need? madam director, do you have a suggestion? >> it doesn't look -- >> march 21st. >> just got worse than it already was. >> april? >> april 11th? >> yes, that might be better. >> april 11th. >> yes. okay. >> move to continue this hearing to allow the parties to research a resolution on their own with a continuance to april 11th. >> and if you folks arrive at an agreement, then, you could withdraw this, you know, okay? all right. okay. >> we sure have been punting a lot. >> i know, huh? >> okay. so the motion from the vice president is to continue this appeal to april 11th, 2018 to allow the parties to further discuss settlement. on that motion.

[ roll call. ] >> okay. great. that motion passes, and this matter is continued. just to confirm, mr. vice president, there would be no additional briefing or -- okay. so are we ready to turn back to item six? >> yes. >> okay. mr. saidi, if you could come up to the microphone, or your agent or attorney who's ever going to speak on your behalf. >> not the attorney. >> this is the jurisdiction request on the property at 440-442 vallejo street. >> good evening, commissioners. i was stuck in traffic going into the garage. thank you for allowing me some time. the subject permit is a remodel that includes a roof deck. there is a section of the

building code, not planning code. it is section 1064(a) 4.6, notice of permit issuance, question number 19, which wasn't even answered, is the structural notice question. when you say yes, the clerks then go to section 10646, notice of permit. you then go to question number two, for a permit which authorize the structural addition to an existing building, the building department will do written notice. now i'm not a big fan of this section, because it basically says, does the alteration create deck or horizontal addition to the building. >> the structural addition is more than just horizontal, it's whenever you're adding to the building. when you check mark that, the

clerks then go and look at the applications to see if this deck -- because decks do get notice, does this particular deck get a notice? and certain decks apparently don't get notice. i'm not sure which ones. if you're doing a deck off the back, you clearly get a notice. if you're doing a deck that goes up, it may get a notice, but we're not going to know because the question wasn't answered. so did this require notice? well, the person who had made that decision is wei fong. i tried to talk to her about would this be a type of deck that would have gotten notice. she refused to answer, because probably the proper answer, she didn't have the plans, she didn't have the application, so she wasn't looking at it at the time the permit was issued, but if they had check marked it, it may have required it. we won't know, and they won't

answer the question after the fact. but if question number 19 was answered, that is a structural sentence requireme notice requirement, and that would have gone to the property owner on either side, would have eventually gotten to my client, and my client would have been put on notice that there is a project that includes the deck that would have been part of the notice, and then, he could have made a decision, is this something he wanted to be involved with? i'll let the building department talk about it, but it is a requirement to fill out the entirety of the permit, and you don't have an option to leave it blank. you're supposed to answer every one of the questions from is this a change in height over the sidewalk over the property line? thank you. >> did you want to give your name for the record? >> my name is patrick buskovich. thank you. >> mr. buskovich, how would

your client have received notice if you didn't own the building. >> he would have received it in a disclosure. >> well, that's a different issue is what i'm saying. >> he would have received it in purchasing the building, and then, ecohave made a decision, did you want to buy a building that was about to have construction -- >> now, i understand what your logic is. thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening members of the board. my name is veronica. i'm married to leonardo branco, who is one of the owners of the property. we and my family, including small children have called it home since 2013. after a lot of discussion with the city planning department and the department of building inspection, in 2016, we finally were granted permits for the scope of our project which includes the construction of a roof deck that is fully within

code. the roof deck would be accessible from our second story living room, up an internal staircase, and out through a hatch door. this format, which was actually a suggestion from the planning department has become quite common in the city, and just in our block alone, there are five other properties with the same roof deck configuration. the size, the access, the positioning of the roof deck, the structural reinforcement plan were all fully vetted and approved by the city planning department and the department of building inspection. although the configuration of our roof deck did not require official neighborhood notification, we as good neighbors talked about our plans with many people on our block, including our next-door neighbors, and no complaints or objections were ever filed at that time. although we applied for permits in 2016, our project was delayed until late 2017 due to

financial strains. this was a very stressful time for our family as a wait for a loan approval is long and arduous. when the construction finally started, it was an immense relief, and we are now very pleased with the project and the pace of our construction, and the manner of which everything is carried out, keeping the san francisco building codes in mind. the requester has six illegal windows on our property line that either look out onto our roof, our garden or our back unit apartments. i'd like to point out here that the requester makes a claim about privacy issues when our new roof deck is in place, but when from our garden, one of these illegal windows hovers right above our heads. requester wants to limit our scope of our project to protect the views of his illegal -- to protect the view of of his rental units illegal windows.

we on the other hand want the opportunity to enjoy the full potential of our house. we love or home, our neighborhood, we love our neighborhood schools, and we look forward to the expansion of our house as it will provide us the space we need as a growing family and ensure that we live there comfortably for many years to come. we also have pictures. >> hi. my name is leo branco. i'm the permit holder, and i want to share something with you. so this is pretty much my roof. here is the opening of the hatch. >> you need to wrap up your -- >> okay. this is one of the illegal windows right on top of our roof. back in the back unit, he has another illegal window here, and then three more over here. this is the sixth illegal window, shows the hatch where it's going to be. >> okay. your time is up, sir.

>> this is the last picture. >> thank you. >> i have a question, ma'am. so when did you talk to the, i guess the appellant's old owner? >> it was around the time that our permits were issued. >> so 2016. when in 2016? do you -- can you recall, roughly, and did you give them any plans or drawings at that time or was it just verbal, oral conversation? >> verbal. >> talked about it in the neighborhood, as well. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. from the departments, mr. taeg. >> you've been quiet the first couple of cases. >> good evening, commissioners. cory teague from planning department staff. the superintendent property at 440 to 442 vallejo street contains two separate buildings is zoned rh-3 and is within the 40 foot height and bulk district.

[ inaudible ] the enlargement of the other dwelling unit within that building and the creation of a roof deck. the permit did not expose any expansion of the building envelope. as such the plan was reviewed by the building department in 2013 and because the planning did not require notice by the planning department, it was approved over the counter. it's my opinioning that planning department's review and approval of the permit was correct, and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> so the permit holders actually, they put up a -- a picture of property line windows. >> mm-hmm. >> and several of those windows look like they're vinyl in comparison to the existing, preexisting wood condition windows. so are those windows, in your opinion legal or again, can you have the ability to take a look at it. >> yeah, i could research -- there's two questions. were permits obtained to have those windows, and if they did,

were those permits issued properly. >> yeah, because it looks like they are vinyl in comparison to the prior wood windows. >> generally speaking, if it's a building more than 50 years old, and you're replacing windows visible to the street, you need to replace those with in kind or original materials. >> being on. thank you. >> inspect >> -- okay. thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> commissioners, the permit that's under the request is combining the two front existing units into one, adding a lower unit basement, relocating new kitchens and master bathroom, add a new window, replacement windows in the back. the permit looks like it's properly reviewed by dbi. it was a form eight, and it went through building, mechanical plan check, and finally, it was issued on the

18th of march 2016. i did see some photos today that appeared to show construction underway. the issue with the building permit on the application, on the notification, i -- there are some items on the front of the building permit that were -- we have additional information. it's in your brief, so in the front of the building permit starts with number 17 and goes to number 24, and it's a yes-or-no answer. they didn't fill in yes or no. now, mr. boskovich did mention that, and i don't think even with yes or no, it would have required notification from dbi. we do send out structural notifications, but it's generally when there's foundation work and the excavation, which we talk about here all the time. yes, it's a problem with the permit not having the additional information on there, but i don't think it would have changed the notification, so if that makes sense. it is something, i guess we

could -- at the department, we could ask for a revision permit to clarify that. there are ways to do it if the -- but it should have been caught, but i don't know that it would have made any difference to the notification. just thought i'd mention that. sorry. >> no, go ahead. >> commissioner honda, you had a question about windows on a property. was that on an adjacent building. >> the appellant's building, the -- it's in the brief, as well as it was displayed on the overhead, and if you look at the pictures, the property line windows, which if they predate an original could potentially be grandfathered, but the property line windows all look like they are made of -- of -- >> yeah. >> a newer material. >> mm-hmm. >> so an indication that could you check to see, same thing i asked cory. >> i can update on you that. i did see it on the brief, and i don't have a copy of the violation with me, but the permit holders filed a complaint, i believe on the

appellant's property, and just yesterday we issued a violation on the property for the property line windows on the appellant's property, so now he's got an issue to deal with, as well. not sure if they're the windows that he's saying where his privacy has been taken away. >> okay. >> i don't have that violation with me. >> okay. >> question, mr. duffy. kwu read the description of the work to be performed, it specifically says add a roof deck. so it's almost like checking that other box is redundant. >> it should have been checked any way, yes or no. >> but if there were concerns about a roof deck, it's there in the permit. >> oh, yes, yes, yes, of course. it's additional information. it helps determine -- and mr. boskovich is right. it helps our staff determine is it right issue, is it not?

we don't issue notification unless there's structural addition, vertical addition. a roof deck wouldn't be considered a vertical addition. >> okay. is there any further comment? okay. seeing no comment, but i don't know that you're waiting back dwsh- >> no, if there's an existing nov. >> okay. we'll take comments. >> comments, commissioners. >> i think the permit was issued appropriately and legally and so i'm -- >> i do, too, and if there's a disclosure issue, the previous seller probably had the obligation to disclose that information had been given to him. >> the threshold is did the city cause --

>> no, i don't think so either. >> the city did not cause the issue. >> is there a motion? >> motion to deny the appeal, that the city issued the permit correctly. >> okay. so we do have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the jurisdiction request. >> edonwe don't need a basis. >> on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> okay. that motion passes. >> can we take two minutes? >> yeah. >> okay. we're going to take a >> okay. we're rurpieturning to the feby 28, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are on item nine, appeal

number 17-186, troy kashanipour, and we have jennifer reserf as the department property. protesting the issuance on november 30, 2017 to troy kashanipour, of a permit to erect a building, to erect three stories, no basement, single-family residence, and i'm going to ask you to wait to start your presentation until our commissioner returns. >> okay. sorry. >> okay. >> since we have time, has it started raining outside yet? no answer. >> not yet? thank you. >> better than facebook.

>> okay. >> i brought an umbrella. >> i always have one in my case. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is troy kashanipour, and i am the owner seeking to build this on my property. several decisions radically -- the decision departed from the direction of the planning residential design advisory team with whom i worked closely. i'm seeking a remedy from this board in a denovo review of the facts. can i have the overhead, please, or the monitor. you've seen the cnn ad: what is true matters, what is

verifiable matters. you will hear a lot of arguments tonight about my project. please consider all arguments made here in terms of what is true and what is verifiable, what is in the code and in the residential design guidelines. please discount speculation, hearsay, and assumption. personal stories are interesting and meaningful, but please also consider that i, too, have a personal story, which is not on display here this evening. my appeal is not based on that story, but based on the facts about this home on this site. my first request, restore the top floor bedroom, bathroom, and closet. fact number one, restoration of the top floor meets the intent of the residential design guidelines. to quote the rdg, a building than is larger than its neighbor can still be compatible and in scale with buildings in its areas, it can

be made that way by facade articulations and scales set backs to the floor. please have a look at the illustration published. i can't quite read this off the screen, but it essentially says when you have a building that's higher in scale that is a a taller building than the adjacent neighbors, the recommended technique is to set that back, and that's been standard and precedent. to align the cornice lines and block face so you have a consistent block face. if you look at the illustration in the residential design guidelines, you'll see a largely two to 2.0 story black face with a three story building and then a four story set back. so here is a view of my front

facade. i apologize. the image isn't appearing very well on this screen, but you can see it in your package, and you can see the profile of the building at the block face is essentially three stories, and then, a fourth story that is sub servyient from the top story, i would say it's entirely consistent with the residential design guidelines. the shape and size of the lot are not relevant to the discussion about building massing meeting the street. there will be a lot of discussion about the public right-of-way today. this is the profile of the building on that five-foot public right-of-way. the profile approximates three stories following the upward slope of that right-of-way, so i don't think there's any imposition on that

right-of-way. i can offer an additional reduction in height over a bathroom and closet area to 7'6", if that's helpful. there is no canyon being created because of the proximity of the right-of-way to the neighboring property's rear yards. the neighbors will say that there's essential dread walking on this right-of-way, which is currently overgrown right-of-way because you're walking next to a three story building. i walk on a sidewalk every day. i do not feel a sense of dread by walking adjacent to a three story or four story building. this is use of the public right-of-way, currently overgrown, currently from the other end, you can see -- i wish i had the mouse to point, but there is a taller building on the opposite end of the public right-of-way, which is

essentially the same condition that we have on our property. so my second -- oh, and then at the rear of the property, the neighbors have furnished this diagram showing a window that they say violates the privacy of their rear yard. it is one window. it is no different than any other typical san francisco rear yard condition, so i don't think we have any exceptional circumstance by a window that can happen to look into a rear yard. my second request is to restore the terrace. if you remember the image that i showed you earlier, this is the residential design guidelines. we see a terrace enter in the published guidelines as a front use for a recommended set back. there is precedent in the immediate neighborhood for terraces, a walk around the block, i have illustrated 18 in a one-block circle. you know, front terraces with

no apparent loss of privacy or issues associated with the terrace. the terrace is small, about 12 by 13, which i'm currently proposing, and so i don't really see this terrace really as any different than a window in the front room in terms of privacy to the neighbors. i'm running out of time. i may delay the questions about the removal of light in the light well to the rebuttal period, and these property windows, but in my brief you'll find a discussion of that. in conconclusion, belief is not truth, when the parcel became available, the neighbors did not purchase it, although they certainly discussed it and had opportunity. the neighbors believed a home would require a variance which they could have opposed. they believed the lot was too small to build, which it was not they believed the city

would support buying the parcel or taking it by eminent domain, which it is not. they believe the city is a leftover scrap and believes it should not have the same rights as every other parse the in the city. they believe i should not be here before you today. i i am open to any and all recommendations and adjustments this board is willing to make. >> i've got a question, sir. you state in your brief that there's no variances, so there's no variances. are there any exceptions? [ please standby for captioner switch ]

>> these are te most significant changes the planning commission made and made it unanimously when we had the d.r. we oppose these features and therefore oppose the appeal. we serve the departments under rent control and tenant occupied and designed with the reasonable expectation the piece of planned would never be developed. they form indicated they understand their windows can be

built over. the implication is they signed such a form so we shouldn't be surprised now that a sponsor wants to build over them. in the 1940s, there's no form to be signed. builders and owners designed reasonably. it was reasonable in 1945 to design apartments with kitchen windows measuring only 846 square foot. this lot is so small they didn't leave a number for it. which is why it's designated 2783k diamond. i think it's reasonable to assume no one thought the lot would be developed. they believed loss of life and air to the windows and place was inappropriate given the residential design guidelines. they believe the building was construct with a reasonable expectation the windows would not be built over and wished to honor that expectation. they did not want to take an

amenity away from two rent-control tenant occupied units. in the appeal, the sponsor cites a drawing of the residential design guideline showing a top floor taller than the adjacent building to justify a fourth floor on the building. you'll notice in the drawing there's nothing unusual about the two adjacent building in the subject lot. by all appearance it shows the building in the lot but this not the circumstance here. the sponsor also states most buildings and especially new buildings in all of glen park are larger than they asked for. i think he misses the point. it's only 849 square feet, not 2,500 square feet and triangular not rectangular and adjacent to public steps in an alley, not a standard interior loss. imagine for one moment what a four-story wall in the alleyway

would look like. we look for a greater setback in addition to remove of the floor. that was denied, unfortunately. we got a reduction from four floors to three and the size and shape and approximaty to public steps we feel is inappropriate. even though the rear wall is set back from ours because the fourth floor is so far above the roof line it would be very visible to our yard on diamonds street. to top it off the real wall has a huge window from which occupants would look down to the rear windows. the planning commission's policy on roof decks is either not to allow them for reduce them incis incisor -- in size.

if the street tree is substantially cut back which it will have to be to construct the house it is also create lines of sight to the windows of the homes across the street. we thought the deck withouting set back three feet from the property side line instead they lined up on plans and show an open railing on the alley side property line. we feel the issued plans show a parapet wall and the fourth floor larger in the front deck and wall-blocking over long existing windows are all inappropriate features. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you.

>> okay, mr. tege. >> good afternoon. the subject property before you at 2783k diamond street in an hr2 district. the subject building permit was schmidt in april of 2016 and the neighborhood notification was conduct and the discretionary review was filed october 14, 2016 by the owner at 2785 diamond street. the proposal did not require variances or other exceptions and the planning department recommended the planning commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. however, there was a substantial opposition at the d.r. hearing from neighborhood owners and occupants and the planning commission found there to be

exceptional and extraordinary circumstances relate to the project due to the lot size and the shape and its relationship to the street and neighboring properties. the p.c. -- the planning commission didn't think it should remain vacant but the proposal was out of scale and not context you'll contextual to the surroundings. there were seven conditions on the d.r. first, a redesign to the front facade. notably to eliminate the top floor. to provide a light well around the property line windows. to set back the third floor deck which is supplying the required open space for the planning code and reduce the size to the bear minimum required to meet the requirement for open space and move it to the east. the condition the department of

public works should review the shared curb cut to determine if the proposed recommendations shows egress and redesign of the way window overhang to be reviewed by staff. as such, the permit revised to meet the planning commission's recommendations and including representatives from plan, e.p.w. and m.t.a. they found no reason to deny the curb cut usage and that component remained part of the permit and was approved november 17, 2017 and d.b.i. issued the permit november 30 of 2017. that conclude my presentation. i'm available for any questions you have. >> i have one. so when you're department -- so

first, there's no rear yard set back requirement? >> it does have a year -- rear yard. >> doesn't it mean there's a variance. it moves to the terrace? >> you're open space can be provided on balconies, terraces or decks. >> and just a question, the permit holder said he worked extensively with planners then it blows up at the commission. how does that happen? >> the majority of the time the department and the planning commission agree on matters of design and in our situations where there are agreements aand >> this is not a disagreement. this is black and white. >> the d.r. was not to

disapprove the project overall and not allow any development there. it was to modify what was proposed in a way they felt was appropriate in admittedly an unusual lot. >> thank you. >> and we can move into public comment. may i see a show of hand, how many people intend to speak under public comment? so each person will have two minutes to speak given the number of people involved. if you haven't already filled out a speaker card, do so before you come up to speak and hand it to mr. cantera so help with the minutes. others, if you don't mind if you can line up on the far side of the room it will help make the process more forward more smoothly. the first person can begin when she's ready.

>> are you ready? >> i am. >> all right. >> good evening. my name is evelyn rose and the project director and founder of the glen park history project. we believe the routes of chinnery, wildy and the alleyway are significant because they're likely among the oldest streets in san francisco and in the 1856

map it separates into the san josé map the top yellow line in 1850, '52 we believe is the real and san josé road on the right side right here. before merging together again in a tangle. four alternate routes at a branch near the creek near the rock. the tangle resembles the dog-like shape and it parallels to bosworth. we believe it was laid out near the boss worth street. in the next map in 1960 of a realtor showed a pronounce dog-leg shaped route labelled old san josé road that splits from telegraph road which is today's mission street. we found the leg appeared similar to that of the noe map

and as shown in the image it appears the old san josé road appears to have been given rise to chinnery and arlington street so the return of the san josé road appears to overlay today's wilder street as old and new san josé roads lay up in the tangle and when laid out the aly begins at chinnery street. i have one more map to show a dog-leg that appears in a 1917 map that is the old chinnery street that is today's alleyway. we believe this site is deserving not only landmark status but commemoration that marks the route. we urge the commission to

reconsider the breadth of the above and note the case number and thank you in advance for your kind consideration. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. i live adjacent to the project and public easement. i'm in opposition to the appeal for all the reasons just stated in the presentation. this project is too large for a tiny site for the lot shape and because of proximity and would cause privacy impacts on william and francessca and the idea of

blocking light and air from kitchen windows is unfortunate at best. this is a drawing from the appellant's street which is two stories in front and three and a half in the year. he shows two large trees and labels the drawing, diagram section between subject and surrey street. despite the location of our trees, our neighbors on surrey will still see his house as will we from our back windows. in this overhead view, you can see the location of the trees and our neighbors yard. you can also see the other homes on surrey to our east have a view straight through the gardens to the street and certainly will see the rear of the building especially the fourth four because it will rise well above the ajacent diamond street homes.

here's another view of the trees from the back of the public easement the appellant provided to show the arborist. you can see how one or two of the trees will have to be cut with a four-story structure. these may be deemed significant trees because of their approximately to diamond street and we consulted with an arborist there could be destruction with the extent of trimming to the fourth floor. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is cory hill at 2787 diamond street next door to the project. my kitchen is an eat-in kitchen with a small space with a window

that let's light in. it's this window the appellant wants to block over. throughout the process the appellant has stated he should be allowed to build what is permitted as if there's no qualitative code requirements. the residential design guidelines are not optional. section 311 said all projects must conform to the guidelines it addresses the as much such as mine and reads quote, articulate the building to minimize impact on light and property. on the same page it highlights a section 101 of the planning code it reads, quote, one of the purpose of the planning code is to provide adequate, light, air, privacy and convenience of access, end quote. this is on page 26 of the guideline. the appellant includes this quote in his own brief but states because our situation

long legal property line windows facing the 846 square foot lot is not listed and does not have to be addressed but the examples are examples and not meant to be an exhaustive list, blocking my and my neighbor's windows violates the section. he wants exceptions to the residential design guideline. i ask only for the white well the planning commission gave us. i ask you please deny the appeal. >> next speaker, please. >> overhead, please. >> commissioners, good evening. my name is william persh and my

wife and a live at 2783 diamond i agree with the previous speakers in opposing the fourth floor and a deck set that's too large and moved to the front and building over kitchen walls of my neighbors, cory and jay at 2785 and 2787. in looking at the sponsor's 3-d drawing taking from perspective that hide the third floor and deck. you can't tell the larger and front-facing deck would create sunlight sight lines into our home indicate the in the red. from the site, you can see the sight lines clearly. there are no trees to block the view of the street tree is in green. this is just one of the reasons the deck was made smaller and moved back. the commission never saw the final layout and neither did we. they wouldn't have agreed with the deck placement along the

requirements with at least three feet back from adjacent walls. this is where the 120-foot deck is back from the front. another problem still remaining with the project is conflict with proposed garage creates. we pull out of our garage as shown in green -- it's a difficult maneuver because it turns and the interest street tree blocks the view down diamond. the proposal puts the vehicle, 90 degrees and next to the steps and the street tree and this

will block vehicles -- >> your time sis up. need to finish. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, laura clark. i've mobilized people to speak for housing because i think we all know we're in a severe crisis. we are witnessing the worse displacement crisis the bay year has never experienced. it never ends seemingly and this is where we lose housing. these are the nip where we lose one units over and over again. this is exactly the kind of missing middle. we're going to be seeing more of these kinds of in-fill projects that are going to be interesting and not going to be typical for what is happened previously in that neighborhood and that's where we need to be building. we need to be building these

kind of projects in wealthy communities. you're hearing from a lot of housing secure people. people not worried about everyone they know being displaced. i am a renter. i organize renters. we need to be building creative housing in our wealthiest neighborhood and build in wealthy places where they do not want change. where they want things to stay exactly as they have been for decades and i am sorry, we cannot continue to not have change. we have to change. we have to build these kind of creative units in our wealthy neighborhoods. and that involves going up against people who are housing secure and saying what is more important, getting this one unit to come online. and the fact that four planning

commissioners were not there to take what is a -- i forget the word is but they all voted for yes when four commissioners were out is a ridiculous standard. this unit shouldn't be lost. please approve this. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i live at 41 surrey. my wife has already spoken to you about our trees. i just want to reiterate the distinction from a three-story to a four-story building will do to our long-standing trees. a good deal of the trees will have to be removed whether it's on a three-story project on the

fourth-floor area added to remove below, it could make the difference between a tree surviving and not lasting and having significant damage. the appellant has the right to cut branchs that extend over his property but in a 1994 case a california appellate court held the neighbor doesn't have the absolute right to cut encroaching roots and branches. he must take into account the health of tree before they start cutting or chopping. in this case the appellate court held the neighbor must act reasonably when pruning branches. three arborists have told us the remove of those tree branches with their roots would very well kill these trees. one made a point that quote, a

tree protection plan should be completed and in place before construction starts. ann excavation on this site should be done in conjunction with an arborist to reduce the risk of damage and failure. green space has been included in the glen park plan as a characteristic feature of our neighborhood. i want to point out this is not just a small loss -- lot. this is an extremely small lot and would cause much disruption. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> members of the board, good evening. i'm janice blackwell. i've been asked to read this letter. dear members of the board, i live at 2785 diamond street, the bottom apartment in a two-unit

building next door to the project site. i was unable to get away from work this evening, i am a doctor and wanted to express my concern. the appellant wants to block my kitchen window and move his roof deck to the front of the building. the appellant shows a list of examples and actions to be taken by designers to alleviate light and air impact to adjacent property. because the property line windows constructed in 1945 faced a ban -- abandoned lot is not example. does that mean other unique circumstances are not cited? only typical circumstances can be addressed? i don't think so and neither did the planning commission. the design decide lines and the general plan in the planning code all call for the

preservation of light and air to the existing circumstances. the architect puts the bottom not down to the earth as we had expected but below my window sill. but at least i will have some indirect light and fresh air. i join with the affected maybers to ask you deny the appellant's requested changes. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners, i live next door to jay whose window he wants to block. this is the light view from jay's and cory's yard.

the further back it goes the worse it will look and more exposed it will be. we are on the left side of where jay and corey live. we will see it when we're out in the yard because it goes a full floor above. we're looking forward to the birth of a child and expect summer days in the yard with the baby. as he grows older he'll be playing with his friends in the yard. we don't think the occupants of the new building should have a direct view of our family. when you consider the small size of the lot and adjacent public steps and alleys now part to be part of the camino real it seems the commission did the right thing by reducing the fourth floor and introducing a garage using the same curb with the public steps and blocked view is

a frightening prospect for a parent. a garage at this location does not make sense. furthermore, it's a shame the sponsor wants to continue to block jay's and corey's windows. i'm in the sure it's a surprise. the sponsor had an application meeting and didn't like what he heard. people wound up shooting because the sponsor refufd -- refused the impact problems with bill and francessca and ignored jay and corey and the public outcry about the steps andair -- -- and jeremy doesn't care about the amenities he'll be taking from others in order to get for himself. >> i live at 2720 diamond

street. we all love glen park. we have lost our shared garden on diamond which is a circumstance we all regret. maybe we could have bid on the land. we think the planning department might have missed an opportunity as well. what's gone is gone and we ask the new applicant but we ask again as we have for a long time to consider the scale of the proposed building. as it oversized for the lots and the proposed building height is out of scale to the homes around it. per the residential design guidelines and there's four, does the building design compatible with the surroundings buildings, does it respect open space and provide adequate

setbacks and meet design guidelines. i is a no. we have been negotiates the details from the start and revised plans were approved but not without concession and now year back before you today with all the same issues. please deny the fourth floor, larger deck and block of our neighbors windows. thank you for your time and thank you for listening. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is gloria navara and raised in glen park. this year is a graphic map of the neighbors who signed a

petition opposing the appellant's request. we noticed the sponsors on the appeal from those who don't live in the neighborhood and we felt compelled to get signatures specifically addressing the appellant's request. a few concerned neighbors stood outside the property for a couple hours to explain what was removed and approved by the commission and what the appellant wants blocked. most people were shocked by this request. in less than two hours almost 50 neighbors, mostly immediate neighbors signed the petition saying they did not support the request. please consider this in your sentiment for the neighborhood and deny the request. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening. i'm helen duffy a resident of glen mark. in the appellant's brief, he provided data on building sizes. he looked at all new and existing residential building in glen park to show the buildings, especially the new homes are large so his home should be large as well. many lots in glen park are standard 2500 square foot park and those are more than double the 849 square foot size of the lot we're talking about tonight. we are not talking about removing a unit from the neighborhood. we're talking about building a unit that fits within the context of the lot. marilyn and ken sent you an e-mail and documents the size of nearby lots and building sizes. th