in 1998 and so it has been in the neighborhood for a long time and seen a lot of changes and it is all of the construction of the costco across the street and the revitalization of the whole neighborhood and it is more than ilittle ironic that i am here advocating for help for these live-work residents in that urging the board to protect this housing, back in 98, 99, i represented businesses all over this area, including a whole bunch of businesses over one block on 11th street, which made up the nighttime entertainment coalition for 11th street at this time in 98, 99 and i am sure that commissioner fung remembers. >> they opposed the housing and fearful that the long term commercial interests would be injured and not paying any fees for housing, it was really just a disguised condomimium project. the planning department fought tooth and nail, to put this

housing in here. and i mean, they swatted down the community and approved thousands of units in this area all up and down south of market. while the community screameds don't put in the housing, the department kept on saying this isn't housing. it is housing, the department admits that was a huge mistakes that 99 percent of the live work units is nothing but housing, look at how many there are in this particular area. the arrow points to where this one unit is. there is more than 65 buildings having live-work within a very small three-block radius. >> sorry, victor, i don't know if you can do anything about this, but or monitors are not allowing that. >> i will just hand it up. >> it is a map showing where they are. >> it is grossly unfair to now say this housing deserves no protection. and it does not make any sense. it is grossly unfair and

unreasonable to say that the ha bitbility and livebility for this housing can't be done. for this particular project, the position taken by the department at the planning commission was we are going to build a wall, right against the sole source of light for these units. the planning commission to its credit said no. the planning commission, over ruled the department granted the discretionary review and moved back the wall slightly and just didn't go far enough. and so, the department has already made an error and been over ruled by the planning commission on that. they said that it is an error not to treat it more like housing. it is an error not to give sensitive and compatible adjacent structures designed qualifications. so, i have attached policies that have not been passed yet.

i spoke to the board of supervisors, land use clerk and anticipated that they would be pass and they were passed on december 6th by the board of supervisor and they have been introduced to the land use committee almost a month ago, it will be a month ago, 30-day rule will expire on friday and so we anticipate that it will be passed. and that these land use designs will go into place. and if this permit is not finally issued before that time, we will have to comply with all of these new policies. and i believe that there is more than enough policy in front of you already with the general plan, the housing element, all of the neighborhood plans and common sense tell us, that we are supposed to improve, maintain, or housing at all levels. it makes no sense to punish the new owners. it makes no sense to punish the

newest occupants of this housing, when they turned in that they had no idea that we were going to get treated like housing and get the 10-foot set back that would be given to any housing unit. there is also other design guidelines, which i would like to submit, if i am able, design guidelines for industrial areas. which i think could also be used in this instance and it gives a perfect example and it is part of the code. >> what is it? >> what is that you would like us to see? >> it is the industrial design standards. >> industrial design guidelines. >> and they are not in your submission? >> they are and i submitted several others. but the point really is that the guidelines all say the same thing. whether you are talking about the residential design guidelines which the department in its dr analysis there is no guidelines at all that are applicable here. there are guidelines out of the

general plans and the guidelines for the industrial areas and for the new soma plant and they all say the same thing, adjacent development in residential areas or residential, not residential areas but adjacent to residential properties should be sensitive and compatible and it is not hard to understand and this particular design element, applicable shows how the rear yards should be configured when the industrial and residential areas meet. and the only thing that makes sense here is to provide a small set back, it will not hurt the next door development. we are not talking about a yard. we are not talking about a set back at the ground level, we are talking about the set back at the upper floors, they are building to the property line what the appellants are saying is don't put a solid wall in

front of the own window that we have in our dwelling unit. and for those of these units that is their own window. they live and work there, they are large windows but that is it, that is the only source of light to those particular units. so i am urging the board to, you know, take a look at the industrial design guidelines, and take a look at the other guidelines that i have attached as exhibit 9 and ten and use your common sense. that makes no sense to degrade and to devalue housing, this particular housing, for units of housing for the construction of an auto repair shop. and the auto repair shop will still be built. it will just be slightly smaller. if you gave it a ten-foot set back, it would lose something like 250 square feet or less. and in fact, if you look at exhibit 3, there is an architect who lives in the build provided different configurations where they could get more square footage.

>> you know what would be helpful to me is in the exhibits in your submission, you include many designs, the insert under tab three is pretty thick, but i would like an actual visual of the windows that are going to be blocked. is that the last tab? >> it is the last tab. and actually, i think that there is a couple of others in there. >> could you help direct us to this specific tab numbers? >> it is the last tab. >> okay. >> and i think that is the view from the inside. but then, >> so those entire windows will be blocked by this development? >> yes. >> it will be up against the patio and those windows face the patio. >> it will be against the patio or the windows. >> not against the windows >> is there anything that will

be right up against the windows. >> no. >> if you look at exhibit 6, that shows the three window and there is actually four that are affected of the units and it is these lower units. >> did you put that up on the overhead and point to it on the picture, please? >> i will look at that one. and it is these units here and there is one unit that faces directly north. we are looking. >> number 6? >> that is number 6. >> that is not my number 6. >> exhibit 6. it is not the exact same, but it is close, it has arrows pointing. >> no. >> okay. >> thanks. >> yeah. >> and both of the buildings on either side of this building are substan hally shorter so this is going to stick up and be as i said blocking those windows, it is not about views, it is strictly about light. >> okay.

thank you. >> okay, we can hear from the permit holder. >> did you rule on whether you wanted to see the industrial design? >> i am okay. >> not everybody wants it so. just forget it. >> good evening, board members my name is nick polter and i am the architect for the project. according to the board's published special instructions for parties, the standard of review, the board shall use in deciding a case such as this, shall only be in the case of error or abuse of the zoning administrator. that has not been shown.

all of the technical procedures were followed correctly as will be corroborated by the zoning administrator's testimony. i will not bother reading the five procedures that everything went through. >> just an over review. >> pardon me? >> are you, confused? >> the sole reason for the appellant's case is that they are not happy with the out come of the discretionary hearing and the wish to further impede the building process. the appellant's brief provides no new evidence and does not attempt to justify any zoning error or abuse of discretionary power. >> you should focus your comments on the denovo review. >> it means that we are hearing it fresh, it applies to the zoning determinations and which there is not. >> it is a building permit.

>> i understand. >> so, i guess that i am not quite prepared. i will pull out my file on the, which you probably have a copy of that i attached which was the discretion review hearing. and the point there is that not to lose focus on the key element, which is that this building by all rights could be a 40-foot building. so a 40-foot building, let's say four-stories of ten feet with a ten-foot set back, would be far worse of an impact on these units than what we have here. so, this is exactly what many years of study by the planning department has come, this is exactly what has been

determined that the city wants. is that industrial use buildings back in san francisco to create jobs. so to now say that this building needs to be further reduced in size, is starting to make this an uneconomically viable building as you know it is a very small lot. so losing that upper space, we have already lost roughly three and a half feet of depth. and that head room in there is substan ard head room, it is now 6-6 for the ceiling height and which makes it basically usable for shelving storage. you can barely get in there. so to further reduce this, i think would be grossly unfair. and also, remembering that if this case, if this appeal is upheld, there will be many others and similar situations.

so, i respectfully submit that you uphold the site permit that was dully issued. >> so you are the architect. >> okay. >> i know that i jumped in. >> commissioner. i'm interested in your views of the different potential designs under tab three. i think that it was represented in the appellant's brief that you did not look at it or consider it. >> i did look at it at the discretionary review hearing, very briefly. the problem is that in a building this, such a small footprint, it is not really viable to put in an elevator. so in an industrial building, what are you going to do with a third and a fourth floor? >> you are going to be carrying, this building was designed already with an extra wide staircase for storage of

partially completed automobile repair parts. bumper that had been painted and you can't get a car on the second floor, what are you going to do with a third and fourth floor in a building this size, if you can't have a elevator, that is why they were dismissed. that is not what the intended use of this building is. if it was a residential building then maybe you could come up with an argument for that, but it is not. >> just more of a comment than a question. based on the planning commission's ruling in the dr hearing, you could have taken that wall in the back up at a 45-degree angle, which would have gave you better head room, right? >> yes. and the reason that we decided

not to do that, is after discussing this with the structural engineer, santos and this building is designed as a concrete block building. in order to do that 45-degree slope, >> it changes it. >> it would become. >> it changes the structural system. >> and it would probably have to be done in framing or something, and that is not... >> understood. >> okay, thank you. >> sure. >> on the record. the house that we have lived in for 27 years has no backyard to speak of. >> we are having a hard time hearing you.

you need to speak directly into that microphone. >> and if you could state your name. >> the house that we have been in for 27 years. >> your name? >> daniel kennedy. >> the house that we have lived in for 27 years has no backyard to speak of. if you would like to take a walk, please call first 346-7785, which is in cal hall. i thought that we lowered the height from 40 feet to 26 feet, everyone would be happy. but i was wrong. the taxes would go from $350 to $3,000. i see no reason that they should not pay for the cost of

the adjustment, $2500 plans, please keep in mind that the $2500 is a one-time that i have put out already. >> may i make a suggestion? >> are you with this gentleman? >> so do you... >> he is the owner. >> i'm the owner. >> okay. maybe you might want to interpret that. >> because i didn't really... >> the way that i understood it was there was a cost to adjust the plan of $2500 that you would like someone else to pay. and you would like the people that are protesting the design that you have already paid for it is going to cost you $2500

more to adjust it, and is it true, would it be fair to say that if someone else paid for that, you would be opened to considering it? >> yes. >> okay. >> no. >> okay, we are getting a different >> he is affirming what i am saying. >> why don't you folks discuss among yourselves and come back and rebuttal and tell us what your position is. okay? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so we can hear from the planning department now mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department. so the subject property at 264 dore street is located with the sli lighting industrial district and the appellant's property is the property behind that on tenth street would note

that the zoning district prohibts dwelling units and has since 1990, meant to encourage industrial usage, so it is not a dwelling unit, it is a live-work building. the subject property is to build a two-story auto repair facility and i would note that in 2007, they submitted a building permit to authorize the exact same project a full two story building, that underwent the neighborhood notification between march and april of 2008 and there was no discretion requests and it was issued in august of 2008, due to the down turn they did not pursue the project, when they wanted to come back to the department in 2001, to pursue the project it has been more than three years since the last neighborhood notice we must do a new neighborhood notification, so they filed for the new permit in january of last year, and underwent the neighborhood notification between april and may, there

was a discretion review request and it was heard by the planning commission and they recommended no changes but the planning commission sought to take discretionary view and provide amount of relief the live and use. we are here with the appeal today. i would like to address the issues, first the plan it was adopted by the planning commission in december, it has not had a hearing at the land, use committee yet, there will be a hearing at the end of the month, perhaps. and or early march. then it will go on to the full board of supervisors, and then it will become effective 30 days after the second reading after the full board of supervisors so there is still time that we would estimate that the earlyist the zoning changes would take effect would probably be late april or early may. and the design guidelines that were referenced have not been taken. the planning commissioner adopted those are guidelines,

the law of the day is the sli zoning district, so this project has been approved in 2008, and came back because it expired. new notice, and the planning commission, sought to make that change and provide relief for the adjacent property and the appellant would like further relief. and i believe that they are not providing accurate information and showing you the impacts on the building. this building, the units in question do not face due east, they actually face north east. >> so, i think that when looking at that, we can see that there really is not as severe impact as the appellant is claiming, just to show the parcel map, so if i could have the overhead, please. the overhead? thank you. so, this is north, so that is true north and we can see that this is the appellant's property and this is the

property in question and so it is actually located to the north east of the subject property and it is looking at aerial photo and here is that same view. we can see that it is a large structure the loft, this portion on the top, i believe was added when it was converted to a live, work in the mid 90s and that is when the units in question are. and so as you can see, you know the shadows here are actually being cast on other properties because of the size of this building. and here is another look at the property, we can see again, this portion here of the building is going to cast a lot of shadow on the existing windows just patio already. and this is the property in question, here and we will build a two-story building and it will be roughly the height of this building here. and going and looking at a head-on photo of the property. we can see the shadow cast and the building has not been built

but the shadow is being cast by the stage house loft building itself because of its orientation. i think that the arguments that further set back is going to provide much additional relief is not really accurate considering the geography of the sight and given how the sun does in fact work. so with that, you know, i believe that is the project was appropriately reviewed by the planning commission and approved, and i would respectfully request that the board deny the appeal and uphold the permit as approved by the planning commission and planning department and i am available for any questions. >> what can you tell us about the proposed land use control that are pending, would they have an impact on this project in if they were approved. >> if this board takes an action tonight and a notice of decision in order is issued in ten days, then they have a valid building permit and can start construction, they

received it before any zoning changes. if there is no final determination from the city prior to zoning changes coming to effect, then they will be subject to the new requirements as the appellant stated. it was pointed out in the appellant's brief that there is an argument that the use will not be allowed under the proposed zoning. so a couple of notes on that. first the building envelope is not in question, i think that in talking to the staff that has been working on this western soma plan, the building envelope will still be allowed under it. and in fact the use would be allowed, however, as it is currently drafted, you could not have an auto repair use that has an opening on to an alley on to dore in this case. so i discussed that can the planner and they said that that, they were not sure if that was really the intent of the zoning change, and so that will be discussed at the land use committee at the end of the month and early march. and it would assume that one or

two hearings and there are other details to work out with the plan but as the project is now, it complies with the law of the day and the law of the day when it approved in 2008. >> okay. >> so, just for clarification, then, if the legislation or the... what is it? >> the controls, are in effect, say that they go into effect as is then, you are saying that the one aspect that would have an impact on this project would be the fact that an auto repair business would be opened or opening on an alley? >> yes. >> and that would prevent that? if there is no modification of it. >> yes, i think that the staff was going to discuss that when it went to the land use committee to see if that was the intent. >> if the idea was just to prevent the use then you would say that you cannot have the uses on the alleys.

but it seems to be not how it was drafted it was confusion and they are going to seek clarification to the decision makers. >> do you, i understand that your position on the light with the shadows, etc., do you feel then that the building impact as it has been represented by appellant, if in fact it is considered, i mean, let's setting aside the fact that it is an sli area, if it is and these are legitimate dwelling units would that type of building be considered appropriate here? >> this is one of the things that was raised in the appellant's brief that somehow this building rendered the live-work units illegal somehow. that is not how the land use controls work. i mean that you have to provide exposure and open space and provide those on your own property. you can't take from someone else's property to provide that.

so, you know, i would say that this building, as proposed is co-complying and does not... >> do you understand my question? i don't think that you are answering it. >> maybe not, then. >> assuming for the sake of a hypothetical that the unit is considered a dwelling unit, setting aside, that it is not supposed to exist there in that manner, would the project as proposed be considered appropriate? >> in my discussions with staff, yes, they felt that was appropriate. >> okay, thank you. >> okay. we will take public comment, then? is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item? >> my name is adam holcom and i am a new resident to the

building. and it is interesting seeing those pictures of the shadows and when they took them. because i moved in during the summer and you know, we got light coming through our windows. >> just for the record, we need to ask you if you are an officer of the hoa. >> no i am not. >> okay. >> property owner. >> all right. >> some properties owners hold the positions with the hoa. >> i am not an officer. >> thank you. >> and so my unit is going to be the one that is affected. and you know for a building to go up there and says that yeah, it is obviously there are shadow coming and going to be in certain times of the year or the day, but talk about pulling the curtain up when you put a building in front of my window. and also there has been a misleading idea that he can build this 40-foot building, and this tall building right next to our patio and that is completely false. the zoning says that the far is

for 2 stories, or the zoning says that the far is two. and covering the entire side as the applicant wants would never be 40 feet tall and two stories. >> and to touch up, you know, to talk about what was discussed at the hearing, the last hearing, you know, everyone on the board agreed that you know, there needs to be... that there was no code for when one construction was built adjacent to live-work, it is live-work, its primarily use is residential and it has been from day one and it requires at least a ten foot set back for all adjacent construction and so i can the board that the live work should require a set back. the planning commission saw that this was missing and co