this neighborhood that buildings that had been somewhat altered but were otherwise intact were considered potential historically resources. in the last 25 years there has been a change. if there are any alterations, this registers as blank. we thought you could approach by 22nd street but to there are too many altered buildings. we thought you could come down from liberty street. we ask why they carefully showed the storefront which has been altered, literally every last one of them. what is directly above it is

very clearly a high-end victoria building. i looked it up. in fact, it cost to $30,000 for the three killings. that was astronomic at that time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. in my view, the declaration fails to understand the historic nature of this project. the overall scale of this project is compatible with the

surrounding architectural pattern and that is just not true. of everything on the spot is one, too, or three stories tall. this building is five stories. this is far larger than the surrounding buildings. these are blocks away and not adjacent. furthermore, the survey as highlighted is itself highly historic. for example, directly across valencia st. are well-deserved victorian buildings. these were part of the commercial district of supported the residential area and this is not discuss the impact on this work of building. furthermore, they have template is the impact that this will have on the street. this ignores the fact that these are all the same scale and mass

as the other residential buildings. the proposed project would put a huge facade on the street. this will dominate the historic district. this new building will become the future of the street. this was some kind of the committee separated but this is not the case. liberty hill was a symbol community. in each, the project would more definitively terminate the

historic boundary. would it means is that this would be walled off from valencia street and from all of the historically complementary buildings on valencia's street. this proposed building would dominate those of the historic commercial district. this was not addressing the infirm and the impact that will be at a neighborhood. please reject it. >> thank you. >> good afternoon.

as an engineer, one is talked to -- many of the judgments are subjected and often using previously adjusted analyses. concern number12, traffic. this is presented on the amount pollution anticipated from the cars circling. there is reference made to the spread sheets. they lack data as well. the statement that new twice as large restaurants.

the concern number14, shatters. shatters the cover a half block are not insignificant. they need more heating -- houses under a shadow need a more heating. the lack of supporting data it is disturbing enough in its own right however the - and our mental impact is further exacerbated by the combined impact of similar developments. the evaluation must consider future will projects.

these and other failures to factually identify and quantify the - in terminal effects of this project and similar developments like it demonstrate the public cannot be honestly served without a full environmental impact report. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here today because this building has serious flaws that have not been adequately addressed. i can tell you that the lack of parking is mitigated by public transportation is not true. my bike is mine primary source

of transportation but i also have a car. on weekends and -- i don't know who we are kidding by saying that transportation is great. there is already more demand for parking. there is a seven-year wait list for a monthly spot. i disagree with the planning department's analysis of the situation and i think that it needs more scientific and unbiased assessment. thank you. >> .

>> good afternoon. i've been a resident of san francisco for 40 years. several years ago i had an accident on my bike that left me with a metal plate. the nearest handicapped parking a block away, this proposed 16 units, five story monster will be run across the street from me. parking is hardly a problem. between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., people are coming on or into the neighborhood, parking is almost impossible.

this building to select other large multipurpose buildings does not have any parking. it will only increase congestion and noise as more cars from the neighborhood looking for parking. this is a quiet neighborhood. this building is out of place. please to not allow this project to go forward. commissioners, how can you nestle a five story, 16 unit with and in large restaurant building a month scriptoriums and say there is no interminable negative impact. this is insulting. thank you.

>> i live with my husband and daughter on our home on hill street. on the end of our blog is the site in question. we support the statements of our neighbors to the opposition of the project as designed. my own statement here is that we are honored to own a beautiful victorian home on a beautiful street and consider ourselves to be stewards of the treasure. as you consider the plan in question, we urge you to who look closely at this. these can only be integrated

possibly with the change the codes this. the proposed property plan does not protect or integrate the liberty hill's historic district. my neighbor outline specific ways that this is true. thank you very much for your attention and consideration. >> thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, my name is barbara russell, a miami native san franciscan. i've spent most of my life here or just half a block away. i enjoy life here. i raised my son here. rooftop living areas are foreign

to me. there are only a few in the area and neighbors have found them unacceptable. this is a new way to live but i do have questions. this is 8 or nine months out of the year. this is a family-friendly building. can i take an active-t rolled and play on a rooftop to. where does the dog go to eliminate? how many families continue this at the same time if there are 16 apartments, can 10 to 12 use this at the same hour? where do i put my barbecue? how many can i line up? i am sorry, this is foreign.

i feel it is out of place. foreign to a way of life i have to enjoy with my family and friends on the block and that i've enjoyed for all of these years. at the same kind of building in san francisco and twin peaks. this is a building that has 2,000 ft decks. i have not had anyone apply with a family ever my building is twice the floor plan of that proposed. if i want to add another story, i would like get to the absence from my neighbors. this would be seen as an excuse to break the law. where they have used these

buildings, it would be clear that the idea of children playing and running on my five- story roof would be an unnerving proposition and unsafe. i would be rejected and that would be the end of it. >> thank you. >> i am a resident, a business owner, and a property owner directly across the street from the proposed construction. here is a picture of what the property looks like right now. this is about how tall everything is in the entire surrounding area.

i cannot tell you how tall it is but it could go pretty well off the page. i live right across from the development and it was a very long process. i've spent close to $200,000 on repairs on this house that i'm working on now. i am disturbed that i received no notice of this disturbed construction except for a flyer i got from the neighborhood association. i don't understand how such a huge construction project could

happen so close to my home without even being told about it. this seems like a completely ridiculous and out of place building to have over here. i am not opposed to the development, i just think that it is ridiculous. thank you. >> thank you.

>> my name is james lundgren. as a former resident, i wish to state my opposition to the proposed building. the eastern neighborhoods plan needs to be administered as wisely as possible. a 55 foot high building should not be allowed on this residential block. this goes a long way toward undoing the fabric of this building. who want to make sure that they don't develop the this.

>> the entry to the liberty hill historic district should not be in question. it should enhance the high expectations of the community. this building will dominate the streetscape and undermine the aesthetic and environmental life in this area. the environmental impact of this project. this project definitely has negative impact. the air quality will be worse, the noise will be louder, the shadows will be greater.

in the aggregate, this poses an instrumental impact. this architecture should build community, not destroyed. they specify their concerns. one, the scale was a concern. the architect has refused to budge from his plan. setback is a concern this is not take the place of a setback and is inappropriate at this

location. materials are a concern, this building does not have a cynical attitude that would tie it to visually to our historic district. aluminum windows are just one glaring feature. with the advent of the south of mission and stark research survey, this side will be surrounded by historic resources and the historic district. the site really should be developed in a way that is comparable and compatible and would add to the feeling of this committee. think you. i think that that concludes this. >> is there additional public comment on this item? public comment disclosed.

-- is closed. this is a hearing on the deck. as i might amplify, the majority of the buildings for about the sign and this has yet to be reviewed or processed so i can answer any questions. >> i want to thank all of the neighbors for coming out and speaking to this. i believe that this document is adequate and they did in fact

addressed the concerns that we raised adequately at the original hearing. also, the project will be coming before us so i think that there's still time to discuss specifics around the project. this was discussed during the eastern neighborhood process, this block of valencia. there was an extensive discussion there. the height limit there is actually 55 feet and i believe that as it is at 55 feet. i believe that the staff adequately addressed the questions that we raised regarding the peace of this

draft. with that, i move to uphold the proposal. >> do i hear it second? >> i have a lot of concerns and i realize and agree with my colleague that many aspects need to be analyzed and they were analyzed. my concern is this, if this comes back as a building that is 35 feet or 40 feet and if we have 10 units and there are 12 units and they have 10 or 12 parking places, the impact will be less. i guess i have a question for the environmental staff. if this building comes back and

the commission would approve a smaller building and the parking and other changes such as design and things that the neighbors have spoken to, does this maker the deck still adequate if the building is different? >> this was still be adequate because we have analyzed the larger projects. anything smaller in scale or less would be less of a less than significant impact. >> i believe that this is not the time to make a decision on the project. i want to make sure that if it was smaller, if some of the other concerns are mitigated

like the deficit which is 34 parking places could be a largely mitigated by providing parking, that would not need to be analyzed. >> right. >> >> thank you. i share a lot with what has been said. many of the things that we are looking at, we will be looking at this and i think that we can do some designs that are more compatible with the neighborhood perhaps and a case can be made for putting in something that is smaller. this does not have such a large impact. i'm not saying that that is necessarily what happened but i would be sympathetic to something along those lines. i'm not sure what the history of what this whole project was. i would assume sponsors worked

with staff. this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. many people ride their bicycles off and they used the transportation. they meet their needs to be comminations to new residents as exacerbated in the parking situation. maybe we should put closely at what we are promoting and telling people to do our may be the project sponsored is this and that is the way it came to be. i would have hoped that we would have drafted something that would have been an little bit smaller and a little bit more sensitive or encourage staff when this was possible. thank you. >> i want to express my support for holding the preliminary deck and i encourage the project sponsor and the architect to be responsive and in dialogue with

the neighbors because this project comes before us. also the argument made today normally applies to in we have a specific project. i suggest in order to minimize everyone's effort and antagonism, that you all work with each other to -- which has more than neighbor support. the project has certain requirements based on the new zoning which prevailed including the how valencia street is about to become. >> i would agree with both commissioners who previously spoke with respect to the design aspect of the proposed project. i will try to emphasize the need for the project sponsored to work as much as possible with

the neighbors and the neighborhood organization. this is one of the larger turnouts we have had for an appeal. the project comes before you. i don't know if the appellants will appeal this to the board of supervisors, is that the next round? >> yes. >>