tom tenny, reuben, junius and rose on behalf of the permit holder, and then, i'll be pretty brief here and turn to our architect, lewis butler. we have presented a plan to the neighbors. we feel like that he had previously presented us with a number of conditions. we feel like we met many of them, most of them. it's a modest deck proposal, meets the board's requirements. no step penthouse, we provided side setbacks as requested by the appellant. there is our glass railings, it's muted colors, no vegetated roof, and no raised floor to the deck. we're also not proposing any cooking facilities. there's no hot tub. sometimes you see that in decks. and then, we've also proposed a small increase in the ceiling height of the top floor, 2'3" and i'll allow lewis to talk more about that in the design proposal. thank you. >> good evening. lewis butler. if we could take the overhead to the section, and if it's possible, i think it may be worth another minute of time on this, if you can give that just to go through the math, but i'll go through the math right now in this proposal, you're looking a

jodi knight on above of reuben, junius and rose. as you know, the project proposes to make a use of a long vacant site for use avenue an ambulatory and surgery center. it will provide increased services. there's a significant demand which you'll hear from the project sponsor who's here today, particularly for outpatient joint service. it has off street passenger loading, materials loading and sufficient garage parking. it's a clean and quiet use which is compatible with the residential uses above. we have had considerable support from the hoa, which really would like to see some use on the ground floor. there are security concerns about a vacant ground floor, but really has no interest in having a grocery store down there. regardless of the interest, there's been no market interest. this has been a long-vacant property. it's been marketed to a number of other uses and nobody else has wanted to move in, so this is really the perfect solution. i know we're here today because of the requirement for cu for removal of a grocery store. th

i'm a partner in a project thatd rubin and junius as council.t will not have any effect on y decision this evening. >> you can speak on public commt we can hear from mr. teague fir. mr. teague. >> good evening, again, cory te. i would reiterate the carryovere last hearing that the zoning administrator supports the issua variance for the revised plan fe new elevator. i'm available for any questions. >> that's a front yard setbac s. >> correct. front setback vair yns. >> thank you. >> now we can public comment. mr. silverman, if you'd lierk t, you can do so now. -- if you'd like to speak, you o now. >> good evening, president hondd commissioners. david silverman. i work with the owners of adjac. if i can get the overhead. just to refresh your memories fe last hearing, this is the gauths home over here. this the yee's home. this is the easement in betweens the tower. contrary to what mr. patterson d you, the -- excuse me -- dbi had a notice to the gauthier's to re tower, not to demolish it. it's a big difference. what the yees are proposing is d an

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 mome

here today, and my last sentence on that is in the information that they sent us, where the reuben junius team talks about special restriction, they say this: we strongly oppose this. an nsr is unnecessary as any conditions of approval deemed necessary by the board will be enforceable by the board's decision. the maos have done everything possible to comply with the requirements and to accommodate the neighbors. i don't feel like we've been accommodated, and we need your help, so thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> and mr. teague? >> good evening again, president honda, commissioners. cory teague, planning department staff. just briefly, did get a chance to look over the proposed plans by the permit holder just to see if they would be consistent with the ceqa analysis that was conducted for the site and consistent with current planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. the only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it wou

. >> good evening, tom tenny, on behalf of junius and rose. i'd like to start by explaining a little bit of the history and how we got to the project that's before you this evening, in particular, the proposed edu. the project started as a proposed single-family home for hassaf's family. he has made many many changes to the project, all to address his neighborhood and staff concern did see. we'll describe those in our presentation. the project was ready to come to the commission two years ago. at the last minute, the dr requester somehow produced a 3-r report for the 799 castro building, even though a 3-r report can only be obtained by a property owner, and the report concluded that a dwelling existed at the 799 castro building. prior to that no 3-r report had been issued for the building because it had no residential use. dbi investigated and concluded that while a dwelling unit existed at the property many decades prior, the unit had been removed in the 1980's pursuant to a building permit. we ended up in a dispute headed to the board of app