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 commented that there needs to be a standard about this written in the code as residents would be happy with at least a ten-foot set back on

the second floor. >> you know, in taken into account the depreciation of four to five units, and a historical building, you know, like you to consider this appeal. thank you. >> >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none we will move into rebuttal, mr. williams? >> steve williams, again, thank you. you know, we are happy that the planning commission reversed the department and said that you have made an error and give this housing some relief. total straw man argument that this could be a 40-foot building and that has what is upset the project sponsor is that he was told that he is giving all of this up, there is no way, there is no 40 foot buildings anywhere near that dore alley.

>> this is a residential area, contrary to what the zoning administrator has said. look at the maps, that i have attached, half of dore alley is residential and in fact, the residential move, zoning is only going to be two lots away from this project. and that is... you know it is disappointing to see that they have determined that this use won't even be allowed when the new land use changes come in and perhaps they are going to change that you know just to stick it to these live, work residents that seems incredibly unfair to me. these folks really will have no choice but to try to delay the permit in order to reach that new zoning. if all benefits are going to be denied them of any kind, under the policies which are already in place, remember this special use district has been in place for a long, like five or six years now. and this has been this delay in

implementation of the policies and the design guidelines around that. if all of that is going to be denied to these folks, you know, really we will have no choice but, you know, to try to get relief. and you know, for anyone to say that we are exaggerating the impacts. we have not made any outrageous claims about the impacts. but ask yourself, what kind of an impact is that? a 12 and a half foot wall flush against your deck and that is what they came up with. here is what the planning commission gave them. i mean, it is absurd. >> you don't do that to valuable housing anywhere in the city. it does not make any sense, which is why we have these design guidelines coming in to these areas. and big, they all say sensitive and compatible. is that sensitive and compatible? it is not. that is sensable and compatible.

i mean that is the way that the design guidelines work in every area, including the industrial areas. and i have the industrial design guidelines for you to look at if you want them. and it shows these rear yard configurations that fit this particular situation that should have been used by the department in this situation to advise the project sponsor, reduce it a little bit. it is not a big deal, but it is a really big deal to these people. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. polter? >> board members, i asked for mr. kennedy intent was and i am not entirely clear. it seems to have something to do with the lost square footage, with the 3-foot set back. and property taxes and i am not quite clear as i can make it.

i apologize. >> another thing that the zoning administrator brought up was that this building's narrow width does not, or is much more narrow than the entire width of the rear patio area that they are talking about. so, the impact of this on the patio is really greatly reduced, if you look at it in plan view. there is, we are talking about something on the order of 40 percent of this entire width of that patio area is going to be impacted by this very narrow building. and secondly, the issue of people having just moved in, whether or not that was the tenant or the property owner

that spoke, or the appellants themselves, in today's letigeous society, i am sure that they were made aware of this by the realtor whens they bought their units, not this building was permitted originally in 2008. so, for them to not know that this building was coming down the pike, is a little bit, i think, unrealistic. and that is all that i have, thank you very much. >> and i am, i do have just a question, i think what efforts if any have been made to resolve or come to someplace of compromise with the appellants? >> before the discretionary review hearing, i believe that we had two meetings with the live-work association. i was not at the first one. i was at the second one.

mr. kennedy was, i believe, at both of them but he was certainly at the second one and he got up and left the room very upset at any discussion of compromise because he feels that his building is smaller than it could be already, and he does not see any reason to compromise any further. >> okay. thanks. >> i do have a question for the appellants. >> so, how long have your clients lived there at this point? >> it is different clients have lived in different areas. i believe the young man that spoke had been there less than a year. >> and so, i mean on the disclosure when he purchased it there is a box that says are there any potential developments that would effect the value of the property. >> i don't know.

i did not even represent them at the planning commission. i am fresh into this case. >> you have to speak to the microphone. >> i am sorry, you can please step up. >> they did tell us, but they said that it was going to be up to the para pit which is basically the patio, and the same size as the adjacent buildings and we were traveling at the time and so we were, you know that was... >> so did you not review the disclosures. >> we got a copy of it but it was the understanding that it will be the top and we asked the realtor, agent, you know what can you also translate this for us? they said that it was going to be top of our para pit and not a two story building next to us. >> what year did you purchase? >> i purchased it last year. >> okay >> and that question, for mr. sanchez. >> you can stay up there when you are done because you have your rebuttal time as well.

>> are these the same plans, identically that were approved in 2008. >> yes, it is my understanding that the plans did not change and the architect can confirm that. but the approved permit from 2008 stated that it was a two story auto repair facility. and it is just filed the same plans to renew and to hopefully start construction. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so, on the rebuttal. just a few points. i think that going to the question of neighborhood character, no doubt that further down the street, it will be rezoned to residential, however, this is not and will not be located within the residential zoning district. two doors down does not make you within the zoning district. and i think that if we just study the aerial photo she is are by and large industrial uses that are perfect for within the