impact on existing capacity of local street system or muni. the rh-1 zoning district allows one dwelling unit on this lot. the district is intending to accommodate lower density. project is therefore an appropriate in-fill development. and the department recommends the d.r. an prove the project. thank you. president fong: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. s.i.a. consulting. we got into this project as a three-lot project. we initially filed the permit to restore the existing building that is at subject property. we proposed full foundation replacement, fabric upgrade restoration of the facade, and permit was achieved.

and construction resumed and the foundation was replaced, removed and replaced and they were in the process of -- they removed all of the sheetrock from the -- from the walls and they were setting the new walls in. and the new roof was -- the new roof was removed and new roof was supposed to go in and exactly at the wrong time that day, that night of october 3rd was extremely high winds and due to the lack of weight really, i would say, of the building because all of the roofing members and sheetrock and all of that was removed, the building was lifted and demolished basically. the client immediately hired us to be able to replace the tree unit that was on that lot with a

similar building and we submitted plans that was to construct a new two-unit building with the same footprint in bulk of the original building that was sitting there once. after a few months of process, planning department deemed the project basically demolished and has asked that my client to return -- to turn this building into a single family. this was a some financial hardship to my client and they really wanted to keep both units from what we understand the quote does not allow that to get rebuilt.

we are an architecture engineering firm. architects and engineers on staff doing over 100 projects in the year for the last 125 years. architecture the last 10 years. and we have never had anything like this happen to anything that we have done. although we were not in charge of this prong, but i think the cause of the demolition was just wrong timing of that windy night. i hope that you look at this project and approve the project as proposed. i'm available, and the owner is available for any comments you may have. thank you. president fong: thank you s there public comment on this item? none. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i could talk to project sponsor -- president fong: public comment closed. commissioner antonini: thanks. i called you today. i guess you got the message.

>> i did. i returned your call. it was late. commissioner antonini: i am looking at the renderings of the facade. i don't think it's sympathetic to the two new structures or recently built structures are on either side of it or to the structure that was there before. in particular, you know, there seems to be a cornous line before the peaked roof that was not represented, not that it has to be. and then window treepts are unimaginative and -- treatments are unimaginative. there are no mollants. the door seems to be routed right at ground level which may be the case but the other two buildings at least have some sort of entry steps and brought the entry door up to give it a little more representation and welcoming nature to it. these are some of the things i see and certainly a door that looks somewhat like a glass

section in the middle of wood or some other material around it instead of just solid glass is, the same with the window above it. the other structures all have bays on them or as did -- this seems to have a flat window with the deck out in front of it. so i would like to see -- work with staff on the facade for sure and see if other commissionerses have feelings because it could be a much more attractive building if we tried to do the types of thing that's were done with the two adjacent or look for the earlier element. unfortunately blew down as a representation of some ideas how to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i'm reading the building inspector's report. it seems a little different than the characterization of the building at the time the wind supposedly happen.

it says here the subject building is under alteration with the interior wall on the first floor story street level all removed. now, is that standard practice, that you would go in and remove all of the interior walls on the first level? >> let me check. commissioner sugaya: the second story collapse totally sideways with the attic towards the southeast side where the empty lot is located. most, if not all of the exterior wall studs were disconnected from their original contact. so it wasn't just the sheetrock that was removed. it seems like there were other things that were done. it just doesn't seem like a is situation where a little bit of wind just knocked the bimmeding over because some sheetrock came off on the interior. and i don't know how to characterize that except when i

was on the board of appeals, there were several instance where's contractors would come -- contractors would come in and say there's so much dry rot, we had to remove all of the interior walls. and you go well, isn't that going to result in a situation where the building could be subject to imminent collapse? so i -- you know, i'm just pointing something out, that it just doesn't -- i don't want to be in the business of rewarding people for intentionally -- i'm not saying this happened, but from the building inspector's report, it seems awfully suspicious that all interior walls were removed both on the first floor and second floor and to expect the building to stand up on its own. >> is it ok if i respond? >> i'm not looking for a response. it was just a comment. i also agree with commissioner antonini the front wood elevation looks like hell and has to be redone. d.r. and approve the project with project sponsor working

with planning staff to redesign the front facade. >> second. president fong: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: in support of what commissioner sugaya and initiated by commissioner antonini said, i do think that there are three examples of facades which together read better than what the position does. it's not as important when you look at building one and three but the demonstration wood frame, windows, volumes we expect the garage door is much too prominent because it's carved out in white and looks like a large hole and what was supposed to be pedestrian entrance, we normally refer to as front door, is too narrow. i think we need reproportioning

here and the rhythm and scaling of the facade, which is reminisceant of the others. president fong: president fong: there's a motion and second. >> i'm assuming commissioner moore's comments are included in your motions? commissioner, the motion before you is to take discretionary review and approve the project requiring that the front facade be reworked with project -- with department staff and incorporating the comment of commissioner moore. on that motion? and commissioner antonini. i'm sorry. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye, >> commission mare gel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you. commissioners, i'm assuming that the motion is for both the demolition that has no condition and that the new construction is basically as we have just

stated. thank you. commissioners, you're now on item number 17. >> case number 2012.0577d for 264 dore street. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. the case before you is request for discretionary review of proposed new construction two-story approximately 26-foot tall automobile repair facility at 264 dore street. the proposed building would cover the entire property which was just shy of 2,000 square feet in area and property is currently vacant and most recently used as a parking lot. the d.r. request is the 465 tenth street condominium homeowners association which represents the building at the rear of 264 dore street. their concerns include potential impacts to historic resource building, property values and lying to the rear deck area. they recommend that the proposed

be modified to create rear step-back at the second floor or have the rule wall of the proposed building be angled to allow more light and air into their deck space or some combination of the two options. regarding public comment, the department did not receive any written comments regarding this case, however, we did receive one phone call in support of the project as proposed from someone who works on the block. this project was not reviewed by the residential design team because it's not a residential development and subject property is not in a residential zoning district. therefore, the residential design guidelines do not apply. compliance department considers the project to be a reasonable proposal considering it is located within a 40-foot height district and primarily commercial and industrial zoning district that does not otherwise permit residential development. relatively modest proposal was also found to have no impact on the historic aspect of the d.r. requester's building and as such the department does not find skepsal or extraor therefore, we recommend the

planning commission to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. president fong: project sponsor? >> president, i'm sorry, this is the d.r. president fong: my apologies. >> we need the d.r. requester. i'm sorry. the d.r., yes. >> my name is themeous mickous. live in the condominium association. i'm the designated representation. i was very happy to hear all of the wonderful remarks about the new republic bank because i incorporated that bank. so naturally my comments will have additional weight. i think i boil down the argument into two basic objections to what mr. teague said.

the area is zoned service light industrial. as i have argued, that doesn't justify the allowing of new construction that would severely diminish the uses and liveability of a pre-existing use. our status in the neighborhood is grandfathered in. we were there first. before the zoning was adopted, i'm pretty sure. it's a severe setback to the liveability of these units and i don't want to get into an argument about values, but the collective decrease of value of our units in our building substantially outweighs any -- necessity possible benefit the developer is going to have. secondly, i don't know what your policy is on this. this is a registered national landmark. a member of your staff has already commented to me that it's of historical interest in san francisco. it's where the stage sets were made for all of the silent movies during the 1920's.

it's a very important building. it's true new construction is behind the building. but we don't think there ought to be any additional desecration to the building. the past buildings went up to a per apet level that we have. we don't think anything should go any higher but we are willing to compromise if that is necessary. we sent you some extensive subject drawings. i'm sorry they didn't get there until yesterday. i didn't realize one of our residents was a licensed arc teblingt until quite recently -- architect quite recently and that young lady is willing to speak to you and answer any questions you might have. i think we have been most troubled by the absolute opaqueness of the developer, this absolute refusal to compromise and talk with us at all. initially, there was talk. it was immediately squashed. members of his staff came up with some ideas. he said absolutely not. he's going forward the way it is. it's the type of bull headedness that i don't think belongs in this situation. i think this is a classic case for the exercise of your

discretion under the d.r. regulations to mitigate the obstructions to rather the desecration of the land mark and diminishment of our use. we will hope that you would act accordingly. and i would like to introduce now miss erica shlick, who would talk more about the plans we suggested. we have suggested these time after time and absolutely hit a stonewall. thank you. >> hi, my name is ericia, i'm a licensed architect and an active member of our community. i want to start by being clear we want the applicant to build on this par cell. he should respect and work with the ability that he is building in and not negatively impact the outstanding residences. the primary use is residential. further more, those of us who work in the building also live there. 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