>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is karen paul, and i live on the opposite corner from the proposed project. the house at 197 lately has been empty at an eyesore much of the time this has been there. we're very happy they're doing renovations. having said that, i am asking that you exercise control over the project because of some exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. first, i want to clarify some of the record. one is that i am now representing six immediate neighbors. i have had another neighbor who has changed their mind and is voting no against this. when i say immediate neighbor,

it is attachment a, an updated version of that. i have also organized the neighbors who signed support documents for the sponsors package. i have organized to them by parcel. but if you look at that, out of the 27 parcels represented, only eight are in the immediate vicinity, only one of those in favor, six are neutral, and one of recently resend it. -- and one has recently rescinded. my house is two stories over basement, not three stories, with a similar amount of square footage. despite my requests, numerous requests, i have never been able to meet with the architect through the whole process.

there were four general meetings, but none of them concerned these plants. the decrease in height between 2008 and 2010 from 12 feet to 7 feet had nothing to do with the neighbors. the planning department did not approve it. each meeting was slightly different, with various hand drawn concepts. be seen to be strategic in nature as opposed to sincere venues for attempting to accommodate some of our concerns. the last meeting was may, 2010, and as a result the current plans were seen for the first time by us in march of this year and by the planning department, no sponsor, no pre- notification, and these bear little resemblance to the plans presented previously. a height increase is misleading. the visual impact to the neighborhood is 6 foot 6

inches, because of the parapet and an 8 foot 8 inch power that goes up another 2 feet, approximately, and extends another 2 feet over the sidewalk. this is a substandard lot with known limits, and it is posted as rh-2 but i believe it is rh-1 in nature. i am asking for review? number one is the setting, the 100 block of laidley is well- known in the city. madam pleasant had her house there, and her ladies lived across the street and small cottages. that 100 block has very significant defining characteristics. the large homes are on the west side, nestled against the hillside, and the shorter homes are on the east side. this project is on the east side. it is a 3.5 story home on the

east side. approval of the project in its current state would forever change the character of this well-known neighborhood in san francisco. it is an exceptional and extraordinary, second reason, it disregards the hard work for the neighborhood, that san francisco citizens have input into the process. it mandates a certain design, and we understand that, and we understand that design is in the eye of the beholders, but none of our interpretations have been taken in a meaningful way. the residential design team met on this, but there was no neighborhood presentation. one result that is interesting is the sponsor never, ever suggested that he was going to put a tower on his building on the corner. we specifically asked in writing, many neighbors, please don't put a tower on the corner. we now have a power on the

corner that projects out, and for no real purpose. we don't know what other for room to use than to ask you to please interact. vice president miguel: thank you. speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? >> good afternoon. my name is kathy. i am a 20-year resident of 180 laidley street, across the street. "never heard are in large part what makes san francisco an attractive place to live, work, and visit. to maintain the visual interest, the neighborhood is important. that'd be compatible with nearby buildings. a single building out of context

with its surroundings can be disruptive to the neighborhood character." despite meetings between the neighbors and the colemans, we have not been able to reach an agreeable solution. i submit that the proposed project is not consistent with the design policies and guidelines of the general plan and with the following residential design guidelines. it does not maintain the neighborhood identity, nor does it help to find or contributed positively to the existing visual context. these are all from the residential design guidelines. the building scale is not compatible with the existing scale at the street level, the 100 block of laidley, and certainly not with the adjacent buildings on fairmount. is not consistent with the height and depth of the surrounding buildings. it does not preserve the existing visual character because it is not compatible

with the patterns and architectural features of the buildings. as a corner building, it does not provide greater visual emphasis, as stipulated, nor does it respond to its place and the surrounding buildings. overall, ask you to take discretionary review because this project as proposed is not so -- does not respect the typography of the side or the surrounding area. the illustration on pages 11 and 12 of the residential design guidelines. this shows, if you imagine this to be fairmount street and laidley street up here, this building is here, only it would be raised up to about that level, not in line with the rooflines, as shown here. similarly, this is the

illustration in the residential design guidelines for corner buildings, where it is step back, the diagonal entrance, to bring it back some. again, it is consistent with the height of the buildings, whereas this one is not. i submit that it would look something more like this, except on the corner. smaller buildings along lately, the taller building. thank you for your time and your consideration. vice president miguel: thank you. additional speakers in support of the d.r.? >> good afternoon. i am representing a neighbor across the street from the proposed project. she is bedridden and cannot make it today. i am jane. i am across the street and two doors down. i just wanted to say that the massive ness, -- the massiveness, to one person is

great, and to another person is just a looming presence. this is a massive building that will hopefully not be going in. is not an appropriate scale for the neighborhood, as we have seen from the sketches. no matter what our perspective is on this building, it is massive. thank you. vice president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in support of the d.r.? >> my name is brian lee. i have been a resident of 198 laidley street over 20 years and i am an architect by profession. i asked not to approve the plans for 197 laidley street. the letters were misleading and the current block has a predominant pattern of 29 one-

and to store residences. as a side note, the architect is here and his partner built his house on the same side of the street, two-story house, also built on the side of the street. the sponsor proposed raising it to three stories on the laidley street and 2.5 on fairmount. it would be out of scale with a house across the street. therefore, the plans do not respect the prevailing neighborhood character and building scale. the planning code calls for front and rear setbacks. this jumps from the adjacent one-story homes to three stories and three have stories without any meaningful setbacks.

the setbacks are not evident because of the solid wall and set backe raises the proposed height of the building. the project fails on the front setback and uses what used to be a transition to the neighbors and uses it transition out of character with the neighborhood and sidewalk adding 7 feet in height to the building. it is not compatible with any other buildings at this intersection, as all are set back from the street, including the d.r. requestor's house. trucks regularly have a hard time negotiating this turn. that projection of almost 2 feet, 3 feet, not mentioned on the plan, would present a hazard. it creates an exceptional circumstance that is at odds with the neighboring sites and building patterns. no drawings of submitted plans indicated any context. the neighbors had to do their own photo montage that shows the

small footprint of the small substandard lot an existing house is grossly over scaled. the project has not demonstrated any hardship. the current plans, which could have been discussed with us, currently could be accommodated within 7.5 inches with the above the existing road. they could keep the existing plans and not had any significant height to the existing building. in this scenario, the entry would be on fairmount, all rooms could have a clear 8-9 foot ceiling as opposed to the 10 foot ceiling and garage. thank you. we would be happy to work with the project sponsor to negotiate these plants. vice president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in support of the d.r.? if not, project sponsor?

>> hello, commission. we are a little nervous. how much time do we have? three minutes? five minutes? ok. i have some documents. i have an additional letter somebody signed in support of our project and another letter from somebody who was at a meeting. at any rate, we had no idea we would be here to a half years later tried to get this through, because we bought this house in 2008 with a dilapidated property with mold, mildew, paint chips falling off the building. we cleaned it up as much as we could just so we could live there while we were going through this process to do are designed. putting another story on top of the house was the original design and we received opposition to that.

we immediately started working with our neighbors, reaching out at another meeting and said, let's adjust it. we lowered its 7 feet. we had another meeting and we lowered it to 6 feet. we have continually tried to work with the neighbors to come up with the resolution. then we worked with the city over the last year, i think, to come up with the plan they would support. we could have asked for more, but we minimize the it down to 4.5 feet. this is just enough space to give our family enough room to be able to enjoy the house and so forth. it would be a nice floor plan on the first floor, and we have also sent out letters and when we had our last hearing, when the d.r. was filed, we had three

people show of that were in opposition. one of those came to our house and discussed it with us, changed their mind. we do not have a written one, we have it as a verbal, and think they are on vacation. second, the d.r. responder has never submitted anything in terms of suggestions like we need to do this or that. we went on vacation in july and came back, and all of a sudden everybody wants to meet with us in regards to the architectural design. we did this over two years. we had plenty of time. pretty much that is all i have to say on this matter. it is time for us to get this moved forward and be able to get this done perr. and here is my wife. >> i am lisa coleman. as you heard what my husband said, i just want to say please take into consideration our plans.

we are very family oriented, and we would like to have our plans approved and have our family be with us. and thank you very much for reviewing our plans. vice president miguel: thank you. are there any speakers in support of the project sponsor? >>. afternoon, commissioners. i am tony. -- good afternoon, commissioners. i am tony. the me give a little background on the house. this is the laidley street elevation. the first floor is approximately 5 feet above the sidewalk. also, the front of the house is not totally constructed out to fairmount. our first submission was to add a third story to the building. we left the floor where it was, left the two car garage where it

was. we added a new floor of approximately 11 feet, 12 feet in height. after receiving various feedback from the neighbors as well as planning staff, we decided to go back to the drawing board. what was recommended to us was eliminate one of the garages, no need for two, eliminate the garage on at laidley street. lastly, our previous proposal requested a rear yard variance and front yard setback variance. staff suggested that we do our best to eliminate the rear yard variance. we cut approximately 200 square feet off the back of the house, shown in pink, and we also planned on popping out in the front of the house and that still encroached on the front yard. presently, the proposed design in front of us, the red outline

is the height of the original submission. what we are proposing is to remove the garage door on that laidley street, raise the building so we would have the entry level off the sidewalks, street level, and keep it two stories above that, grand total of three stories. we have a single car garage. the old car garage turned into a family room, at 3 off the street -- and three of the street. the bedrooms on the middle floor, and on the upper floor we have essentially a 15-foot setback with the dining room, kitchen, and living room. the lot is only 10 75 feet. this is very substandard size. that is why we cordially proposed asking for two variances. after meeting with staff and

going through various iterations, we think we have something that would be acceptable to the neighborhood. i would also like to mention that you guys know the residential design guidelines, but they also state that corners are supposed to have, street corners are supposed to have prominent buildings, taller buildings, than other buildings in the middle of the block. thank you. vice president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> hello. my name is bob. i am a resident and homeowner at 230 laidley street. i am in support of granting a modest the variants on the east side of the laidley street. the proposed changes do not affect my view, and more importantly, the proposed changes to not affect pedestrian views. laidley street is one of the most perverse streets in san francisco. there is no prevailing height or

style on laidley street -- it is one of the most diverse streets in san francisco. mention of height is meaningless. granting this is further mitigated that they are on a down slope. 198 laidley, across the street, opposes this. unfortunately, the residents of the west side of the street have taken the position they own the views on the east side and all of their structures have impacted views to the west. an existing structure at 237 fairmount, at the corner of laidley and fairmount, on the opposite corner, is of similar height and mediterranean-style as the proposed changes to 197 laidley. the modest variance request does not impact pedestrian views and is not negatively affected the neighborhood. proposed renovations seek to

renovate an abandoned and derelict structure. i am entirely for them. the elders of 197 it laidley have been very diligent and engaging the neighbors and have compromised to their ever- changing demands, so i fully support their project. i think it would be a great improvement to that corner. thank you. vice president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the project sponsor? if not, d.r. requestor, you have two minutes rebuttal. >> thank you. i just wanted to say this is not about the view, it is about the massive look. you have attachment b in the packet. they show the pictures that very

clearly demonstrate that in its current height, it is very massive i, the addition to that corner, and you have the montage that shows laidley street and fairmount streets. it is not about the view, it is about the wall that would be on that corner that will not fit into either side of that corner, laidley street or fairmount streets. we have always had suggestions for the project, but we never had the plan until march of this year of this particular project in order to look at and make suggestions. we do have suggestions. we're not trying to take the project away. we're not trying to take square footage away. we're not trying to take the design away or anything. we just want to work with somebody, the architect, to medicate some of the mass of the look on this corner.

-- to mitigate some of the massive look on this corner. thank you. vice president miguel: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> looking at the montage they are speaking of, in relation to our house, it appears to be 8 feet. it is 4.5 feet. they must have made a mistake when they did the work and used an old montage. this is not a monster house. this is a very modest house. it will be three bedrooms, two baths, very small. the planning department, working with them, we have done so much work and we have gotten this so they are in support of this and we're hoping this to get moved forward. most importantly, all these neighbors know what a derelict building this was. at the back of the building has

termites and rot. the building has no buildings next to it. i have a four-foot backyard, nothing on either side, nothing in front. this building is not safe. it needs structural reinforcement. it needs a complete makeover. we just have not been able to have the funding to do it and we're waiting to get all of this work done. we're hoping and praying to get this move forward so we can move on with our lives. thank you so much, and i appreciate your time. vice president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. in the staff report, it was noted, the commission, and adult thing it rises to the -- i don't think it rises to the level of taking discretionary review for the following reasons. the increase, 4 foot 6 inches,

as told by the architect and shows and renderings we have on this plan basically raise the entire house is enough to make that a doorway entrance from a front, and that is the 4 foot 6 inch increase. there is a slightly higher area on what is referred to as a tower, but it is just an element on the corner that is architecturally very nice because it sets it apart. i am not sure if it is 2 feet higher or not. even if it were, i don't think it is significant and all he has really done is brought out the additional third floor so you have the usage of the area where it was never a full floor. there were a lot of meetings, as evidenced by the testimony, where it started out much larger, and i think that would have been appropriate if it was that height. this is a height that is appropriate. design-wise, i like the clay

tile roof and the windows, so i would be supportive of this and would move not to take d.r. and approve. vice president miguel: is there a second? commissioner borden: i will seconds. commissioner sugaya: to staff, i sent an email out requesting additional affirmation. the you know of that going anywhere? >> i am not aware of that. commissioner sugaya: just requesting additional information in terms of drawings, elevations. what i am looking at is the elevation on one street that is 1 inch wide and about 1.5 inches high. i am looking at the other elevation which is about 1.5-2 inches wide at the same height. and i am being asked to judge this building based on those drawings. there are no contextual drawings

or photographs provided in my pocket, which i asked for in my e-mail. the claim from the d.r. requestor that the upper side of the street may have taller buildings while the other side of the street are all populated with one-, two story buildings, i would have liked to have seen that. to place this entire project in some context. i am sure the architect, sir, did you ever receive anything from the planner requesting that? no. which you would have certainly provided. [inaudible] commissioner sugaya: okay, thank you. the confusing part, i think, is the project's sponsor, rightly so, has challenged the accuracy

of this particular drawing, but, you know, it was something that somebody spent some time on an outlet have seen -- and i would have liked to have seen something comparable from the architect to show the difference or least be able to say this was a true perspective or elevation. i guess my difficulty is i think commissioner moore may have had certain issues, also, but there are only as though you are people here. i don't want to hold this up, but i did not have my mind made up. -- there are only four people here. >> typically that is on the d.r. commissioner sugaya: i know, but i asked for it. which does not make me happy. >> i will speak to the product planner on that.

-- to the project planner on that. vice president miguel: i went out to look at the property, the disparity, and i had to drive around twice because it is a difficult corner to navigate, actually, without holding up any other trafficke. those who are standing in the doorway, that is not allowed. please take a seat. it is amazing how small to what actually is -- it is amazing how small the law actually is. i have to say i do not have a problem with the project, although i agree with commissioner sugaya that having gone out to take a look, it was hard to discern what is the situation there.