apart. the current state of the building is unsustainable and adding two new apartments will only make it worse. i love my neighborhood, and i love my city, and i really don't want to move anywhere else because of the neglect of the building owners. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. thank you all for your time today. my name is whitney lewis, and i'm a recess dent of 1440 clay street building. i've lived in the building since moving to san francisco ten years ago. let me start by saying how much i love my city, any neighbors, and even in its current state of disrepair, my building. it has such great historic boone boo boons and potentials, it breaks my heart. this group consistently shows

us that they do not care. this management company is the reason we need laws protecting renters. the information and examples given today paint a clear picture of centron's pattern of neglect and their abdive -- abdication of their responsibilities. heather's stove, it's who are identifying to me that they would neglect safety measures around gas lines. they do not care. several of us have had repeated leaks from overhead pipes and plumbing. when they finally did send their in-house handyman to help with the water bubble on my ceiling, they refused to address the under lying issue as, quote, water was no longer gushing from the ceiling. they do not care. i've alerted them to mold that

has been in my bathroom that has been there since i moved in. i've repeatedly asked them to replace the caulking to prevent water damage to the wall behind my tub, and they've ignored follow up. during inspection, nancy mar had said this is how bathrooms look, and that they painted over the mold, which is a ridiculous solution. for years, i was unable to use the stove without setting off the smoke detector. answer from centron was to tape a plastic bag over the bag when i want to use the stove. years later, i was finally able to convince them to replace the detector. krepron's behavior is unlikely

to change with the addition of new units. they have faith to ask us that the work on the new ubts will not be shoddy, but the repairs they have made are shoddy. construction plans show ex-tensive destruction of historical features. we taesh our building. please help us protect our home and deny this permit application. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is michelle exo, and my home for the past seven years has been 1440 clay street. i've always loved the feel of my apartment, so much so that we decided to keep my apartment

after we got married. the managers contempt for us as residents, the safety, health and well-being, in my time living here i've experienced firsthand pest related issues, including bed bugs, mice, and generations of pigeons breedtion, nesting and defecating on my patios all seven years. windows that don't lock and never have, including the one leading to my fire escape. my living room radiator blasted steam up my wall over six years ago, resulting -- and the resulting damage was never fixed, though it was reported and inspected at the time. i was accused of tuchgs the heat valve, because when i moved in, i was told not to others have had the same issue,

got fed up, and after waiting for repairs, they painted it themselves. embarrassingly, i got used to it, and it's still like this. i've had large water blisters appear in my bathroom ceiling multiple times over the years. each time i've bp asked to wait to see if they drain or go down, or burst. the maintenance opened up my ceiling and replaced a pipe. approximately two weeks later, a i noticed a leak. the recent visit by the housing department told me this work should absolutely have been carried out by a qualify plumber. this is not a petty list of maintenance items or desired improvement. these appear in a majority of other apartments in our building, especially the basement ground level, where excessive daily water run roof

from the steam boiler has ro rotted the underside of the building. this is in a storage unit. the grossest complaints have been taken care of only after repeated threats and threatening to go to the city. how can i trust my own management company when they say something is fixed or no fix is legal. it's clear beyond a doubt that the owners are not concerned with the safety or well-being of the tenants. given the track record it's safe to say the new construction would cause more legal and administrative issues for the city. thank you for listening and thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is nicholas price, and i've lived at 1440 clay since

2009. the openers of thwners of this should not be rewarded with two new units when they can't currently maintain the 15 currently in the building. when we all want is to live in a clean, safe well maintained building that we're all paying for. right now with no new units. we well come a seismic retrofit as long as it does not displace us. we want the lasting repairs our units so badly need, and ultimately, we want the building owners to show some respect, not contempt for the build and tenants themselves. >> thank you. >> jennifer fever with the san francisco tenant's union. so according to the planning department's fax sheet on adu dated june 11th, 2017, adu's cannot take space from an

existing residential unit except for in a single-family ho home. and if you read the rent ordinance, section 37.2 r, it defines a rent -- a residential unit as all residential dwelling units in approximate the city and county of san francisco together with all housing services, privileges, furnishings and facilities supplied in connection with the use of occupancy there of including garage and parking facilities, so garages, storage units, basic lockers, guard areas are all considered part of the individual tenant's rental unit, and therefore, a landlord needs a just cause to evict a tenant from these areas. i would ask, would you allow an owner to remove a bedroom to turn it into an adu, so this is the same context of remaining design housing services from these tenant's units, and i'm pretty sure you have a mandate

to preserve and not diminish rent controlled housing units as they're currently defined. these garages and storage spaces are all part of their current leases and rental units, so i ask you to take discretionary review and honestly, i feel the city attorney should get involved in this building. >> good evening, commissioners. i'd like to point out many problems with this project, and one of them is the elimination of the bike parking. i don't believe you can approve a project that removes bike parking. allow me to explain, please, and bear with me. parking is required in the rm-3 zoning district. removal of parking, even when it does not provide the size requirements of the code, requires a variance. replacement of vehicle parking however is permitted on a 1:1

basis with bike parking. this apartment building has no vehicle parking but does have bike parking in the storage unit. if you were to approve the adu's which remove existing bike parking, then what is to prevent them from coming back and replacing the bike parking with adu's? there will be no point in having a bike parking requirement in the first place. overhead, please. this is a page from one of the department's own brochures on adu's. it clearly states planning code requirements for bike parking must be met. if this is true of the adu's, then it would make absolutely no sense that you could remove existing bike parking for existing units in order to install adu's. there are just so many problems with the adu legislation, and no one is paying attention to

them. units -- rooms without windows are ridiculously being labelled as media rooms, a 300 square foot space that will be used illegally as bedroomed. units that remove adequate space for garbage, that recovery room laundry services in a city where laundromats are becoming ex-continuation. and while -- this fails to protect tenants as soon as a permit is issued. it is entirely possible in this case, this landlord may do this, given the ex-tensive new structural work that appear on the plans. i support the creation of housing that provides a livable and protective threshold for

new and existing residents, but the current legislation does not do that, and this project does not do that. this is why i urge you to take dr, deny the adu permits, and send a strong statement that this city does not stand for slum housing. i urge you to take this matter seriously, take dr and do not apply permits. >> thank you. any additional comments in support of the dr? request project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is serena calhoun. i'm going to speak to the items that are related to the project itself, and then let the property owner and manager speak to some of the complaints

that are related to maintenance and rent-lease issues because they're kind of outside my purview. as it relates to the project, the issues raised by the tenants are related, the majority, to the trash area, and as referenced earlier, we did start out in looking at providing a trash room in the lobby. okay. so i'm just going to do a little preliminary plan on the left here, you can see the basement plan, and i've highlighted in red the two trash chutes. you enter at the grade level. the lobby is on the level, and the trash cans are in these two units. you can see that the site slopes really dramatically, so from the street where you enter, there's a full story down where the units are, and so these trash units come down

in the basement, and here, you can see the trash chute, and this opening you see behind it is essentially the front door to one of the proposed new units. as an architect, when i started working on the project, it's really important to design good space, and seeing the trash chute right outside the door, it seemed to me that relocation of this to a more central area in this building that was adjacent to the lobby where tenants would be coming and going from made some sense. in looking at the building because of the height and the slope and trying to find a place where all the tenants could access, the lobby seemed the logical place. also because we could ventilate to the exterior from that space. obviously, when we got the dr, i take these things very seriously. the first thing we did was evaluate another opportunity for the trash area. so sorry, looking back, this is the same light well, and that window up there is goes to

become the glass door that's going to be accessed down the stairs to the two new units, just to give you a little context. this is on the other side of the building, on the other trash chute, and right now, another issue with that trash chute, this is how he kolg has dlsh dlsh ecology has to access it. as you can see, the two new upts going down stairs, the trash chute on the left side is directly in front of the unit door. the one on the right side, after speaking with the tenants, we decided not to do anything with. i did meet with the tenants on one occasion. i was in contact with them as soon as we received the 2k r to try to schedule a meeting. i did sit down with them, go over their concerns, and you know, some of the things were okay, they don't want to have

to come through the lobby or the common spaces of the building with their trash. they're worried about it causing a stink in the hallway, or people dropping things on the way. that made sense, so then, they said they'd prefer to come down the rear stairs of the unit to where the trash already would be, so i had already revised the drawing to access the trash off the lobby on the drawing that you already have, in an area that's covered and not so vezible, so i meet with recology, and scheduled a meeting to confirm that they will carrie carry it out from level. i haven't had a chance to speak with them, and i haven't heard any feedback on it, but we're definitely open to working with

the tenants related to the trash issue. if someone is storing a bike in the one unit that's utilizes, my undering is it's not part of the lease. we're happy to provide bike parking. it's just we can't conform to bullet nine because everything is on a slope, so there is no 5 foot path on a place you can park your bikes. we're happy to provide some racks in the light well, if that's amenable. we're not relocating laundry or tenants. somebody mentioned something about a media room and removal of the unit space. i don't know anything about that. we don't have a media room. thank you for your time >> all right. thank you. dr requester, you have a two minute rebuttal -- oh, sorry. public comment in support of the project.

you can speak during rebuttal, though. all right. dr requester. >> okay. thanks. i just listened to some of the comments from the project sponsor, and just wanted to, you know, respond to those. she is right, that there have been a lot of contentious conversations around the way trash is handled, not only currently in the building, but with the current proposal, and the sense that we have always gotten is the project sponsor and the building owner originally thought that it was perfectly acceptable to submit plans for putting a garbage room in our lobby. and that, to me, is absurd.

and, you know, talking about ways of mitigating that, we've been told, you know, hey, let's negotiate to a win-win solution, and what we have let them know is that we don't win with this at all. if this project takes place, we lose. we lose already over stretched building services. we potentially lose, you know, one of our tenants loses storage. we lose other, you know, common space, and un -- you know, contrary to what miss calhoun just stated, she -- you know, to quote her, she said it shouldn't -- there shouldn't be an impact to us as tenants or a risk of displacement from this project. that's not a good enough guarantee for us. given the state of the building, you know, we're very concerned that, you know, if they start to excavate

underneath it, it's going to just fall apart around our ears, and that's unacceptable for us to -- to consider that risk. finally, one other thipg, two days ago, we received the latest plans, which she showed for building a strained round stair. that would require, i believe, a permit, and there's no guarantee that that's even possible in that space, so i'm skeptical on that. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> okay. yeah. sure. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. i just want to talk about i accouple a -- a couple of things. the trash. the reason we want to centralize the trash is because this building was having problems sorting the trash, and san francisco is a zero waste

city. in 2009, recolog's audit showed that 90% of the trash put in the trash could be recycled, so we thought we could improve the trash situation, put it more in a central location where sorting to happen. in regards to the tenant claiming a storage space, our records show all of the storage space is not claimed by anybody. the tenant in number nine is claiming the storage space. this is her lease, and it clearly shows that no storage is included with her lease agreement. in addition, in 2014, there was some kind of burglary that occurred in the storage rooms, and all the -- all of our locks got cut. and part of that, we had

reached out to all the tenants to let them know this happened. and part of that communication said, if you do have a storage space, let me know. there were no responses, okay? so that confirmed that we did not have any tenants using the storage space. and in regards to the multitude of claims that there's -- that the building was not maintained, they're using a lot of dated material. this was before and after we cleaned the pigeon droppings. there was a photo of the back yard. this is a current picture of the back yard. >> that's two minutes, right? >> tr >> trt. thank you. commissioner richards? >> first, my understanding is adus are for a conditioned space, and it does not take

away anybody's rental housing so i would have to understand that thoroughly to approve this. secondly, mr. mar, i mean, the documentation on the deferred maintenance -- it's unbelievable to me. it's egregious. to me, adding two additional units to a building that you have already have health and safety issues could only compound things and actually create a higher level of health and safety issues, and if we ever got to the point where i vote to approve this, i'd require a full audit by the city building inspector that those two units don't add any additional load to your plumbing and electrical that would cause any further health and safety issues. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you. luckily for us, we actually have a former building inspector sitting to my left, so hopefully, she will shed

some light on some things, but i will give a couple thoughts here. unfortunately, our city attorney left for the evening, but i concur on generally on the direction of the adu statewide and local adu law. the point of it, when you're putting adu's in existing multifamily buildings is that you're using unused space, like that half a floor that maybe got walled off and it's nothing. that's what adu's are fore. they're not for taking the space that's for residents, and when you have multifamily dwelling units, typically, there are common areas that are provided, and sometimes they're in your lease, and sometimes they're not. sometimes they're provided as the living space in your building. if something's not in your lease, if you're allowed to use it, it becomes part of your lease, which brings me to my

next question. which is, in the documentation that we received on where these adu's are going, it says storage, storage, storage. what we see before multifamily units, it'll say open space or unused space or something. and then, the project upon sor himself gave very conflicting testimony on this. if you're the building manager, it's either-or. it's either your residents are allowed to use the storage space and put their belongings there or they're not. i think the way the project sponsor described it is well if they had it there, and then, they had it there, and maybe we informed them you should look at your belongings. that space was either provided for residents or it's not. that's a little concerning to me because it rises the question where are these adu's

actually going. i thought -- and i could be wrong -- that we had some state of good repair laws in terms of buildings having certain levels of -- not having certain levels of deferred maintenance. that one, i shall raise any eyebrow to myself. i thought there was some level of state of good repair laws or guidelines that we had. and we had some people from public comment supporting the dr requester, hand up, some of the deferred maintenance, because there's a lot of it in the packet filed with the building department, and it's a lot. which brings me to my last major point. whether or not those actual laws and policies exist, it's problematic here, and it's problematic for the planning commission because even if nothing else here -- even if no one went to the character of the building manager or any of that, i'm concerned that we never get enough documentation

to support. do we know that they'd be able to put these adu's in without finding rot in the foundation and then having to empty the whole building? i feel like we never get that level of information because we're not the building department, but yet, we're asked to make decisions as if we are clear on how the project will actually proceed, and so i know some of that is's tou's t because we've had any number of sponsors -- that's why i get to we should be looking at state of good repair, because sometimes, where there's smoke, there's fire, in terms of building damage, so i'm a little concerned that we don't have enough nothing else to know that the work would be able to proceed in the way that it's presented here today, so that makes me a little bit uncomfortable making a decision. and the final point in our packet, someone presented a

picture of a cockroach, but that wasn't a cockroach. i have a few -- some problems with this project, and again, i'm not sure adu's are, generally speaking, i rail against dr. i hate them, but this is one where, as i said, there's always an exception, a reason to have them, and i'm not sure that we have a -- a good set of information here to make a -- i don't know if i feel good about this decision, even though this is supposed to be ministerial. >> commissioner moore? >> i think we should be grateful that we have an adu which has a dr accompanying it to really force us to look at adu legislation with a completely different eye. this building slum units?

i would say it is. i believe it's apparent of neglect that w courageous for coming here. we could ask ourselves, would we want to live in a unit with any of the attributes, and the simple answer would be no. i believe that unless there is clarity about all of these conditions mediated and brought up to standard, that this building just for the simple fact that we need to take responsibility for our actions cannot go forward. the only thing we can do today is basically take dr and deny the project.

it can come back when everything is clear and everything is totally resolved. i do not believe that the architect's presentation on the garbage chutes is correct. in a nonelevator building with people who most likely want to age in place, i do not believe it is a reasonable proposition for having people on almost noncompliant stairs go down four stories to take an area doarea -- trash down in an area where there may be noise from adjoining buildings, because those buildings are all cheek to jowl, and more would be requiring further attention before i would even consider eliminating the garbage chutes and having people walk their trash down to the ground floor. i think those are all issues

that need to be looked at further. this whole issue is not about us sitting here and hearing about the negotiations between recology. it makes me laugh. the discussion about garbage cans becomes more important than the impact of the -- the impact of the adu's and the building, which is completely neglected. i'm sorry. it's late, but that just doesn't pass muster. i make a motion to take dr and deny the project. >> second. >> commissioner melgar. >> i agree with everything everybody said. the one thing i would add is after the '89 earthquake, we went through this whole process of, you know, figuring out how to retrofit soft story buildings and people met and talked about process and you know dpi and planning, and it

went on and on for years, architects. and then, you know, what -- towards the end of that, when we had figured all of that, then, supervisor weiner introduced the legislation to allow people to do adu's when they're doing seismic retrofit, and if i remember, it was to sweeten the deal financially a little bit so that folks could see a return for their investment, and it wouldn't be such a big outlay in cash and they could get something -- a little out of it. and we didn't think -- because i remember being in all those discussions in the building inspection commission. i didn't think that people would actually try to put in units to sort of try to get a financial gain or -- or mitigate, you know, their obligations, you know, to maintenance in rent controlled units, which is seems like what this is to me.

and so i think that, you know, it's going to require that we think about that, you know, more, and that we come up with a process with dpi when there's outstanding egregious, you know, violations. what do we do with a request like this? do we make sure that before it even gets to us, that there's a director's hearing that all the violations are cleared, that all of that stuff, ''cause i would argue that that's what we need to do in order ensure that folks are not using that to gain in their obligations as landlords. i think that we should not approve this project today, but i think that it's going to warrant, you know, us thinking about this process a little bit more. i'm sorry. i'm tired, but -- yeah. >> commissioner koppel. >> quick point in reference to the involved of dpi potentially

with these adu's. when we were drafting the legislation to make new buildings ev ready, the rba made a very strong argument and point that hey, we're going to have to be very careful when we look at the electrical capacity of these buildings because one little addition might kick up a new service which is going to entail work in the sidewalks, dpw might get involved. and so at some point, someone's going to have to somehow look at the actual service and electrical load of the buildings existing already to see if it's even going to be allowable solely on the, you know, electrical capacity and load of the service to the building to see if it's even possible outside of the planning and land use issues. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you. so it looks like we're moving towards a conclusion. i would just say that the points that commissioner koppel

and melgar made were, you know, i think we definitely need to look into those as a commission, and when i made my allusion to i thought we had some policies arpd it, this is o -- around it, this is one of the reasons that this is troubles. these are the kind of questions that we don't get any information on, and we hope that the schematics magically happen as they appear. i think with the seismic retrofit and soft story -- thank you commissioner melgar for reliving that story for us, and it's true, but i think there's an element of are reality that needs to be injected into that. up greated to this building may result in displacements or major repairs so we need to have at least that base knowledge about a building. nonwhere we go with that, but it seems like clearly, that's

what -- we're lacking that here. >> commissioner richards? sk >> two things. it's late. i think we should add to the secretary action list to talk about with dpi. i think the tenant's union needs to work with the supervisors. we also have a term called renoviction. now i'm seeing here we have eviction by adu potentially, so we need to get our minds wrapped around standards for when we actually have to approve these and really look at it from a health and safety standpoint from what everybody said on that commission, so i second that denial and hope we would do that. >> okay commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion that's been seconded to take dr and

disapprove this project. [ roll call. ] >> so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners that will place us on item 23 for case number 2016011929 drp at 579 belvedere street. this is a discretionary review. [ inaudible ] >> david lindsey, department staff. excuse me one moment. st pactets that you have in froin -- the packets that you have in front much you include the proposed plans, but i have more copies that i'm going to ask jonas to pass out:

thank you. the project consists of the demolition of a two story exterior rear staircase and the construction of a three story horizontal addition at the rear of the single-family house at 573 belvedere. the subject property is located on the west side of belvedere, midblock between beverly and bell valley. this area of coal valley -- [ inaudible ] -- the subject building and its two neighbors on either side are between eight and 18 feet shorter in depth than the other five structures on this block of the street. the dr requesters are steven and allison kubric who own and

resize at 569 belvedere. the kubrics concerns with the project are as follows, that the project will affect light, layer and habitablity of surrounding structures, pedestrian safety, and that the project's construction will affect the health and safety of nearby properties due to dust, lead, acm's, and other hazardous materials. following the submittal of the dr request, the residential advisory team reviewed it in light of the dr request, and recommended the project be revised such that a side set back be provided at the second and third floors of the addition to match the side set back at the rear of the dr requester's house. the residential design advisory team also recommended that the massing in the area of the third floor deck be reduced to minimize impacts to light for

the dr requester's property. the project sponsor subsequently revised the project recommended by the design viezory team, and these are reflected in your design revision packets. it should be noted that the concerns raised by the dr requester -- planning department recommends the commission not take dr and approve the project as revised. that concludes my presentation. >> dr requester. >> good evening. thank you for taking the time. we also thank the planning commission for allowing this venue to allow us to present our concerns, because there was seemingly no compromise with the onset of this expansion

unless directed by the city. as ho this remodel, according to our calculation, this expansion exceeds more than 50% of the existing square footage, resulting in a mcmansion and is a direct infringement on our light and ventilation, but also has a strong potential of becoming an airbnb versus taking care of ageing parents and raising a family. we would ask that the project be scaled back even further, as we have been unsuccessful in our own requests to make this request. thank you. >> any public comment in support of the dr requester? all right. thank you.

project sponsor? >> thank you. good eepg. jodi knight, reuben, junius and rose on behalf of the project sponsor. we're here today on a project to rhenvate a house that was under prior ownership that was in pretty poor shape and is in poor shape. there's really been an attempt made to create a property that's consistent with the block and with the neighborhood. you can see -- it's a little fuzzy, but you can see the subject property here. it's really one of the smallest buildings on the block, and the -- the project as proposed will make it consistent with existing development. again, this is the existing -- overhead, please -- existing midblock open space. you can see the site is one of the smallest homes on the

block. and in the proposed midblock open space, you can see the site is still consistent with surrounding development. really, what's been proposed is a fairly modest addition to create a family sized home in which the project sponsors can raise their children, have ageing parents that are able to live with them, and have space that works for the entire family. as you will hear in a moment from the project architect, there have been a number of changes that have been made to really ensure that there's no impact on surrounding neighbors. there's been extensive outreach conducted, and a number of neighbors really believe that this will improve the block, bring kind of a rundown house -- create a family sized home in place of a rundown

house, and some of neighbors are here to speak in support today, so i will let the architect give an overview of the project, and we're here for questions. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. to start with, i'll just walk you quickly through our plans and what we're proposing. on the ground floor -- there we go -- we're proposing to restore an original garage, add bike storage and a small bedroom with a bath and a sitting space for daniel's parents who plan on moving into the residence. on the second floor, which is over here, is the main living space, providing space for the whole family, with living room, a central stair, and a shared dining-kitchen space. i see my time ticking away, so

i'm just going to talk quickly, before this process, we made many modifications. originally our plan had a fourth floor, which we removed, we felt it was incompatible after talking to neighbors and looking at it. we have added the notch, as was explained, and we've also -- let's see...we've -- we've taken -- on the fifth -- on the third floor, we've taken off a wall that opens up the corner to the neighbor -- the dr requesters. as you can see in the 3-d renderings, we've used stepped massing and open rails

[ inaudible ] >> okay. thank you. >> you'll have a two minute rebuttal. is there any public testimony in support of the project? >> good evening -- good night. happy holidays on this late night. my name is michael santos. i live at 590 belvedere street. i've been living there for 20 years. i'm here to speak on behalf of myself, my husband, but mostly, i'm speaking for myself. before i say anything else, we live in a fantastic neighborhood. one of the best streets in the city. halloween central. you all probably know that. >> yes. >> and i hope what comes out of this, whichever way this goes, that we all still will be living happily together after this, because it is such a great neighborhood, and the two guys, i think they're doing

their part with the remodelling to keep the neighborhood in its own character. i did have some objections or we did have some objections initially. i believe it was in the beginning of 2016. there was an additional floor on top. i peshlly personally raised that, and they have been in very much communication with the neighborhood. they have been very open with their presentations. they had two open houses -- not one, but two. i know they've been reaching out to other neighbors. there's been open -- passage way, open path of communication back and forth between the neighbors -- and them, so i find that it's basically a matter of fairness. they've done everything by the book. they checks their boxes, crossed their t's, dotted their i's. everybody else has done what

they've done. they've done everything by the book, and it's only fair that we let them do what we've done ourselves -- what we've done ourselves in years past. so i can only strongly support it because i think it maintains the character of the neighborhood and actually, i think if you take a look at the house, what it looks like now, you'd agree. it needs a lot of work, and i'm very happy that they're upgrading it, and it can only help the character of the neighborhood and raise the property value. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? go ahead. >> hi. good evening. my name is dillon leong. i'm here to speak in support of this project. i stayed in daniel's property for almost a year in the bedroom on the ground floor, which is the one they're going to design for as parents, with a window facing to the back yard. i can confirm that the back of the house gets plenty of sun

and wind from the ocean. it's hard for me to understand how this addition could possibly block the light or wind to the neighbor's property. this addition would have to be in neighbor's back yard to block their light or wind, which is obviously not the case. i kindly ask the commission to approve this project as approved. thank you so much. >> thank you. any additional comments? seeing none, dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> can i have an overhead, please. these are the two properties in question, the sponsor's and ours -- >> sir, if you could speak into the microphone.

>> oh, sorry. these are the two properties in question, the sponsor's and ours, and as you can see, they're pretty much even in the back. but on our north side, we've got a long building that puts us already at a disadvantage. what they're proposing to do is extent out here to put us in a further disadvantage because we have a bedroom which is just off the side in a little niche, so they're already cutting back on the light and ventilation for that room. the rest of the house, right. we have a western exposure. we have light. we have ventilation, but this room is already in a little niche. and i just respectfully request that you would take a dr and review it in that light. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor?

>> thank you. we use the same photo that was just shown. through this process, it was determined that that was -- the window that was really in question, and after we -- we created -- we created a -- a solar study to determine the impact of the shading and determined that the addition would not increase any shadows into the this niche or onto their property on -- on the shortest day in june, the window in question would not receive any additional shade, and the longest shade day in december, the window would not also receive additional shade, given that the sunsets behind manassas heights, around 3:00. and there are a number of trees along the property line and in the rear of the kubrick's

property that actually shade that notch in the back of their house more than any of our addition would shade. and one of the things that i was about to say before is that the area that our addition occupies, it currently -- there's a stair and sort of pantry extension so that the visual impact of the addition would be very minor, and with the set back, that entire corner has been opened up to -- to limit the impact on the neighboring property. and -- and then, another point, it was pointed out to us that the neighbor actually keeps their shades drawn because of -- to protect a valuable book collection that was in an e-mail that they had sent. and so the need for light in

that room does not seem to be a -- a big concern. thank you. >> all right. thank you. we'll open it up to commissioners. commissioner moore? >> i'd like to ask mr. lindsey, the drawings that was in my submittal package consisted of six drawings which made it impossible for me to really understand the project. there's no difference between existing condition and proposed. there are clouds around the drawing that are basically indicating a change to architectural addition, however that does not mean if you cannot compare it to what is and what is proposed, or changes that have been i ever willmented in the drawing between existing and proposed. further that, the package itself is somewhat incomplete because the sponsor never submitted any photographs of his own on the building that's supposed to be altered or the

adjoining buildings which makes understanding the project even less. i am not personally able to get 14 drawings handed to me at 10:00 at night and judge fairly and squarely on a dr. i believe there are possible changes that can be made, which we always look at, but give ourselves time and thoughtfulness with the proper information provided to again, repeat what was in front of me, what was given to me. this is an incomplete submittal, and i ask for continuance until i will be given sufficient time to look at the proposed drawings in a manner that is typical with what this commission does. is this a second? >> what date? >> i second that. >> i mean, to me, this is pretty basic. i can figure out, and it's pretty clear what it is. it it's a simple rear extension. i know commissioner moore, you

can understand plans. >> i can understand plans quite well, but what's in front of me -- >> i think it's what mr. lindsey gave us today, it's fairly clear. >> i do not have time to sit here listen to the presentation and look at the building. there's concerns why this would not properly issue an adu or properly equipped inlaw this project. even looking at it for two seconds raises questions for me, and i want to give it the proper attention to find myself wrong with the impression that i just described, and i do not feel that at this time of the day that i can properly do that. >> i'm comfortable moving forward. i think this doesn't rise to anything extraordinary. it's a fairly simple rear yard

addition on three levels. >> commissioner moore, did you have a proposed date? >> the proposed date would be -- i assume we only have one meeting left before the holidays, so it could be the first meeting in the new year. >> we can certainly add it, just keep in mind your advance calendar is closed through february 1st, but we can certainly add it to january 11st. >> how about next year? >> that is not in my calendar. >> we cannot do that next week. >> the agenda's out. >> january 1 1g9. >> that >> -- january 11th. >> that's acceptable to me. >> very good commissioners. if there's nothing further, there's been a motion to continue this matter to january 11th.

[ roll call. ] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passed 4-2 with commissioners johnson and hillis voting against, and so we will adjourn in the -- >> so thank you. we'll adjourn this meeting in memory of mayor ed lee.

>> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement

depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific

neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann