neighborhood. we expected one home when the existing law was divided into two. there was no one who was expecting a for you are holmes a record one home is not feasible, but two -- no one was expecting for homes. when hamas is not feasible, but these are -- one home is not feasible they assured us the maximum height would be 19.5. it is 22 feet. they have 10-ft ceilings, which is unnecessary. good it is only being considered what it looks like

from the street rather than uphill, downhill, and across the street. thank you very much, and i look forward to your opinion. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to introduce one of the architects 0. first, my clients are happy to be here. it has been 23 months since the first appeal was made to the planning commission. after the there were two appeals to the board of supervisors. we were happy that the planning

commission was unanimous in approval. the board of supervisors gave unanimous approval as well. i would like to point out of a have stated of this project compliers we do point out of this project complies with the improvement group, and that means they not only comply with stiff financial guidelines but with the guidelines proposed by a group of neighbors speaking tonight. the letters say they oppose variance. at one point there was. there is a conference about meeting the guidelines.

in their brief, they also say the planning code and zoning code do indeed allow but do not require smaller lots within of zoning districts like his. but does not surprise us, because we have counted 100 lots in the blocks closest to this. here you will see we do not have a big enough map, and in the very next block you will see blocks like ours. goothe overhead shows what it wd look like. they would be different from the

ones next door. goolenders want to see a lot of equity and risks set aside greater -- set aside. two homes would have to be much bigger. there is a lot of reliance on the rules. gwe ask you to keep in mind of these are what gives someone comfort, some predictability, some sense that if you take their risk and follow the rules, there will be the homes that are proposed.

there is something fair about allowing someone to rely on the rules, especially if the group itself that is opposing has written those rules. each neighborhood has separate properties and land patterns. their rules were written for the geography of this neighborhood, and it follows the geography that was part of a rules formulation. the concessions my client made -- my client navies of the request of the property owner. this is a letter asking for a group of concessions. they ask for them, and here they are. first, reducing the ceiling height of the master bedroom and the ceiling by 1 foot.

moving to the roof overhangs at the rear. a lowering the roofline by 3 feet 11 inches. this might show the appellants in a better photo, also building a 10-foot tall fence at the rear. keeping the retaining wall, which was not planned, and there are many others i do not have time to discuss. these were stopped after they were offered, because it turns out he offered a payment of $10,000 for what he called the cost of making the appeal. there were no strange negotiations. dr. taylor involved one of the former planning directors, who

have some weight and knew the rules before i was involved and was well-represented in coming up with the concessions that were made. she has talked about loss of property values. we know property values are speculative, and my property value has moved so far down i could not get financing. these are not monster homes. a range between 2300 and 2400 square feet. if the neighborhood wants to read to the loft to allow lots of less than 2500 sq. ft. terminal -- to redo the loft to allow a lot of less than 2500 square feet, and we can do that, but that is something they may want to investigate. the commissioners felt of the

rules were the rules. do not apply the changes retroactively. with that, i will close and leave my point for the rebuttal. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> i would like to begin with some background on the subject property. the property is located within the zoning district. the building permanence and --

of building permits were firele. during that time, two discretionary reviews were filed. there was a resolution that met with a project sponsor on a live operator and -- non-. they unanimously approved a project. the board of supervisors upheld the subdivision of the properties so would argue the

subdivision. the board of supervisors upheld that on october 5. the permit was issued in on october 7. the building permits were appealed to this board on october 21, scheduled for hearing on january 12. a few days before the appeal, the appeal was filed on january 7. the board of survivors heard the matter on march 22 and unanimously upheld the appeal, so we have had unanimous of holding -- upholding of the project end of the permits that are before you -- and on the permits that are before you.

i would like to point out that no variances were sought. it was determined of variants was not required, and that was withdrawn. the board of supervisors has found the project lies with the planning code, and we think these are modest developments of the turn we like to see an would respectfully request the board denied the appeal. i am open for any questions. >> we do not have anything at alsl on the process. >> i apologize.

we specifically submitted to live aboard -- to the board, and i do not know how that happened. >> i was of explaining the question i had to ask had to do with the board up held. >> thought was categorically exempt. the appeal but was -- was that it was inadequate. goo>> could you say what you sad about the height limit? >> it is a little quirk of the planning code. is actually a 35-foot height limit. you can increase the height of the building. good >> what is the height of this one?

>> 22 feet. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> can i get a showing of hands of how many people wish to speak? we have a full calendar. i am going to say two minutes. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is paul michaelson, and i am a resident. my family has been in this neighborhood -- my house was the first house on the mountain. there was none house that slid down the hill and had to be relocated -- there was one house that slid down the hill and had to relocated.

first, i will start with -- they had a back room removed from the house, and they were able to subdivide a loss region t-- the lots, and it does not fit the neighborhood at all. it is going to completely strange to the neighborhood. they do not sure you are around the corner or down the street. it does not fit. it is ridiculous, and the whole thing about removing the back room, that allowed them to go forward with the project -- that is just cricket -- crooked. there is no parking at it is. who is coming down the street? there is no where to par.

-- know where to park. i do not know where these people are going to park. it is going to drive the quality of life in this neighborhood and down. not to mention, it is a bad design. >> next speaker please. >> if i put a picture on here, will it show up? they i have the overhead and -- may i have the overhead? i am a family member. >> you're not allowed to speak during public comment if you are a family member. you may speak during the rebuttal. >> thank you for your time.

be able to speak later, >> if the of helen wants to give -- if the appellate wants to give you turn, you may speak. >> i am sorry. i did not know what the rules were. >> mr. kelly wants me to put this up. i would like the overhead please. i would like to talk about the loss of green space and properties that used to be enjoyed by the neighborhood. the initial proposal showed the developer completely paving each lot. goothey have already moved a nur

of beautiful trees. a total yards space is less than a yard space of any other single home during your -- any other single home. they claim that this is a mess, but this is the result of neglect by the correct owner. in this used to be a gorgeous and local treasure before developers found it. they expected no one home to be added to rigger no one had any

idea. but thank you. >> next speaker please. >> my name is robert. i have lived in the neighborhood for about 20 years. when the property originally came to sail, and there was a condition split along in two -- to split the yard in two.

we have already put a stop sign up there. yes, there have been more people moving in, but my concern is about the safety of the area, and for those of us who wanted to move into san francisco, i just see these properties are going to change the character of the neighborhood. >> next speaker please. >> my name is carmen. can you hear me? my family has lived here for almost 50 years, and i feel it would really be devastating to

our residential neighborhood in terms of property values and quality of life. if the board of appeals allows the construction to go through on not only three houses but the building -- it is not within the confines of what we have now. it is not going to be in cohabitation with our neighborhood. as the not only for myself. i only recently found out they were talking about putting in a multi-level home. i feel very disenfranchised by what they have decided. they are allowing a high-density development, and it is already

overcrowded. what are we thinking? this is just not feasible in the neighborhood we are in. i request that you reconsider our appeal, and we are the people that vote. we are the people that come to city hall, and it is not in the best interest of our neighborhood for our city. >> you are talking about a multilevel apartment building? >> i am fairly new to this, so i do not have detailed information, but my understanding is that it is going to been multilevel. even if the house were to stay like it is, it would become a multi level. >> the one that is there now? >> the one that is there.

>> we will find out about that. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, we have a rebuttal time. are you doing that now and? >> do you have your wife's permission? >> there are three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you for this opportunity. i would like to rebut a couple of things the and were sent to reagan -- that were said. they have agreed to several aspects of it, but i am sorry they are not here to voice that for themselves. he never asked anyone for $10,000. goothe supervisors who voted in

favor of this -- several of them were standing in the back of the chamber, and talking and joking when we presented our case, and the other ones enjoyed some rather generous funding from mr. gladstone and some of his clients, even to the point of enjoying fund-raisers held in his personal home, so that is all whole different issue, and one of the things that troubles me about access to the supervisors -- i believe it is somewhere written that people have equal access to supervisors when they will come before them. they met at least 10 times. we were denied access to one of the supervisors. we got to meet with one for about 15 minutes.

draw whatever conclusions you want from that. this is kind of our last hope. we hope that it is fair and just. the planning commission wants to see a lot of buildings. goothe supervisors may have an agenda, su. -- too. they want to build a lot of houses, which is great, but in our neighborhood, and what we would like to see is your consideration to uphold some of the quality of life and we have in this neighborhood. the city wants to build tons of houses. that is great. we have park merced adding tens of thousands of residential units.

our little neighborhood is rather special, and i would invite any of you to take a look at it. please consider the plight of the people who live there. just the people in this room represent almost 500 years of residency in that neighborhood who have paid taxes and supported the city. consider their needs as well as those of developers. thank you very kindly. >> thank you, mr. gladstone. >> there are a lot of accusations, and this is not the time. i will talk about the case. first, i want to talk about what a great distance was enjoyed by

the gentleman and his wife. there is 40 feet of distance between where people will be and their home. it used to be more than 40, but they recently added to the home. i only wish i had that kind of privacy. a lot sizes have been done through legal splits. what was done was creation of as big of a lot as you can. if you are trying to get three lots, you do the largest u.kandu -- the largest you can.

i also want to point out the comments are very interesting on this. the commissioners made some interesting points, and what they said was that they felt of the western side of the city should perhaps share the burden of the neighborhoods had in family size housing. a comment on how the east side gets the bulk of it, and it is a burden, but when the lots are available and within the code, it should be welcome, and it should be considered a service provided by the neighborhood to accommodate. they also pointed out that they liked the design. commissioner more had one or two

changes. liz taylor requested 5000 and 2000 as part of the settlement. i do not know where the other 3000 came from. i want to point out it is indeed a burden, but it is not easy to build family size housing. this will not be the most expensive common -- the most expensive, and i hope you will approve this. >> will you tell us what is happening with the house? >> i talked to my client before. they have no current plans. the financing has not been worked out. lending is difficult. the main intent is to get going with the new homes, but they are thinking but the fact that a

construction crew will be working on these three makes it possible that they will go for a permit to remodel home. they have no intention to remodel stockholm. region -- to remodel the home. if another person wants to do it, obviously, the person will need a lot split or at least a permit, and if any and additions are made to the home, certainly of variants will be needed. does my client have a plan? know. does he know what needs to be done? no. i believe the