demolition. >> determined it to not be a demolition? so you could go into d. b.i. and apply for a permit based on what is left of the building which i think is the bottom portion? >> if a sponsor went in to continue construction on their current project it would be an alt-raitionz and a conditional permit. >> what is left of the building? >> the wall of the garage -- and a portion of the garage base. the slab of the original garage and the stairs. >> if you went in with permits, your original permits showed that is what you're going to maintain of this building -- >> d.b.i. considers that an alteration addition permit. >> is that true? >> yeah, and we would have brought to you a c.u. for cancellation of demolition so that's where the two departments do not have -- >> d.b.i. leaves us to clean up

what -- i mean, the messes they create. they don't have a public process. you know, it doesn't go to their commission or anything and someone goes in with a permit like this -- well, they didn't, they went in a permit that wasn't a demo under our rules. >> correct. even if -- i mean, the reality is that -- the unfortunate reality is the inconsistency between what we consider a demolition and they consider a demolition. >> it goes to logic of what a demo is. >> i'm not arguing logic here. >> but if they go in -- i guess what is their incentive to make it a demo or not? if it's a demo under d.b.i.'s process, what are the project sponsors avoiding by not making it a demo under their process? what is the incentive to keep it under d.b.i.? >> because you can live within certain codes that are different than the current codes, right, you don't have to meet all of

the current code requirements if it's an alteration and addition. our advantage of having the original building date stay tied to the property... >> yeah, i mean... commissioner moore. >> i went to the site and if this is supposed to be a facade i think that i'm going to start going back to architecture school. it is basically plywood and a few -- what looks like an imitation of a tile sitting on a two-by-four or a four-by-six or whatever. it is not a facade and i believe as a commission that we need to stand strong to basically not having this being passed on to us because i don't think that we're able to judge on something for which we have different processes and different criteria. further to this, and i completely agree with

commissioner richard's analysis and calling this egregious is very kind. trust is absolutely zero. i got a letter yesterday afternoon around -- not quite sure -- it came from mr. kelvin who is representing the applicant and he sent a set of revised drawings which was supposed to illustrate the amendments of this project to two dwelling units. so i printed them out and it took me a while to dive into it only to realize that what is proposed here does not work at all. it's two units which are sketched out here and are still basically a single family home, the oversized single family homes with a couple rooms changed on the upper floor but generally when you look very carefully at the circulation systems of these two supposed units they don't really work because they're not separated

properly. there is a modification on the third level plan of how you get from a single entry into the building now into the side door and go down, but as you descend to the proposed second level which happens to be the garage level, you will be finding this out with the second unit owner in front of the bedroom door of the upper unit. so you may be coming in with your guest and the gentleman who lives in the first unit will come in pajamas out to go to his part of the house and it's absolutely hilarious when you look at these plans. this was all done on the run i think in order to have the department -- and i'm not taking the department on here, i'm taking on the integrity of the people in front of us applying for a c.u. saying these are two units. this is basically a pretense of a single family home with shoveling around a couple of words in terms what this place

is supposed to be, this place does not work and i'm not prepared to approve it and i think that we should require the request for d.b.i. to come clean and to look at what has happened here. i cannot approve this and i would disapprove it or ask for it to be rebuilt with the original 900 square feet. that's all i can do. i'm trying to hear what other commissioners have to say. i think that we're pretty much trending to having many questions about this project. commissioner richards? >> so i confer with the city attorney, i agree with her, not having the d.b.i. hearing on the -- how it comports to -- whether it's a legal demo or not and having that in writing and having someone here from d.b.i. is a big piece of information that i'm missing. so i move to continue this project indefinitely waiting for that information. i know that it needs to be

noticed again but i think we need -- it could to hell freezes over until we get that information, i don't know. so i would continue it indefinitely. >> i suggest putting a date on it so there's some pressure to put -- to get answers from d.b.i. on this? it would be good to know. >> what would you suggest? >> 60 days. >> okay, 60 days. fine. >> i would just like -- i mean, i think that it would be informative -- >> do we have the planning commission hearing. that would be a good idea. >> 60 days out is april 18th. >> okay. >> when is the joint hearing? >> well, it's 12 -- we are trying to schedule it for april 12th but we haven't heard back from the building inspector. >> can we hear this as a joint hearing? >> i don't think that is --

>> okay. okay. again, informational. >> so we can surge put it on the agenda -- >> as an example. >> i don't think that it needs to be called out by itself. >> okay, great. so april 19th? is that what i'm hearing? >> yes. is there a second? >> thank you. >> tell me what it is. >> you have to speak in the mike. there's no approval... well, it's on hold until further information. >> commissioners is there a motion that is seconded to continue this matter to april 19th. on that motion, commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore?

>> aye. >> commission hillis. >> so moved. the motion passes unanimously, 5-0. and commissioners, item 21 for case 2017, and 1327 chestnut street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> commissioners i wanted to introduce you to another new staff member who you have not met. hired as a current planner for the flex team and a key staffer on the a.d.u. and legalization permits as well as c.p. 3p. program am and she's worked across northern california and most recently joined us from the town of atherton where she was an assistant planner and a town stability coordinator. and a bachelor of science with a business minor from cornell and we welcome her. >> good evening, commissioners.

here from the planning department staff. the request before you tonight is for conditional use authorization to permit a beauty salon doing business as be radiant salon at the second story of 1327 chestnut street in and the r3 zoning district. proposal involves changing the use of this space from an office use last occupied in 2015 to a personal service use. establishing a personal service use of the second story of the building in this zoning district requires conditional use authorization under the planning code. this entitlement before you was processed under the community processing program. no exterior signage is proposed as the owners will rely on referral business and reviews to spread awareness about the proposed establishment. interior tenant improvements including the installation by walls to establish the stations

are associated. be rairadiant will lease in ordo provide personal services including but not limited to hairstyling and cutting, facials, nail service, hair removal and bridal party prep for the neighborhood. to provide up to 19 new employment opportunities in the neighborhood, and to facilitate entrepreneurship in the beauty field. no massage services will be provided at this salon. the applicants own an existing business beauty lashes, which has eyelash extensions next door on chestnut street. the staff has received 31 letters in support of the project and one email in opposition and four voicemails from an unidentified individual opposing the opening of this salon. the letters and emails were not included in the originally suck mitted packet but have been distributed to you and i have

extra copies for members of the public. the project sponsor has prepared a presentation to follow and will present the project and address all concerns raised. the department has found the project to be consistent with the general plan necessary, desirable and compatible with the neighborhood and recommends approval this completes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> okay, thank you. project sponsor? welcome.

thank you. all right, sir. you ready? you have five minutes. >> yes. okay. >> go ahead. >> yes, my name is john baskantelis, for the proposed be radiant beauty salons at 1327 chestnut. this will be at a location that has been unoccupied, vacant, for over 2 fa 2 1/2 years now whiche see as a missed opportunity for the neighborhood. we are proposing to invest in creating convenient beauty services, creating the opportunity for small businesses and the associated employment with that and to grow an existing neighborhood small business which is right next to the proposed location. while at the same time not

making any exterior changes, preserving the neighborhood character and also making significant investments in improving a.d.a. access. and right now we focus only on eyelash extensions in two rooms which has provided employment for three lash stylists and the proposed business, be radiant, will be in nine rooms, offering various services which will extend out to 19 new small business and employment opportunities. this will be through up to nine independent small businesses which will have independent ownership, branding services, pricing. and the services are varied hairstyling, barber, manicure,

waxing, and the convenience comes from having those in one place so that people in the neighborhood can get all of these done, you know, very conveniently together. so the only external changes that you would see are curtains in the windows there and a sign on the door, so no change to the character of the neighborhood. and while on the other hand we're proposing very beautiful internal changes, clean design, bright lighting, elegant furnishings and all of this is to attract high quality of stylists and high quality of services for the community. any potential issues would be around a.d.a. compliance which we agree with, greater access is definitely good for business.

the site currently does not have an a.d.a. compliant bathroom which we would be creating with all of the access as well as investing in signage, alarms and a.d.a. compliant hallways and door entrances for each of the beauty stations. another concern might be lack of foot traffic but high qualify beauty services generally are from referral business. yuki lashes has grown extensively by having satisfied customers, friends, neighbors, and co-workers and in some cases she takes care of a group of all of their friends together. and, of course, the mobile modern version of that is yelp and we have very satisfied customers, very positive reviews on yelp which has grown yuki lashes and prompted this expansion of the beauty service

business. so we currently operate a successful salon, so we know all of the legal requirements and have been able to operate a professional business as you can imagine that there's extensive licensing board requirements, regulations, that we comply with. and, of course, we're open to the public if anybody has any suggestions or comments for this -- to improve this location or this business, we're always open to that, not just here but at any time at the business si site. also there might be a concern that there's going to be more beauty services that are not needed in this neighborhood. we think just the opposite. more competition, we think that it leads to benefits for the consumers as well as for businesses which when there's competition they need to be more

creative in what they offer. they need to maintain a high level of service. and also to keep prices reasonable when you know that someone can always go to a competitor and so we think this is a benefit for the community. and we've reached out to -- >> that is your time, sir. >> oh, sorry, thank you very much. >> open to questions. let's open this up to public comment. any public comment on this? >> yes, my name is mare joe artezi and i live in the neighborhood and there's not that much foot traffic and there's not much commercial, it's mostly residential and there's already a hair salon a few doors up from this hair salon. and most hair salons are not in that area but down in the commercial area and they're all on street level and it's not like you have to climb stairs.

the only concern is about seniors or people with disability to get up to the second level. and most places you will see on street level. that's my concern is that, you know, there's already a salon in the neighborhood and i don't know if this is going to drive them out of the neighborhood. it's mostly residential and not too much commercial in that area. so that's my concern and my concern is about the handicap or, you know, people with disability to get to the second floor. that was my concern too. and, you know, this other hair salon has been in the neighborhood for over 30 years. so i hope that it doesn't drive them out because there's only a few doors from this salon. soi'm just concerneso i'm not st one salon is to be from the other salon. but like i said i'm just concerned because the other salon has been there for over 30 years. so, you know, i just hope that you take this into consideration about the residential and about, you know, the handicap situation

and stuff like that. thank you for your time. >> all right, thank you very much. any additional public comment? seeing nobod none we'll open ito commissioner comments. commissioner koppel? >> and how about we had an office turning into retail and different neighborhoods, obviously, but due to the long multiyear vacancy of the existing property, i don't see any other commissioners so i'll move to approve. >> second. >> there's nothing for the commissioners and there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions and on that motion, commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner richards? >> aye. judge, commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner tillis. the motion passes 5-0. and commissioners, and item 22a, b and c for case numbers 2017

2017-4555c2ua, and and 2017-455562drp. at 799 castro street and through to 3878-3880 21st street. and review while the acts admin iadministrator has comment. and you continued this matter to february 2,022nd, 2018 by a vote of 6-0. and accommodationer fall was absent, because this is the second time that you will hear this item will we provide the sponsor with three minutes in public testimony for one (please stand by)

. ease stand by) >> effect climinate the fourth roof deck, and reduce massing at all levels, relocating the garage to expand the rear door. separation between two buildings and the lot is increased from 8.5 feet to 20 feet, however the variance is still required. the subject is a nonconforming with respect to density as it's located within the rh-2 unit. the proposals to demolish the mixed use structure presently used as office at 799 castro street in order to construct a three story single-family over basement. the project will introduce three units under a separate building permit. the department received no public comments since publication of the indicate report. the department is in support of the project and its proposed

design. the department recommends not taking 2k r and approving the conditional use authorization for the following reasons: the project will provide a family sized unit with three bedrooms that is compatible with the neighborhood and squint with the rishl design guidelines. the project will result in a gain of one net unit, no residential tenants will be displac displaced as a result of this project. and given the fate of the project, there will be no capacity on the local street system. i'm available for questions. >> all right. thank you. dr requester? >> good evening, commissioners. ryan paterson on behalf of the dr requesters. first off, i want to say that we appreciate that the fourth floor has been removed, and a

more traditional facade has been proposed, but the commission gave clear instructions last time, which this iteration does not follow. it's still tinkering at the edges of a project that's massive out of scale with the neighborhood, with the existing lot and structures and with the code. they can rhenvate the existing property within the existing envelope. we'd at least ask that you eliminate the required set back variance. i also want to alert you that a letter of determination has been issued for the property, and we've appealed it. the lod has some serious problems that affect the project's approvablity. for example it says the entire building has to be demolished, but it says the envelope can be expanded because the original building will still be in existence. these issues need to be resolved by the board of appeals in april before you

consider this project. we also do object to the noticing error. >> the density of the proposed project is out of character with other properties in the vicinity and it greatly exceeded the average f-a-r. it's 2.01 versus.79. there's 799. the project rear yard's variance still reduces by two thirds direct sun light from the master suite. this is both the before and after shows. there's been no change in this, and we'd request removal of that rear yard variance. thirdly, the proposed flat roof building is not consistent with community character gable roof queen anne vic tory an -- victorian homes. >> hello, commissioners. my name is larry mansbach.

i'm a state licensed and designated real estate praiser. tonight i'm appearing as a real estate valuation expert. i'm here to address the negative impact on value of the adjoining property at 789 castro street, to be caused by these variances, and the problems with the variances that result in the loss of light, air, and views from 789 castro street. i've prepared a professional study. it's included in your packet, and as the conclusion of my work is this: there'll be a loss in market value of seven -- on 789 castro street caused by the variance in the amount of - $325,000 have you. >> andrew zax. i own the property on castro street. >> are you part of the d.r.

team? >> i am. >> okay. then your time is up. >> all right. we'll take public comment now in support of the d.r. >> my name is phil ledbetter. i'm the father of denise ledbetter. i'm a widower, and i live with them. as a young soldier, age 17, waiting to go to the aleutina islands, i had the opportunity to explore san francisco, and i ma marvelled that i could go down market street, it reminded me of where i was born. it's a shame to see this building go down, rather than keeping in touch with the buildings already existing on liberty and castro streets.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is scott simons. i'm appearing on behalf of a neighbor who couldn't be here today, kathrin tailor. i live at 783 castro. more in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood. i would further request that the new building also have a peaked roof to better blend with the neighboring homes, and the need for variances be removed. and she also provided some pictures of the existing structure, and the different residence that's there right now. that's all. >> you have 30 seconds. i didn't know if he was finished. >> i think he's finished. >> my name is shoshanna, and i'm appearing on behalf of two neighbors who couldn't be here. first, we very much appreciate the comments and

recommendations the planning commission made at the conclusion of the last hearing last december. we felt that you understood our feelings about our neighborhood, and our concerns for the ways and over sight new home at 7 # # castro could impact it, and most of you were familiar with the significant corner of castro and 21st streets. because of your that you sayful and forceful recommendations, we have seen the first significant changes proposed for 799 castro street by the project sponsor. however we would like to see the flat roof changed to a pitched roof as well as the traditional facade. like most of our neighbors, there remove changes that need to be addressed for this over built lot. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is pat bruskovitch. i live the next block over on diamond street. we're taking a unit -- i've seen the unit, and the rent control original grocery store

and shoving it into the basement of a building, so we're going to lose a rent control unit, which is a pretty nice unit, pretty easy to put back. kitchen's there, the bathroom's there, and we're going to put a bedroom buried here, with no windows? 'cause the window that's there don't qualify. they're on the property line, and this window here doesn't qualify because it's not opening up into a big enough space. they're going to end up with kind of a basement unit that's -- you're taking a rent control unit, and you're going to put a unit into basement, call it equal? i think more needs to have this question needs to be responded to before you guys move forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. day lung nao. i am a neighbor to a neighbor to the adjacent property. first i want to thank the

commissioners for the guidance in directing the sponsor to revise their proposal. i would like to remind the commissioners that not every one of the recommendations has been adhered to. various variances are still required, and i leave it to you to, in your best judgment, decide whether or not this is appropriate. the neighborhood is speaking as it is right now that it is not happy with the proposal as it is. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> michael murphy, 748 castro, directly across from the building proposed. thank you for being here this evening. i have been born and raised in san francisco. i live at that house, and that is my view, and if i'm going to have to look at a modern building after looking 35 years at victorians across my view,

i'm going to be very upset. i have right now every construction worker -- i walk dogs in the city, and every construction site that i've seen in this city is a total mess. and all's they do is tend to destroy our city and not help our city. thank you for listening. >> thank you. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? project sponsor? >> hello again. i'm the project sponsor, and because of lack of time, i just want to introduce my architect that's incorporated all the changes. we've tried to work with the neighbors as well as incorporating the proposed changes. >> i'm the project architect. we -- when we left our last hearing, we took your -- we took your directions to heart, and my -- and my client asked

us to go back and redesign the project. we took the roof deck off, we took the top floor off, and we took the garage mass off, so we lowered the building, and we made the back yard 20 feet instead of ten. furthermore, we took the front 4.5 feet off, which remains the necessity of having a variance in the front. then, we called for a meeting of the neighbors. my client went, met the next-door neighbors, and i called for a neighborhood meeting, which we then had. the neighbors clearly indicated their preference for a traditional building, which we -- which my client then asked me very nicely to provide them. the building's no longer my child, it's a step child. it is no longer what we started out designing, but it is still a very nice looking building, and it fits in greatly with the -- with the neighborhood.

can this overhead work? i'm not quite sure -- there we go. so the -- the building is -- the building is, in fact, a similar style, and it's -- and it works with -- let's see...there we go. and it's worked in mass and style with the buildings -- with the buildings next door. we moved the garage to the front, so -- so it's -- it lines up with the -- with the other buildings on castro street. the -- we've -- we went to the planning department, the pla planning department was in concurrence. they made us go back again and simplify it, which we did. we took it back to the neighbors again. we met with some voices of a l approval, but then, some of our neighbors came back again and asked us for a peaked roof, but there's been no peaked roof design that the planning

department or the -- or the neighbors have allowed us to go forthwith. so -- so we respectfully ask for -- for this compromise solution that -- that we've spent so much time working onto be acceptable to you. >> all right. thank you. any public comment in support of the project? okay. so we'll close this portion of the hearing. >> there is no rebutt al. >> there are some public comments on the variance, different from the d.r. >> i thought we called everything at one. so did those people already comment. >> this is the second time this is being here. >> separate comments by the same people? >> you have to ask those people. >> no, i mean, you spoke already. [ inaudible ] >> oh, you're part of the project team. [ inaudible ] >> no, we're done. we heard everything. so commissioners?

anyone? >> not all at once. >> hold on. >> commissioner richards? >> so when we were here last time, we asked -- when we were here last time, we asked that the floor be removed. you did it. we asked that you don't include parking at the expense of a rear yard. right now, the rear yard's probably standard and goes like this between the two buildings. we also asked that -- get rid of the roof deck, and you did relocate what -- i've been in that building. what maybe used to be a unit a long time ago, as best you could into the new building, so i think you've done everything

we've asked. just one comment on the architecture. there are times when i walk down the street, and i see a building that kind of tries to look edwardian or victorian, it's not in its time in recent construction, and they never look right. so what were the other styles that you had before this, and without the brackets up on top, and the -- you know, we -- we approved a building one block away, on 21st and noe, and it looked like a great building. it doesn't clash with the neighbors, but it doesn't actually also stand out, so -- and it was modern. so i guess where people want to look at something that blends more traditional, but i don't think over time this one's going to look good. >> so again, i have something for the overhead, and i -- so we have the -- we have the --

we have the modern facade which has also gone through the rdt, but commissioner richards, to be -- to be my client's -- to be my client's representative and to also listen to the neighbors, everyone wants the traditional theme, so as much as i -- as much as i agree -- as much as i tend to agree with that, i bow to the will of the masses. we did everything we could to make this building work well in its traditional form. >> okay. i'll wait to hear what other commissioners think. thank you very much. >> commissioner moore? >> the project did everything we asked for, and i do believe that the traditional, end quote, design is probably not even the right word, is easier

to manage in terms of detail and materialality, that the modern design will raise a number of issues that are much beyond the control of what we are able to approve, so i think in the long run, the -- the way we always do a design has more promise for me, and it blends more for me, which is a big issue on that corner. i looked at the plans, and there is a second overhang on the window there, so i think that qualifies for a bedroom window. the other one doesn't. would you mind commenting on that? if not, we need to ask for it, because it will not go for dbi. can you project the plans so that the commission can follow along, please. that's a-2 on the second set.

>> it's in here somewhere. i'm sorry. i'll try to be faster. there's a window that looks into the back yard, and that window has to be sealed -- oh, that's even better. thank you very much. let's look at that. that window right there has to be fire rated. >> right, no, i understand that. >> it brings in natural light, but it's not a window that the cans. this window here, you can't have an alcove accessory to the room. the concept is you can't build a little tunnel and put a window at the end and say that that window counts. so when they put the window there, that window doesn't count for the room because it doesn't meet the 50% rule of

the width of the room, so that window is not going to solve their issues with light, ventilation, egress. >> thank you for explaining that. i think we can point that out to the architect to resolve that issue. i see too many edu's, unfortunately, who do everything, which seems to me impossible to approve, but they get built any way. so we can point that out that this ultimately needs to be a code compliant bedroom. i believe that the size and everything else is indeed workable, and i do not have any problems with it, and i am prepared to not take d.r. and approve the project except with the -- >> well, there's a cu, too, before us. >> i'm sorry? >> well, there's both a d.r. and a cu? >> well, what were you proposing on the design? >> i'm going the traditional.

>> don't want to use the word. >> i mean, my trouble is the design. i think you've met kind of what we asked for, but i can't -- i couldn't support that. i mean, it looks like we just tacked on some bric-a-brac and tried to make it work. i drive down that street, and i don't think i could support that kind of design. we need it to be a little bit more contextual and maybe a peaked roof. did you look at a peaked roof example? i think massing wise, you did what we asked. you drastically reduced the massing, but i think we need another go at the architecture. >> i'm prepared to let the department basically constrain it a little bit more, but i believe we approved this project thoroughly, and there's not much we can give as

guidance. i'll trust the department in addition to seeing some -- an approval of bedroom for the edu, and i'm prepared to let it go. >> i'm not. i just don't think i can do that to the neighborhood or to my architectural sensiblities, which aren't high, but it doesn't meet them. i get what you're trying to do, like, compromise and figure it out, but it looks like the bigger compromise anybody's ever made. i think you can design a modern building that somebody would go by 20 years from now and say it wasn't kind of built in 1800 that -- but you're not -- but nobody's fooled by that, either. i think it's an odd -- you know, we're just tacking on kind of victorian elements onto a building that it does not work on. >> well, in truth, i feel that way about every -- every building that i see that has a -- to commissioner richards'

point that has a pucfaux victorian. >> no, i think you can build kind of a contextual building, that doesn't go and steal their bric-a-brac -- i don't like to continue stuff more, but i'm not comfortable approving either design today. >> well, i understand commissioner hillis, and back to the overhead, that we -- i beg your pardon? that we, over the course of roughly eight years, we have been back to the rdt i can't tell you how many times with different solutions, different masses, and the only way we could come up with a solution that worked was sitting with a

roll of flimsy in a room with a couple of markers and coming up with a design. >> but it looks that way. it looks like we all sat around with a bunch of markers and designed a building. i'm just -- i'm not comfortable with the design. we'll leave it at that, and i'll see what the other commissioners have to say. >> i agree with commissioner moore. i'll leave it to the staff. i have to say that original modern design that came before us last time, i hated. and not because of the building, but because of the context. it just looks completely out of place. and you know, i agree that a lot of stuff that goes up that's victorian-like that's just bad, and i think if you had a little more time, you could come up with something

better. you know, a gabled roof, but i would not make a motion to go back to that original design. i thought it was not in the context of it. that was a disservice to the neighborhood. i live in a very traditional neighborhood with all kinds of architectural styles, but traditional. once in a while there's a modern design that's not high design, but it just completely throws off the block, but you know i would not want to do that to this neighborhood. i would support commissioner moore's. >> i would also support commissioner moore's potential roof, and i would support the non-peaked roof because it's not on a corner lot. >> i would support it if you made the top stronger of the building, and you got rid of the brackets.

you can make it look contextual without making it look imitated. those brackets kind of look like they hold up the top. get rid of those, and you've got a building that's more contextual and simplified. >> would you entertain a condition that you work with staff? >> i said that, yeah. >> absolutely. >> i just think we're too far -- we shouldn't add to the bad design by kind of -- and i get it. it's not your design, but somebody's got to live there and drive by it. like, we've got to kind of rethink the architecture and not tweak it some more. commissioner moore? >> i think we should not kick the can further down the road. i believe that time spent by the arc tech in thoughtful detailing and materiality will help it be much more successful in its modern expression which

i find kind of forced and somewhat unnatural for this area. so the motion stands to take d.r. on the castro side building and work with the department particularly putting emphasis on materiality, and then approve the edu to the extent that it's part of the commission's responsibility. >> second. >> would you -- you also approved the edu. >> yes. so in that motion together, we will be approving the conditional use authorization with conditions, yes. very good, then, commissioners. there's -- >> what was the design condition on that, on the cu, in the new building? so the cu -- there's the cu, which includes the new building. what was your --

>> the cu's for the demolition and construction of the new building. >> but what was the design? the design -- >> continue working with the department. >> it's a traditional design. i hate the word, with an emphasis on looking at detailing and materiality to basically take it more into a contemporary expression of how materials are used. it's really understanding material, how windows are designed, and how the siding it supplied. that's basically what i'm asking for. >> so there's a motion that has been seconded, commissioners, to take d.r. and continue working with the department on the design of the building, including the adu, and to approve the conditional use authorization with conditions. >> just to be clear, work with the department designers on the cu portion on the project, not on the d.r. skbl >> on the d.r. >> no, the d.r. was on the unit. >> oh, excuse me. thank you. so then, the motion should not

take d.r. >> no, but she wants toic at that d.r. and work on it to make sure that the adu. >> oh, that's right. >> i think it would be good to work that out beforehand. >> thank you. that's actually better. so the motion is to take d.r. and to continue working with staff on the design of the adu, and then, to approve the conditional use authorization with conditions as amended to continue working with staff on the design. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> that motion passes, 4-1. acting zoning administrator would say. >> i'll close the public hearing for the variance and intent the grant with the standard conditions. >> very good. commissioners, that'll place us under your discretionary review

calendar for case number 2017003 drp at 554 lewis avenue. this is a discretionary review. we're going to hear from staff first. we're going to hear from staff first, and then, the d.r. requester. >> oh, okay. >> good evening, plan commission, del watson, it's on the west side of forest side. it's involving the extension of a rear stowy deck, we set back 3'6" from the southern property line. also includes the extension of a rear deck on the north side, 12 feet in depth and 3 feet

from the north side property line with connecting stairs between the first and second floor levels. the d.r. requester's concerned with potential noise from the other decks. residential design team has reviewed the project and determined that it's consistent with our guidelines and also that it does not -- [ inaudible ] >> are you the d.r. requester? >> i'm the owner. >> oh, you're the owner. >> oh, i'm sorry, you're the owner of 53 forest? >> no, i'm the owner of 57. >> so you're opposed to the project. >> no, i'm appearing for 53 forest avenue to build the

deck. i appeal. i don't agree. >> you filed the d.r.? can you name the -- who's the -- what's the name -- [ inaudible ] >> steven swanson's the project sponsor. >> and rainbow ho, is that you? >> yes. >> okay. go ahead. >> so you've got five minutes. >> okay. i will try to be fast. my name is rainbow, and i live -- my owner -- i'm the owner of 57 forest avenue. i'm here to peal my neighbor, 53 forest side avenue to be like that, a two-level deck building and upper level deck will result in the loss of my privacy, as it onlooks the master room. a [ inaudible ] will cause less sun light to my deck, also.

and in additional, in the -- in the house owner were to smoke cigarettes as she has in the past, the fumes and things will travel into my home. my daughter has bad asthma, and it will be detrimental to her overall health and also result in other asthma attacks for her. and also safety issue and [ inaudible ] should also be taken into consideration as people who are trokted and can fall off the deck, and there were none [ inaudible ] in my neighborhood. [ inaudible ] this is my master bedroom, and

the deck they are going to build is here, so this is directly looking into my bedroom. and this room is right here. they have a deck, and the deck will be over here. so sips i still have some time, i would like to represent my younger daughter. she cannot talk. dori my younger daughter. she cannot talk. she lives in forest side avenue for three years. she loves sun light on the deck, and she loves to stay there and washing my clothes -- hand clothes, so they are going to build another deck over this deck, and it will cause less sun light to my deck, and this is dori, and this is night time, she sleep here.

that is the window earlier i spoke to you, and dori sleep really well right now, but i'm just concerned if they build a deck here, will cause dori to bark at night time, and will cause disruption in both households -- my house, and also the neighborhood. and this is the ladder i receive from my neighbor when dori, like, not sleeping in that room, but before, she sleep out side, and this is from 53 forest side avenue. and also, other neighborhood have tell me because dori have some anxiety issues. so for me beloved younger daughter, i have to appeal because i cannot stop her

barking, and this is her home for three years, and i really hope you guys take into consideration because it is really hard if a dog bark whole night and neighborhood keep complaining. and also, my privacy -- i lost my privacy. good night. thank you. >> all right. thank you so much. >> and the project sponsor's not here, i'm guessing? have you seen your neighbor, the -- >> yes. they left. >> she left? >> yes, they left. >> delvin washington, staff planner. project team leader. the project sponsor is not present. we were unaware that they would not be here. there's a 6 foot separation between the two structures. the deck -- during our regular design team, we took at look at

it and only from the landing on the top floor, if you look over, you can see in the window. actually from the remainder of the upper deck, you really can't see into the windows unless you are standing on that landing portion at the top of the steps. that's kind of what we concluded based on the angle of the windows. again -- but there is about a 6 foot separation between the edge of this deck and the -- the neighbor's building wall and window. >> okay. thank you. commissioner moore? >> first comment is -- >> oh, sorry. if you want, you've got a two minute rebuttal. >> i just want to say thank you for your time. still, like, this is really late right now, and i know for

the roof, there may be the distance is, like, enough for somebody to build a deck, but even we -- i haven't, like -- so we -- she hasn't built a deck. i received those letters from my neighbors because my daughter has anxiety, and i put her in this room especially here, she won't park, so she sleep the whole night. so if she is going to stay there, and then, my dog is, like, like watching them, and they will bark, like, nonstop. so i -- i know it is funny a little bit, but i really hope you guys can take into consideration. thank you so much. >> okay. have you talked to your neighbor about this? >> we -- we both are, like, really busy. like, like, she -- like, we are both single and have whole family to take care of, so we really don't have chance to

speak with her. one time, she came over to my home to try to talk to me, but my brother just passed away in australia, so that's why i cannot talk to her. >> okay. >> so i missed a chance to talk to her. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> i believe that this submittal is quite substandard. it took me a while to determine who is the d.r. requester, because that is not evident from the way the packet is put together, so the d.r. is on the south side of the thing. that's to the right if you have this plot plan here. what i would suggest under any circumstance, with or without the white dog, which is very pretty, is the deck to the north side needs a privacy screen, a trellis, because the view of the deck into those other bay windows, even with 12 feet is far too close. to the