project sponsor the rational for that i reilly really have not seen a modern new home laid out in that fashion a living room at the front of the house when you walk in and in the mean living areas are gross national product our concern frankly that is a.m. an in-law unit unit downstairs and the rest of the home becoming a 5 thousand square feet in this case a 3 thousand square feet home someone raised that it is an odd configuration i have not kind of seen in a new flat. >> yes. he agree we don't see that sxhrgs in san francisco, however, i think that my clients desire to have more connection to the rear yard with the theory living spaces

and the emergency room offender the second floor mainly to greet visitors and that's why the living room on the second floor and we - the current garage level is arriving about 4 feet 6 inches it is below the sidewalk and the back portion is slooekt higher so it remove the soil in the back portion and put that in the front is to minimize the soil for you know on or under the site in the depression in the lower

back trying to be more sensitive to the impact in the rear yards so therefore the ground floor, second floor and the third floor deck is about the same level as the adjacent neighbors building in the back. >> right okay. >> still i mean a reds flag to have the leadership you have a living room and make that a units and . >> i want to make it clear my client didn't have it type of plan my clients desire to have more and more connection for the knowledge spaces to the rear yard which we don't get in san francisco you see a lot in the

suburbs but there is a kitchen and living room i can have a master bedroom below with stairs going down to a fairly large backyard i i get it thank you. >> okay. >> upstairs on the fourth floor you've got you recognize that is a concern of the neighbors because their to the north and they're building significantly setback from where you are building so you know you've got in that says that a fairly large laundry room that is bigger than an apple office i think that the law lay out of that top floor go bedrooms the same size and not be as -

again, this is easily converted to a guest room and a if you are in his he get you want to put a bedroom and master bedroom but that again concerns me so to me that is as cu not a dr i think i don't mind two units we should be trying to maximize the units but i don't know if they are there on this - you know in tracing to figure out how this is laid out and tracing to minimize and get to your program. >> commissioner moore. >> i would echo the thinking that commissioner hillis just laid out and this is really as a

ccii it has to be necessary and desirable when we buy any of us buys a building which we want to tear down in me neighborhoods quo can't vicinity the story of what we want but kind of figure out what we make it fit and what we building is a thoughtful dialogue from the neighbors go many things that don't quite fetus the most for the addition to the rear over shots the maximum wall of all the others by quite a few of the feet 4 feet or more that is an issue when is look at the height and the the building mass it is very much out of scale because of the lower building toe either side

not the one to the house but to the west for the rest of the street and what is hard for me, i have to say that the wrapping it is the same complaints there is nothing unusual about this building it doesn't stand for much i have to use that word because i believe that has neighbors we have the right to have a special feeling about where we live not just one person but a group of neighbors speaking to the character and their own memory of your kindergarten you went to and this building it misses the responses to resonate with that, i think the this is too tall the

commercial space a walkedly arranged a 5 thighs square feet building is for the skillfully put teeth steps back out like a soar thumb i can't supporter a building of this size i'll be xhoofbt with the in-law unit we can preserve the equivocating building i prefer to do and the upper two floors with designated to an equal sized larger family theme he unfortunately can't design buildings because this is a social interaction required perhaps that is the site in another neighborhood but have to be clear we don't try to dedicate how we design a

interior but fits the context in which it occurs that's what i see the rest of the commission speaking to having said that we believe that the building has to go way back from eave shooting the building and the current situation. >> in terms of of the larger units being on top and the in-law units on the top floor in this configuration i believe that doesn't meet the high war

of the cu. >> i hated to fulfill this is a dwiemd in the rough on this one

>> so it means a lot other things i think are good however i'm trying to balance that with the mulching the affordable house. so this is one that feels to me it's more on the line than its cut and dried. i do have an issue with not maintaining the house and actually causing a demolition by neglect. the house is gone to such disrepair now the only choices according to demolish it. i do question the amount of outreach. i think there needs to be more. if you have other some other view of how the outreach went i'd love to hear it. seems to be reasonable things to put up to help the neighbors i just the height. it's not expensive. i've asked

for that even before i was a commissioner and was not a big deal from a project sponsor probably an error on the budget. i'm more like commissioner moore would love to see some type of incorporation of the existing house into the final project. i don't think this meets the cu necessary desirable as a point given all the things i see as well. >> when you say that what do you mean from a design perspective >> from a design perspective layout perspective i think were not fully rendered here get to get an approval. >> commissioner melgar >> thank you. i think this is a lovely little colleges and sortable makes san francisco charming. i think there's a lot of damage to this structure and i wish there had been some code enforcement intervention before we got to this point but alas, here we are. i was i'm looking

at the sort of aerial google view of the diocese house. you have the window there on your roof that would completely be blocked by the second story. not even a third that would be a bummer and the decks and the way that i see it it's actually a possibility of two decks right. the rear one and this would've they would be overlooking your deck, and your backyard and blocking the sun completely. from your deck and your backyard as well. so that's a bummer. i don't know that there is a need for it necessarily. i would not support it. i don't think it meets the standard.

>> commissioner hillis >> i like the motion to continue. it sounds like i think there's neighbors who are open to ways to make this project work. the extension of the existing home or even demo with a different layout that is less of an impact but doesn't some like we are ready to approve a ceu. so can we have a date? >> i mean dustin estate would be a november good i'm not sure if that's enough time for the project sponsor >> commissioners, just a point here. if the commission is suggesting that rather than a -this is either because this is a demolition if the commission is suggesting that the project be not a demolition be an alteration for example, that

would be a whole different permitting process the wood and automatically come to planning >> which could come to dr if the neighbors were-i wouldn't necessarily prescribe it not be a demoware demo. i think concerns were raised the project sponsor has those. it could be a more contextual design. i think programmatically we seem okay with two units whether that's kind of an extension of the existing home or more on top or a technical demo, we will see good i think we recognize someone could expand this home and not demo it. they may not be the preference >> does the commission was to give some very specific direction? >> i was in as the project sponsor architect you have enough pieces >> elements to go back? >> well i must say i like a little bit more. i heard about affordability and these missing structure. that the previous owner we believe she died in a

unit in 2007 so it's really been vacant for close to a decade now. the current owner is only recently purchased the property so in terms of becoming derelict it's not really doesn't fall on the project sponsor but these evaluation alluded to this building well while charming is not evaluated structurally and from a historic perspective and really doesn't hasn't been deemed by the experts in their field to be either sound nor significant. so if we were to move forward to really address what i am hearing and what i would like to work on more it is the design issues around

design is what i'm hearing. particularly, with regard to layout. >> layout. either no fourth floor or a very small potentially penthouse or very small fourth floor. i am hearing some concern about deck and privacy towards the rear potentially setting back from the front. trying to be 80 in my mind try to keep some of the peak roof lines on the front. thumbnail commissioners. what else was there? >> even a way to retain some part of the existing house and build behind it and not which we see a lot of. explore it. >> i think this needs a whole new foundation. >> there been a peep put a new one in the building anyways. >> anything else commissioners? we are back to a date. >> mr. moore >> i would just say to pick up

a little bit more on the prevailing character of buildings even if it is a contemporary building this building as i said and i'll say it again it just looks too much like it could be anywhere. newly should reflect a little bit more in terms of [inaudible] in terms of roof style. i don't know it's a question of how it lays insulted and has to be a little bit more anchored in where it is. i think that is one of the largest arguments which resonate with what the neighbors are saying. this looks like an alien building. >> okay >> commissioners, then january 19? do i hear a second moved and seconded. on a motion then, to continue this letter to generate eyeteeth with direction from the commission hillis aye johns and aye kopp

aye melgar aye moore aye richards aye fung aye that motion passes unanimously 7-0. that'll place us on item 15 case number 2015-013617 471 24th ave. conditional use authorization. >> good evening commissioners. planning department staff did you have before you a request for conditional use authorization. the construct a major alteration that is tantamount to the demolition of a two-story single-family dwelling located at 471 24th ave. and rm one zoning district. the proposal includes or is also an vertical additions to the existing single-family dwelling that are tantamount to a demolition for both thresholds defined in planning code section 317. these

thresholds relate to either the amount of linear footage removed at the foundation level or the total vertical and horizontal surface areas removed from the building. in general, these thresholds are exceeded because the proposal vertical edition. the raising of the first and second story floor place in the horizontal expansion of the existing building at the front rear and side. the project art demolition of a three-bedroom dwelling unit of approximately 2806 gross square feet. the establishment is three new flats one three-bedroom unit of approximately 2300 gross square feet and two two-bedroom units each which are to thousand 120 gross square feet. the largest proposed unit is approximately 80% of the existing unit. a folded action as provided by the rent board has indicated there's no evidence of a no-fault eviction at this site. it was after december 10, 2013. however the present existing is try to [inaudible] we been able to coordinate with both property owners and the tenants. at this time, department has not received any public comment in support or opposition to the proposal. overall the

department recommends approval of the project because it is an appropriate and well development within the rm-one zoning district results in a net gain of bedrooms an increase in on-site density from one, 23 units were up to four are permitted the project also complies with the planning code and is consistent with the general plan. this concludes my presentation am available for any questions. >> project sponsor, please. >> good evening my name is eric jones. i am the project sponsor for 471 24th ave. i just won a put a touch on that. we are proposing to add additional to off-site parking to the site in terms of an existing out there is only one on-site parking to worldly adding a total three along with that [inaudible] the planning

department and we are reserving spieler [inaudible] adjacent building and this concludes my presentation >> for this project the reason why we are [inaudible] as the owner we are building [inaudible] which is myself and my parents and my family. we startle the house is too small and we need a bigger space. [inaudible] family so i hope you guys can approve this project. >> okay. opening up to public comment. any public comment on

this item? >> my name is sylvia johnson. this wasn't explained to me. [inaudible] chinese. >> any additional public comment? not seeing any public comment is closed. commissioner richards >> this one was a little more scrabble on the line the reason i do think stepped in a really great diligence trying to go out and see what really is here. as i look at diagram eight, 2.0, the hair on backman echoes up when i see a garage

and a bathroom and some big area called storage and a playroom and another in the back and bedroom and bathroom. and then upstairs there's another unit. it reads to me at three units and i really would try to go out there and figure out what's out there. this on the surface appeared could be more than it actually is reading and i could not even imagine approving this without understanding what were demolishing to the buildings re: 2000 ft.2. there's no incorporation of existing buildings get is no soundness of what it's brought up and put in some new units. i think commissioner asked me last week one of the trade-offs between potentially rent-controlled units and new development. well if these are three print rent-stabilized units for here and there actually tenants in how many tenants are there or even what units they are in,

it's this is way premature for me to understand whether this is necessary or desirable rainout does not make them are by a mile. >> just to be clear, from staff this current home is habitable? >> we have not received any information that suggests it can be inhabited did in fact we know there are tenants there right now >> okay. >> i moved to continues to january 19. >> seconds >> commissioner moore >> commissioner richards, could you say one more time what you're asking for >> my issue is the house in reading to me is three units. whether legal or illegal we don't have any idea whether there under rent control because we don't know whether there units there or not. staff

upon trying to go visit could not get in. they are also existing tenants in houston we've no idea what the status of the tenants are. are there going to be evicted? there's a lot of questions i think need to be answered. and i would love to understand whether not this house is under the price stabilization enforcement rent-controlled given what is their legal or illegal. combined. >> i appreciate your summarizing that. i would agree with you. i think it puts us in an awkward position when we don't have the full information even if staff tried. that makes the project not eligible. to be heard by this commission because we are obligated to be consistent in our questions and we need a full answer. everything is fine we can discuss the merits of the project but that is another one but what i'm really kind of concerned about is that these are all the same building types . like in 2006-2002 this would

be perfectly fine and habitable buildings. today there seems to be kind of like okay lets get rid of another one and it's very sad and very hard to deal with. particularly, when what it's replacing meets the idea of rent stabilization at it isn't quite there. it's painful to sit here and do that >> we have this project following the last one it almost good identical. this one is not inhabitable. this one is. i think is a single family homes was not under rent control. >> but there's legal units in it it could be eligible >> it's reading is three units to meet. >> okay but i don't see me for demolition but am happy to continue it. >> commissioners, you mentioned -sorry david lindsay department staff. you mentioned on january 19 ms.-will be out of the office that week it could possibly go to the following week the 26th? >> sure. i met my motion to

the 26. >> very good on a motion to continue this matter to january 26, commissioner hillis aye johns and aye kopp aye melgar aye moore aye richards aye fong aye so moved the motion asses unanimously 700. that puts us on items 16 case number 2014-153. 144 through 152, and should get this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening president fong members of the commission department staff. i will be brief given the late hour. plus, this a very simple project. the proposal before

you is a conditional use authorization application to legalize a formula retail ace hardware store operating within the injured comment ncd. the planning code requires conditional use authorization for formula retail uses within the zoning district. the commercial establishment characterizing the i'm sorry, in a comment ncd r per donnelley restaurant personal service establishments and banks. the surrounding zoning is primarily residential good one similar hardware store is located two blocks away. on clement street. the subject property stands toolbox and is developed with two buildings that are connected internally and appeared to be one structure. the site contains one commercial unit and two residential units above. the project proposes minor exterior modifications to the accommodate new business

signage. the tenant space as additional floor area on the second level that is used for storage and employee break room and office. the former occupant was a non-formula retail store which closed in 2013 when the owners retired. standard coming ace hardware is a hardware retailers cooperative with approximately 12 stores located throughout the city. the proposed street store is individually owned and operated but affiliated with ace which is a formula retailer. as shown, in the project plan, provided, in your packets, the proposal does not fully conform to form the regional standards and the planning code. the existing red awning contains signed areas that far exceeds allowable limits. the proposed plans contain multiple wall signs which are indirectly illuminated. the proposal still

is slightly oversized. so we placed a condition of approval within the draft motion that will address the sun so they will be more pedestrian scaled and fit better with the neighborhood. we have asked for a maximum height of 18 inches on the individual letters. currently, most of the storefront windows are with merchandising posted section 145 of the planning code [inaudible] with active users are required to have transparent windows and doorways to our visibility inside the building. additionally, this is a standard for form the regional store as well. both of these items have been addressed in the draft motion. to date with the department has received one comment in support of the project from the clement street merchants association and a

petition signed by customers in support of the project. a copy of each was provided in your packet. staff recommends approval of this permits with conditions and as conditions in the draft motion it will meet all of the applicable requirements of the planning code. this concludes my presentation. i will be available to answer any questions that you may have. the store owner and project architect are here tonight in a believe it would like to address you as well. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> good evening everyone. good evening commissioners and ladies and gentlemen. my name is julie chang. i'm a resident of san francisco for over 50 years. the owner and operator of standard plumbing on clement street in the richmond district . where we have served the

residents continuously since 1976. so it's been a while. i'm proud of my family business which employs 20 employees from the local community including my wife, and my two sons. i have mr. richard at the architect here to offer more information and i'm going to hand it over to mr. template right now. >> good evening my name is richard cap project architect. there's as johnny said, he's been in business in this area in this community for many many years. a testament to his store

is the petitions signed by over 150 of his customers. so it's getting late. the staff report i think is very comprehensive. and explains the situation and also how we are proposing to improve it. we support the staff report and recommendation for approval and asked the commission to adopt their recommendation to the however there are two conditions that laura mentioned and i must also complement laura in guiding me through the formula retail process. we were at clement street many times measuring storefronts and canvassing i think we did over 300 individual stores. so anyway the two issues that we would like to address with the commission is one, the item number six which is the

storefront window transparency and the second one is item number eight, the signage. if i may, all addressed the signage first. so the signage we proposed is a i think in keeping with the building as far as the size-i've got it here and i'll put it all. up.so as far as the frontage goes, excuse me-the clement street frontage is 82 feet 6 inches long. so it's a sizable frontage. the third avenue is 100 feet long. as far as signage goes, i think larger stores, larger frontages are

permitted under the standard planning code. so slightly larger or larger signage. we are proposing the ace to be 32 inches high rather than 18 inches high. and i know that's a rather small detail at this stage of the evening but it's i think it's very significant from the retails point of view. the other thing, too, ace is not a long signed with 10 letters in it. it's a logo with three letters. so therefore the i should also be considered slightly different. being other wording as far as home improvement, hardware, etc. 10 inches high maximum. so then here are some examples of other logos in the area. starbucks one is much larger than the a's one we propose. it's a massive sign. then also, the logo of shell. so, [inaudible] don't

apply directly to the store but i think the starbucks one does. i think the design is appropriate in size and scale is appropriate. i think it works with the pedestrian frontage and we would like basically for you to approve the 32 for the ace only. we will stick with attend for the rest. now as far as the storefront window transparency, the buildings there are two buildings. [inaudible] >> speak into the microphone, please >> you have 152 which is an older two-story building, which is right to the property lines both clement street and third. then you of 144 which is a

single story building. setback considerably from the property line and from the sidewalk. so what we are proposing is that 152, the corner building, fully complies with the forefoot requirement for display windows under form in the retail. there's 32'6" that the front entire front can the form conforms. there's a put then window that returns on the corner of third and then there's forefoot on the parking lot side on the east side. so total 44 feet of storefront display windows complies with the formula detailed requirement could however, the 144 building a setback about 20 feet from the property line. and there are four parking spaces in front. those parking spaces have been there and i

grandfathered in. as far as the visibility goes, this is a typical photo showing the parking in front of the recessed building. so the parking is essential to the business. the parking in the area is very tough. going out there many times. so those spaces are essential. however, with trucks and larger vehicles and also smaller cards as you see, they parked there so much for the part all the time. blocks the formula retail requirements,, the window. in addition, the ace hardware, johnny has a lot of display in front of those windows. there's about a 3-40 to in the cars and

the windows and he uses that for display for barbecues outdoor furniture, etc. so we feel with that display, with the recess of the building, it's not really a pedestrian experience, then with the cars blocking the view is also an overhang there you can see in this photo during the daytime the windows are obscured with shadow. in the evening it would be different because it's illuminated. i think that's basically it. what we would consider is half the project spell complies in that complies because it is strict pedestrian environment. however, this one which is recessed doesn't really fall into the standard retail storefront requirements and therefore we are asking the commission to approve that to as a condition. if there are

any questions i can answer those. >> opening it up to public comment. >> good evening. i thought we were that's a good afternoon but my name is andrew-resin of the richmond district and a customer of the store for over 25 years. i'm johnny stores become an institution in our neighborhood. i know that you have used the formula retail but let me say small business people like johnny started his business back in 1976 in order to give us the kind of quality services and the quality products have linked together with other groups. this is a co-op would've. this is dumping you can bring the kinds of products and services to people that live in the neighborhood like myself. i think the application of the formula retail and one argue at this point extends itself a little bit beyond the reach right now. i'm making his store which is

already been there for two years to meet the transparency requirements and cost a small business person or $20,000. just in terms of repairs. it's unnecessary. those of us in november, myself included, with a one under 50 other people that signed the petition, we are very very satisfied. this hardware store is an institution. i think the design proposals that the architect provided with regard to signage and the solutions provided with regard to transparency on the windows is in fact more than satisfactory to meet with the neighborhood conditions and other issues they might have. we need to make certain that we have a appropriate regulations we need the flexibility to make certain that legacy businesses like mr. kings hardware store get the opportunity to continue survive. thank you very much. >> thank you. any additional public comment? not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner hillis >> i think this is a great use.

that's kind of what we are putting the formula retail use which i'm extremely supportive of. just a clarification on from staff on the signage. and the transparence. the way i read the conditions is that they'll comply with the planning code on those. >> that's correct. [inaudible] is part of the design standards under form of the retail and regulated by the planning code. so if you were to give the project sponsor relief from formula retail standards they would still need to apply for variance for the storefront window transparency under the section 145. the signs has proposed, even at that large height, they comply with sign code. it's the awnings that exceeds the allowable area. this time standards the industry standards for signs

have read ability standards for drivers at 35 mi./h with a signed with a letter height of, i believe, 7 inches. so thus allowing and in team 18 inch sign is actually far greater than what is needed for people were passing by in vehicles. it actually exceeds what is permitted were deemed readable four freeway traffic. >> i'm confused. do we have the discretion to change that anyway. we usually don't get into the >> no. typically applicants will comply with the standards that we have suggested.. so the plans that you see would be in conformance with those. in this case, they wanted to ask you about this increase signage sizes so that not alter the plan. >> again could we even and

wanted to could we say yes you can increase the size of the signs >> yes, you can get it would still comply with the code section uunder the planning code. >> not an area we've met service necessarily waded into in the past. expertise [inaudible] on a little reluctant to go into again i think the use is fine. it's a great use of the site. surprised to see it there. one day when i was across the street to great use but i would move to approve they use. as recommended by staff without getting into the details of the signage. >> second >> thank you commissioners. commissioner richards >> question. the current elevation i see the sun is awfully large. looks like it's all red. as i look at the proposed north elevation just as an example, do those signs

comply with the planning code >> the planning code is actually quite generous. >> so is there any additional relief the project sponsors asking for on those spewing >> not under the planning code just with the design standards for former the retail. do we want pedestrian scaled signs that match the neighborhood. >> right. on the north elevation for example hardware, home improvement, how high are those letters. >> according to the plans, the architect stated they were 10 inches. i believe there 12 inches on the plan. >> the standard would be seven? >> note. the industry standard the readability for passengers in cars diving at 35 miles an hour it is 7 inches. he was a segment of motion because i think we need to get local businesses going definitely. we have a variety ace hearts there but they [inaudible] i think

it's softening th impact on the existing condition that you look at things like, wow. we have touched signage issues at it with target we had the verizon visit darrell and gary were required to behave voting could always nice conditions so i'm okay with allowing the additional issues a project sponsor has. i love this project. i just wish redundant when you move. it is what it is. >> commissioner moore >> i think amy neighborhood would be happy to support the continued existence of hardware stores in the neighborhood and as this is already a legacy business because it's been there for 20 years i don't believe that the increase in letter height which is really out of our purview would make it less legacy but it would

make it more legacy anyway because it just basically it is what it is. however, when this kind of interesting to also make [inaudible] of the legacy business program because [inaudible] i don't collect there is a need to make this a legacy business then that should be an avenue to really get yourself on the map and are much more pronounced way. i live on the hill on pacific avenue. there is a ace hardware has been there forever. it doesn't have a outdoor parking. it serves everybody ugly down to hyatt street and oddly back on the other side down to california street in all directions and we struggle with some of the parking issues with things on the sidewalk, we don't have an ace hardware of the size anywhere except everybody knows it's ace hardware. so i'm just saying it's wonderful that this is coming forward. i think there's a limit to much signage is far as i'm concerned but it's not spiral on voting to support

what's in front of us and that's all. >> i make one comment. this strange weight does nothing to do with the decision but hardware stores and signify the neighborhood the community whether it's cold sore the one that's untested unsupportive. >> commissioner richards >> i one question the project sponsor is asking for the recessed building. for the transparency climate. is that in our motion, it is not allowing that release spewing >> no. the motion is a condition of approval that the store would comply with the transparency requirement. if you were to strike that condition, the planning code would still apply but under a variance request if the project sponsor wishes to or file a variance >> how much difference is the existing which is recessed and

the reasons around shadows and pedestrians walking by in front of our cars and things. how different what is the difference between what is required and what is actually have >> the requirement is for disability between 4 feet and 8 feet. for depth of 4 feet inches into the store. i believe now is completely and secured. obscure >> if there's nothing further is a motion segment to approve the project as proposed on a motion hillis aye johnson aye kopp aye melgar aye moore aye richard aye fung aye so move that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners that plays on discretionary review calendar. per item 17, december 2015-0017 25 drp at 20 1819 street.

>>planning department staff. the item before you is a publicly initiated request for discretionary review the building permit for a new construction of a three-story single-family home. on a vacant lot at 2018 19th st. the project site is a laterally sloping the tango lot 23 in >> and what her feet in depth the residence would be 33 feet in height 62 feet in depth with the last 12 feet being single-story. the residents would have decks at the second and third floor and on the roof.

the request for discretionary review was filed in the concerns raised were that the massing of the residents would create a boxed in or cut off beer yard from access to sunlight and the midblock open space. the height and width line of the residence was not consistent with the style of the neighborhood. the roof deck would reduce privacy and is consistent with the neighborhood patterns and that the design review process was tainted with reversals of staff direction. the rdp review project and recommended the following changes in response to the concerns raised by the dr request her. the requested that the third floor be set back at a minimum of 3 feet on the north property line to block 17 feet of the top floor. that the roof deck be set back by 5 feet from all edges of the building. with incorporation of the requested changes, which were incorporated into the rise design submitted with this discretionary review packet, the rdp support of the project

and finds the proposal does not create an exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. the planning department review design review process is often iterative with apartment providing comments and the project sponsor responding with design alternatives so it is not uncommon for there to be multiple design reviews both with staff and with the residential design team. the dr requester submitted a petition with 93 signatures including their own in support of the changes that they are requesting and the planning department also received one letter from a neighbor accessing similar concerns to those listed in the discretionary review request. with that said that apartment finds the project to the code compliant and recommends approval of the revised project as proposed. >> thank you. dr requester

please >> they'll have the projected turn on and left on, please? commissioners, good evening john diane-dr applicant. i live here on kansas street by keylock that shares my view property line with the project west side poverty line. although i cited a number of exceptional circumstances in the dr filing, this graphic was straight to the main one. whereas most keylock sore subject to blocking of light and air introduction amassing near the rear property line, in my situation my guard is already blocking on one side. with a new building i will be blocked in on two of my 3 yard sides. outdoor space becomes more of a courtyard than a backyard. now like the sponsors, i come from a long line of san franciscans.

third-generation on a single woman living on my income as a business journalist and i work out of my home office. i say pearl was 20 years to buy my house house with a yard in the neighborhood i drew up in and after working in new york city for a decade i came back to san francisco to do just that and am an avid gardener. my house is my dream house in them out in my yard every day. so as the architects own shadow study shows, the yard is often in shadow now and will additionally be in total shadow in the morning at more times of the year of the project. yes, i will be moving my view but any project over two stories will result in both of these impacted so i've never asked the sponsors to address either of these issues. the architect knows this. i sent these impacts as a consequence of living in the urban area and i love what i am objecting to is amassing an height of the new home on in your my rear property line. i think a project can accomplish the goals of both providing a great for this--while also providing

me with some visual relief near my beer property line. i don't view this as a me versus them situation or right versus wrong. i view it as policy and goals that can be made to match to meet everyone's needs and i welcome chris and christina and their children living and enjoying their new family home. so when we saw the architects model and street facing rendering everyone on the block you the views were wrong. i desperately look for graphics professionals produce the old lines. one based on the dimensions shown in the plans. i was lucky to have found someone. this is an accurate portrayal of the proposed building and the adjacent buildings taken from a perspective identical or nearly identical to the architects model. in this situation, it's

in this situation with the buildings on both the side and rear of my yard that in trying to boxed in and trying to describe. i'm not asking for the removal of a floor. i am asking for a gable sloped away from ir to begin about the second-floor roof level release for modest reduction in height and depth of the wall that still leaves the sponsors with or three bedrooms and four bathrooms. here is the new wall for my backyard. i will be facing a wall that is taller in some places than my yard is deep or wide and that is 8 feet taller than the gable peaks on 19th st. and my own room. you can see the deck railings both of three-story and one-story portions which means the occupants will be looking down from both decks and from the top deck not just into my and my neighbors yards but also into our homes. so this is what i'm asking for. first, that the roof be redesigned in the way -sorry about that that the rdp at self to comply with the residential design guidelines good that is for the roof to be made into a gable which would angle the wall away from a yard

could alternatively, if you feel it's too late in the process to change the roof from what the rdp had wanted from the start then i asked the overall height the lord 2 feet and 1 foot could come from the top floor which was originally proposed at 9 feet and out varies between 10 and 13 feet. 1 foot or more could be obtained by stepping found from the garage entry. separately, on the rear family room a 2 foot reduction in height would still leave a 10 foot ceiling. secondly i asked that 3 feet the taken off the length which will lessen the impact on both my and my neighbors yard. third in recognition of the unusual circumstances my jardine walden on two sides, i asked that a 3 foot setback occur on the west side of both the second and third floors. fourth assault her pets removed it fifth, the

roof deck removed in its entirety. there are no roof decks in this block. i also want to point out that the really shown on the deck now for only 2 feet away from the decks building edge on the side facing my home. the sponsor have offered-well that's it then and thank you so much for your time and the work you do. >> speakers in support of the dr requester. >> good evening. my introduction to the project [inaudible] when i met with her on the street at 20 18th 19th st., there was standing next to a some construction equipment. i asked her what it was for. she told me they were going to do extensive landscaping in the front yard. you can imagine my disappointment when they actually use the equipment to tear down the building. i understand the architect was a city commissioner obtained in

emergency order to demolish the building. but my neighbors and i wonder if that was really necessary. many of my neighbors and i thought the building one down but it did not look to be in a state of emergency. commissioners, the property that has been in the same family for a very long time. it was kept unoccupied and allowed to run down. can one family member run down building so another can tear it down without public reviews the one that just does not seem right. at the create application doing the architect says the neighbors promised to support the building is the fourth floor was removed. i was there. that was not what i recall. at that meeting the neighbors asked the sponsors to remove the fourth floor but made no promises. the sponsors in fact refused to consider our request later told us they would submit the plan with the fourth floor to the pd. after the rdt asked