size and this is 4716. that's above the maximum code for the district and also for the area before we factor in the decks. overruling the special use district guidelines and granting a variance for this and the zoning administrator specifically stated there was no ground for that variance, it set a precedent. going further and approving the building to that, on this scale contrary to the special use district and the planning codes set another precedent, especially when there is no demand for hardship. special use district was formed in 1980 to protect the feel of this neighborhood against exactly this type of overdevelopment which will quickly eliminate the shared green space if it goes to that neighborhood special use. if this project is allowed to proceed, it invalidates the

special use district planning codes and makes it impossible to protect the special neighborhood going forward. i implore this gathering to protect the neighborhood by rescoping this proposal to conform with it in all the special use district guidelines for setbacks, for building size, and for roof decks. president olague: thank you. >> we have two more d.r. requests to speak. president olague: there will be time after the d.r.s present. oh, she has to leave? that's fine. that's fine. you have three minutes. that's fine. >> thank you very much. i didn't realize we would be

here as long today. i am rett courier and i live at 324 cumberland street which is around the block, around the corner, and i drive by this property with some regularity but i am here today because i have been a remember of the dolores heights improvement club and i have been very aware of the special use district and the guidelines that they have in place to protect the character of the neighborhood and to protect the open green space inside the blocks. and i find that to be, i mean, that is a wonderful, fabulous thing about my neighborhood. and so i think that the restrictions and the guidelines of the special use district haven't been observed and i don't know enough about this particular project, but it does strike me that there's a terrible precedent that's going to be set. and it affects the whole

neighborhood and that's why i came down here to speak to you all today. i hope that you will listen to what all of my neighbors have been saying in the last few minutes. thank you for letting me come to speak out of turn. president olague: thank you. we have two more d.r. requesters. >> good commissioners. my d afternoon, commissioners. my name is chris betcher and i live at 3983 and i am the property owner that is adjacent to the sponsor's project. i am on the east side or the downhillside of the project. thank you for allowing us to present today. we all live in a wonderful city and i think you are doing a terrific job in keeping it that way and it's complicated, i know. first of all, i would like to say that we see this as a quality of life issue that would affect anyone who will occupy the structures in the future. the last thing any of the

neighbors wanted to do is redesign his property. we really wanted the neighbors who have tried to be constructive than handing him what design changes would address our concern. i am here because i think this project has significantly crossed the line anded a this juncture i hope the planning commissioners will address some of those concerns. in my case i am asking the board to take a hard look at the rear yard privacy issues i mention in my request for a discretionary recrew. mr. smith t planner on this case, asserts that the backyard privacy is not protected in the guidelinesened i am not quite sure how he reached that con complufgs when i looked at -- how he reached that conclusion. when i look at the checklist, there are only two items that relate to the backyard. one is -- one has to do with whether the building can minimize privacy and that was clearly a priority for the

checklister to guidelines. and also the design section of the residential guideline also deals explicitly with privacy concerns with a significant negative impact on the use and adjoinment of the backyard because of the articulation. the sponsor's design places a deck with a railing flush with the beginning of the backyard space about 10 feet above grade and essentially looking directly down onto our backyard. the new deck would essentially -- well, let me just continue in an effort to maximize the living space, they have eliminated the light flow that existed between the two buildings and is exacerbated by extending the building 11 feet further into the year regard. i would recommend backing the deck off four feet to reduce that negative impact. and it is disengenerous to say that homes like mine kruconstrud

80 years ago that exceed the setback should be allowed to do the same. planning codes have evolved and in some cases, more stringent standards have been adopted. the dolores special use district was enacted specifically to stop the kind of developments that is being proposed. the relative privacy is an important future of the block. it is one of the reasons we move there had originally in 1993. i asked the commissioners to take the appropriate action to modify the project and bring it back into line with the dolores special use district and the residential design guidelines. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. >> hello. i am madeleine todd and this is my husband and we own 3991 20th street which is the property to

the west of the subject property. and i am here today to urge you to uphold the planning code section 241 and the city's residential guidelines. i'm specifically requesting that you reduce the envelope of the ground flow of this project to fill out underneath the existing deck and extend to the width of the property. i have it on authority from scott sanchez, the project sponsor's representative jeremy paul, and commissioner frank fern that reducing the envelope on the ground floor of the project is within your purview. i have six reasons to support my request. first, i am asking you to uphold the existing code. this project falls within an s.u.d. and is bound under planning codes 241 and minimum rear yard setback of 45% of the lot. today the rear yard of the subject property is exactly 45% of the lot and the exact size

that it was formed to protect and building out further is clearly in violation of the s.u.d. second, i'm asking you to consider the environmental impact of this project and recognize that it reduces the community assets. the s.u.d. was established to protect shared rear yards for everyone and the community asset for all properties along the corridor. you see the green corridor here. the proposed project extends the structure by 23%, thereby covering 70% of the lot. this degree of extension on the ground level is unprecedented since the founding of the s.u.d. in the 80's. if all property owners in the s.u.d. were allowed to increase the ground floor food footprint but these amounts, our green face would be obliterated. third, please uphold the city's

residential guidelines that protect mid block open space. to quote the city's own residential guidelines, an out of scale rear yard addition can leave surrounding residents feeling boxed in and cut off from the mid block open space. my property is already boxed in on two sides with the retaining wall to the west and a four-story structure to the south. the property has been green -- the subject property is completely open to the south and the west and is only partially blocked to the east. this project will box my property an additional 25% on the only side that is open to the corridor. since the project sponsors already have greater access than i, i ask you why incrows their access further and reduce mine? fourth, justification for the project is based on nonrelevant

structures. a noncompliant, illegal structure to the east of the property has been used to justify this aggregious encroachment into the rear yard set back. case law dictates that the planning department cannot use illegal structures to justify a new variance. strictly interpreted, the illegal structure should be altered to match the code versus justifying it. and what is irrelevant, much of the block is outside the s.u.d. fifth, i personally agree that the project sponsor should develop them just as i did in 2003. they have had the same challenge of connecting the ground floor to the first floor. my only remodel was modest expecting my neighbors and sported by all of them. i merely filled in under an existing deck with the retaining wall and impacts no one.

i also was granted 16 square feet, smaller than a closet, to allow for a legal staircase connecting the ground and first floor. i have spoke within no less than 20 leaders of neighborhood associations throughout the city to help establish our own best practices. and i learned that weaker neighborhood associations are being targeted by developer who is overdevelop the structures and sell them. protecting the rear yard setback is the most critical policy issue facing our s.u.d. we are now just learning how to protect the neighborhood character by working with the appropriate city organizations. to this point the project sponsors have had their own businesses as developers buying and selling many properties over the years. and in contrast t neighbors before you today have a combined ownership in the neighborhood of 95 years. [bell ringing] president olague: thank you. are there speakers in support of

the d.r. requesters? all speakers in support of d.r. requesters. seeing none, project sponsor? you have up to 15 minutes. of course, you don't have to take all 15 minutes, but you have up to that. mr. paul, do you need assistance? >> thank you, president olague.

jeremy paul for the project sponsor. you have heard quite a bit of comments that i'm going to do my best to respond to as much of it as i can and give you a bit of an introduction to the build in and the private architect will do that further. first of all, i would like to say that mr. copp who is completely continually vilified as being some sort of outside developer who is having his will with the neighborhood, he eat lived there since he bought in it 2008 and hired an architect who lives across the street and this is a very site sensitive project that was designed for this to be appropriate for this particular site and the particulars of this special use district and this location. it was mentioned that the 80-year-old structure next door is illegal and should be

discounted. it is not illegal. it is a structure that was built with permit but does not comply with the current planning standards. if we can go to the overhead, we zoom in. thank you. here is the adjacent structure owned by chris betcher. these two buildings extend substantially into the mid block open space such that mr. kopp's house and ms. levy's house are functionally cut off from the mid block open space. this building extends further into the rear yard than our structure does currently. we're proposing to extend just up to this point where that notch is. so this additional 11 feet will continue to project and obstruct access to the midblock open

space. we're infilling into the portion of the building as it pressed up against the solid wall. this is exactly what good planning and good architecture does. it works with the conditions of the site and works with the realities of the topography and the existing construction and existing development and makes the most of it. i did misspeak actually and was a misstatement when i wrote something about ms. clark. this is ms. clark's home. and you can see her deck there. i was incorrect when i said that her decks overhung the adjacent property line. i misread the property line. i apologize for that. but her contention that suddenly a new deck here would provide visible access to her and her privacy when she lives by this deck, this deck, this roof deck here, and the existing deck

here, here, and here and all the way down the block, seems somewhat disengenuous. i think there are a lot of decks and people see each other in an urban environment. this is a city we live in. people choose not to watch others. i look at -- i don't look at my neighbors across a light well, but i have a curtain. when i see people in the backyard, i wave or avert my eyes. that is the way we live in a city. and that is the way a community like this must live with their decks. i would like to go to the overhead if i can and run through a few slides. thank you. it is the material that was provided by ms. levy, the uphill neighbor, and she is very concerned about this projection that was approved for the ground floor. and what we see here is a plant

ing structure that really obscures the new building portion that mr. kopp is attempting to develop on the ground floor. it was the feeling of the zoning administrator that by using the space there, he would create substantially less impact on the adjacent building because it was going to be hidden by the hedge wall and the fence and the trees that are in place now than if we had developed into the space that's directly above it. if you see the pink wall in the first frame, that's a notch in the project sponsor's building that is going to remain. it's an area that could have been infilled. again, you can see the wall on

the uphill side and the fence. and you see the hedge row and the fern tree that obstruct the view to the east. and that's exactly where the ground floor structure is going to project. it's going to project very modestly and you can see mr. betcher's structure at the far right-hand side of that picture. you can see the blank wall that we're building up against. we're simply infilling against that blank wall and this is the true from mrs. clark's home. you can see the 80-year-old projection that goes 21 feet beyond our existing structure. and you can see how that provides certain problems for the uphill properties. and the way, the planning department and this project sponsor has proposed to address it is to use that portion of the lot to build.

uphill, downhill, back up to the decks on the tenant faying south and this is the view facing south and we're not in a position where we're blocking anybody's light or air. the light coming from the south is not obstructed to anybody but the neighbors with their decks up above are looking down on this project. so here's an artist rendering of the propose d addition in its form. you see the notch in the building that is adjacent to the ms. levy's property. that is the buildable area. it was the opinion of the planning staff and of this project sponsor that it would not be appropriate for us to project out creating a cave for

those windows you see in the darker yellow structure of ms. levy's. so we have maintained that setback. we choose to project only modestly on the upper level and step down in accordance with the residential design guidelines. this is the perspective you have seen before and after's in the submittal we have provided to you to get a sense of how modestly this impact was seen from upslope and this really is not enclosing anybody. and this is really not cutting anybody off from the mid block open space anymore than they are already cut off by the existing construction on the buildings below. this is a reasonable and practical response to the conditions of the site.

and you go back and don't even need the overhead, but just come back to the camera, thank you. and i want to go back to some of the points made by the d.r. requesters and some others. ms. hechhill discussed the dolores heights special -- excuse me, dolores heights improvement club and this project sponsor was not invited to the meeting where their action on this case was considered. the dolores heights design review committee which met for many years and made up of design professionals who lived in the neighborhood and that committee no longer exists as a result of the actions that were taken by the board in disregard of the design review committee's

intent. they felt this project did comply and they visited the site many times and saw the modifications that we made to accommodate the special use district and to accommodate the need of the uphill property owner. there was a lot of the dicushion about the variance decision. the variance decision was done openly, done publicly, reviewed by the board of appeals and that appeal by the board of appeals was requested a rehearing which was denied. if simple fact of the mater is this variance is the most appropriate way to respond to the design needs of this site pressed up against this adjacent structure, there was no better solution than providing a variance allowing that ground floor projection which is below

theed ed adjacent structures to project out. i will have opportunity for rebuttal later on and to answer any questions that you may have. but i submit to you there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about this proposal. it's actually quite modest in the scope and takes into consideration the needs of the neighbors in many, many meetings that have been had with all the parties and i think that this is the sixth time we have been to a public hearing on this matter. and i am looking forward to probably two or three more time before building permit. president olague: thank you. are there speakers in support of project sponsor?

>> i'm the project architect. james stavoi. and commissioners, emails regarding the resignation of the entire dolores heights design review committee are in your file. and i will not repeat that information or describe how that has affected our project, but i would like to speak briefly about the doral heights special use district. our neighbor has, as you have seen on many photographs, is characterized by the issue of topography plays a major factor in the design of our project as has already been discussed and will be discussed further, i'm sure. i have lived and worked out of my house at 679 sanchez since 1992 and i live four houses away from my client and just around the corner. it being my neighborhood, i respect the planning guidelines

of the dolores heights special use district, and i have done so op projectses of varying sizes for six of my neighbors within one block of my house over the past 19 years. listening to neighbors' concerns is what you do as a residential architect in san francisco and in dolores heights and your design to be inclusive of those concerns in relation to the guideline set up through this dolores heights special use district. specifically, as the guideline states, we have preserved private -- excuse me, i'll put the guidelines for the doral heights up. specifically, in regards to our project and the requirements of the to recall doral heights special use district, we have preserved private quarters and the top floor has not moved from

the original location and the lower two floors are against the building and of the downhill neighbor and our project is designed based on section 134 which describes alternative methods of averaging when you have a large project deck on one side of your property and to put the mass of your building up against that. we have not created an unreasonable obstruction of view and light. as has been described, the large offset for the uphill neighborhood provide openness and light to the windows. three, our rear addition does not impinge upon mid block open spaces claimed by the dolores heights improvement club. as you have seen, the two much larger downhill neighbors already do that. we are 10 feet less with the project than their expansions into the mid block open space. four, we are in context and scale with established character and landscape. we stepped down into the

backyard in a staggered fashion and the top floor remains where it is. the kitchen level at the second floor only extends as far as the existing deck and our bottom floor only aligns with the notch in the neighborhood's building and does not have an expansion. finally t guidelines specifically state that variances may be granted from the rear yard provisions of the guidelines which we did justify and were granted. i feel strongly that we have both -- may i finish? president olague: thank you. if we have any more questions, we will call you up. are there any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor?

>> i am jason jones and i live a quarter of a block down the street. i was asked to speak concerning a couple of things. first of all, roof decks, i have a roof deck on top of my house. i had it put in about a year and a half ago. jim was my architect as well for that. it added a whole -- it was just like the proposed house. it was a roof and then on top of the roof is now a roof deck with built-in kitchen area. we had to notify all of our neighbor and we had zero opposition. we blocked one neighbor's view of the downtown from one level, from up above, and when i am up there, i can see into a lot of houses. it sits on a hill, it's san francisco, and from up there i know the neighbor at 3971 has a roof deck, across the street has a roof deck, down on the corner on the intersection of dhurj and 20th there's roof decks --

there's a lot of them. you look down and there is a lot of roof decks and people across cumberland behind me have a roof deck so it's pretty common. also regarding -- i mean, it's san francisco, and in my bedroom i can literally lie in bed and look in about two different living rooms of different people's homes. so we close curtains because it's san francisco and i am used to that. i was born here. the last thing is i'm just kind of -- i have had some -- there is that email string or discussion with the dolores heights club and i was the one who actually was doing those emails because i found out that the club -- i had questions about how the club was run. and i just think that i'm not quite sure why