having a 12 1/2-foot wall outside our own window and only source of light will reduce the quality of light and views for four units. we have submitted a scheme to find a balance that allows the applicant to achieve the square footage and not incur any damage on the building. this is the same square footage as supplied by the applicant for his design. there are ways to accomplish the same goals, the desired square footage and do this without any harm to adjacent properties. the schemes we submitted also lowered the units that have views and get daylight. it would allow for the views of the historic tower to remain. the tower is the most historic element of the building and would be blocked if the applicant builds his building as proposed. we would be ok with the schemes suggestnd and encourage the applicant to be mindful of the

surrounding vicinity and community. thanks. commissioner pimentel: speakers in favor of the d.r., i have a couple cards here. >> i live in 465 space 10 street. i'm one of the units effected. the wall will block most of the light coming into our only source of light to my unit and when we found out about the construction, we were told that it was already approved. none of us had ever received notification of the plan that was approved previously to build this unit. the first time any one of us had heard about it was a couple months ago. and so there was no way that any of us neighbors could have

given any input to the plan that was approved previously because i do not think the owner had notified any one of us. after knowing about the plan and the impact, we wanted to have a mediation with the owner to sort out the differences. i actually arranged for the mediation and i specifically told the mediator that we would be willing to pay the full cost of the mediation. we do not want the owner to have any cost implication to come and talk to us, but the owner completely refused to have anything to do with us. chris hall will tell you how when we were trying to come up with a compromise and discussed with the owner's engineers and together worked out a play that the engineer would think to be workable. the owner immediately stormed out and threatened to fire the engineer because he had dared to actually work with us, come up with a plan that is workable for both sides. and finally we also have found

that the building submitted do in the apply to code. issuing ca could tell us more about that. we discovered many violations to the code. the code has been revised. the plan was submitted on the old code which is no longer in effect. thank you. >> members of the commission, i live at 46510th street building. i'll keep this brief don't want to duplicate what other people had said. it seems to me this is s-an extraordinary situation. the one block street on dore street, most of the par cells have some sort of residential use. at the same time this is an area zoned for industrial building. we're not opposed to an industrial building. we're fine with that. we have what i think are minor proposed modifications to the

builders' proposed building. we would be happy to have an industrial building there with some modifications. we would be happy to work on what the ideal plan would be for the developer, but we have been unable to talk to him. we would urge you to make some minor modifications. >> my name is christopher hall and i'm one of the owners on 465 10th street. going back in the years i have lived in the building, it has been a garbage dump. there have been abandoned cars on the lot, syringes, graffiti, all sort of things on the lot. in the spirit of cooperation, this continues to this day where we try to work with the owner in terms of getting some sort of agreement and address our concerns. that has simply not hapt. that's really why we're coming to the commission asking for your intervention and some sort of reasonable sort of resolution to this. i'm also a little surprised to hear mr. teague say there was

no objections to it. i know that i certainly called mr. teague. i emailed mr. teague my concerns about it. the concept that there is no neighborhood opposition seems a little baffling to me, thank you. >> my name is adam hole come and i'm a resident. erika who spoke earlier, we bought the place together recently. it wasn't easy. it was a five-month escrow. we had to switch lenders in the middle of it and now we're dealing with this big wall. the first thing that we did when we received the keys was to have a party to meet our new neighbors. we were relieved that our presumptions were correct that our neighbors are friendly, compassionate, intelligent, and successful members of the community. so we felt right at home. now we're dealing with construction that affects us all. i don't want to look out my

window and see a looming new wall. i don't want my sliver of the san francisco sideline to disappear. i learned a long time ago about sharing. it's a childhood lesson to learn and it's compromises that builds communities. i would like to think i can empathize and understand what the applicants need and living with erika and seeing all the work that she has done for these architectural renderings, i think we are trying to be reasonable and we are trying to be a community and we are trying to be friends with the developer. i can only imagine that someone driving down dore street and seeing the iconic tower of the stagehouse loft and then pulling into the new auto garage by the developer and a customer could probably say something like, wow, you live next to such a cool building and the owner could say, i know. those are good people, too, and one of them even helped design the building, thank you. president fong: any other speakers in favor of the d.r.?

project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> planning commissioners, my name is nick poulter. i am the project architect representing the project sponsor and the property owner, mr. dan kennedy who regretfully could not be here today. thank you for the opportunity to address you. dan kennedy is a long-time resident and small business owner in san francisco whose intention is to build a modest two-story structure which can suitablely house a small automobile repair garage on the vacant dore street lot where there are already a number of such repair shops. as a businessman, dan kennedy who is in his 80's, takes a long-term view of things. he is not interested in making a quick buck by developing and selling this building, but rather intends to leave his properties to his children. as stated in my d.r. response,

this project after undergoing all normal neighborhood notification processes was previously approved by both the planning and building departments under permit application 2007-1206-9799 and a valid building permit was subsequently issued in 2008. unfortunately, due to the economic downturn, mr. dan kennedy was unable to proceed with construction in a timely manner in order to secure his building development rights which ultimately expired. in our efforts to reactivate the building permit several months ago, we were somewhat surprised at any sort of neighborhood opposition because there had previously been none. after two meetings with the d.r. applicant, both of which mr. kennedy attended, it became clear that no compromise was achievable and mr. kennedy to contact with them.

after a review of the d.r. application, we feel it should be denied and the permit process be allowed to proceed in a normal manner for the following reasons. if the d.r. applicants were not aware of the likelihood of the 264 dore street development when they purchased their units, mr. kennedy should noten penalty liesed for the lack of proper and timely disclosure of this issue on the part of the stagehouse couple association, the listing realtors, or the former unit owners. we feel the d.r. applicants' list and concerns concerning the affects are somewhat overstated and they are actually much less impactful than almost any other likely development scenario. live work unit owner should be aware they have not purchased a property in a normally residentially zoned area, but rather a mixed use service light industrial area which

serves many needs. lowered property values, there is no evidence to support their claim of any reduced value to their units. further more, any discussion of financial concerns is not relevant to these proceedings. building height, this is the key point, the proposed two-story building of 26 feet in height is substantially under the allowable 40-foot height limit which could easily accommodate a four-story building. this is generally why the, mr. dan kennedy is not willing to compromise. he feels that his, the building he wishes to build is already substantially under the maximum building envelope. the modest increase in seven-foot height above the current d.r. applicants rear roof deck parapet wall will not substantially change the views from or daylight into the rear lower level limits. it will have virtually no

affect at all on the remaining rear-facing units above that level. in conclusion, we feel the proposed project is precisely what the new western neighborhood guidelines were drafted to encourage, the service and light industrial use of an automobile repair garage, also it should be noted that any modifications to the proposed design would likely also have the greater effect of establishing a dangerous precedent to the newly established guidelines. thank you for your time and i'm available for questions. president fong: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor. it appears there are none. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal? >> thank you very much, i would like to meet two or three of those points. first of all, the rise over the rear parapet is not just seven

feet, it's more than that. there seems to be a lot of confusion of how high that building is going to go. we recognize that more than two stories are allowed, but we are offering some compromises that are included in those plans which they steadfastly refuse to look at or consider or even talk about that would give him the square footage, the same use and the same everything and substantially lessen the impact on our building. as far as the permit that was issued the last time, i didn't get a notice of it. i have been there since 1998. i don't know who did. the permit was issued, but this is a new permit, a new time, a new d.r. and a time for you to reconsider a d.r. at this point before granting a new permit. we respectfully request that you do that and we thank you very much for your attention. president fong: project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you choose.

no, ok. the public hearing is closed on this item and commissioners, commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i have a quick question for project sponsor. could you explain on the second floor under work area three, there is a comment that says body work prep/handiwork, can you explain what that function, whatever is going to take place some >> yes, it is intended to do things like repairing bumpers and small pieces of the car that can be manually transported upstairs because there is no elevator. commissioner sugaya: so these would be, well, that answers my question. so there will be smaller pieces that they could either one or two people could carry up the stairs, is that right? >> sometimes they're painted and then they have to dry and take them back down.

it's that type of thing. commissioner sugaya: thank you. president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: there are a few different options that were presented by the d.r. requesters. i guess there was one that has a little bit of an offset. maybe i could ask project sponsor a couple questions about the need maybe for the height. i guess that's my largest because it seems like you're going, what, seven feet above the grade of the previous structure, is that what we're dealing with here? >> seven, not above the previous structure. this lot has been vacant for as long as anyone can remember. so it's feeven feet above -- commissioner antonini: their parapet wall, ok. i guess what i'm looking at is there any way to diminish the height of the two floors and

still keep it functional for the kinds of tasks that need to be done in there or to set back the upper floor a bit, i assume your rear wall would be uniform, but that was one suggestion they made? >> you know, the building was designed essentially without the 40-foot height limit in mind because we had no intention of doing that. the building was designed to the specifications of the tenant, the hopefully soon to be tenant that intends to occupy the building. he is always in the automobile repair business and he knows what he wants. so i gave him what he wants. commissioner antonini: so he pretty much and for your type of business that you would be leasing to, that's the kind of height they seem to need? >> correct. commissioner antonini: ok. >> and just a point of note, i have not seen any of the

proposed designs that i guess you guys have received. so i won't be able to comment on them. commissioner antonini: ok. i don't know if any commissioners have any other ideas. i certainly think this is a good project, i have no problem with it, but i'm wondering if there is some way that something could be worked out to minimize the impact to the occupants of the lofts. commissioner sugaya: it's conforming to blow the be -- below the height. commissioner pimentel: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i feel a little bit between a rock and a hard place, although it is a residential, live, work unit, residential considerations don't seem to be helping us making decisions, i.e., that the rear balcony would be

considered like a light well and that there would be a responding setback on the building side to respect that adequate light comes into the light well and while we don't have these guidelines, i do think as we are now in the eastern neighborhood often finding more add jay seven sis between the residential and the null encouraged work space buildings that we might have to consider inventing some of these guidelines. because in the end, i think we need to find a way that residential, where it meets the requirement for open space and light and air is not being impacted. i'm not sure how this applies here and i wish there would be some guidance by which they could indeed shape a notch in that building edge in order to allow for at least a breaking

of the wall, it might not be as a full pullback, but it might be a notching. it might be a slanted shed roof which allows light to come into the work space in industrial type window like the typical industrial shed or something, just indeed responsive to a live-work loft type situation instead of just squaring it out as an industrial building. commissioner pimentel: director. >> i do think for the reason for the staff's recommendation is because there is an industrial area, there are live work units. however, if the commission is interested in making some sort of compromise, it does seem to me that just while the d.r. requester suggests an angled wall is a bad idea, it is not unusual in that and for the live work units in that neighborhood to have decks that

are surrounded by other buildings. it's just not. i have been in many of them myself. they're out door decks that are surrounded by other buildings. in the commission is interested in bringing some more light into that back rear deck, then simply angling the wall of the new addition which is a second floor which is a storage area, it seems to me to not compromise the function of the repair shop because it's a storage area, still gives them the floor area, still allows them to put some storage. the pages aren't numbered, but it's in the d.r. requester's package, it's angled roof. what they're suggesting is not a good idea, i would suggest otherwise to bring some light into the building. commissioner moore: perhaps ask the architect to consider whether the interior used as work space for the bumpers or whatever he described to us as to whether or not the industrial rule like a semished is indeed an appropriate

response. could you come up and discuss that with us, please. >> so your question as i understand it is essentially how i would respond to that proposal? commissioner moore: yeah. >> indeed that proposal as was alluded to by the d.r. requester if the first meeting, i think, with the d.r. requester is when mr. dan kennedy stormed out of the room very angrily. he does have a short temper and he just keeps going back to the same thing, which is i could put up a 40-foot building here, so why do i need to compromise when i have already -- when i'm proposing to put up a 26-foot building. so, yes, certainly an angled wall could be done, the floor

area, the useable floor area in that back storage section would be somewhat compromised, but it's not -- we built out the lot to the size that was available, so, yes, if it had to be angled back, it could be done. physically, there is no reason why it couldn't be done. commissioner moore: you have a 10-foot ceiling height upstairs, from seven-foot up, you create a fully usable work space and then the window going back, the issues here, the commission needs to be concerned about balancing that indeed we have this unusual live work situation, which is still a live situation as well as by definition a work situation and we would be interested in some adjacecy. perhaps if mr. kennedy would not lose his temper in front of the commission and listen to what our concerns are. we are hear to speak at a level

that needs to be an idea we need to discuss and pose to him. so i would like to suggest that we encourage the applicant whose architect to consider that and we're not talking about an extreme. i can't understand why he would not want to notch the building back all the way, but a shed type tilting of the wall as a light plane might be of interest to both parties. president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i like that idea and it might have benefits for auto repair area. many times you see places on the second floor where they're doing a lot of the auto work, they have some fairly large windows that might be part of the roof to allow some light in there and obviously most of the work is done with artificial

light, it wouldn't hurt to get a little natural light in there. i'm thinking if commissioner moore would be reseptemberive, i'm not sure if you rank from seven to 10 and the distance of five feet, i'm not sure how far you want it to go. commissioner moore: i would leave to the architect to discuss, the overall room of detailing and the type of windows that is available, probably some industrial shed. i would leave it up to you because we obviously want to guarantee the maximum use ability of the work floor for the owner, however, we would like to have it as a visual light feature and with respect to diminishing the wall effect on the adjoining property. if you could work with that as an idea, that would be greatly appreciated. >> my just sort of thinking on the go here, we may also want to have -- there is a concern also for their privacy, so once

we start putting a window in there we're going to have to be sympathetic to the height of that so that we don't have people peering out the window into their private space. commissioner moore: seven feet up, i think you have to be on a ladder and inside the room to peer out. that would be hard to do. president fong: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: given the arguments and the d.r. requesters that perhaps we should also throw in the mix the consideration for bringing the wall back some distance. i'm not suggesting what that would be. but if you look at their angled roof equals a bad idea diagram, they're saying something that they'll be looking at an angled roof and, you know, that's going to be, well, anyway, so maybe a consideration, i know you lose square footage in the other instance, but some consideration of bringing the

rear wall back x number of feet might be thrown into the mix as a consideration also. or as another possibility. i would also like to point out that the angles from the summer sun and winter sun are very simplistic. your backyards essentially face northwest, i think it is, and there is no sun coming from that direction if these plans are accurate. so the angles that are drawn on here are really the right angles. >> my reason for suggesting that angle is six because i was trying to avoid losing square footage. since it was a storage area, it seemed like if it didn't have full head height, they could use it for storage. that was the thought there. i think the d.r. requesters appropriately raised the drainage issue. the drainage has to be worked out.

all of that is workable in these kind of situations. i was just trying to figure out way for them not to lose square footage since it is well below the building height and well below the number of stories that they could have. commissioner moore: i would agree with you partially also if you pull the wall back and get into other structural issues which i think is not quite appropriate to a simple building like that. i probably just deal with the window and some kind of arc strect really interesting form. >> commissioners, if i may, commissioner moore, you did mention seven feet. perhaps what we can compromise on is giving them a seven-foot floor to ceiling height at the back wall which allows them enough for storage and at that point a 45-degree angle to the proposed roof height. >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand that at all. what we said was that

originally we would take a look at the plan and -- president fong: the public portion is closed until you're called upon, i'm sorry. commissioner moore: i think you summarized it correctly. >> to repeat, it is a floor to ceiling height of seven feet from the existing second floor and at that point a 45 dre angle increases to the existing roof height. so you have basically an angled roof at the rear. >> which is pretty close to what has been suggested here. >> correct, except it would be seven feet he is second floor the point where it begins. president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm fine with that. i don't know if we would take d.r., i would make a motion, the only answer i need from you is the depth to which that rake curse. it's from seven to 10 -- 45 degrees. >> it starts at the seven-foot

height commissioner antonini: that will determine it. >> at that point it angles into 45 degrees. ok. so take d.r. and approve the project with a raked roof at 45 degrees from the rear line of the project at seven feet to a height of 10 feet to a death of 10 feet. president fong: is there a second to that? commissioner moore: second. >> ammunitioners, the motion on the floor is to take d.r. and approve the project with the modifications that commissioner moore and antonini have stated and summarized by -- commissioner moore: i would like to add a clarification

that we encourage the addition of the wall facing would be of light color and add light and a feeling of some kind of finish to it. >> is that ok? >> that's fine. >> including that the wall color be of light color and some sort of finish. on that motion -- >> can i clarify that? >> yep. >> is it the wall or just the wall, we're not talking about the roof? commissioner moore: the roof is not, the roof, we cannot dictate that we want to make sure that the wall is not dark and foreboding but indeed the wall is a positive surface as the open deck will face this the open deck will face this wall.