review. >> had lost its original setting

in context with the neighborhood we were told he could move it if we could find a compatible site. we spent 2016 and 2017 stepping back to investigate three possible sites including numerous meetings with staff and their appropriateness. this took time. as her appointment site needed to be provided for visibility to the character designing features on the façade and the northern side elevation. the department's approved site proved unattainable. in 2017, the preservation staff reviewed an agreement at 635 full of men -- fulton currently occupied would be a suitable home for the eight of seven franklin victorian. their proposal before you began to take shape. this project consists of three buildings and two sites eric 635 fulton street is occupied by the

victorian era construction housing the archery and a couple of dwelling units in the top floors. to make space for the 807 victorian, it is pushed back and into the east and the victorian home is located on its west. this this sighting provides ample landscaping in the front, distinguishing the two cohabitating victorians from their 1970s urban renewal neighbors. our proposal consists of preservation and adaptive use of the two victorian era structures to create a total of 17 dwelling units. eighty-two% of which are family-style units with two or three bedrooms. all character design features are preserved, including the mortuaries brackets, the symmetrical features, the arched windows, and in the commercial storefront and on the victorian victorian home, the entry and

the large arched windows and both of the character defining façades. there is no vehicular parking in this proposal and lots of bicycle parking. both structures get modest additions -- additions to the top floor. we set back the façades, and additions to the rear which will require variance. we plan to continue to develop the penthouse level to be quietly compatible with the storage structure below, including more deeply set and vertically proportioned windows. the ground floor was carefully designed with input from preservation staff to be deferential to the 1960 social resource. it was a strange design challenge. an interpretive program will be incorporated, commemorating the history of the bryant mortuary and it's association with african-american history in the western addition.

historic photos, narratives, videos, videos and family history. back on the 807 franklin street site. will develop a new eight story residential structure capped consisting of of 48 units of housing, almost 70% of which will be family -sized, two and three-bedroom units. a minimally parked basement with 17 vehicle spaces. ample parking for 80 bicycles and storage. at common open space in a complying rear yard at grade, and in the roof deck on top. the architectural expression is of a sculptural form in a concrete. with large massing moves to organize -- organized a principal front and rear façade. we have incorporated code compliant bay is, organized into large frames, appropriate scale of the midrise, and responses to the sloping site. materials include concrete, terra-cotta tiles, metal panels,

aluminum doors and windows and glass rails. we will take care during construction documents to source and specify appropriate concrete and detailing to ensure minimal staining and soiling. the entry level has two ground floor dwelling units. privacy will be reinforced with a low bulkhead and to the angled terra-cotta baguettes protecting ground-floor residents from headlight glare. the south elevation is enlivened with flat openings but the units are not dependent on these four dwelling unit explosion -- exposure captured another 80- foot tall structure occupied the shell station lot. commemorating the significance of the new victorian, an interpretive program will be developed within the new structure. celebrating. celebrating the relocated victorian association with the redevelopment. you can see that 807 franklin

building behind the new sanitary market. [laughter] >> both projects will comply with best practices. incorporate sustainability features for energy conservation and generation, attention to health of residents and water efficiency. so a few words of about community outreach. in 2015 and 2017, we had a series of meetings with neighborhood input on both site 's. franklin the ops were attended by neighbors and the fulton by board members and the budding ml park co-op. no major issues were identified at these meetings. we also had early communications with cathedral hill neighborhood association and they expressed support for code compliant structures. this is a complex project with many moving parts.

largely because of the issues around historical review, we did not receive environmental approval until the end of july. another complication was an nondisclosure agreement that the project sponsor had to enter into with that mortuary as they wanted to keep things quiet with respect to to their clients and employees as they wound down their operations. in early august, we reached out and met with leaders of the van nest corridor, cathedral hill and the san francisco alliance. they expressed a preference that we do work on site, however, giving the sunsetting of the status on december 7th, which i think is pearl harbor day, we must receive at another time. thank you. >> president hillis: all right that is it for the presentation? all right.

we will open it up for public comment. i have one speaker card. welcome. but if with -- if others would like to speak, line up on the screen side of the room. >> hello. i am here presenting for the neighborhood association. these projects do have a lot to recommend. we love that there's preservation and adaptive use of historic and culturally significant buildings. we love there are 65 units of housing being created. however, we do feel that the opportunity to use these properties for mixed income b.m.r., as recommended in the octavia plan and enthusiastically embraced by hayes valley neighborhood association and the community,, is not being realized. while we realized there are legal options that the developer has to to satisfy their affordable housing requirement,

on site, separate site to, within community or out, we don't seem to be acknowledging that different degrees that there are different degrees of each option. we would like to see on site, whenever possible, in this case, the developer has made it clear they have no intention or desire to have any affordable on the franklin site. we proposed to use the 11 unit mortuary building as a b.m.r. at multiple price levels of affordability. so that we could have this strong option using this site that is already owned by the developer. this is is a real issue. the city always has trouble finding sites when we see out. and hayes valley embraces the concept of having mixed income and keeping the character of our neighborhood with different

income levels. the last elements of it, the sixties mortuary storefront versus the 1913 addition when the first floor was added to the other two stories, we accept that acknowledging the mortuary, you know, with a plaque or any other appropriate acknowledgement would be quite correct. but we certainly feel that having the storefront reflect the 1913 addition that is historically documented and a compatible building, would make these two historic neighbors more whole and appropriate. seeing no particular interest from anybody we have heard of to preserve this, other than the planning department, we would strongly recommend that. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you next speaker, please.

>> hello commissioners. we had been speaking with project sponsors since 2015. the project is much better. we are very glad they moved to victorian. the new building does fit in with the existing block and will provide much-needed housing. a good thing with the larger units and more family-friendly. we recently met with them in the last month and we were very encouraged that the possibility of having affordable in the neighborhood looked like a real possibility. on the venice corridor, we have supported four buildings in the last two years that have fought to use a small sight attornment or small site alternative.

they are looking around in a one-mile radius in the tenderloin and in the western addition, trying to find a site. it is very difficult. the fact there is a site in our neighborhood where we can put these units, they don't end up in treasure island or the bayview or somewhere else, is really important for cathedral hill at the venice corridor and fort hayes valley. is there some way the planning commission can urge the parties to come to an agreement to commit to that in our neighborhood? we would really appreciate it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you next speaker, please. >> i am a pastor of the jerusalem church of god and christ in the neighborhood. i took over the church as my father, the bishop was holding it for a while, and then placed me there as leadership.

one thing about being the son of a bishop, you inherit very few of your father's friends and all of his enemies. when i came to this town after leaving detroit, michigan, my father -- my wife, rather took over as the doctor there right in the neighborhood at the clinic.. we entrenched ourselves in the neighborhood. i found out that all angels don't have wings. i met a young man named tim brown who really had no dog in a fight.. just saw us working there. and helped us sell a piece of the property that the church owned and invest it in a produce market to create another revenue centre for our church. with the gentrification of the african-american community in

san francisco, it is very difficult being a pentecostal pastor in an area that does not have many african americans still still left in it. and tim brown's projects, tim brown realty, everything that he was connected to, he pushes to help people and i am a living, breathing example of the way that he conducts himself, and the spirit with which he approaches his business. i would like like to earnestly ask you to consider the person, not just the project itself. but we are out of business as a church without his input and his help. i have confidence in both locations that he will continue to do the same thing. thank you, very much.

>> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment? >> my name is jerry. i didn't intend to come and comment on this project. however, since the name tim brown, and tim brown realty has been raised, i would like to comment that tim brown l.l.c. owns 49 hopkins avenue. and tim brown demolished that property without a demolition permit and d.b.i. did not issue and n.o.v. there is another side of tim brown and tim brown realty that needs to be represented. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you any additional public comment? seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioners? commissioner johnson?

>> commissioner johnson: thank you. [laughter] this this is a very interesting project. i think one thing that did raise an eyebrow as i as i was going through this project is the opting out and using the in lieu fee. when we think about preservation , preservation of a physical building is incredibly important. the preservation of a neighborhood and it's character and it's history is important. these are in an area that has historically been affordable. it has historically been a refuge for african-american community and other communities that are vulnerable. i am just curious if you could say a little bit more about why you opted out. i was disappointed by that. >> thank you. yes i am here on behalf of the project sponsor.

it is a very complex project. with two sites that change midstream in this project. we are moving to victorian to the other site and we are having to move the mortuary. there is a lot of work going on here. all the way through the beginning of this year, we are contemplating exactly how to make -- how to best achieve our goals at the fulton street site. 807 franklin is figured out. we were exploring double density for senior housing. we were exploring a lot of different potentials and been in touch with a supervisor's offence about how do we make that work as best as we possibly can. the issue we are facing is that it is the bumps along the way with the planning department, code issues. we have a deadline of december seventh of this year to get a site permit issued in order to maintain the ability to have it grandfathered on site and off site units. and the issue here is that going

with the in lieu fee is not because we are committing to the fee in perpetuity, it is basically to preserve the grandfathering aspect of this project. because after -- assuming planning commission approval, with the in lieu fee, we are able to go back and modify that project. if we do on site, we have the flexibility to do that post commission post commission and have the flexibility to continue working on that fulton street site. and think what you heard is that the project sponsor has been working with cathedral hill throughout this process, trying to make this work as best as possible. the in lieu fee is to maintain the flexibility as we are up against this deadline in december. thank you. >> commissioner johnson: i would love to hear feedback from other commissioners and the planning department on -- i just think it would be great if we could get affordable housing on

the site. if there's anything that we can do to help that. i would love to hear thoughts. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner melgar? >> vice-president melgar: on the project itself, i think it's a very innovative way to both preserve the structure, i think it's actually better in the context of the new location. i really like the new building. i think it's much better than the original building that was configured next to the victorian i i really like that. i do wish wish that you would include on-site, inclusionary. i understand that you want to preserve your flexibility. i will also say though, that if you provided the in lieu fee, i could live with it. the reason why i say that is because we are seeing a softening of the market because of all of the reasons we heard

during dennis' corner that -- earlier today. i understand that the millions of dollars that had been predicted to go into the affordable housing fund at the mayor's office of housing this year are not coming in the way they're supposed to. we are going to be seeing a softening of the production of affordable housing because of it i think this might help. is it ideal for the neighborhood know. i wish we had a better way to guide the investment of the mayor's office of housing in terms of community development. i wish we did. that is out of the purview of the planning commission, but i do think that having the funds go into the affordable housing fund, at this point, may not be such a bad thing. >> president hillis: thanks. i will follow up with dennis on the timing issue. i think it's a great project. i think the victorian works much better on fulton street, especially -- we can anticipate

that gas station being developed on turk and it would be lost in that context. programmatically, it is great. the architecture of how you are preserving the victorian as well as a more cherry and what you are doing them on the new site all looked great. i just don't understand -- again , i don't think we have a lot of tools to state you should do or you have to do the on site i think, you know, hayes valley has been on record for decades, almost, encouraging and advocating for the on site alternate. i just don't get the timing. why can't you lock in -- what is a difference between locking and the flexibility now are locking in and being grandfathered on site? >> i am glad you were asking. this goes beyond the project. we have the proper sea grandfather and rolled that was passed last summer or the summer before. what it says is not for any prop c. grandfathered project, any

project that filed an application before 2016, is grandfathered. however, if you are doing on site or off site units, you need to pull a site permit by december 7th of this year. not just planning commission, but we have to get a permit from d.b.i. as well. the odd thing about -- and that wasn't -- >> president hillis: that is on site or off site? >> in lieu fee does not have that deadline. the odd thing about it is that it is a static date. december 7th. i will tell you, i am hoping that in general, in front of the commission may be we will have legislation this fall. there are a dozen projects out there that have not been to the planning commission yet, or are going to the planning commission and have no chance of getting the site permit through no fault of anyone. everyone is trying diligently to get these projects through and it doesn't make sense. we would like to have that december 7th state instead be something like 12, 18, 24 months after planning commission approval, which is an appropriate of time to pursue a

permit. >> president hillis: what is the date for in lieu? >> none. >> president hillis: so that's just a nod of how it was grandfathered. >> gas. >> president hillis: but it sounds like you are willing to do on site, you know, as long as you can get this approved in the site production permit pulled in that time. it would be good to understand your willingness of what the intent is to do. >> the project sponsor is not saying he is for or against doing on site. it is a challenging project especially with the movement of the victorian. and so the option is still open. i think further exploration needs to happen. i think more work with the neighborhood and with a supervisor's office needs to happen. there is more potential on fulton street. we just need to find a path there and what this in lieu fee does -- going with the in lieu fee now, preserves us. we have a site permit running in parallel to try to make that deadline.

>> president hillis: i get hit thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: it was amazing you just explains that. puts the project under discussion and puts it in a different realm. i greatly appreciate president tillis asking and you answering this as comprehensively as you did. there is a uniform strong support for on site. you know what about the pressure we are under and i think this commission uniformly stands to support on site wherever we can and in this particular case, i see the good will and i see the intention at the message that you hear loud and clear from us, is to please inform mr brown that that would be demo the most supported and most desirable option. but, now speaking to the project itself, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore: the project is very innovative and creative. it is a totally appropriate building in the context in which it is proposed back its

architectural expression is desirable. it is not the kind of standard think we have been seeing that could be anywhere in the city. we had a quite a few of them in the last few years. i commend to the building for that particular aspect. i did talk with mr morris about the concrete and my concern that we had very innovative concrete designed by another designer. unfortunately, that building is not working very well at all. after two or three years of opening, it looks very old and worn and mr morris is aware of that concern. looking at aggregate in other ways of how to address that. that building it's fine. the move of combining the victorian with the mortuary, i think is brilliant. if it indeed can become something for affordable housing , that would be the desirable outcome for it. i wish we had other opportunities of grouping

appropriate housing types with each other to avoid the clash between old and new. i think the harmonizing and the broader scale is extremely desirable. i know it is difficult and it is expensive. but as a way to create larger sights for appropriately fitting larger buildings, this is a move which is textbook, the way you should be doing it. i'm really happy to support the project.

>> commissioner richards: i thought here is a guy who is preserving the victorian. we we are hearing 655 el dorado coming up and it is a demolition and 49 hopkins was on the radar. it was on the front page of the chronicle. i i am shocked. i have no facts in front of me other than his statement. no facts to support whether tim brown was involved or not and 49 hopkins. i'm shocked if that is actually true. we may be seeing mr brown again

or his representatives before us when they seek to try to do something on that lot and the outcome may not be as good here. that is not before us. we have that project -- this project. i support on site or small sites as as miss morgan said. i do want to provide flexibility i told mr morris that. and i will be supporting the project. again, the only thing that shocked me more coming out of anybody's mouth in this room, was 55 all over -- alvarado. i mean, i am literally shocked. to be honest with you. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner fong speech rate we already have a motion. thank you for making that. i look at this empty lot on the corner. i am very happy to see this get the attention it needs. moving the victorian to fulton, first of all, i want to be there at the nights that house gets moved. [laughter]

>> commissioner fong: the more important piece than other than getting 48 dwelling units on franklin street,, is a potential growth and instigation of energy on fulton street. it it could be a very cool thing you may be a start at a spark for other small development. hopefully not moving things around as much. but it would be great to see that block get a little bit more attention as well. i am in support of it. >> president hillis: thanks. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt shadow findings and approve 807 franklin street with conditions, as well as approving 635 fulton street with conditions, as amended by staff and including the proposed material. is that what we want to say? very good pick on that motion -- [roll call] so moved. the motion passes unanimously.

7-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> president hillis: we will take a brief break. d.b.i. is on its way and they want to participate in the next item. >> president hillis: d.b.i. is here. do you want to redo it? sorry. >> no, no. nevermind. dennis will switch it. >> president hillis: d.b.i. is not here? they are not here. >> clerk: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission meeting. we will be taking item 14 under the discretionary review calendar out of order. for case number 2017. this is a discretionary review.

>> president hillis: i apologize for that. d.b.i., we are waiting for them to join us for the alvarado item is the d.r. requester here? are you getting people from the hall? >> good afternoon, commissioners elisabeth junk from the northwest team leader. the abbreviated discretionary review before you at 2740 buchanan street is for a 68 square foot addition at the rear of the existing building. the existing building is a three-story two unit structure, constructed in 1938. the addition will be at the rear of the building along the south side property line. it is an infill of a 3.5 foot wide by 19.5 feet deep notch. the project includes widening

the existing second floor roof deck and adding a spiral staircase to a new 356 square-foot roof deck on the scope third floor. there is no change to the building footprint or increase in building height. briefly, the d.r. requester concerns are that the proposed addition will block for property line windows, blocking light and air. it will allow unobstructed views into homes and that the large deck can accommodate large groups of people, thereby having increased noise. there is no other public comments received during the 311 or d.r. notice. the project was reviewed by the residential design advisory team they advise of the case does not demonstrate an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. the project is compatible with the residential design guideline in dutch the neighbouring property line windows are not protected and the proposed roof deck is set back from the

adjacent property. they recommend abbreviated d.r. this concludes staff presentation. >> president hillis: thank you , very much. d.r. requester? welcome. >> i live at 2734 buchanan street. i'm a 20 year resident of san francisco and have lived on buchanan since 2005. my wife and i live next door to the project site and are raising our three daughters there. my wife and i were surprised by the content of the project sponsor's written opposition to this d.r. hearing. we have tried to be very cooperative. we met the property owners of the home only recently when they informed us that they were moving back from hawaii and would require an 88 bathroom and laundry room which could block our four windows on the north side of our home. we invited the neighbors and the designer over to the home to discuss the project and it became clear that they were more aggressive than good neighbor it should be. they stated frankly that if we

did not agree to their bathroom expansion, they would seek to build a second rooftop crews ship deck, if you will, a few feet away from our living space when we are raising our family. that is exactly what they have done. nonetheless, we hired an architect to identify compromised proposals regarding their bathroom expansion that would allow them to meet their stated goals without blocking our windows. but for some reason, they want to more. their stated reason is to make an a.d.a. compliant bathroom, despite this fact that the stairs to their flat are narrow and take several turns. in addition, their proposed second roof deck calls for a spiral staircase that would ruin their first deck and is not a.d.a. -- is not ability accessible. in reality, we believe the proposal is nothing more than an effort to increase their square footage in order to sell their home for a higher price. we have heard they are quietly marketing their home now. the proposed roof deck, literally looks into the main

living area of our family room, which is 100% exposed and is just feet away. the neighbors can have a larger bathroom and a laundry room without blocking our windows. we are happy to continue to work with them on that account and to continue to offer the services of our architect. we do not object to their plan to expand their lower deck but it's unreasonable for them to destroy their lower deck with a spiral staircase and build a second deck on top. especially when it is disability inaccessible and exposed the very heart of our home. we would like to ask the commission to day to deny the roof deck and allow us continuance to work on the proposed bathroom expansion and come up with a proposal that does not block our windows and we continue to work with our architect. we appreciate your time today and thank you. >> president hillis: thank you we will take public comment in support of the d.r. requester.

>> i am the attorney for mr and mr harden. as his attorney at your time -- >> are you part of the d.r. requester's team? i believe he had may be -- >> president hillis: ok. we will give you a minute and a half. >> perfect. they already have a nice deck off their main floor. a one-bedroom unit does not need two decks especially when the deck stares directly into the heart of the neighbor's home. we do not object to the plan to increasing their deck size, and with respect to the bathroom, it can be larger with disabled access in the large -- laundry area without blocking the neighbor's windows. we asked the owner to work with us to limit the bathroom addition size and we ask that the unnecessary roof deck be disposed of. i will see the rest of my time

to mr moskowitz. >> very quickly, these buildings were built together, at the same time, same developer. they are not quite opposite and buildings, but the layout of one building's light well matches the adjoining building's windows the roof deck, the second roof deck, is apparently for additional view. there is an existing deck off the top floor at the back. that seems like a perfectly reasonable deck. the one on the roof just seems to be exactly the point of the hearing earlier about what is reasonable. and the windows that everyone is concerned about, what i believe to be what is really going on, do provide light and no ventilation but light to habitable rooms. they have a really good architect working for them. there is no reason the architects can't keep talking and get this resolved. thank you.

>> president hillis: thank you all right. any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor? welcome. your team has a combined five minutes. you will each have a two-minute rebuttal after public comment. all right. >> do you want to go? i'm warner barry. i'm the attorney for mr and mr -- and mr and mrs. wing. can you hear me ok? >> president hillis: make sure you speak into the mic. >> very briefly, mr hammond made a nonlegal objection, sort of as a public comment, but the hardens have failed to notice in their title, is that they have -- of the absolute obligation to

allow this expansion. it is part of their title. they have no standing to object. these windows must be closed off if the expansion is allowed. that is our point. their title documents are clear, there is a recorded use limitation, it has been in the property line forever. the wings are entitled to this expansion, at least as far as a space. by the way, the wings have lived there a long time. they did not move back from hawaii. they have a second home in hawaii. mr wang has lived in the property in that area since 1970 they lived in this house a long time. he has had two or three surgeries on his knees, and he may need to be in a wheelchair at some point.

it is possible. it is in our documents. and the idea of expanding the bathroom to allow that is very reasonable. he has the absolute right to do it. the discretionary review conclusion is absolutely correct as far as we're concerned. the roof deck, also is permissible. it should be allowed. we appreciate the time. i will defer to the architect for the wings. >> hi there. i am the designer for the project. i just want to talk about the expansion. can you turn on the overhead projector, please? so what you see here is the -- next to each other, the existing on the proposed. so this is the existing bathroom here. and the addition is filling in this space along the property

line here. so what you see in the proposed is a small laundry room that would allow my client to do the laundry in their unit and not have to go down to the laundry room in the garage. and then the second thing is expanding the bathroom to make it a.d.a. accessible. so no one is handicapped now, but my client definitely plans to age in place in san francisco and remain in their home. that is all for us. >> president hillis: that's all? all right. we may have some but let us finish the hearing first. any public comment in support of the project? seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you would like to take that time >> thank you. i will be brief. with respect to the title

restriction regarding windows, this was recorded on title before they purchase the property. they were not aware of it. we dispute as legal effect with respect to the windows at issue. but that's not really the point. the point is that good neighbors should work together and that there is enough room for the project owner to get a larger bathroom, to get a laundry area, to have it be disabled accessible, without blocking the windows. mr lamb, the architect that the hardens of the hardens hired, suggests three different proposals and is willing to work on this account to reach a compromise.

next, i would like to point out, with respect to the accessibility argument, it is hard to square the fact this is a third floor walk up. a very narrow stairway and several bins in that stairway. and the desire for a spiral staircase off of the back deck, with the claim that it is necessary to have a a.d.a. accessible bathroom that meets the same requirements that you would see in a place of public accommodation. that's not to say that we disagree with the desire to have a larger bathroom, the point remains that it is possible to have a good sized bathroom, a laundry room, and still not blocking windows. think you. did you want to add? >> in closing, this d.r. cries out for the architects to try one more time to see if there is a resolution for the bathroom without blocking the window. and a move forward from the roof deck being a trading card, that if you don't cooperate, we will

put a roof deck that looks right in there peerk they have a good architect on their side and we have an architect. it should be continue so the architects can talk with plannings -- planning's oversight. >> president hillis: thank you project sponsor? you have two minutes if you like >> the roof deck has been in the design since the beginning. there was never a discussion about adding a roof deck in an argument about changing the design. the roof deck has always been there. when we made an effort to negotiate with the neighbors and offered her some concession, we offered to give up the roof deck they didn't want to make any concessions at all with our design. they did hire an architect to show some other possibilities for the bathroom, but they were not acceptable to our clients. and so here we are.

at a stalemate. one more thing. when we met with them and talk to them, back they mentioned that they would like to use all of their resources and time to delay and block our project. >> on the legal point of this that was just made, that the hardens, this use limitation was put in before the hardens purchased, frankly, that is a bad argument in my opinion. they either had constructive knowledge of it, or they had actual knowledge of it. and either way, the use limitation is absolute in the title. it should be honoured. i think that's what d.r. staff did most correctly. thank you, very much. >> president hillis: thank you we will close this portion of the hearing and open it up to commissioner comments.

commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: so i had an experience in my own dwelling unit that i live in where the neighbor expanded and i had a window that was covered up. we worked something out. i would love to see the parties work it out, but actually, i had to go down to the assessor's office and have some document filed against my own property, because i other -- i installed other lot line windows to alleviate the closing of the window that was lower in the room. i put dormer windows are up at the top. these are also in the lot line. if the new neighbor who bought the house wants to build further back, i don't have a leg to stand on. i signed a document saying look, i put windows in that were subject to, you know, your whim of whether you want to build. the only question i have for the project sponsor, is we heard

there is a desire to continue to negotiate architectural -- do you, are you open to that? >> we are open to it, we have had two meeting us with the neighbors and they didn't want to make any compromises, after they decided that they didn't want to negotiate, they hired an architect to send us some ideas. so the ideas that they sent weren't acceptable to us because they didn't offer the a.d.a. turnaround. and then they also covered up the different part of the roof that could be used for an elevator. for an expansion later in time. those were the two reasons why there is a weren't. >> clerk: speak into the mic, please. you can twist the makeover. >> if you look at the plans, you

can see that if you wanted to -- it is three and a half feet. you can't make it any narrower. you can't do it 1 foot off because you would not be able to maintain either side of the building. we can't go back any further. if we did come in this direction here, that is next to the stairs and that would be their future location for an elevator. that is why their designs weren't acceptable for my client >> commissioner richards: it looks like even though the roof deck policy that we have heard before doesn't apply here, it looks like the roof deck is modest and sets back with the appropriate rules. i don't know about other commissioners but it seems cut and dry to me. >> president hillis: is that a motion? cut and dry. [laughter] >> commissioner richards: i moved to not take d.r. and have the project approved. >> second.

>> clerk: there is a motion that has been seconded to not approve the project as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] [please stand by]

>> item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to legalize tantamount to demolition section the

planning commission the construction history, the violation history and a summary of the findings made by the b.i.c. the memo provided to you in the case report provides material submitted from the neighbor to the east, and i am going to be submitting materials to the west. both of those owners have had damage done to their structure due to the excavation and construction activities of the site. in response to the department's previous request for the did addition of a second unit to this project, the sponsor has made that change in the current plans before you, however staff still recommends that the plan

be modified to provide two separate and distinct entrances if it still ends up being a two unit project. when the project was last continued from july 26, the sponsor, staff, and d.b.i. had some discussions about what date would be the best for the continued hearing. i did not confirm that date of today with d.b.i., so i do want to apologize to patrick and thank him very much for being here in a very timely manner and being organized and ready to present, so again, thank you, patrick. >> president hillis: great. thank you. >> thank you. >> president hillis: mr. o'reardon, thank you for being here on such short notice. >> thank you, president hillis. it's amazing what we can do with 30 minutes notice. i'm here with the recommendations we provided to the b.i.c., and there are a few

small changes we can walk-through during the presentation. essentially, the agenda provides the proposed scope of the work. >> president hillis: can we go to the computer? it's on the computer? you're doing the presentation. all right. there we go. >> so just to start over, if we can move to the next slide, maybe, that'll be the one with agenda. the agenda shows is -- is the proposed scope of the work, identify the approved and actual demolition, additional notices of violation which have been issued since the original violations were issued back in october of 2017, and next

steps. okay. so in regard to plan review -- sorry, guys. >> president hillis: that's all right. >> plan review, the scope of the work. the scope of the work includes three levels of horizontal extension to an existing basement, an existing first floor, and an existing second floor, along with a new basement below and a new vertical addition above. so the building information,

the existing building, type five, two stories over basement, r-3, single-family reds den residence, and the proposed condition was 4-5, four stories over basement, single-family residence and it was proposed to sprinklered. documents typically clinclude site permit, addenda, and did he havations from the site permit. it usually considers building informations with things such as allowable height story and area, fire protection and means of egress. a site permit stamp is used, which you can see here on this slide, indicating that no work can take place under the site

permit until the necessary addendum has been issued. and from the illustrations, you can see that the existing condition at the front facade was one story over garage. the proposed condition was to be two stories over garage, and at the rear, looking from the back yard of the downsloping lot, the existing was -- condition was two stories over basement, and the proposed condition was to be four stories over a basement. the picture you see represented on this slide is as the property was in october of 2017, after the demolition had taken place. and thank you to the architect for providing me with these illustrations that kind of give definition to the -- the steps

of how we got to this point. just for context, the building in the middle is represented with the x on it, and the building to the east and the right-hand side is 651 alvarado street, with the building to the left, on the west hand side being 661 alvarado street. and we're looking at this building in a northwesterly direction from the rear yard of an upsloping lot. so the next slight shows the building without showing the adjacent buildings, obviously, and this is what it was like prior to any work taking place. so after the site permit issuance, the approval is as you see here. the rear wall has been approved to be removed. the light well area on the

upper floor approved for removal, and an area of the front above -- above the street level, the floor above the street level shows being removed. floors are not shown here just for the purposes of clarity, being able to see through the building and see the walls. so the demolition that was approved upon issuance of the structural addendum and shown here on this next slide, and it shows additional demolition along the east line property wall at the rear of the building. so then, eventually, when the permits were suspended and the work was stopped, the demolition that occurred is what you see here, with very little of the building remaining, just a facade at the ground floor level, a retaining wall, and a wall on the east property line, which i have

found out since the big presentation, was also removed. so just remember that that wall that is shown on the east property line, the wing wall extending back from the facade of the building, should not be shown on this slide. it was also removed. so just -- just to summarize the demolition, if -- if we look at just the wall square footage, the existing walls included 3,192 square feet. the site permit approval for demolition showed an approval of removing 957 square feet, which would be 30% of those walls. the approval with the addendum showed an additional 14% removal, for 44%, and 1,417 square feet of walls, but at