>> thursday, april 6, >> thursday, april 6, disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president hillis commissioner vice president richards commissioner fong commissioner koppel converge and commissioner moore we do expect commissioner johnson to arrive shortly commissioners, the first item on your agenda is item no. 1 - 2645 ocean avenue proposed for continuance to april 13, april 13,

april 13, units #2301 and 2303, proposed for continuance to april 13, authorization. item no. 3 - 524a, proposed for continuance to april 13, 2017, conditional use authorization. item no. 4 - 2855 filbert street, proposed for continuance to april 13, 2017, discretionary review. affordable housing fee and requirements, proposed for continuance to april 27, 2017, planning code amendment. april 27, 2017, planning code amendment. to april 27, 2017, planning code amendment. item no. 6 - scooter parking, proposed for continuance to may 4, 2017, planning code amendment.

item no. 7 - 401 3rd street, proposed for continuance to may 18, 2017, conditional use authorization. commissioners further under our only two items on the review calendar are proposed for continuance to to may 11th and kechlt as submitted that request for be withdrawn on november 3rd after hearing the commissions continued to march 19 and 9 to april 6th by a vote of 5 to zero. >> i have no on the items

proposed for continuance. >> any public comment on the items proposed for continuance go forward step up to the mike and please keep in mind at this time the only public comment that we can accept on the matter of continuance not on the process itself. >> i think so as co-owner of building immediately adjacent to the property on divisadero street i have quite a bit of information to deal with and i'm not going to be in town in may so if this has to be continued i respectfully ask you to do in mid to late june i've been through this process commissioner vice president richards is suggested i write a letter since i'll not be in town and invite the commissioners to see our property i wrote that

letter and end up at the back of a package and it is discouraging to find out that the one property that is so a.d. advertently was on the last page of public comment i understand they're done by dates their writing you suggested i invite commissioners to the property on march 24 of this year i did that i found everybody on the commissions list although not all of our are on the list i've sent e-mails i feel i have to be here to represent my property. >> thank you is there any additional public comment on the items being proposed for continuance. >> good afternoon, commissioners john on behalf of the divisadero

we're looking to get it continued to june 8th we request that thank you. >> thank you is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards. >> oh - good afternoon commissioners i'm carlo field represent for carpenters local 2217 abc i want to let you know that carpenters local 22 is not in support of this project we've tried to reach out they avoid us i want to let you guys know that. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess question for the person who spoke on the continuance for 550 divisadero

the project sponsor 1ug9d june 8th presidential speak into the mike. >> we'll be in town on june 8th but jet lagged i prefer to have a clear head when i come in front of the board. >> maybe anytime after the tenth. >> that's the 15 the next one and just more information you we were off last week, we didn't get a chance to look at it. >> good i'm glad to hear that. >> and i thank you for that suggestion i feel i have some voice. >> i move to continue all the items except for 550 divisadero we'll push that out to june 15th. >> and to accept the request for withdrawal of item 16.

>> yes. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed and withdraw item 16 commissioner fong commissioner johnson excuse me. commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis. >> zoning administrator, what say you? >> >> on item 7 b continued to for 650 divisadero. >> thank you, commissioners on that i take that back places us in are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a

future hearing. you have 3 items on the consent calendar commissioners item no. 5a - inclusionary affordable housing fee and requirements - planning code amendment. >> item no. 9 - 1342 irving street, conditional sue authorization. >> item no. 10 - 880 pennsylvania ave, conditional use authorization. >> i have i have no speaker cards. >> >> thank you jonas members of the public of the public want to comment. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> second. >> on that motion to all matters under the consent calendar commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that

motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> and places us in commission matters. for the draft minutes for march 16, 2017. draft minutes for march 23, 2017. >> is there any additional public comment on the draft minutes seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards. >> move to approve second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes marry the following excuse me - >> commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore and confirmation and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places us on item 12 item no. 12 - 644 broadway, information hearing. >> >> good afternoon

commissioner president hillis and i'm from the department staff the item before you is an follow item for the 0 boxcar theatre on 644 broadway the theatre on the basement level and shows on interactive like the speak easier and part of experience patrons are provided with a meeting point in entering the venue the subject building has a frontage along broadway but connects the place at the rear of the building croatian awhile some tickets have - bring the patrons through the rear alley that was the use of alley that raised the concerns from the residents last year there were 3 residential a total of 7 unit

with the frontage along restaurant place those retained felt it was not necessary and desirable to use the venue whether which there are more suitable alleys and the activity will negatively impacting the enjoyment of their property as part of approval the commission has additional continues regarding how the alley is used by the theatre the rear entrance can be used until 8:30 and not used as a patron exit of smoking area and inside of exit to insure this condition is adhered to and a written performance update that staff permitted in early february of this year that promoted today's hearing from the - in general the neighbors

feel the alley impacts the enjoyment of their probably is not necessary and desirable and they have commented on the cleanliness of the alley and the individuals you using this past 8:30 p.m. and smoking in the alley in response the project sponsor has acknowledged a security company was not adequately performing their duties so they fired the company and trained they're on additional personnel boxcar theatre has installed no smoking signs at the rare and endangered has security stations at the rear to prevent the patrons from entering the alley the project sponsor buildings the concerns why the neighbors feel the theatre not the only yours but subject to the cu and as a

restriction around the alley the theatre feels their blamed for problems they're not causing and over the last several months the eel it between broadway building and the other for hardware on the other end of the alley bloksz has indicated their willingness to work with the neighbors to resolve the issues and operate wellness the approval similarly the property owner has indicated their talk with the tenant to provide guidelines for all alley uncle and also entertaining the rights of tenants to the rights of alley and resident that 0 live along the alley are here for public comment as a reminder the the item informational only if the commission wants to rescind

the approval another hearing must be schedule in order for that that consider that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> is the project sponsor here you have the opportunity for a 5 minute presentation if you like. >> thank you my name is david i'm with others we're the operators of the boxcar theatre and the speech easy and thank you for the approval of the cua in july and happy that opened in september as planned we want to acknowledge the period for the residents as andrew said sandwiched between the two processes we see the alley was constant vehicle traffic and noise and dust and the project started early in the morning and late at night and completely understand and yes, ma'am his

with the frustration that the residents felt the way their quality of life was impacted in their home this was the period of review for how weer performing other than is conditions so when the time came for the residents to report on how their experience was going they had a negative report and they as you received they sent in many letters for the - they held boxcar theatre responsible for learning they were not tied to our operation for example - the gentleman affiliated with the theatre complained that wisp leaving our trash bins on the sidewalk for daas days at a time our trash bins are left opens broadway side not on the other side

so that was not our fault one of the residents sent in a video showing loitering and causing noise in the alley when the people in the video were not affiliated with our business but affirm makers with sf film where operations on the fourth floor and holding a tripod he know their film makers it is understandable but unfortunately not fair that the residents felt that was important to hold us accountable for every user of alley regardless we have acknowledged our own shortcomings as mr. perry said there were bumps in the road having problems con feigned with the conditions and

we went through two securities companies and the letter from the residents acknowledge that it our compliance is much, much better and will strength our measures to fully adhere to the regulations that apply to the alley the good news we've been in productive dialogue with the residents over the past several weeks exploring ways progress.

>> the residents are in support of this request and hear from them shortly on the give and take what we promised they're in support of that idea. >> mr. perry is informing this an informational presentation and perhaps that will result in

a future hearing on future actions by the commission i see my time is almost out i have some additional statistics about the community benefits that we provided i don't know that you want to grant me the time to review that or if you want to - that we're contributing to the community. >> submit that material we may have questions hold off on that open up for public comment and must point out jeff lee is one of the owners and can answer questions as well. >> thank you very much open up for public comment one speaker card. >> if there are others who want to speak please line up on the screen side of the room. >> hi afternoon everybody it

is tough for me standing here because i have no money no power i'm scared but i'm telling you the truth okay sorry. >> if this is - what previously know the 50 is working for the people 0 who have money have power or work for everybody back to the tune of 2015 afternoon two people come from 44 broadway in the area because a couple of our residents in the

area denied to give it to them and then one of the guys yelling to us we have power we have money, if you don't give it to me within a week we will remove the gate of course, they all asked us to benefits but we still denied because back to the 2003 - already in force so the previous owner golden gate sorry i'm scared i'm very scared so let me i hope you can allow me more time okay. >> 20033 and they had to be

you know the garbage in the front picked up in the front so we know they only came used to backdoor for emergency only so we say not to delay them to them. >> on the 2015 my appointment was in dpw dpw. >> set up a meeting with us because for the key

sorry i'm nervous because i'm scared i'm very scared. >> why not take thirty second to finish up. >> someone read a letter. >> absolutely yeah. >> or submit the letter. >> it is here okay. >> anyway made to point out that broadway has the right to assess the alley and if we give them the key the main gate can - if they don't get the key the gate will be removed at the time, we heard the sheetrock and the construction we have no choice but to give them the key for access otherwise the gate will go we never mentioned about

the alley converted to the public strait this is an unacceptable street way it is an alley why july 28th people say that is a public street we've not converted the alley to a public street we always try to be a good a neighbor and work together and working hard like everyone we respect each other we don't benefit by harming others my concern that 644 broadway are allowed to do business and people that have access to the alley can have business the same from the backdoor two other neighbors they both it have backdoors and david clark sorry if i say that name wrong relied this is not

our front door because skews yourself my how did is situated on a public street and crosswalk things happen if the resident don't believe in working together they're to direct what happened in the alley and seek a scapegoat boxcar theatre they don't get what we want withhold not hesitate to lobby for the gate thank you for reminding david yesterday, i walked through chinatown you were right more and more businesses having backdoor alley you're right.

>> july 28, 2016, the in the meantime they were operating like normal we were concerned because broadway was in construction we saw people going both the building we asked the person at the main gate and they were open for business and people dressed up in the 30s sprang people. >> your time is up. >> you can submit that later for the record. >> ma'am, your time is up. >> if the commissioners have questions they'll call you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is ray i live on 11 at the place in the alley i am representing the

remainder of the residents so although i speak fast i may need minutes to finish. >> you have 3 minutes speak faster. >> i'd like to begin by making many clear we're here to talk about boxcar theatre speak easy has two entrances on broadway that is part of experience and the third entrance is literally other our front door we prefer not to have traffic outside of our bedroom windows the as a matter of fact that would be - for an entertaining gift experience by adding more people to the entrance and it is truly unnecessary for the success success of their business we

need to workout for a solution and want to be good neighbors for the theatre for other businesses to use the alley has been productive and friendly during the construction and we feel we can, welcoming to businesses soltice they show mature respect for the neighbors and to maintain the health and safety of alley for the challenge of listing the restriction of the use on the alley after the last hearing we discussed the cleanliness and as david mentioned those are not upheld to the residents satisfaction we're encouraged by the boxcar theatre discussions we like to request another hearing in two or three months that we can have time to discuss

olsen lee we can agree to listing the restrictions as they stand today thank you. >> if there are any questions i've submitted e-mails and most of things that online our concerns have been addressed in the e-mails and make a quick note for 30 seconds although she was nervous she's one of the longest resident in the alley and respect her and the concerns voiced today again, we want the boxcar theatre to succeed they will improve the community but to all the residents satisfaction thank you. >> you thank you very much is there any additional public comment on this item. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> thank you for the update i appreciate the two positions that the community has represented to us we are taking

those informational discussions because the 6 months report indeed shows there was not even a position i don't see the date in in any way, shape, or form but think as people start to talk i believe there is a list at the beginning to create more common ground and i would suggest for us suggest we do this in three or four months indeed the ideas have been flooded are taken hold and people are agreeing we have two-lane uses that could be accomplished no more than and have that intersection with the residential and late night theatre there is nothing unusual i'll encourage you to talk with each and everyone and happy to sit here more for the next

month's to hear common ground. >> commissioner fong. >> this is formulation that have not been into the street alley that is a special place i love china live with the boxcar theatre but i didn't have a password to get in but i follow the good work on this we're premature to extend the hours but want to hear what the resident and businesses have to say is commissioner moore i'll be happy to hear this again. >> whatever timeframe is appropriate to the issue at hand mr. perry made a suggestion with the convenience of the community. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i support a 6 month continuance.

>> mr. perry does that sound appropriate to gather information. >> absolutely 6 months is remarkable to clarify a another informational presentation is that okay. >> do we want it ton calendar to have the will ability to make the changes to the cu if need be. >> that's a pocket either the applicant can file an application to amend like the extend hours or you can calendaring it yourself and make that more reflective to use that ability as well it is up to you and certainly to find a way 6 months to allow you to take action on the cu. >> i think we hear what you're kind of researching and finding and leave it up to you whether you want an informational presentation or an action item at the outcome of the next 6

months with the neighborhood commissioner vice president richards. >> no sorry. >> commissioner moore. >> i would be more trending to hear an update because by saying we're supporting think amendment to the cu that requires a slightly higher level of security any to be fair to the conflict so i'd like to hear first and based on that findings see if there is enough reason to indeed amend the cu for the boxcar theatre. >> sure i mean, you could go either way. >> it it takes time and money so see that happen in the positive way that raise the ante for everyone. >> if i may clarify i misspoke through the city attorney the issue at hand what has been entitled so being more

reflective that will be problematic unless in violation of the conditions but the applicant has indicated more hours beyond they can foil an application to have the hours beyond 8:30 and consider who to have that. >> we're trending towards an informational. >> or the that's all jonas. >> vrgz on item 13 commission comments and questions. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> two quick items i've spoken the last couple of weeks about we struggle with rent-controlled units and you know whether we want to demolish or missing e fraudulent evictions and under when that rains it powers i asked supervisor peskin and supervisor

kim to crack down on fraudulent evictions and found in the last two weeks one in 4 of them or fortune one in four have been fraudulent. >> now teeth in the process and he hopefully keep people in the city that are here and should enjoy the peaceful use of their home not fraudulently evicted on sundays chronicle in the inside section page e 5 jerry nick he lives an economist wrote an article about affordability and said san francisco hong kong and vancouver the answer was cleveland and analyzed the fact that cleveland got a lot of cheap housing and went through and analyzed the issue was the

the elephant in the room on all the discussions i want to prefer but not saying the housing supply is restricted but housing is expensive incorrectly puts it studies don't leave affordable housing every time it is caused by the same factor regulating be housing under supply some of the shooudz studies from thoughtful people and some should go back to economic 101 the lack of the crisis to supply but rather than the interaction between supply and demand so i think what i'm saying is when people get up and supply and demand that's why we have high prices i agree we have to meet the supply but like

cleveland we have a lot of demand this is the discussion really lends itself to both and not just one or the other. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i don't often make comments in commissioner comments and questions. >> but had a couple of articles sent to me as well t t hesitating resonated with the san francisco magazine talked about a startup what we view i believe they can grandfather and buy condos in the building and the model is corp housing putting the condo not physically but have 4 to 8 people usually younger residents san francisco living together and the continuation businesses like those and other developers taken

this on as a side revenue stream are popping sales prices in the housing market they're creating a demand the prices of market-rate are getting too high not sustainable and they're the theme is coming out in dust ways i want to highlight did odds and you 79 the towers to live there not all well those people are fine and other avenues the units are making their way off the market that are untended another article highlighting a survey about the way in san francisco in the next i believe that was the next two or three years and that percentage is high this is something should be of concern to all of us we don't have new blood and internal from the

young people and people of new age that stagnation that leads to assessment and to a do you read cycle not that anyone wants to see about the circumstances of new instances i want to highlight those those race analyzed with me in the information i read over the past weeks. >> commissioner moore. >> the housing supply for director ramos and should be answered if someone can i read a short note in the paper that pg&e is buying up large number of residents in the marina the reason being they were many, many years ago that was not at that time but potentially i'm

getting varying and varying eras a consequence the ability to resell the homes that says to me there is all of a sudden eight or ten homes being bought by a large corporation and the elimination of potential resources i like to understand better how the city feels about it and what needs to be done to prevent instances like that thank you. >> not heard that commissioners we'll try to find out information about that. >> i saw the zoning administrator sanchez is raising his eyebrows i'll ask you both to get back with us. > in the examiner it was reelevated. >> it would be interesting for

all of us. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> one follow-up comment commissioner johnson i couldn't agree in pittsburgh in the 70s and 80s holding on to the city the investment that everybody leaves like i did i wouldn't want to wish that on any city so anyways that's it. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters. director's announcements. >> thank you jonas i thought i might comment been the article in the article and to mention that the comments by the architect in question were unfortunate and inappropriate i believe the department not only has unlike the authors unlike the authorities the the president has the ability to review great buildings and

produce great buildings but the right we do it in a special city i think we're diligent in our review of what is built in the city i think there is many great example of architectural all over the place and in the architectural community i 7 to put that on record the staff does a great job in making that happen. >> thank you thanks item 15 the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon aaron starr manager, legislative affairs at the this week's historic preservation commission by supervisor president london breed sets a inclusionary housing for the chris, you heard this on june of last year and voted to recommend approval with modifications you recommend stations include a financial analysis on a development for

soft sites under the zoning change adding to the inclusionary are requirement they baseline or current rates two to use the same methodology as prop c passed in 2015 to determine the increase in inclusionary rates and 3 to lead the reference those recommends were not taken by the supervisors or included in the process since you heard the item last year the supervisors revised advertise to change the ami for opt out housing and for the nia so the onsite housing will be required to have 23 percent of all units as inclusionary 6 percent would be available to the remaining 55 ami and 8 percent for the 120 ami and 9 percent to 140 ami the offsite

in lui will be thirty percent at the hearing there were subject public comment in opposition to the proposed origins they felt the ami were too high and most in need of affordable housing supervisor peskin had several questions about how the ami was reached and the rest of the conversation whether or not those numbers rescued the population that was only to provide the ami for the haight and western edition that overlapped those district since the district ami numbers fwr fillmore and divisadero street help to facilitate a more productive conversation supervisor president london breed proposed to continue the item to the planning department staff for the data and voted to continue the item for one week and planning has generated that and sent to the committee for review that was included in the

report and finally the full board in the downtown special use district allows the hotels to pass it's first reading and as far no introductions in this. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> one question i missed we asked for a true openly what was allowed of the zoning district when it was up zoned for the cd controlled was that something that was way back when included an analysis. >> no an analysis not done. >> the board of appeals met one item maybe of interest to the commission for 49 market street the building that was convert to retail use the property owners became two and the tenants converted it back to

commercial use legally to commercial use in violation of section 317 the appeal last time was for the notice of violation we had an unlawful conservation and revocation going back to a permit in 2013 that the appellant was relying on to do this activity the board of appeals uphold the decision been in the courts for several years and this decision will head them back to court. >> good afternoon, commissioners shannon planning department staff i'm here to report the historic preservation commission hearing yesterday yesterday was the final hearing for the landmarked the

commission sent to positive recommendation the theatre it significant as one of the remaining theatres designed in the architectural style by master architect manifesting and i have the photo here. >> can i have the overhead, please? thank you. >> commissioner no questions move on to general comment not to exceed 15 minutes. >> you have questions sorry. >> go ahead. >> i had a question about the theatre historic designation there are two storefronts but one was the original gas store and, yes. >> does the designation cover those as well or just the theatre. >> it applies to the building

the historic has been altered. >> so i'm not sure you can see the storefront they have been altered so that's not a character defining feature the designation they've been altered. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> one other question staff please the exterior will be landmarked as well as the interior. >> yes. the lobby and the auditorium will be part of character defining features. >> great, thank you. >> thank you very much so move to general public comment jonas you called that item. >> i did. >> any general public comment. >> good afternoon commissioner president hillis and honorable

members of the board i'm representative of the mcd applicant 41 an january 5th and after a lengthy 3 hour hearing that was continued until september 21st at the time uncertainly among the commission what impacts proposition 64 has an permitted mcds and whether or not their grandfathered in and allowed to for adult recreation as opposed to to the medical use and whether this is a gentrification of the use approximately 2 weeks later i know there were issued clarified not only by the director presented a brief and at the time commissioner vice president richards also asked whether the 9 and a half months delay causes

a hardship and conferred with my clients yes, their paying rent on the vacate storefront i sent a letter in late march requesting the commission reconsider it's continuance to the 21st and push that hearing date up to a date that is less than 6 months from when the public hearings and public comment was closed so the commission could inclusive and take action i understand that would take a vote of the commission obviously that will not happen today but respectfully with w request that motivator be pushed up in part because subsequent mcd come before the commission and considered and acted upon and in order to avoid unequal treatment and unnecessary expense and

delay whatever your decision that continues in a timely manner i brought additional copies if i can present those to the secretary and thank you very much. >> mr. roberts. >> good afternoon peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. looks like we'll have a smooth sailing on the agenda good commissioner vice president richards is go like, yeah. >> i'm here today to talk about the state density bonus we want to give you folks an update on work at the state level since this also entertaining commission hearing in september for 12th street was before you i think was difficult to watch all the commissioners ringing their hands is that happening and what

can we do and deputy city attorney not saying nothing there is an opportunity working with the assembly member phil now a deal come out a few days and 8915 essentially a simple clean up bill for the state density bonus that has resolved what happens in san francisco as a result of being passed last year and now the decision three years ago to make that simile it it assures a local inclusionary let's prevented 15 percentage that's the inclusionary housing on a project no matter what the size whether a state density bonus or not or a partial but a leveling of inclusionary across the project you can negotiate for hire whether there is an up zoning and circumstances not preclude nothing in san francisco to get more out of

project but established when we set a baseline for inclusionary that applies to the development period we don't allow the state density bonus at the state level you if you remember that cut it from 18 a 13 percent inclusionary what happened so the bill will authors cities to apply the inclusionary projects and hadn't gone through committee but through the housing and development but through the government finances we can expect resistance wellness in sunset whether or not right or wrong they'll see that as having to give something back to the state level so we'll need to ideally work with the united cities front and hear the other endorses from the ripening and state work with their office to make sure an appropriate if

necessary at least applies to us and other cities after the palmer decision we xhapgd our inclusionary to be a fee and option to do unit we want to make sure that applies to the developer voluntarily goes beyond the sites that that technical amendment make sure that applies to all cities i know you can't talk about that but contact me offline. >> any is there any additional general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> one of the things i've been talking about and mentioned to commissioner president hillis i know 20 some odd deals in sacramento some of when directly impact san francisco and planning sb 35 and one 3915 and other ones on ask i will ask we

have some type of informational in the future where those bills stand actually are planning in the city i think that is appropriate and on the item before this mcd jonas what will it take if we are inclined to move that up will we have to calendar. >> that's right have the direct staff put that on with the continuance and reschedule it maybe the zoning administrator can chime in and plan additional or new notification given the time lapse and the exception. >> okay. >> given the date had been moved it requires the notification. >> right people are anticipating the continuance. >> so we can look at that issue and put it on calendar it is appropriate. >> director ramos. >> just on that issue the

state density bonus 25 or 27 bills we are we were looking at the calendar and hoping to calendar a review of those nuances for the meeting we do expect by the time some of those will go away hopefully, a shorter number there is a straggling number of bills in the house. >> hoping this one will still be there. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to your discretionary review 0 calendar as both items in the regular calendar have been removed commissioners item item no. 18 - 43 everson street, discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioner

president hillis and members of the commission claudia assistant director announcing for a discretionary review are building permit application to construct a third story and remodel the single dwelling on 43 everson street 19 and a half feet in depth and at the street level on the second floor and the roof will be reconstructed and raised 20 feet to align with the living room while the preliminary before you is under review two sealed permit were approved over-the-counter for work not requiring public notice with the excavation and foundation and a new swimming pool it is worst noting the department has reviewed those and determined this will not amount to

demolition the dr requester have 4 primary issued scale and massing the massing is learn the home and not in scale with the neighborhood and two mid block the depth will reduce the green space with the will neighboring homes and 3 the neighborhood continentcy the remodel of the front facade not fitting with the reduction of landscaping for the front setback worthy noting since the dr was filed it has been revised in your packet to retain the location of front wall and incorporated additional landscaping the fourth light and privacy that the depth and height of the review for the neighbors actually there was one last item not wind wind related impacts for the project the project has been reviewed by

the residential design team that supports it and not findings any exceptional or extraordinary that warranty modification to the compliant project to date the department has 24 letters in support of dr including one from the golden gate park and zoning and 60 in support of project the department finds that code compliant and consistent with the residential design guidelines and recommends as proposed that concludes my presentation. health code. >> thank you dr requester you have 5 minutes.

>> i'm the owner wanted property immediately west i've lived in a cul-de-sack for 11 years a quiet neighborhood some of the families are multi generational and some grew up as children the project strikes me as a leaguer and out of scale with the neighborhood and in seeking to understand the project better what was permitted i want to be very understandable side residential design guidelines they're there i discovered is there a way to see what is on the open projector. >> okay so in the residential design guidelines you see something drawn i mark that as not this but a fast take on the home this is the project in question if you look at the plan no articulate and continuation for

nothing other than adding volume and in the residential design guidelines there is a drawing that shows a setback and the preference in the design guidelines considerations not given just to code but also to the impact of the houses on the home of the neighboring homes to have in your packet i know sanborn map and drawn the green space it consistent and the closed project will push deeply into the rear yard and in fact, they're going fully to the limits they possible can at the at the third story height there is a consequent on my part as well as the neighbors that project goes forward will create and nuisance that has a negative impact to the people that lived there and two-story garage door

if you walked by a high school gymnasium is different than an open air basketball court this is a nuisance when the homes we live in we need to declare this is as a neighborhood announces and if not - in talking with the real estate agents this impact can be 25 percent where the homes are priced between 2 and $4 million the ask i have that the commission here the basketball court reporter can be relocated excavated -

>> good afternoon ryan patterson on behalf of the dr requester this is an interesting case and if you look at the plans you'll see what what the essentially happening here is a couple of very wealthy venture capita lifts bought a third house and emptying it out and turning it both a brother-in-law court reporter it has been demolished and being replaced with a neighborhood basketball court the baseball court reporter will be extending into the backyard and the noise had reverberate out into the entire neighborhood it is concerning for a number of reasons we want to address the second unit that is being or already been removed and was not disclosed in the

project sponsors application those are photos from the project sponsor or the dr staff packet showing the quote/unquote existing conditions this staircase here leads down to the second unit the property has a notice of special restrictions in the 90s when it was turned having an illegal second unit that second unit was proposed to be removed and the conditions of removal states removing the kitchen and convert to a half bath and the utilities capped that didn't happen and while i'm about out of time we have photographs and one i'll give to the commission laying auto here as of the time that the project sponsor

purchased the property in late 16. >> thank you your time is up. >> leave it there. >> so open up for public comment for those in support of dr. >> and opposed to the project. >> good afternoon my name is mark at the 43 everson street i grew up there my parents live there for love of the neighbors that the meeting was held in january and the two architects were there not forget coming an issue of vertical extension but the plans suggested otherwise, it turned out to be semantics we were told that's it that's fine but the question why is that

turning from a 6 bedroom home to a one bedroom home the home that is cumber 5 thousand over 5 thousand dollars square feet is now going to be under 7 thousand square feet and, of course, the basketball court a fuel court the drawings that were in the 311 notice showed a line and free throw lane and a 3.1 a 50 foot lot half of a basketball court we submitted questions to the planner the answers were less than for the coming and thought maybe something with going on here the site permit was filed in january and march an extensive permit was filed over-the-counter on april 1st a

permit was filed for shoring those two permits were in essence to grant the do all the work that the site permit will call for this was demolished and the foundation redone to all the foundations in my experience a site permit you're not getting oath permit but nicole that was not quite the way it went and a lot of it us felt rules for different people one of the - some of us thought how district attorney dbi approve this but nevertheless, that was approved and substantially learned do owner of the property has a house about 100 percent feet away on 43 everson street two doors from the project that house itself that's another story a lot of work done and permits and 4 or 5

thousand square feet now 6 and 7 thousand square feet that is a one bedroom home i know for some reason oh, again, we're only going by what we were give him by the 311 notice at the architect we're not coming out of the mountains but we're concerned who is going to live here will that will a short-term rental or a party house thank you. is there any additional public comment in support of dr opposed to the project? seeing none, we'll move to project sponsor >> yep sorry. >> roger. >> good evening. i'm sherry

40 odd plus years residents in san francisco the 43 everson street abuts one the gimmicks the significant natural resources designated by the rec and park department it is right on the top of hill so the hours be here is open space is here if you've been up there it is quite beautiful with surrounding views of almost the entire city except perhaps golden gate bridge and a gathering spot for visitors and on the 92 steps from 43 everson street to the bottom street is venus represents not only an exercise vehicle for people running up and down the streets but the sister and are you able

/* retail formula this property will negatively affect the publics experience on that public land and it is a shame this property will also negatively affect the character of the neighborhood that as traditionally been a middle-income working-class neighborhood as you heard from mark brendon conflicting reports about the exterior interior i know usual limited about the interior of a project the mere fact that was going from 6 to one bedroom and then they said that was three bedrooms because they couldn't get away with the 3 so the basketball opening on the bottom and the swimming pool sounds like like more of a

reservation center than a home i have no - no issue with that but it seems to me more common in a place like pacific heights or than in bernal heights and diamond heights area i'm wondering about that and all of the effects this will have on the neighborhood already in this big property owner didn't do it but trees were removed on that side of the streets it looks like a concrete blackstone block rather than on the other side thank you very - and the

only 7 properties in the place what will happen will be his privacy residence that's what is wrong you shouldn't allow i am had to put any extension on you shouldn't allow him to put the garage in the back but stick to the future because i have no problem with him spending his money no pacific heights i remember saying what will happen it pacific heights will become all the noah valley because of

the views that already has happened and again, you shouldn't allow it is driving prices up the charts and again, we have this again created man he's brilliant no question about that but by the time let him spend his money in the areas he should be spending it. >> thank you any other speakers in support of dr. >> seeing none, back to the project sponsor mr. rogers. >> good afternoon my name is andy roger the architect for the project i have our whole team and general contractor thank you, commissioner for hearing our perspective about the project i first want to apologize to the neighbors on 43 everson street we could have done a better job

keeping them in the loop about the sequence of construction but i want to point out that everything that did occur including the construction was done completely to the regulations and we did neighborhood outreach on top of that the construction was approved was either fully within the envelope or below that an over-the-counter permit and i appreciate the careful consideration and analysis from the planning department staff including the residential design team we want to remind everybody there was no special treatment given to this project or our client and we were up front from day one about that residential project in the intended use and we did indeed provide spates to for the recreation with a

basketball hoop it is not what was portrayed in the website. >> i find it unfortunate that person information about our client his work his finances his permanent life was used in making a case against him in this project from the dr requester this will facilitating, or be kooethsdz personal residents a quiet single person and works long hours and on occasion likes to play basketball with his friends not a painter and this is a 3 bedroom house we located the recreation space inside of the house instead of outside because it will be quieter for the neighbors the interior space has residential lighting and soundproofing in the walls to mitigate any sound that may go

out to the neighborhood can you go to the next - >> this is an image from the 3-d model we created to show what our project will look like in the context for the next door neighbors his project is in the for ground his living level deck a above our decks living level deck we have the contractor put up story poles to ascertain the impact on the properties but unfortunately, no access to better document what that will look like and then in the next image as you can see with relative to the downhill on 37 everson our proposed petition will come out past it, it is in context

still we did make numerous communicated concessions - unfortunately, we received zero response now and then e number one, we propose to make guardrails clear glass to allow the natural light and lessen the appearance and number two, brought the west grail of the level back from the west as you can see number 2, this was directly response to his concerns our client may look into his house and making the clear story windows attending to privacy concerns and a window opening in the west wall facing

his side we'll have a soundproofing consultant on board to deal with the issued and gave did perhaps an alternative sorry not showing up an alternative to the garage door proposed a four panel sliding doors and - lastly redid the front evaluation having it further from the street it no longer requires a variance so we recommend that the commission not take the discretionary review and approve the project as proposed thank you and we're here to answer any questions you might have. >> all right. thank you very much. >> sure. >> we'll take public comment in support of project opposed to the dr if there is any. >> seeing none, dr requester you have 2 minute rebuttal jonas. >> yeah. a two minute rebuttal.

>> thank you ryan patterson i want to highlight a couple of things briefing briefly the rendering are misleading the deck is at my clients bedroom window and the small commissions or koingsz but moving from that i want to touch on the second unit issue those are the architectural plans that were listed the property listing showing completely separate units this is the kitchen, and full bathroom here that the environmental application by the architect but the fine print says one kitchen

per unit and the notice of special restrictions on the property the adding a kitchen is counted as a living unit that was used a separate independent unit since then hallowed out in the third - one of the problems we have the plan as proposed is not necessary an alternative plan to the basketball. >> the original design was a third story house this was where the second unit was until recently the proposed project to build a second story at all gym was a basketball court here and a gym and then the bedroom or

the accessory dwelling to. >> mr. botching virtual our that time it up. >> project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> responding to this issue about the second unit just to be clear when we submitted our plans we showed in our existing floor plans exactly what we're doing exactly what was in the building when our client purchased it and our staff planner was aware of that she put it through the columbian's the planning department has placed and ascertained whether or not there is a second unit and determined in fact, not an legal unit. >> secondly, responding to mr. boskovichs plan we took that

seriously and we drew that up and discussed that at length with the structural engineer and the contractor it turns out it will be expensive to implement anywhere to the tune of $2 million and beyond that there is design compromises that makes it difficult to carry out including a living level that will end up 5 feet below i'm sorry a living level deck end up 5 feet below the deck there is circulation issues we have ideas on how to make adjustment so the building about not extend out as far and also just adjustments where they're a notch or massing taken away from the building to respond to the dr requester that is something we're willing to

explore thank you. >> great. thank you very much. >> close this portion and xhelz xhegz. >> this is really on interesting discussion we're talking about mostly when it comes to the area of residential expansion increasing the residents this is for me a change of use discussion than a residential expansion or residential discussion per say if we have a - had a 5 bedroom building in ann a neighborhood where homes are rather large then we'll reducing the number of bedrooms to achieve basically, the possibility for an additional use that being the

sports facility and i'm a little bit concerned about that partially because if we have been looking at residential gentrification and indeed at some point in the past that was think illegal second unit we've created a lot of legislation that will help us with legalizing the second unit what we're doing is the opposite we're retail use the building from it's larger family oriented 5 bedroom plus to something that is between one and three bedrooms but the 11 hundred and 20 square feet basketball court that is for me a slightly different discussion a than drss i'd like to focus on the

changing use not quantitative equivalent with other dr decisions i'll be interested to seeing mr. boskovich explain to us how the basketball court can be cited in a more harmonious way when you walk by schools you hear the bouncing of the ball and the noise of people having a great time including we have a glass door in the rear that will future have light as well as potential noise fact of the matter so mr. boskovich if you wouldn't mind. >> thank you, commissioners and since the discussions are out there some of them were confidential but the current design as the basketball court in this box a effectively two stories tall. >> speak into the micro. >> a bedroom at that level and

a gym here the concept is literally take this box and this level and flip it so that the bedroom is at the back of the house has natural light right now our bedroom windows are looking dot basketball court doesn't make sense so you if you do that the gym here and you take this floor and this floor and instead of having is elevated again, a reason for is engineering wise i'll explain it doesn't matter you can put this floor lower and lower the back of the structure so instead of here you have this floor lower and through that will be the roof right there. >> their concern is some of the walls with even built two responses this reminds me of a story a man builds basements and

comes to the commissioner and saying i need to - they built this and choose to blt build it and saying now you have to let us finish and now not following the plans the wall is not there if you look at the permitted set of drawings this is expensive to relocate the permit shows the wall at the face of the building it is clearly not facing the building they've extended this out into the front that maybe in the front the setback because the average buildings are measured from this point the argument that will be expensive they have to solve their fundamental problem have they built this not per plan the argument we built is to we can't change that but a basic concept

the structure rotated 90 degrees and keep this and this bedroom effectively the bedroom and drop down the deck a much better project and have to solve where the other unit goes thank you. >> thank you explaining that. >> i'll agree he's producing a basketball court with the impact on neighbors not the right thing to do if this is thought mission of this owner he assume if it needs to be there in a location that is indeed appropriated to how it effects all of the others i reject that the simulations the architect shows were not included in your packet that is a monitoring part of middle and makes that hard to understand them having seen them i believe

that the impact of a basketball court in a configuration as shown is somewhat difficult forced o for no elevation of the critical drawings in our packages that's the rear of the building so we couldn't properly understand describe of how it is supposed to work this is pretty much an all glass facade in the rear when you play basketball it is nice but an indication the gentleman will do with what he - it is somewhat not the right change in a residential neighborhood so i am interested what everyone else has to say but concerned about a change of use not appropriate for this neighborhood. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess a request for the lady what of the process to

determine there was no second unit i'm assuming this is when it was sold briefly shows. >> sure so the - it was reviewed several months ago and in short in order for space to quality as a unauthorized unit the removal requires cu two criteria the first the space needs to be eligible for assets and distinct from the main primary unit it meets that ceo but the second it evidence that was due to a separate living space just existing is not sufficient for us to determine self-an unauthorized unit we did an eviction history no evictions came up for this process o

property affidavit and so we have no other evidence shows that was used independently this may be part of the primary residents all those don't constitute it so as far as we're concerned this is a sfram their may have been illegal work but not studied a unauthorized unit. >> so the dr requester were to prove that someone lives there the year that was sold or answer from 2005 would that go change. >> that may depends on the evidence an affidavit swearing uptick we saw people is likely not sufficient evidence needs to be more concrete evidence you know a tenant living there a separate pg&e bill showing two people living in separate

places. >> i share commissioner moore's concern about the impact of this i wouldn't tell people how to live like gentrification living next to a rec center having people over and bouncing our ball and the echoes and the screaming it is probably actually better to have a basketball court on a tar or concrete than out of a big room i'm interested in not telling the property owner how to live but alternative ways mr. boskovich would you talk with the department of building inspection and say the plans were not followed is there a an action going on how do you pursue. >> i was only able to look at

that i had to pull the plans. >> will you contact dbi. >> i have an inspector yes. >> i'm sharing commissioner moore's concerns and really rapidly redone here. >> commissioner moore. >> the other thing that strikes me the purpose of house seems to be delineated towards recreation where the barbecue and the roll up door our concern been even further amplified and since the properties in width are not particularly large their learn normally but this still basically with larger homes and the impact of larger homes with a larger home is significant not - we have large properties but the properties

are so similar that the large homes suicidal around the open space and separate from the adjoining neighbors we have people sitting relatively close to each other in large homes. >> thanks. >> can i ask the 5ek9 mr. rogers to me the issues are not what is inside the home but the requirement that it is tough for us to dictate how things are used in the homes so my concern is more about the edition how it looks and integrated into the neighborhood two concerns are kind of the deck how far it goes back you mentioned some discussions about reducing that impact yes. >> in the rear yard.

>> and maybe talk about those and also the fact that you have a used deck can be potentially allowed your escalating that by adding whether the roll up doors or folding doors that kind of indoor and outdoor can be impactful talk about first, the proposed what you're contemplating as a proposed rear. >> yes. i also want to apologize the 3-d drawings were recently completed those were not president elect in time. >> i not a great elevation of the rear. >> ii have the 2 but not the 3-d sorry about that the timing of that but this the recreation is indeed part of the residence this building is not about just

the basketball court it is not regulation size that is smaller meant for two on two basketball at best we looked at the possibility of reducing the horizontal addition we came up with a possible reduction of 4 feet that allows us to keep our program that is significant and bringing it in by 4 feet makes it two feet closer in terms of two feet not out as far as the downhill neighbors and again your client is certainly willing to entertain not doing the garage door but were rather the 4 panel door it is residential in character and not open up as much. >> those panels will still open. >> at the they can the idea to open up to the south and the backyard not to have light shine

out or worsen the noise in the neighborhood we do think that will be quieter for the neighborhood to the extent of the basketball court being played not a daily thing probably not late into the night but advertised placed it will be coordinator inside rather than outdoors. >> i'd like to see the reduction or some understanding of what is in the back it wasn't clear no looking at the plans that was clear when you did did 3-d drawings some additional discusses about the reduction there seemed to be you know again you don't know i don't think the use is necessarily people will use their spaces but open and impactful to the neighbors. >> understood.

>> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner president hillis would you mind opening the drawings the second drawing in the set look at the right drawing you're seeing that the proposed position at that moment is in excess of 19.57 maybe 20 or 22 feet beyond the property line that's the large large amount and 4 feet in reduction that is just suggested i don't think will meet the reduction we're looking for on the deck you're looking back into the adjoining homes into their bedrooms and living room whatever i think the reduction will have to be pretty much the kind of average setback of the adjoining neighbors average between the massing but will

probably not meet the problematic want to bruno e bruing it to your attention - t is. >> if it is too low will it be going into the hill. >> take that space and put that over here. >> i'll point out i don't have have motion or direction but interestingly a flat concrete backyard and someone rolled out a k-mart basketball hoop none would care. >> it's. >> thoughtful move if you ask

me. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess a question for the dr requester and project sponsor is there a way you guys can work this out or make a decision here today? >> can you repeat question. >> looks like an alternative could be agreement with regards to the openness in the back is there any common ground you folks can go off and say we have a solution or want us to make a decision sounds like a builder inspector a stop work order it sounds like where are you at on this i don't think we really fourthed here. >> speak into the microphone

please. yes. i think that is possible we could work out a compromise. >> how much time. >> two weeks. >> i'll be out of the country in two weeks is where we so a lot of interest but a willingness to meet halfway. >> i move to continue to three weeks so they have time to work out this and given the fact that sounds like the inspector the complaint will be rent-controlled unit we're not losing my time. >> commissioner vice president richards three weeks places us on april the inclusionary adoption hearing that date will be a long hearing. >> the week after. >> is that a motion. >> second. >> i'm going to be taking my

grandson to c0 ash. >> the 21st. >> the 21st and the 20th. >> may 12th? >> may 11. >> may 11. >> the seconder okay with that. >> commissioner moore. >> did you have additional comments commissioner moore. >> okay if i have to come back i'll come back. >> i'm sorry mr. boskovich. >> you'll be still in europe. >> it is hard to accommodate everybody's schedule. >> i like the willingness to they'll work this out i see a

willingness may 18. >> i'm getting needs from both sides. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> very good, commissioners. on this motion to continue commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice-president richards and commissioner president hillis. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with search warrant commissioner johnson voting against. >> commissioners, that places you on item 19 item no. 19 - 2226 green street, discretionary review. >> please note that on march 22017 the commission continued from april 6th with direction by

a vote of 4 to zero commissioner fong, commissioner johnson and commissioner melgar you were absent and need to acknowledge you have reviewed the previous hearing and the materials today. >> yes. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you all for that commissioners as this is the second hearing of the same item the commission chair has provided 10 minutes for a combined presentation to the dr requesters and 10 minutes to the project sponsor and then one minute for public comment. >> and certainly don't need to take all 10 minutes your you're welcome to them we'll have a dr requester first. >> staff. >> go ahead sorry about that. >> i'll jump in here quickly. >> before you did discretionary review associated

with 2226 green street to alter a fourth floor by constructing thirty expansion a 3 feet deck and private roof deck at the upper unit the roof deck is assessed from an open stair along the fourth floor and have all glass railing on the north side of ground water and cow hollow the commission closed public comment and during the deliberations concerns about the overall size of the roof deck and the respect of one the dr requesters on 2226 green street at the corner of fillmore has been revised in response to reduce thesized the roof deck by 200 square feet from approximately seven hundred square feet to 5 hundred square feet the new deck is setback

approximately, six 6 feet from the front property line approximately, six 2 from the rear property line and 6 feet from the east and 5 from the west property line with the proposal the roof deck has a glass railing and access to an open fair 12 letters of support and no opposition the cow hollow association and pacific heights association have been in close communication and expressed a desire on the project the residential design team continues to support the project and finds that meets the standard of residential design guidelines the department recommends not take dr and approve as revised the project has been modified for privacy concerns that is two blocks to the east and not present exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that will justify further reduction to the code compliant project.

>> thank you. >> michael on behalf of the 2200 green street the project needs to be reduced substantially commissioner vice president richards i went back to the video and need that the deck should be cut in half and kind enough to share a project you cut the deck in half and mentioned that the commission give the high-level of scrutiny especially decks large in size and at the commission has a track record of cutting them down if not eliminating them commissioner president hillis you were yes, ma'am authentic about the impact that the noise

- 35 foot parcel away from the technical and recognized that when people are up there to use your words the impacts are fairly significant and want to see a smaller roof deck you had concerned about the size and scale of the proposed deck commissioner moore shared that sentiment and had perimeters and perhaps one of the other southernly perimeters said she's not prepared to let the roof deck above her and commissioner johnson you shared that sentiment gratefully and removed

a pullback and changes to use your words the wonderful list thank you on behalf of the center of staff and the guidance of the commission suggested that that might be possible to pull back her language the easterly perimeter to grid line and pulling back premiumly grid line b to commissioner moore that is a project to refresh your recollection they're planning on building a roof on the structure by about 6 feet and while this is entirely legal because it is not a structure with windows and to doors you're putting something on top of the building

with a non-conforming it and your i did a calculation and closer to 6 hundred square feet 5 hundred and 84 square feet is what they propose we tried to work we took our mandate very, very seriously can i have the overhead? that is the last proposal overhead - overhead there we go. >> this is the last offer was rejected this morning in green and have this in front of you green is what the project sponsors is proposing and red is what we proposed

what we're proposing it is 4 hundred and 40 square feet deck i know everybody was talking about halfing it we're willing to girlfriend more than half what they're proposing here is basically, what the project architect had said at the end of the hearing last time that was reject by the commission that was just shave off about two feet from the easterly portion we would like to bring it down to a midway between grid line three and four given the impacts on the east and also recognizing that the privacy and other interests are children's bedrooms that face the deck right here is the key areas of privacy like that pulled back as well

this provides a landing just like what was recognized way very small roof here this is 3 by 3 and it is very large deck space that is appropriate as it - i like to point out another document in our packet that shows you the other deck size in the immediate area that is only 200 and 8 square feet those folks wanted seven hundred on mo' magic that had 8 hundred square feet of deck and now to increase 6 hundred what we're proposing i know that is adequate compromise that addresses everyone's interests and the impacts on the study thank you very much i'm going to turn it over to the other dr requesters. >> thanks. >> my name is barbara lawrence. >> the last time we were

together as one group i want to take a moment to explain who i represent i represent myself my brother owns the property i was born there and my mom is a public teacher i'm a teacher larger than i'm pro bono but spent my life in livable city and a member of spur i worked there. >> i believe that public spaces should be used for unit and people not creating their entertainment areas and enjoy each other sorry i'm a san francisco landlord i rent you rent-controlled unit to long term tenant from age to seniors a good landlord and keep the properties up to code a good neighbor just to be clear i'm not opposed to any of the 8

hundred square feet of decks those decks will affect the tenants but no way obtaining to them the hot tub and dining room table are fine but opposed to the roof deck which all the decks are integrated into the will houses and the schools when they built their decks agreed not to build a roof deck they came to us as a neighborhood and that's the school our community area for one family john and megan are new to san francisco i hope they get a sense of the lovinglyness i met with them and megan and i are e-mailing but this is - entertainment roof decks are popular they increase the value

of a property but neighbors filed the department of human resources are in the neighborhood for a long run i get a residential design guideline a single building out of context with the surrounding what about disruptive to the neighborhood character and repeated the impacts the city as a whole thank you for your time. >> sorry jenny can i have the overhead, please? i understand you guys both the commission and planning committee have a hard job and preserving the characters of city i have to speak through the whole process for the last 10 months where the planning department trust and consistency has been experienced you can call me naive to bring this issue to you commissioners i'm

here a mother of 3 speaking from my heart i have to speak out and want you to help me to clarify those my time is limited i probably need you guys to help me answer questions my questions number one, how could a 311 notice for eco key measurement. >> number 2, how could the added roof height be approved and the measurements and number 3, how can a project be qualified as a small project and number 4, how can the project sponsor have no fear in receiving multiple violations and feel the project will be supported i know i have 15 seconds i have no details for any of the things and unfortunately i'm the last person to speak but ask me any questions i mean, i'll explain

and need our help to explain the fairness and transparent in our system thank you. >> thank you very much. >> so open this up to public comment in support of dr and opposed to the project if there is any seeing none, project sponsor you have up to 10 minutes. >> we won't need the entire 10 minutes. >> we got the page he can use the

overhead. >> we know everyone is focused on their own home but how our project fits and how it impacts the neighborhood that is the roof deck shows the top section the existing building and the bottom with the roof deck you know we will not be seen from the street it is setback 66 feet that's a long ways on the right we'll bet get into this in detail we pulled this in that was a point from commissioner moore and .2 feet on the south

side next slide, please we wanted to provide a visual so you can see the blue lines are the closest line and mr. donner quoted 35 feet we met but but this was a factor to make your consideration this distance looks like more than thirty feet and the other folks in the photograph are after one and 20 feet from the roof deck from a privacy stand point there was one additional dr on fillmore street next slide, please and as you can see their roofline is below our deck and can't be seen in the blue to show you where our deck like that will be we looked at hey how far is thirty feet the way their murray from the lower deck to the closest that's the screen

shot from google earth that is remarkably accurate representation if you go to hey how far is they're building which i'll remind you the deck that has a window looking at open a deck they can go out on over 60 feet from the roof deck you know 60 feet is a lot longer than thirty feet want to make sure you have that data and 3406d i want to have accurate representation they have a great deck on the lower level are lots of shush and barbecues and seating arrangement and an upper deck with slur and a nice light now the originates of our believe so you guys can understand their belief is ordered to the left ours is straight auto the arrow is where

the bay is. >> so we stepped back and look at the decks in the surrounding neighborhood how big are the other connects our beck deck is fitting into the context of the neighborhood we measured the decks and you know mr. donner quoted different size the figures we're you're going are supported by an architect the average deck is 6 hundred and 40 square feet you'll see 3 immediate decks to the left staircases with an installed guard and they're more visually disruptive we brought that down moving forward when you list the decks to the immediate left this is a clear i couldn't have view of what that looks like - when

you look at that deck in context to our deck the next page see the decks ours is worried and shorter within thirty feet of each other from a square footage stand point the red outlines we segment to bring it into context with the decks and the neighborhood moving on a lot of talk about the height issue on our building you know this really stems from complaint from dr participants and asked for a survey we used the vendor they asked us to use for the survey the survey the only piece of data that has valeted with the height of the building and did building department has reviewed this extensively and came to a conclusion no nov associated

with the roof lastly you know the challenge for us has been the goalpost moves forward if he try to close the gap with barbara direct dr she's focused on the visualized i've trite to protect those with clear guards and that was exactly what she asked us to do to resolve the issue of the deck so we've done that and more we've slung the deck so the deck that mr. donner put up i've not received this deck this is the compromise the blue represents we reduced our deck and the red his and his ask came with stipulations i want to make the commission aware of so what can we compromise we've pulled it in by 4.2 feet on south side and

611 on the east and moved all the built in fortune in waterlines it is clear glass guards protecting our neighbors views minimum heights this commission asked for no penthouse staircase we took our feedback on prior conditions seriously with that with no penthouse staircase what can we not compromise on in our packet a detailed letter from mr. donner detailing that what he wants us to do the deck represents the san francisco percent 0 reductions the only compromise from bearing for 75 percent reduction they asked us to reduce the building height that we can't agree to and multiple covenants they want to file with the property to sue us the number of people on the deck my family comes and

environmentalist we'll have to go up in shifts they know i'm a young person but i'm old for a curfew we don't want to be regarded as only ab able to use the deck before the and no music no plans for music i like music i won't play that loud but have the possibility of music on the deck lighting restriction were undetailed and no greenery we can go back to their decks no greenery on their decks that concludes one additional i know i want to talk about no other roof deck in the neighborhood over the 40 feet height? dr., approximately the same distance their deck from our building this building was over 41 feet they're putting in a hot tub and

they have used to be a sloped roof they changed it to a flat roof i can you guys are a hard job i appreciate our attention and i'm available to answer any questions not take dr and approve as is. >> thank you very much any public comment on this item? in support of project and opposed to the dr seeing none, dr requester you oh, no, no renewables here today >> project sponsor you should be a dr defender. >> i got measurement wrong i got 35 feet i didn't know you

can google it i'll play around with that that mitigates the concerns i have i think that the compromises you did do the good the only thing i'll say you've got it down to 475 or whatever a 20 feet reduction we put a restriction and not come back and go through the whole thing again. >> come up and speak to that. >> please to the mike. >> improve the deck. >> we'll be supportive of that. >> and fellow commissioners. >> do we have to take dr to approve the revised deck without roiksdz do we have to take dr to - i'm supportive.

>> i think that would be good to take dr and approve with the conditions that the deck be certified. >> you recognize. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> a quick question what was the second part commissioner vice president richards. >> at the can't come back and go through the entire deck again the commission shouldn't. >> well, you can take this typically when the dr is taken place the department will not allow over-the-counter expansionss that are substancely related to the issues some assurance should you come to the current it will be r0u89d upstairs and be brought back to the commission and ultimately as taking dr my subsequent expansions need a dr. >> i like the second approach.

>> yeah. >> okay. the same thing okay. >> an amendment to the motion. >> i'll second that commissioner moore. >> oh, are you done commissioner johnson. >> i'm sorry. i'm done. >> commissioner moore. >> to the dr requesters it is physically and institutionally impossible for the planning commission to have ruled how decks are used their governed by needs ordinances and other issues but not by us we can't put restriction on decks including planned and no plans the deck is built for a certain load that is determined by size and building size we can not restrict how many people can be up there that's not here you

have liltsdz of the maximum number of people can't have is 50 people up there there is based the structure more than the approval of when the deck moves to dbi one error i want to talk about when you brought up the line 4 you remember the discussion one thing you and i may have overlooked the one that was submitting we're fitting a small portion the deck as it moves south on the exact at the building edge i'd like for the deck not to read on the building edge do you get what i'm saying i want that pull the deck from the east side by another 2 feet in order to avoid that

everything else the deck holds remarkably welcome to the center of the roof away from the perimeter of the building one edge i'll say let's pull that in a little bit more not making the deck specifically smaller but helps us in terms of detailing and in terms of side elevation to have a better deck. >> do you see what i'm saying. >> yes. i understand what you're suggesting. >> do you support it. >> the department 0 supports the project as revised. >> i'll support it. >> then i'm asking removing the eastern two feet and easier for the owner to work on our roof and on that building wall at the deck coming directly into the wall so will be. >> - >> sorry. >> i want to clarify it's the

staircase and the landing that is 5 feet wide will be 3 feet. >> on the other side on this side see right here it falls away i want to pull that away go a little bit. >> the property lines is on it is 6 foot one off the property line. >> i don't want to see the railings felt roof deck to read on the facade you hold it back but don't see it on the side elevation of the building. >> if i can chime in those are the typography and focusing on this property i'm not convinced that is seen from the street i said you're not having is relined but in this instance it is located with the rest of the

little will not be visible from any locates. >> it is difficult details you know away what i'm talking about you'll have the vertical railings off the side and hard to assess that will be a better deck from the way it is seat on the roof by holding that back could be a foot and a half i don't care liaison it is off the building line. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay. i feel like i heard two different things the department is in port of the project but commissioner moore wants an additional reduction i'm not supportive of that where will we then have the size and placement of the deck.

>> the reduction. >> 6 foot one inch reduction from the property line. >> i misunderstood our amendment i thought where the stairs were. >> on the one side. >> from the vertical building edge. >> a foot and a half. >> how along with the piece of the deck for one foot and a half. >> i want the entire language but notch it back you can do it, too. >> i think that is getting excess. >> i'm okay with the project as is commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and approve the project as motivated by the project sponsor with any future expansion brought balk the commission on that motion commissioner fong

commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore no commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner moore voting against commissioners that places us in general public comment there are no speaker cards. >> any general public comment seeing none,

>> all right. good morning. welcome to