>> the only comment i understand that the only comment is if resident on the shipley side are going to be i suspect you using the stairway more especially, if their parking spaces are towards the shipley side of the this i urge you to look at the interior design of the stairways in my condo building those stairways are perfect concrete and metal raildz and they don't clean them half the time it's not a nice thing. i'm in 0 the fourth floor i'd walk up and down more if this experience were nicer picture not architecture wise but you

you know what i mean >> commissioner moore. >> quick the architect comment i believe this is the fire exit and they're not adorned for the obvious reason there's existing stairs and they are used for internal circulation is the second choice but not adorn them in any way is if a correct assessment? >> we'll focus on that element and make sure they do that for the main circulation on that connection. >> i think that would definitely help by color or internal graphics for the

fighters standards. >> i understand. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. follow-up one point for commissioner sugaya assuming that the elevators surface the building going to each the floors so someone open the shipley side will be going to the fulsome side and not having additional steps if you've got a load of groceries it makes it difficult 0 if tests itself case if they have to walk a little bit that's not the worse thing not to go up and down the stairs so make sure people can access their units to whatever floor the elevator gets off of for purposes of accessibility i assume that's part of the design. >> yes. >> eject this answers my question i'm going to move to

approve. >> second. >> commissioners moved and seconded to approve this with conditions. councilmember sharp. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. and commissioners - take a 5 minute break. >> audience to silence any mobile devises state your name. commissioners we left off or completed our regular changed and on items 17 abc for cases and 2012.00775 those are may or may not discretionary review

authorization and a may or may not discretionary review. >> good afternoon. commissioner president wu and commissioners doug the items before you are may or may not discretionary review for demolition and new construction. and a request are for discretionary review for the remnant structure on duncan street those were continued made known to the department it was not properly post. the project is to demolish a single-family dwelling it was looked not noah valley neighborhood and a 40 foot height district. the subject property is on the south side of duncan street that

is a sleeping slope the property has 25 feet even if frontage and is depraved with the covered carport at the front of the property and an 7 and hundred and detached property it didn't embody any sty bus us is a cottage that was overwhelming constructed in 111 the block is defined by self-same dwelling in a mix of architecture style o are generally 20th century - one to two stories in height it has a two family dwelling while the property down slope has a

single-family dwelling it will be a single-family dwelling 36 and a half feet in height that includes a bonus room and garage and living room and kitchen and dining area and 3 businessmen's and two bats on the second and third story. the project proposes a radish of 514 inches that exceeded the 9 inches the overall scale and materials of the proposed replacement structure are complimenty with the residential neighborhood character. the materials for the front facade are contemporary in style with sustained neutral revised windows. prior to and during and after

the public notification the department received letters expressing concerns about the comparability of the project with the neighborhood character. prior to the original hearing on july temple a 15 letters were received you stating opposition and one letter of support was included in the oriental packet. a separate request for discretionary review was filed and since this project was continued additional letters and materials that have been included in the supplemental packet the dr requester is concerned with the proposition sale and for its sites and not comparable with the surround

buildings. the dr requester is concerned that the proposed project will have noise to the adjacent prototypes and will not support of the visible character marked by the regular stepping the homes on the block and the flat roofline t is not comparable with the surrounding building. the dr requester requests removal of the decks and the wall wells a 6 in which par fit and more comparable with the neighborhood. the departments residential team look at the discretionary review application and found the overall project to be consistent with the site in terms of neighborhood and character and determined the marge's would be barely visible from the street

and the proposed roof-deck will not impact privacy due to adjacent properties flo through the rooftops and solid ways walls although the par fit roof they recommended it's removal for a fire roof and south back the roof to thefls this pattern the project sponsor explicit agree it's out of scale and the proposed roofline is comparability, however, the project sponsor will make the modifications removing the wall and to set back it 5 feet. the department recommends the department not take the discretionary review and to taking take the discretionary review with the moefksdz proposed by did department and

agreed to buy by the project sponsor and it compiles with the planning code and meets the planning code and the project will create a project with had bedrooms and no tenants will be displace given the scale of the project no significant impact on the capacity for muni. the existing building is not an existing landmark and the project will create a new single-family dwelling with the neighborhood character. that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for questions >> thank you dr requester. >> thank you commissioner president wu i'm going to ask the secretary to please pass those out one of those letters

is in opposition from a recipe directly next door that has lived there 50 years and a letter mistake willingly not pit into the packet and we'll showcase how this project will look. the character of the duncan street neighborhood have remained intact as you see on those images the homelands are generally pretty modest no size they have peak roofs and have one and two story over garage homes no existing 3 story over garage homes on the block there are no 3 story garage homes on this block. i don't know if we can share the slides on the broadcast. thank you. the character of duncan street

has remained intact because the neighbors receptionist the typography defining can is steep it raise one hundred and 25 feet if you can walk the block you'll understand resident have refrained from building homes that have a billboard effect in the neighborhood. those are the homes uphill and across the street from duncan they're built in scale and have peak roofs and as you can tell they respect typography. the biggest objection on duncan is the top story pebt how is it is 6th higher than the surrounding buildings and in my opinion a huge mismatch in terms

of stepping of the roofs as outlined by the residential guidelines in recent tale not just a duncan street issue a neighborhood issue that about impact neighbors in every direction because of the unique typography most homes are 15 hundred to $2,000 square feet it is nearly $4,000 square feet but again, our main concern is the penthouse it's not about mother and father density in housing it is a party space and destined to maximum the selling price. let's look at the purchased structure. this will be the per phonetic looking uphill the proposed structure drafrdz the house. another view from across the street. again, you can easily tell the

structure is much taller than the adjacent property. another view looking at down open duncan street from this vantage point it viable you have to consider the proposed structure from all points uphill i downhill and neighboring blokes and the mo p dr to remove the penalty how did but the project sponsors didn't want to lose the penthouse so the set back is not going to solve the problem. as a community we ask please require the removal of penthouse and roof-deck audience if you were here to protest this size please stand up >> this is who we are

commissioners. this is from duncan street the 27 and 28 to noah and sanchez this is our neighborhood and we're united open this request and have been for two years we've had numerous letters and signed petitions in your packet there are more 80 signatures we've gathered in the last two actresses opposing to project we've met at my house to figure out the best thing fore the neighborhood we don't want to stop the project only a reasonable sized home we are concerned with the future projects so commissioners for years to come people will ask how did that project ever get

approved. thank you >> thank you. we'll take public comment on those supporting the dr. >> (calling names) >> i'm mr. herman i want to thank the commission for voicing my concerns. i live on 448 duncan street right across in the proposed project i will there with my wife and daughter we've been living in this neighborhood for over 18 years now and really like the character of the neighborhood it has a small hometown feeling a lot of the simple homes not two big and older so we want to preserve the character of the neighborhood

the way it is and that's why we're quite concerned about the proposed structure of the new building. i agree it is too big i think that this fourth level penthouse with the roof-deck will also have a negative impact the noise and the privacy of our neighborhood. i live about two houses uphill from the proposed site and people are on the roof-deck a they'll directly see into my living room and one of my bedroom windows where my little daughter is sleeping i'm concerned that is an impact on our privacy and also concerned about the potential noise so in enclosure i'd like to ask you,

please request the removal of the fourth floor with the penthouse and the roof-deck to make that house better suitable for the neighborhood thank you for your consideration >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and commissioner and members of the public i'm jim lynch my own reside on the street we speak as a resident of noah valley in my lifetime i'll lived in the neighborhood and attended noah valley and worked in retail establishment prior to coming and resident of 31 years at the police department after the marriage we resided in noah valley we raised our children

you, however, in 1985 we couldn't afford the plan and purchased a home in daily city we reasonable finally to return to noah city i've observed the transformation of the neighborhood from a thrilling and affordable middle-class neighborhood because of the good weather noah is a good city, however, we're concerned there's a trend toward building resident that are excessive in scale and mass the project on duncan is a prime example and many of us are concerned such 1r789 will be untrophy. like other community

stakeholders that have spoken or will speak i'm here to urge you to order the project sponsor to remove the penalty how did it is only an entertainment venue that is excessive and out of scale, however, a 4 story structure is not to the size and scale of the properties in the neighborhood as public standards i urge you to listen to the concerns the community and that allows the building of a four story home when is reasonable in size and scale the current proposal is not acceptable thank you for your time and we order the penthouse be removed >> thank you. as the next speaker comes up i'll call the next names

>> (calling names). >> i'm petting are a i live with my husband and 3 beautiful daughters i'm here to share with the commission my opinion of the duncan street and urge you to take discretionary review we're not anti development we understand the developer has bought this house to build something berlin or bigger and the roof-deck a s is a key issue that can't be considered they're not complimentary to the neighborhood when you look at the street and the house where they're proposing if didn't match anything around it so when you look at the duncan street neighborhood there are one or two over story garage and mostly all peaked roofs why woe would

we have this monster religious house. as you've heard it is duncan hill and everyone needs to check their brakes that's how steep is it so. i want to remind the planning department require the removal and a compromise was made the proof they've offered this is something that is getting loud the commission is approving it i building the photographs were from fat street you spent you can't see it as in our street you can definitely see it all the decisions are subjective but i want you to remember the 437

duncan has been relieded with multiple red tags area their failure to post of the meeting we were supposed to have to say the word the commissioners used was reprehensible >> duncan street is a wonderful cul-de-sack and we have over one hundred signatures saying we don't want this we want affordable housing and look at it for the future of your neighborhood and urge you to consider honor san francisco and honor what is there already. and don't do something new because it's new so, please understand the importance of this discretionary review and we

strongly yours you to remove the penthouse >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm jim 449 duncan street i'm reading a letter from a resident ordinance the street since i didn't write this. i'm john jordan my wife and i have lived there 20 years. this being my grand parent home ami api i'll been here and my mom was born and raised here human resources the neighborhood has changed do we want to, involved with what happens with those projects or let the speculators and developers development to the extreme people have a right to build but

should consider the neighborhoods. two years ago, i walked around the corner and west met with the project sponsors i thought those plans don't add up all the neighbors agreed the size and scale focusing often the roof-deck was out of the context for the street it was in the respected with the stop sign the project size will disaster the neighboring structures this will not we would not be here if the project sponsor removed the penthouse i understand they want to get the most out of their project so when we saw they were expanding we want this looked at. i was present at our previous

meeting taking the day off work only to be resulted in the project sponsor employers failed to post the notice are there any any ramification for the disregard of procedures this is has giv has given my wife and i more time to get to know our neighborhood thank you for your consideration >> thank you. >> jean harding 449 duncan street the day's the preapplication meeting the neighborhood immediately voiced multiple observations to the 34037 project you got it right

in having the removal of the fourth floor but it took a site invest and many many calls before the pack of the project that the project was modified one notable foot went beyond what the code was. the rdt was not aware yet initially without being aware of the grade the team directed the removal of the floor the department never asked for an explanation but i found that was strange north yet now their claiming the project meets the residential guidelines even considering the plan of the block, however, in a dense he

urban environment that regard the commission needs to consider how the project impacts not only the street phase but the properties on 28 street. because of the acoustics particular to the area conversations on the roof-deck are loud. the planning department has not properly addressed our concerns regarding property noise they don't acknowledge they have baked and any activity including conversations will be clearly heard by a portion of the neighborhood since the technical are entertainment centers there's a family room and bonus room their removal would not

effect the liveability of the home they'll widen the other neighborhood as a whole needs to be given with weight the neighborhood has to live with the results after everyone everything is done thank you very much >> next speaker. i'll call more names (calling names). >> hi i wanted to point out that affidavit he called earlier was here he have to leave to go to his job and also two weeks ago i'm elizabeth i have lived on

duncan street 25 years and strongly object the project is in no way comparable that the existing sfamz on the block nor the exist listens regardless of set back it is shocking to me that such a big building would be allowed as stewards of the city i hope you'll protect the city and hope that's what we'll do today and i'm concerned with the penthouse noise we're a unique geography spot and on a huge steep hill so any noise you heard before it amplified. in order to fit the