big we're not talking about a little bit over but i. >> please sit down thank you. >> you know having a den on the first floor and then you know two bedrooms and one more bedroom to me is a lot for you know this very small spaces i think that you know, i agree with commissioner moores comment we need to send this back that is extraordinary in the commission except for one this one is even you know more so i would say that we send it

back and work on some of the facility issues particularly the massing with this small lot and sustain you know in keeping with what we've done before. >> can i ask the commissioners to go over the changes one-on-one how we feel commissioner moore. >> before i summarize i did was well expressed by the dr requesters if their something we can use a reference that is not what guides us thinking the building is two large it typically only applies to office building if we believe the building is over size we're making the right overture for the building to be right sized

to have the fourth floor deck eliminated altogether with the stairs that meet up to it right into the space of everything else including the adjoining buildings i'd like to ask that the over hang the space over the public right-of-way be reexamined there is more common emphasis on the public right-of-way and the sweeping curve i don't think that anyone needs to have that supra peak that's in my opinion and i like to see the deck which is the requirement for open space which can only be realized on the balcony is size to be closer to one and 20 feet by code it take the whole frontage and the garage i want that particular balcony sized towards

the east of the property and pulled away from the area where the public right-of-way is were the building pulls back with the bulges from there and like to see the question answered about the public works speaking about the geometry of the curve cut given the two garages are somewhat at the odds how you get into them a technical question. >> let me get a sense of the commission i heard commissioner moore redesign the facade that pertains to the public right-of-way and entrugsz if we take dr have an item it be redesigned for commissioner melgar 0 one is okay. and two remove the roof deck i heard the fourth floor and cut back the.

>> eliminate the stair. >> eliminate the stair are we all okay hold on a second. >> if you go to solar panels you need a ladder. >> what the project sponsor mentioned install the lightwell around that area that exists we agree with that and number 4, remove the top floor yes? yes >> reduce the height by 3 feet no no okay. that will do it and setback the building two feet for the lighting for the public. >> no okay. so 5 and 6 is no

and anything around parking no, just have the commissioner melgar. >> i'm sorry, i the is it required for this neighborhood. >> they'll need a variance not to have it so i'm hearing keep it or. >> could you make that contingent you can't take the curve height and have two conflicting garage door entries doesn't make sense. >> we'll defer to the ultimate decision. >> yes. we'll consultant with our department of public works and drive the driveway which will be assessing multiple two residence we'll still meet the negatively and ingress. >> so is that a motion for

redesigning remove the top roof deck and taking the third floor which is the roof deck for the square footage shrink to plug the gap on the requirements for the yard or one and 25 square feet. >> that is what it sounds like the code minimum and 3 install lightwells this was a yes do that and remove the top floor we agreed on that 5 no and 6 no and then the parking will be to get a report from dph on the safety factor that determines whether this is a safety hazard and then the project be. >> second by commissioner koppel

and call the question when you have a minute if you want to read that back. >> i think i should approve the project with the following go moichgsz to redesign >> >> on