for different things for different reasons. i pointed out before, most of the time ago to the independent hard wear store. if i am painting a fence outside, i will grab some paint there could i am not saying that the paint there is any worse than the painted a larger wholesaler, but if you're doing a big job, usually well, and painters have preferences. i have worked with a number of painters who like a particular paint for a particular reason. of course, they will drive out of town if they have to to get the paint and give the business to san mateo county or someplace, the taxes, but they are particular about their pains. while there are other sherman williams stores in san francisco, i think keeping business here in an area with a lot of wood frame structures and stucco structure that will be paid to it constantly, i think it will probably help the business in the independent

hardware stores, rather than detract from it. that would be my opinion vietor i am in favor of it, but we will see where we go. commissioner miguel: there are some arguments here that i have got to comment on, the argument about levis and other stores have been levis. sending those with nike downtown. these are flagship stores that are not expected to make any money, truthfully. they break even. they do their business with tourists. without the tourist business, it would not succeed. they are advertising more than anything else. we run into similar situations here. i understand commissioner fong's argument about the van ness avenue apartment houses. professional contractors have their contacts, where they deal with it. other than the condo owner, the

professional contractors already have their contacts. they do not have to look around on polk street to find a new paint store without any question. and truthfully, i think -- i believe any way, at least in my mind, that if they were going to open on van ness avenue, this might be a different consideration. maybe not, but it could be. after all, when we turned down american apparel on valencia, we told them to look more at mission street. when we had a small pet store on neighborhood streets, we said to go to a more major commercial street. in my mind -- and it was also a little hint of something saying they were professional, and they are. i am not questioning the staff at sherman williams. but having known the reputation of brownie's and others and

cole's, these are as professional as you can find in san francisco, as are their staff. so i see no problem in those arguments whatsoever. commissioner borden: i want to reiterate, there are three sherman williams stores, and the city is only seventh-by-7. it is not like you can drive to another town or, you know, even another city. for me, that is the reason that it is different. i understand that there might be people in the neighborhood with up to have sherman williams. but my general experience about how often people go to a paint store, the average consumer does not do that very often. we all admit that. people do not pay their buildings all the time. so i think that makes it a little different. if we had no sherman williams stores in san francisco, i think it would be a different conversation. the closest one is not very far on geary.

actually, there's one on 245 van ness, too. anyway, i think that, you know, if people really want to get the paint, there adequately able to do so. president olague: this is a really difficult one for me. we heard a chase on california a few weeks ago, too, and i was torn on that one. i think some of the formula retail discussions we have are pretty complex, and i look forward to them becoming a little bit more in depth when we start meeting, hopefully, with the small business commission and have more public vetting of these things. there are areas of the city were these discussions to not even occur, which is maybe why when you walk down market street, you see about three walgreen's and two cvs' every other block or something. there are things like that that eventually might become part of a larger discussion in the city.

but on this one, i am actually leaning more towards, i guess, the kind of quandary that was raised by the middle polk association, which is to have a vacant storefront that has been vacant for a few years. and you have somebody who is willing to occupy that space. so that would employ people, that sort of thing. i am not -- i think that in some ways by having a store front filled, it would increase activity. i would hope that people buying habits are diverse enough for their going to be committed, those of us to do shop more or less independently -- i was on polk street a few weeks ago and went to weekstthe tibet store an

the local bookstore, which is still unique. but i think i am going towards a more conservative perspective on this. it seems to me that commissioner borden -- i respect her motion, but i am going to go with the idea of activating that space and actually having someone there. so i am taking a more, you know, i guess conservative stance on this one. it seems to me that, most likely, this project will not be approved today. but i just wanted to say that i am torn, but i am actually going to go for filling the space. commissioner antonini: i just wanted to mention that the public may not be aware of these, but we have three letters from some businesses who are in support. one has been there forever. and two others that are

retailers in the area who depend on foot traffic and more activity and will benefit, but they're not competitors. that is one reason why they are in support. so we have to realize that there are people who will probably benefit if there's more activity going on if this place is no longer vacant. commissioner borden: i have a question, i guess, maybe to some of the other merchants and 80 two sherman williams if there would be something that could be -- i do not know if there is something that can be worked out. i know that we cannot intervene on what people can put on their shelves, but i wonder if there is any middle ground -- i do understand the concern about the vacancy, but i still want to protect the small businesses. i believe competition is important, but i believe there are other stores. i do not know, and i would love to hear from maybe mr. cornell

who has been on polk street for such a long time, if in his mind there is any sort of way that there could be a coexistence? >> say no. commissioner borden: i am just wondering. i know there have been cases where we have encouraged people to stop different things on their cells. you have to speak from the microphone and not the audience. >> to clarify, we i don't shoot -- sherman williams corporation owns several other companies. so the only place you can buy sherman williams-label products is a sherman williams store. president olague: mr. cornell, you can come to the microphone also. >> there will not be a sherman

williams product in his store. the only sherman williams stores sell sherman williams products. president olague: it looks like the motion -- please, mr. cornell. definitely. >> i cannot think of any compromise like that. commissioner borden: i just thought i would ask. president olague: ok, we have a motion on the floor to deny the project. recall the question. >> the motion on the floor is for disapproval of the proposal that is before you. on that motion, commissioner miguel >> no. >> commissioner borden president olagu, -- the passes 4-3.

thank you, commissioners. you're now on item number 13, kasich 2011.0861dd comment discretionary review request. president olague: no point taking a break, right? we should go through with the two items. >> good afternoon, planning commission couldn't i am the southwest team leader. we have a request for discretionary review of the building permit a -- proposing for a two-story horizontal addition in a one-story horizontal edition for 2478 43rd

avenue, located in the rh-1. the property is in the outer park side never met. the property is approved with a 1900 square-foot single-family dwelling there was constructed in 1994 -- 1944. three bedrooms and one that on the primary living level. is marred -- a small storage unit, tandem parking. the review as requested by the owner of 2476 42nd avenue, located behind the subject property. he is opposed because it is -- because it is incompatible with the skill of the neighborhood and would set precedents for vertical and additions to the neighborhood. there are several neighbors on 42nd avenue who are also in support of the request for the same reasons. the second review as requested by the owner of one of the

adjacent properties south of the subject property. she's also opposed to the project because it would create a larger blank wall on her rear property line, and there would not be any privacy as a result. the department has received two e-mails in support of the project from persons outside of the neighborhood. the department is recommending to not do it and approve the project proposed. it is act -- adequately setback -- [inaudible] the rear wall aligns with the main rear wall of the adjacent building to the north, with the rear of the building stepping down to the rear yard area has a horizontal rear addition as proposed, which will be two stories tall. a minimum of 40 feet separates the dr request your's building and the subject property.

that concludes our presentation. president olague: thank you. we have two dr's, so we will hear from both of you separately. i do not know which order you prefer to go in. you each have five minutes for this one. >> good afternoon. i am james warhol, and a live on 42nd avenue. thank you for your time today to hear a plea to not approve this proposed project. when i say our plea, i say this because i filed a discretionary review on behalf of myself and eight neighbors on the block. you'll be hearing from several of them asking you to say no to this project. they will file their own discretionary review, but it is $500 each, a financial burden. so we put our money into one review. some of them cannot make it today because they have to work or are at home sick or have other obligations. i have one letter from one of

the people who could not make it. i can distribute it. the abbreviated analysis, written by michael smith of the planning department, does not indicate opposition to this project other than the two discretionary reviews. he does not show all the e-mails and phone calls he received in opposition. let me assure you there are more than two households the proposed the current proposed project. we have eight households actively meeting on discussions on how to stop the current proposal firm being realized and a petition signed by other concerned neighbors. i can submit that, too. we were all shocked to find up to their original plan for the project was only a horizontal extension and that the planning department told the applicant to go vertical instead it when the

original proposal came out, i looked it over and had no objections. i thought no more of it until i got the second proposal initiative vertical extension. why? that is when the neighbors came together to try to convince them not to go vertical. at a neighborhood meeting, we were told the planning to permit told them to go up when they originally only wanted to go horizontal. so we are confused as to why, when there was no neighborhood resistance to the project, the planning department steered them into this vertical proposal. i also do not understand why anyone would want to go forward and build such a project when there are neighbors directly around them that are not happy. a few years ago, and neighbor directly behind me came to me and my neighbors and told us about a project they were considering before that plans drawn up. they said there were thinking about building its third floor. i told them i was not happy

about it at all. i told them to go horizontally as far as they want and when i care, as long as he did not go up. he decided to only approve this lower level and not build vertically. in my discretionary review, but several photographs of third- story additions in our neighborhood. of them in to show how ugly they are, how disruptive they are, how out of scale to the rest of the houses around. they are a visual eyesore dwarfing the houses next to the but it is another vertical extension i am against. i am against vertical extensions in the entire neighborhood. it ruined the character of the street. combined with her rent is utility poles and wires, it looks messy and causes stress to me. the never had is comprised mostly of two-story homes, some one-story houses, and physical, visual, and people density is low.

that attracted me to the neighborhood 10 years ago. i prefer to maintain this density of housing. we want you to say no to this vertical extension in go with the original plans that was submitted. i also want to show one other diagram. this is the subject property. president olague: i need you to speak into the microphone could you can move it. >> this box here is the subject property. all these are around here are people that oppose. that concludes my time. thank you. president olague: we will hear from the second dr requester, then supporters of both. >> hi, i am a little nervous, so

bear with me. my name is patricia, and i am the current owner of the property that abuts the lease property to the south, which has been in my family for 53 years. i grew up with my grandfather, a cousin, brothers, and sisters. this picture here -- wrong one. i am here to oppose the vertical edition as it stands. my first objection to the proposed third-story addition -- president olague: you can -- >> i am sorry. this is the property right here. it is out of context with the surrounding homes. directly across the street are tan one-story homes. on the the lead side of the street, their two-story stucco

homes, with the exception of the business corridor. the addition of the third story would put the housing out of character and violates section 101.1 of the planning code. second, i wondered during construction, during the planning, the home location was taken into consideration. it is completely visible from the street. it would have a large blind while measuring 31.5 feet from the street. it this proposal is proposed to didn't -- [unintelligible] it will add 13 feet four inches to the existing height and would be a public eyesore as well as an imposing structure facing my

yard, removing any ambient daylight from my rear windows, limiting my view. i die a blank wall would cover the entire rear of my property. this is what it will look like. all of these factors -- the third point would be the rooftop deck overlooking my property, which would take away any sense of privacy. it would stare directly into my back windows and into my ear, losing any sense of privacy and usefulness. we would need to hide behind closed curtains and avoid the art. the top allied wall with the overhead decks would make the art feel more like being part of a present an uncomfortable for the children who play in it now. all these factors combined with greatly devalue my property and limit the quality of life. also speak with mrs. lowe and mr. chang on both sides of me.

i cannot go to the neighborhood meeting because i was it out of town, but i spoke to him for over an hour on the phone discussing my concerns and understanding of the need of additional space. he stated the building forced him to go from a two-story horizontal addition to a 3- story critical edition. i expect -- i said i would prefer a horizontal admission. i believe by reworking the plans in utilizing the first story more efficiently than he did the same usage on two floors. perhaps the city would be conducive to this. my other fear is the blank area that is currently showing on the plans on the bottom floor could easily be converted into an illegal unit in a later time, which is rampant in our neighborhood. should all else felt, we need to do something to the south facing huge blind wall.

i suggest setting back the third floor deck at least 5 feet from the south property line. the guard rails could be changed. open hand rose, further and lightening the looks of the southside. and the upper back decks, are they really necessary is there going to have the use of their yard, too? these might mitigate some of the privacy issues that we are dealing. my main concern about this is that the best in your stand-up. i have lived in the multi- generational home, and we made it work on two stories. i think what will happen -- [bell rings] i'm sorry. if you look at this, you can understand that it will bid 31.5 floodwall. thank you very much. i also have a list of people.

unfortunately i had a second list, but in my haste to get here, i left it at home. there were an additional people on the list. >> speakers in favor of the dr. i have a number of cards. george, hope, robert, albert, james, charles. just, in any order. state your name. >> good afternoon. my name is hope lee chang. president olague: speak right into the microphone. >> i live on an 43 ullula street. that lady is my neighbor. the building is very close to my backyard.

my kitchen and dining room is very close. we have a feeling this is not very good, so i do not like it. thanks. >> my name is george, a friend of the family of the house at 4140. item three or four times a week. and i see it will be blocking if they build the building. [unintelligible] it will be an invasion of privacy, because you could see dining, bedroom, and the bathroom. it seems to me i would be very happy if the commissioners make a final decision to block the construction of that 43rd

avenue. thank you very much. >> hello, my name is -- president olague: speak right into the microphone, please. >> we need a little bit of humor here. my name is charles. i live at 2475 42nd avenue. i have been there since march 1, 1958. it is the sunset that we love. two-story garage, living space on top. there is a gradual input to tear the ambiance of this area apart. add44th and teravell, there was a successful hardware store, and they got a little of the -- of buddy.

i do not know why the planning commission approved it. there is a three-story building that destroys the neighborhood, the whole thing. i have a letter i was going to lead -- read from -- a letter i was going to read, but you have a copy of it. but, please. one final thing, and i am with in my two minutes. the people that want to expand their building wanted to go horizontal. somebody on the planning commission said no, you will go three stories. and why that is, to this day, i do not know why they said go three stories when there is plenty of room to go straight across and keep the facades of the building in confluence and enjoyment -- i am upset about this whole thing. but i think it is a crime to let this thing go through. thank you.

>> hi, my name is james. i live on 42nd avenue. i want to reach a quick statement. i am a third generation sunset residents. i bought my house because of the view. i also have a deck built to take advantage of the ocean view. the construction was done in a way not to depreciate the value of my neighbors homes. the only real investment and holdings most of us have our our homes peter it is a 40-foot building allowance -- of that were enacted by all people living on 43rd avenue, all the houses on 42nd avenue would have their ocean views wiped out. michael smith made the argument in the report that ocean views on our streets are not impeded because of being on a slope. before the story, a relatively new commercial building on the 40th not only takes out our review of blue and white water,

but the whole horizon. i invite all of you to come to my house to see the fair lawn switch would be indicated. the original building proposal to extend horizontal was and is supported by neighbors. the question i have made repeatedly and countless times to michael smith and others is whether there is a precedent for allowing, or has there ever been exceptions made to allow horizontal construction beyond the zoning regulations anywhere in the city and county? if so, why not in this instance? thank you. >> hello, my name is albert, and i oppose the project. i have no problem with them increasing their square footage. the problem lies in the location of the house. most the third story additions are mid-block, with neighbors

and nestling the building of a diminishing their mass and the impact on the block. unfortunately, this project is at the end of the block. this leaves the top 31.5 foot wide wall for all to see. in bernal heights and the eastern neighbor the guidelines address this concern. i know that sunset is not bernal heights, but the architects i never the thought that it was important, i believe that the architects in sunset should also. my idea to address this problem -- problem is to lie in the south wall of this project. this can be accomplished by stepping the third story and deck back in 5 feet, creating an open and a real condition. this reduces the mass of the continuous property line wall. i have a picture of a house on the sunset