in particular who wanted to have an individual who represented her. i will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible today. we are concerned that the current plans to not take into account potential negative impact on the building and residence located at 55 delore'' street. the letters that are being distributed fresnel elucidate these in greater detail but these are the kinds of issues that we would like the commission to take into consideration. there is a strong potential for damage to our building and the property infrastructure. as you might see from the exhibits at the end of the letter, this street and building in question are almost

literally joined in some sections. this has been in place for over 50 years since the property was constructed. the existing kirkwall and that is the wall of the building at 2335 delores is a fence that borders the property is borders the entry gate, the front pathway, the rear terrace walls of the property. nothing is an adequate solution and it insures that this remains cold. -- remains whole. we have already experienced several break-in france. -- address -- threats.

we are concerned about sound problems. construction and related noise would be a problem for us. our building residents range in age from a and infant to a 90- year-old who has retired. next issue is toxic chemical problems. this was a paint and repair shop. there are elevated levels in the building. >> think you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, i am the owner of 636 14th st. and that building has two residential units and a doctor's office. >> opposed to any of the conditional use authorization for the one unit ho. 14th street is a very small one way street which was never designed to be a loading dock. there's probably about 8 areas

on the whole street on that side elfin -- side now. this loading dock with trucks on 14th street waiting to get in there will hamper the fire departments. these are on the other side of market street and probably comes out three times a day. this will hamper the fire department. i don't know if the fire department is aware of this loading dock for wholefoods. that is the main concern. this is a very small street and this is not designed for this.

>> i am only here to speak about the historic implications and what might not have included in the environmental impact report. i would like to distribute some additional information to you. we were asked my staff to look at two alternatives. although we concluded that these projects for possible, we concluded that they were very costly, difficult to execute and would not meet the project's sponsors objectives. the structure itself is a challenge. they're permitted uses a result

of the market plan and are strictly residential. this is a commercial building, this is the plan. the two different buildings are also a step up the street and therefore it makes their levels difficult to deal with. the building themselves and corporate walls on shallow foundations and there are tresses which are actually at 11 feet. in the preservation alternative, and you you can see that this is difficult. we look at a steam that actually used the building and took out the back and actually removed the last 25% of the building and basically chopped the building up just to put units in front of it.

the challenges are light and air that it produces but we did get 18 studio units, how none of which are the size to be a two- bedroom units. also accessibility is making this project difficult because we are trying not to do further damage to the exterior. in the adaptive reuse scenario, we actually look that keeping the front and two side walls of the building as much as we could. this permitted us to have as many as 23 units. we assumed that the building would be set back in order to provide insurance into the building and access with a very efficient steam. we would also be leaving you with the front and side prickles for better enforced.

in both cases, because it was a comparison, it did as soon the 0.75 parking places and the under a brick building and providing parking would be difficult. this does little for the neighborhood, this does not provide the 40% or does it provide any real creation of the neighborhood fabric. >> thank you.

>> i have handed you a copy of what i have to say. our white to make a projection and also -- i would like to make a correction? the correction states that any project sponsors objectives would be partially met by providing quality housing and parking. i wish to correct that because i don't believe that from my standards that these are as qualitative the project as a new project. the first would be a lot

project and essentially topping up an old building with wood work. secondly, the project that sets back in builds a new building is justin exercise in this autism -- is just an exercise in facadism. i do not like either of these projects as preservation alternatives. any parking underneath the structure will require estivation. this would be technically in feasible and too expensive.

we have a very high expense with regards to the preservation alternatives and to the departure would meet our economic feasibility threshold. thank you. >> is any additional public comment? >> this is one of those projects coming through that has nothing in it of consequence because this is a tiered. this is very little. i would like to direct my

comments to the policy issues in the market plan and in zoning and because i think that they should be there as well. the zoning and its density and reduce parking. the areas where that was done in the eastern neighborhoods were areas that had density. we said we should build the densest housing there. the city also has the most dense transit as it happens or we have freeway accidents. this is one of them. every time we say that we will make the area more dense and then the developer says we will go to the max possible and to have parking and happens to be really good freeway access, you

have a dichotomy and this is definitely the case on -- hill. when you have real expensive market housing and the areas that you have in this case and freely access, you are creating an attractive area to do a reverse commute, particularly down the peninsula. this was not discussed. those policy issues should come up in an eir. where are you going to discuss

what is the king live project, cumulative -- what is the cumulative impact? what is the idea between a straight shot up delores and onto the freeway system. you have a worse situation, this is a market rate project. if you have a below market rate, those are of interest. >> public comment is closed. >> i think to the extent that i read over the draft incremental

impact report, i think that the alternatives were presented and evaluated in a way as is required in such a report as being the partial preservation alternative for. i think that this is complete and accurately done. i don't think that this is incumbent for an entirely different project. alternatives as suggested by being no alternative. >> commissioners, item 11 has

been withdrawn, we are now on item 12 for 1027 hayes st. and this is a mandatory discretionary review of the building permit application proposing to demolish. >> good afternoon, vice president of logi -- this is a discretionary review hearing to allow the removal of one dwelling unit by demolishing the proportion of a building. this is located on the sell side of hayes street between pierce and spinous street. proposal to demolish the one-

bedroom units that was constructed in 1947, this would keep approximately one had a 75 ft. for storage and utilities and would reduce the total unit count from four units to three. this does not fit within the definition of a demolition or a dwelling unit merger. the unit is being demolished and this is not being merged into another unit. this does not have anticipation and the project will be analyzed with those -- both the merger and the criteria. the property will be closer into conformance and the density of the prescribed zoning.

the building to be demolished is currently vacant. >> i wanted to apologize, i forgot to mention the final comment time. usually you repeat this after. i know you can do this for item number 10. >> i read this when i called the item. >> september 7th. this is on the record. the project sponsor. >> good afternoon. my husband and i have lived at 1020 hayes street since april 30th, 1997. we are requesting commission to remove a nonconforming structures that we can have a garden. the structure in question was built without a permit in 1947. this was still below grade on a

concrete slab. the neighbors objected strenuously. on april 7th, the committee granted approval and this is consistent with the general plan. the structure is not historically or architecturally significant. the property is now classified and this consists of the original 89 the house. this was prior to 1947 and a one story structure in question. this is out of character with the district which is part of the immediate area. in addition, density guidelines

in the planet code limit this to approximately 3712 square feet. the small loss last this not qualified. the rear yard open space requirements are violated and the size is approximately 62 feet deep. the comment on his face is 452 square feet and the existing usable open space is only 220 square feet. the code requires a minimum of one of street parking space per dwelling unit and we have none. there are also a key violations of the planning code. many have a ceiling fight of greater than 7 feet. -- a ceiling height of greater

than 7 feet. such a structure would never be allowed today. the removal is supported by the neighborhood association and by our adjacent members. we would like a garden and we hope you would approve this request. >> thank you. is any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i think that we will move to not accept dr and the project will be brought into closer conformity which is two units. the edition is not historic and it is probably not hard illegal because you have a ceiling heights being being low. i would move that we do not take this and approve the project.

>> seconded. >> on the motion to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this brings you two case number-- >> we are going to take a very quick recess.