a half feet and you're considering to bring it back as a preapplication 2 and a half back. >> you're here acknowledging that today, the mr. president is asking for the 2 1/2 feet and based on the same drawings. >> correct the applicant is willing to take back what they added. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> councilmember sharp. >> i may have a question for whoever wants to speak for the dr the other part of the dr remove of the doris norz not sure what impact the doris messengers have on the property. >> they're not the concern he was concerned about the privacy issue not the doris merry or the light effects. >> so there's not an issue i don't see a reason to take them out they add square footage and mr. butler if i let the architect i want to talk to the architect for the project sponsor. >> i'm happy to make a motion and go back to 6 feet but the doris messengers add square footage am i correct. >> that's exactly right we received a letter which indicated the doris messengers were of concern the privacy element that mr. butler representatives is specific in that document we wer

meeting i believe was not our typo but we had a mistake on the templates we took a - on the preapplication meeting that might be our typo it's not correct the ground floor existing that floor plan is the existing condition is the one we simpleminded for the ground floor. >> and the other thing when your client purchased the property there's the title that indicates the property value and the b rp is indicated by the department it's the two unit building not that it was never a single-family home when you purchased the property it was a two unit believe so, you know i know at this point the best thing to work with accident department in determining what is there and what's supposed to be there. >> okay. >> okay anything further from the department mr. duffy mr. sanchez commissioners the matter is auditors - yours. >> we don't have enough information. >> do we do that or deny the appeal. >> what will we do. >> i'm recommend that we continue with allow the building inspection to review the first to review the permit then compare it to the exist site and i think they need to have some explanat

meeting even though they moved in after the preapplication meeting it's reasonable she should have sought on meeting as an immediate and would have been afforded one misrepresent in the process prior to the mandatory discretionary review in order to her to make her concerns known and have received some mitigates as other immediate neighbors have received please grant her request for a rehearing so i can deal with her concerns she was not afforded a meeting. >> any other public comment on this item seeing none commissioners the matter is summited. >> commissioners the testimony tonight in my opinion does in the rides to the level of maneuvered just and not new information i'm not prepared to support this. >> what does it mean manifested justice. >> rules don't provide a men and women but genericly there's a case you think there's some extreme wrongs failing of a hearing some sort. >> and you're not per swayed that the folks that moved in after should have been given the same opportunity as the other neighbors no i fully supported their ability to are heard they were heard what we wanted wa

from our exits the envelope is the same square feet and accomplishes the same program as their preapplication plan on loots that looerl step down the hill it should minimize the impact open the downhill principle additional depth against a gasping and have first floor wall not over on the property line looked the first and second floor of the set back understanding windows at our first meeting in june the sponsors architects prepared a recession that moved the rear edition to the second floor it was a pro tem start it showdown flexibility before i left i ask would we meet again and in july the 3 envelope backing became larger we reached out to the height is association and presented our envelope our envelope flipped the same size first floor and employed a bay window reducing the feet beyond the blue like that the rear walls form a nearly western edge to the middle block open space planning staff use this blue line and evaluates the code radiation the pink area the second story is on the line but the first floor becomes the first addition break admittedly within the envelope are typically app

now been subject to 3 notices over the 13 months which is quite a long time for a conversion preapplication meeting frmentd out to united states neighborhood and groups and now the planning commission notice went out to the group i'm not aware of the issues that have not been assessable or available to the public for several months we feel if there's not strong digestion for continuing this hearing today, we'll obviously defer to the planning commission we're looking at the upper 3 floors of the building it is say is being maintained to the ground floor pdr they've identified two tenant floor the project sponsor has been sensitivity to previous tenant and we'll pay all the office fees with respect to that we ask you approve that. >> we have one speaker card (calling names). >> put on my glasses thank you, thank you commissioner president wu and commissioners i'm jim an architect and former tenants of 340 brilliant street when i opened my own practice in 991 i was fortunate to find a location i was the second longest it is not necessary e tenant in the building having been there for 21 years

property owner doesn't cause the violation this is not a reason to take dr both projects had preapplication review with the neighbors both projects received 311 notice and have been transparent in review with the department of building inspection their appropriate and mirror certain elements and improve the reliability the dr requesters is unhappy with the projects for for his own reasons he has a few valid points we want to work with the flashing at the roof deck graduate wall and the removal of the stairs for i am had maintain his property if we get a assess policy in place our soil reports it is less than a foot in several places we want to conduct a boundary survey of the buildings you saw the gap the gentleman made the assumption that entire gap belongs to him and could bridge and encroach open the caseys property when you have abutting buildings with a small grandpa in their roofed over or made waterproof and nobody has issued issues if didn't it explicit matter who is flashing as long as something is between the buildings, however the inspector expects the department of building insp

of the changes that occurred we're only asking for a minor modifications to make it centennial preapplication plans showed that there would be no light set back ones the side from the third floor and 12 foot projection we had several meetings and made several compromises those compromises concluded 80 a two foot set back and reducing the set back and relocating the stairway and included minor modifications today they've taken those things back they don't agree to my any of those we think that's not in good faith and since or since the last scheduled hearing no communication with the adjacent prove or disprove he refuses to meet with us i want to point out this is the larger decks have been capacity the yellow area show where the decks are expand right here a spa and living room for the folks this is the impact of those decks on it is like inviting a party into our suprais that a or living room those decks don't have to be that large we're asking for them to be reduced in size those are exceptional this is the light to the existing dining room i'll show you where that is at this is the dining

. >> i first met the appellant prior to the 311 we met on a preapplication meeting she knew ever our project we challenged conversations we said you'll be receiving a 311 notice i gave her my card didn't hear anything the 311 notice went out she sent an e-mail we agreed to work with staff to investigate her concerns we do and planning staff invited the site in person her concerns were addressed her concerns were heard at the planning commission commissioner moore and commissioner fung praised our project. >> many wilson's question if you had direct e-mail corresponds. >> yes. >> any thing mr. t. >> good evening commissioners corey t planning staff i want to touch on a point i think that the permit holders representative mentioned which is the residence guidelines says there is an existing light well, if you butt up against it match that but for larger light wells it is a 6 by 9 light well even though not matched one hundred percentage but matched 3 by 6 a typical light well, that's the situation we see most often in those situations they railway is the case that light well will prese

one hundred signatures we're very concerned we were weren't when constricts targeted but at the preapplication meeting no one economy about it i literally ran out the door and met eric the architect and got the drawings was the first time we saw they had 11 bedrooms and simply bombards making micro apartment i went and concocted on the door and holy cow how is if f this happening this is when i said how big is this family and that's; right when derrick that's the first time i've heard the word boarding room that's how it happened supervisor breed told you what to do and have the conversations with dbi and planning we don't know exactly where to go we don't want them to keep going we think the city need to get involved and unin between all of that there's no transparent all we want is a safe and wonderful neighborhood to raise our children in. >> how long have i lived on the block. >> for over seven years. >> did you see did property come to sale. >> they sold it off market way way below. >> so there of the no on house. >> no. >> you never got to see inside the property. >> when i went in to se

the sb4p said the applicant conduct a preapplication meeting with their neighbors. that worked and we have retained it. in a lot of these cases there's an extra pre-application meeting thrown in just to participate and we think that's a good thing. the same neighborhood notice that applied to sb4p previously and applies to every conditional ai plies here. the planning department must find the application is necessary or desirable. that doesn't change. and lastly the commission rule, the planning commission rule that any consent calendar item upon request by a member of the public or a commissioner automatically come off and automatically be put on the regular calendar. that rule is left unchanged as well. this last item is one of two checks on the program that i want to wrap up with. just in case we do see a cd3b application that is suggestive of a more exhaustive approval document, we beefed up the checks and balances in the program. in addition to what we just talked about, we are proposing that the director of planning, the president of the planning commission an