foundation. >> president fung: ok. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the department. >> planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. subject property 575 belvedere street with a rh2 zoning district and the application was submitted in august of 2016. that was noted the scope has a horizontal expansion and zoning district that we have a single family dwelling and the neighborhood notification for the project was sent out at the end in may of 2017, between may and june of 2017. one discretionary view is filed by the adjacent property to the north who is also the appellant. the planning commission held two public hearings. one at the end of the last year on des 14th. the commission requested additional information and they heard again on january 11th and unanimously voted not to take discretionary view.

it's noted, during the additional design review process that happens when a d.r. is filed, staff, the team looks at the d.r. application and sees if any additional changes need to be made to the project based on new information and staff did a request of additional changes to the project which were made that's why the planning commission approved the project this year. project is completely code compliant and noted by staff and the residential design guidelines. the applicant has put forward a revision regarding the garage and having, rather than two parking spaces, an additional bedroom at that floor that would appear to comply with the planning code and any issues with that revision and that the board supported could be adopted as a revision here. generally interior revisions, such as that, can be done under the addenda process and addenda or not appeal able to this board

but i think in spirit of transparent z. it'trancetranspae applicant has put forward that change because there are changes at the rear of the building. it's good that the entire project can be reviewed by the board. i'm available for my questions. >> the second unit does not additional space. >> so there's no variances required for this property? >> right. >> and just out of curiosity, what would be the scope -- how much further could they have gone without a variance? >> they're coming to the 45% required rear-yard line and doing a 12-foot pop out. in terms of the extension at the rear, it's the extent of it is about as much as can be done under the code. they've done reduction of the upper levels.

so the upper levels don't extend into the rear yard as much as they could under the code as well as vertically they could have the story under the code. >> it appeared it was thoughtful that they did a step back? >> yes, sir. it has been suspecte sculpt as ' material. when you look at the foot prints of the building on the brock it is he will straight tive to see this is nothing abnormal in terms of encroachment. >> thank you. >> actually, the pop-out could have been first in the other direction. >> they could do it one-storey no higher than 10 feet above grade the full width of the lot or the two-storey which they're doing here. although it's not maybe two stores but the height of it is what would fit within that envelope.

>> thank you. >> so, we'll now move on to public comment. how many people are here for public comment. >> ok, again, if you wouldn't mind lining up against the wall and handing in your speaker card when it's your turn. you can have the first speaker. >> mr. president, members of the board. good evening. my name is george burgman and i'm an owner and resident at 57 riffly street which is within the node indicatio notifications proposal. thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item. i will keep my comments brief. the appeal before you tonight relates to a proposal for a large addition to a single family residents in a residential district. if this proposal, as submitted, is approved it will enlarge an

existing 2500 square foot four-bedroom two bathroom house into a 3,422 square foot 5-bedroom four bathroom house. in other words, this 991 square foot addition increases the house size by 39%. while this massive construction is not expressly pre concluded by the city, i believe that any adverse impacts it causes on the neighborhood and on adjacent properties is within your board's purview. to this point, among the stated purposes of the city's plan is making neighborhoods helpful, safe, pleasant and satisfied for all residents and provided at quit open spaces. also, the general plans calls for relating building bulk to the scale of existing

development and to avoid a overwhelming and dominating appearance in new construction. i believe the applicant's proposal, as currently designed, conflicts with the general planned provisions and in particular, the massive building wall will loom too close to the appellant's property and will adversely effect the a pel apartment'appellant'saccess to e the quality of their life but the feeling of being in. for all these reasons i strongly recommend that your board approve the appellant's appeal. however, should your board be inclined to approve the project, i would recommend that that approval be conditioned to require a redesigned that would increase the side yard setback to the next to the appellant's property to five feet. my understanding is the original

proposal was zero setback the city had required three feet. my proposal is should you be inclined to approve this project, move it to five feet. the side setback a jays end to the appellant's property. thank you again for the opportunity to speak and that would conclude my comments. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is wendy and i'm a homeowner around the corner. >> into the microphone, please. >> i'm sorry? >> speak into the microphone. >> my name is wendy beck man, i've been a homeowner in the neighborhood near these two properties around the corner for 20 years. it's my understanding, when alison and steve brought their single family home 42 years ago, that all three of the properties, meaning theirs and the two, one on each side,

meaning 575 belvedere were all on the same existing footprint. as a homeowner, i admittedly don't know a lot about regulations and codes and what is allowed and what's not. i do know when you purchase a home, there's an implicit expectation that your space, light, privacy and view will remain similar in scope to your initial property investment. as a homeowner, any structural changes that significantly impact your space, light, priv' or view, as this will, or in violations of the homeowner's well-being as well as a violation of their property value. after reviewing the plans, the proposed expansion plans and also being in the home and assessing how this would impact them, it's my opinion that the

massive expansion of the second and third floors as well as the large multiple decks are what is in particular most problematic. while they seem like very nice neighbors and it would be ideal if their remodel could be everything that they aspire it to be, and my opinion as a homeowner, the scale and scope of their project is a violation of the cuberick's rights as homeowners and not in the spirit of the sweet, quiet and neighborly belvedere community. i object to the level and scope of the proposed expansion. i hope that both parties involved can reconsider and reach a compromise that is advantageous to both or not detrimental to either. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is james. i have been a residents for 20 years at 581 belvedere, just up the street from daniel's residents. i support daniel's plans to improve his property, to do so at the did h the expense of hisr forces me to recommend the appellant's appeal be approved. they have been long-time residents of the neighborhood and their single family dwelling on a block dominated by multiple unit buildings. it's a delightful example of a dedication to the community and evidence of pride and ownership continuingly he will bell issued with seasonal floors and decorations and maintained it's one of the more beautiful residents in the area. the property that would be overshadowed and diminished by

the imposing structure proposed in the current designs. especially in the rear where they have installed a small deck and a lush us garden that rivals in design if not in size but one season at golden gate park. one needs to step in their backyard and visualize the enormity of the additions proposed. grand level expansion that includes the garage and addition to a bedroom and bath unit, penetrating well into the existing yard. and a top that extension, two stores are living spaces complete with decks and emergency stair wells. so you can readily visualize the extent to which this proposed plan could impact the right to enjoy the residents and likely circumvent key policy set fourth in the general plan outlined by mr. burgman. i strongly recommend that board of appeals approve the appeal to this current plan. thank you. >> i have a question.

>> yes. >> you live on belvedere street. the same side or opposite side? >> same side. two doors up. >> 581. >> on the other side of the appellant's? or the side of where the? >> same side of the street. just up two doors. >> ok. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is maureen delgado and i live on belvedere street in the home across from 575 belvedere. it's my family home. i'm familiar with both of the houses that are being discussed this evening. while i appreciate the applicant's proposed improvements to the front their homes and the need to remodel and add space to their existing house to accommodate future needs, i'm also concerned about the impacts that it will have on the cuberick's homes for the improvements which will impair

the enjoyment of their home and yard. based on the plans, the addition in the back of the residents at 575 belvedere would reduce the amount of sunlight and reduce the visual impairment to the cuberings sricks because of the. they're the only other single family residents on that side of belvedere street. the home is the shortest length compared to all of the other properties on the block of belvedere. the other house adjacent is a multi--storey house, which extends further. if the other side is extended, it's going to create an issue where they're going to be walled in on both sides of their yard. i think it's important to kept rear of the proposed improvements on 575 in line with immediate adjacent properties to avoid walling in the cubeicks and i support the appeal with the hopes that both parties will

have time to come to an acceptable compromise, which minimizes the impacts on the property. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you members of the appeals board. my name is teresa. i live at 574 belvedere street so across the street from both of these houses. i have looked out at the house in question for the last 15 years, and i was excited about the prospect of some home improvements, as alison and steve mentioned. the home was owned for the progress foundation for a number of years. it was in need of t.l.c. i was really disappointed to learn that the neighbors were unable to work together to come up with a plan that would not effect the cubeick home. when we think about good neighbors, they stand out as the pillars on that score. when we moved in 15 years ago,

alison and steve were the first ones to drop off a plate of browbrownies on our front porchd it start the a relationship with our neighbors that made us feel at home. i think that we are not alone. every other person on our block feels the commitment that they have to our community. you heard about the seasonal flowers and the impeccable maintained home. it creates a neighborhood on our street. i think when we think about good neighbors, it also means being able to work together with other neighbors when we want to do something to our property. and i agree with one of the previous speakers that not necessarily knowing what all the rights and rules and restrictions might be on the envelope and the size and the scale of i project, i also do believe that is important and incumbent upon our decision-making bodies in this city to encourage compromising and encourage working together to come up with solutions that don't leave one person feeling

victorious and the other feeling defeated. and because of that, i urge you to accept this appeal and put the parties back into a position where they can have conversations about an outcome that might actually work for both. i think that people can be reasonable in these situations and when we elevate it to a point where there's no opportunity for compromise based on needs of both parties and current needs and future needs, i think that we have gone to a sad place in deed. i understand the discretionary review board has discretion. because it is so named. and i would encourage this board to put the matter back to the discretionary review board so that the parties can workout a compromise that works for both people. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> hi there. i am a homeowner around the corner on 17th street. and i know steve and alison just from the neighborhood. they have a big neighborhood presence. i walk my dogs past their house all the time. and they've already been pleasant. you might know belvedere street as the halloween street. they have the most excellent halloween decorations. they're a pleasant, great bunch of neighbors. i wanted to say that i have actually been in alison's kitchen. they did a remodel a couple of years ago. it's a small kitchen. it's an eat-in kitchen. already, their light is pretty much curtailed by this and the sunlight from the top graphical views we just saw.

they're not going to have anything very much degraded light in their kitchen going forward. if this goes as testified. and so i just want to say too, i mean i agree with what terry said. [ please stand by ] .

>> in achieving that through compromise consistent with the planning board, i do believe there is a solution to this. i'm not an architect.

i don't know about that, but being in steve and allison's house, you can see there can be a solution to this that can be brought back together and be able to maintain this beautiful quality of life, the natural light that they get, and to really not materially impact the property value, so i'm in support of the appeal. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is mary fryer. i live around the corner. you've heard a lot already. i'm just going to say a few things. these are great neighbors. i was looking -- i saw the plans, and i've seen the increase, which is a little bit over 39% of what they have now. i was born in san mateo, and i moved to san francisco in '79. the neighborhood that i lived in, we had homes that were one level. now, most of those homes are two

levels. one neighbor that i grew up with who recently died in '95, she had a house on either side of her that took away her sun light for the garden that she had cherished and taken care of for years. this is going to happen to my neighbors, and i -- i know what it did to my neighborhood in san mateo, and we call them mcmansions or monster homes. and i don't think -- i think this is really out of -- too big, and i think there is a better solution, and i think looking at someone who's been a neighbor for 42 years, given to our community -- i'm a social worker. i think giving to community is really important. these neighbors always have, so i'm here to support something that changes this plan. so you've heard a lot, but all i can talk about is what happened to the neighborhood i grew up,

and i hope that doesn't happen here. so without going on and saying more, i just really hope you will reconsider this. i think there's a better way to do this, and i think the rights of people that have been in a community for 42 years and been great neighbors, cared about people and the community, you have to look at that, too. that's part of what san francisco is all about. so, any way, thank you, and i hope you really -- i know you can do something about this, and i really hope you do. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is michael h. santos. i'm related -- >>clerk: i'm sorry. you're a representative of the parties? >> no, i'm sorry. >> he said he's unrelated. >> i'm sorry, commissioner honda? >> oh, i'm related to the

construction engineer. >> he said he's unrelated. >> unrelated. >>clerk: i apologize. he has a little accent. >> it's a late evening for everyone involved. >> my apologies. >> no, okay. are we still doing this? this has been going on for over two years. this is my third time here. i've spoken to your predecessors twice. those fellows, they had two open houses, they did compromise. they did alter the plans. there was initially additional floor up above. why are we still having this conversation? how long has this -- i understand it's a lot like the -- people have lived somewhere for a longer time, people are coming in new, that's perfectly understandable. i see both sides, but at some point, good enough is good enough. they've done everything by the book. everyone on that street, having lived there for over 20 years, everyone on that street has done their remodelling in their time, a lot of them with all the

permits pulled and all the inspections done. some, not so much. give those guys a chance. yes, they're new to the neighborhood, yes, they're younger, yes, they haven't been there that long, but things change. the city has to change. young people have come in. i personally have a little bit of a notion of what, a presumed family move in? aren't we better than that? so what, it's a gay couple. are we saying we don't believe them, that they have -- a connection to their parents, that they might want to have -- start their own family? i don't know -- it just -- this just -- why now? it's a reverse of the old adage, if not us, who, if not now, when? where was all this resistance when there were the open houses, when the plans were circulated around the neighborhood? who was here in january ?

who was here in december? on. -- i don't know. if we wait, we can do this 15 times over, and have different people lined up. at some point, we have to come to a decision. they did everything right, they pulled all the permits, they're informing everyone. they're doing less than what they could do, and everyone has done pretty much the same thing. give them a chance. it's only fair. they want to live their part of the american dream. i think it's the only fair thing to do. i'm at a loss. i don't understand why this has to go on forever. this is why, no offense, but why some people have a problem with city government in san francisco because a dream is being squashed. i don't get it. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, members. my name is dillon leon.

i'm here to speak in support of this property of daniel. i stayed in a room on the property on the ground floor with a window facing to the back yard. it's hard for me to understand how this addition could possibly block the light or the wind to the neighbor's property. this addition would have to be in the neighbor's back yard to block their light and wind -- or wind, which is obviously not the case. i kindly ask the board to deny the appeal and allow the project to go forward. thank you so much. >>clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none, we'll now move onto rebuttal. we'll hear from the kubicks. you have three minutes. >> thank you once again for

hearing our portion of the appeal. this is the first we've heard of removal of one of the parking spaces and adding a sixth bedroom, and it -- it feels like, to me, that a motel 6 is going to be next door, not a multigenerational family, as i said, potentially in the almost six to seven years -- well, six years that daniel has lived there, his mother has been one time. i have never met his father, and in terms of calvin, his parents have been here one time. to me, with yet another bedroom being added on down stairs, i'm beginning to question what the real purpose of all of this

space is. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. buza, the permit holder. >> thank you, board members. i'm calvin, i'm partner of daniel buza. >> i'm sorry. could you speak into the mic, sir. >> sure. the reason my parents have not been frequently visiting us, including daniel's parents, is because they are old. traveling over seas, translating through airports is not easy for us. in the current political climate, the current administration is creating a lot of barriers for us, and we're trying to fix our house, bring my parents over for good. that's why we need the bedrooms. last time when we were on the phone with daniel's parents, his mom expressed some desires to have a second bedroom because they're ageing, and they need

separate sleeping space. so that is one of the reasons why we decided to give up the second tandem parking space and actually create one additional bedroom so that daniel's parents, one could sleep one of them. and we designed, also, the living space, on the ground level so that both parents could have easy access into the back yard without being -- without the need to climb up the stairs to the main level. and for the upstairs, two bedrooms -- one guest bedroom in our kids that we're planning to have, either adopt or have a different arrangement. and one is for my parents when they come visit from china, and the other one bedroom is for both of us to sleep in. so this is not a megamansion, and every room has its purpose. we carefully and thoughtfully

designed to accommodate the needs necessary for my family, our families, but also trying to revise the joy throughout the whole process to really compromise on all the feedback and concerns that we have received from all of the neighbors surrounding. thank you. >> dear board members, i would just add to what calvin said, couple comments. it's pretty sad to be here and -- and i'm hopeful that we will still stay friendly with our neighbors. we were trying to find a solution to accommodate our family, and we thought that the right way to do it was by following what is the city regulations, getting input from the city. we had a city planner come and

visit the place. they were at kubick's property, and they recommended the three-foot side set back, which we later actually increased to 3-10 site set back. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. c scott sanchez. the project is code compliant, has been approved by the planning commission. i believe after seeing the photos of the rear to see and understand the appellant's concerns, the planning commission voted unanimously to deny the request. the project sponsor has made changes to bring the property into compliance with the residential design guidelines, and i'm available for questions. >> so mr. sanchez -- sorry.

okay. the project sponsor indicated that they reduced their bulk by 1,000 square feet. was that voluntarily or was that on request from the department? >> it's my understanding that they had initially proposed the fourth story, but from my understanding, they had revised that before they submitted the application or maybe shortly after they submitted the application 'cause i think they did get feedback. i don't believe that the fourth floor removal was from the planning department, but i don't have complete information on that. i just know that the project that went out to neighborhood notice did not have that fourth story is my understanding. >> thank you. >>clerk: mr. curran, anything to add? okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners?

>> i'm significantly sympathetic to the neighborhood. i understand the position of the neighborhood. we run into this challenge on a regular basis, and normally, we run into it when there are variances, when there are significant exceptions to the -- >> commissioner swig, can you speak into the microphone? >> yeah. sorry. we've run into this when there are significant variances, exceptions to really significant neighborhood characters. the -- this is tough because, in fact, this is a code compliant plan, and yes, there's a significant massing, and yes, it is probably frustrating to

the -- the neighbors that there has, in their view, not been more compromise and not been more willingness for the developers of the property to listen to their needs. but it's code compliant, as the zoning administrator stated. and -- and that's -- and that's a hard thing to get over in this case. >> i would add a couple of observations with respect to some of the comments that were .

the date on the drawings is 10-02-18. >> okay. so can we -- do you want me to just repeat what the -- >> yes. >> okay. so this is -- so commissioner honda, you -- you're making a motion to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that the permit be revised to reflect the plans dated october 2, 2018 found in

the permit holder's exhibit a on the basis -- on what basis? >> that it's code compliant. >> on the basis that the plans are code complaint. on this motion -- [roll call] >> okay. that motion passes -- i'm sorry, that's exhibit k for the record. i thought he said exhibit a. >> okay. >> thank you. okay. so we will now move onto item number 9. this is appeal number 18-090. thank you for your patience. jason hughes and kelly your your versus zoning administrator, 1716 alabama street, appealing

the peal on june -- appeal on june 19, 2018. this is case number 2016012810. and we will hear from the appellants first. >>. >> okay.

good evening, brett gladstone on behalf of the property owners. first of all, there's a change i wanted to announce. creating an a.d.u., we've discovered in the last few weeks, may trigger a new 311 notice and/or a variance, so tonight, we are asking that the same building be approved, but we're going to change the ground floor so there's no independent access to the street, and so the kitchen and the ground floor which is for judy, the grandmother, will not have -- well, it won't be a full kitchen. now, i'll let my client and judy speak for a minute. thank you. >> hi. >> you can pull it down. >> if you can pull it down. >> yeah. >> hello. my name is kelly iura, and jason and i are first-time homeowners who have lived in our home for 13 years. in that time, our family has

grown to -- so we now have two kids, aged five and 11. sorry. we cannot afford to -- for a larger, new home. unlike many friends who have left town for larger homes, we are making an effort to stay in the city. our kids live in the first floor in small rooms that barely meet the minimum code size. i would like my mother to occupy the ground floor and the kids to be on the same floor as us so that we do not disturb my mom, but also so that we can supervise them and be there to comfort them. they have expressed -- my kids have expressed not feeling safe being on the first floor with -- with their access to the rooms from the rear yard, as my husband, jason, travels often. with a teenage boy and a preschool girl, the children each need to have their own separate bedrooms. my mother needs to be on the ground floor for quiet and

privacy, making it easier for her to enter and exit the house as her abilities change. in 1979, my husband's family's bid to own a home in shrewsberry, new york was denied on the basis that allowing an african american family to purchase a home would be a loss to property values. >> you can use the microphone there, gary, can you make sure it's on there? >> can you hear me? okay. you can hear me. my name is judy iura. i'm kelly's mom. i'm 85 years old.

i live in los angeles but grew up in oakland. during -- my husband of 95 years -- he's 95 years old, he couldn't be here because he has par parkinson's, and he lives at home with the help of caregivers. during world war ii, along with other japanese american families, my husband's family and my parents were forced to move out of california and abandon a thriving business at a great loss. therefore, learning of kelly and jason's difficulties in satisfying the codes for expansion of their 1400 square foot home, which is very modest, is brought back memories of the challenges my husband and i faced in finding a place to live.

in 1957, when my husband and i tried to rent our first apartment, we were told the owners did not want to rent to asians. by 1965, when we needed a larger home to accommodate our growing family, we encountered a similar road block with private -- oh, i'm sorry. >> sorry, judy, but i may give you extra time later. hi. gret gladstone. so the code asks for 650 feet mass reduce from the plan, but the planning department gave us an interpretation that we did not expect. the bernal heights gave us a kerpgs th interpretation, and that is that the 289 square feet front nonconforming area of the structure, because it's in a front yard, has to be removed as

well as the 650, which is a total -- excuse me, 919 square feet that had to be designed out of a building to get an approval without a variance, and that wasn't possible. the mass reduction achieved is less than 200, and that is the variance that we request. by the way, the amount of the variance, which is about 500 is generally the amount of square foot that kelly's grandmother will be living in behind the garage in a space that doesn't have a full kitchen and has no independent access to the street. so basically, having grandma living there is really the fact that puts us out of range that we needed to reduce additionally, which is about 500. i wanted to remind you that the design review board has no problems with the size or the design.

it's clear in their letter. we believe that there was no problem with the size or design at the 311 because there's been no discretionary review. it did come obvious after d.r. when there is a variance hearing that we needed a variance, and we believe that greatly affected the attitude of neighbors who don't support anymore today. i do want to mention, before i go into the five variance findings, in 30 seconds, that the 2015 variance is key. it's a substantial property issued two doors down for less deviation from the code, also granting a third floor, and we don't understand why that's substantial property right which discusses the same exceptional circumstances we have of 80 foot lot doesn't gave a variance in a situation before us. in fact, we don't need as much of a deviation as they have.

just one sentence, i ask that you read the brief where i go into, if i don't have time later, the -- how we meet the four other criteria, and basically we meet them the same way that building two doors down did in its 2015 variance did. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. gladstone, can you repeat what you said at the very beginning regarding the change. i want to make sure i heard it right. >> yes. we designed and sent to you, and it was in the 311 notification package -- excuse me. after the 311 notification was sent out, after those drawings were done, after the variance hearing was held, then, the family said to themselves, we're doing a great floor area for judy, the mother who just spoke. why don't we turn it into an a.d.u. >> okay? >> it didn't have a full kitchen. it didn't have total access to the street. we put that in the post variance

drawings. it's before you. we're telling you tonight, we're not going to have that independent access because it triggers too many other procedures. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the subject property is at 1715 alabama street with an rh 1 zoning district and bernal heights special district. the variance that's being sought is to allow a mass reduction variance project, which is to allow a two story addition to a single-family building. with an average building height of 30 feet with a max of 31'6".

there wasn't as much of a net increase in the mass, although there was a horizontal addition in the rear. there is also a difference in the topography of the site. although it's only a few doors down, it was an upsloping lot, which is not the case for this property, so i think that there are some fundamental differences between the cases, and so we have found that the five findings that have not been met. we believe that the appellant has not presented those arguments here tonight, as well, and i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> so what is the actual total square footage that they're asking for? >> i can look up on the plans.

so the total proposed is 2,547 square feet of conditioned space, a net change of 1,147 square feet. so not quite, but nearly doubling the size of the building. >> okay. >> going from existing 1400, and adding 1100 square feet. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, you're probably aware that i had input into the original bernal heights guidelines. >> i did not know. >> in 1800. >> i did not know, and i would love to hear more. >> any way, when i read the denial of the variance, you know, it basically said that none of the five could be

attributed in this particular case. i mean, that's kind of rare, isn't it, to not have any? >> i would not say that is rare. i would say that probably more than half the -- i would say the majority of variances that are denied, we would find that they are denied on all five counts. but i guess i would clarify one point, too. it was raised by the appellant, a belief that we've misinterpreted a code. they did seek a letter of determination to this point and did not appeal that determination. also, believe this is consistent with how we've applied the code. it was implemented in 1991. i' i've been in this job for eight years. it's been how we've applied since i've been a d.a., and the prior team leader, it was consistent with how they've applied it, so i think it's consistent with how the department's been applying it, can understand how maybe the

community group feels other, but it's how we've been applying the code. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? how many people are here for public comment? okay. if you wouldn't mind coming up to the wall, and if you could provide a speaker card. you can do it after you speak. if you want to start, go ahead, please. and so the speakers in the back, if you wouldn't mind moving forward just so we can move it along. you're taller. you might want to go in the center, if that's -- >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay. hello. i'm sebastian derar. i right next to 1715, 1717, with my wife, my family. we moved here almost a year ago. we bought the house 20 of october, so we are actually in between the other property where they are doing construction, and next to the property where they want to do construction, and so

they've been very transparent throughout the process. before they actually were going to do it, they came to me, they asked if i had any questions. we had various questions. they ran us through it. we had some potential questions, we have a little kid, potential noise and things like that. we agreed to stay in touch about things. they've been very informative in the process with me. they are the only house in this block that have one story less. they have a family of four people. i think there's something to say in a city where a lot of people like myself that come from outside, that there's people that have been living there a long time. that says something about the neighborhood, and there's also a lot of houses in the neighborhood where they have done remodelling. so i think -- i've seen the plans, i've seen the old plans, i like the old plans. i've seen the new plans, as

well. i think the facade, it looks very much in line with the other houses in the neighborhood. i think if they -- they should be allowed to do this just from the perspective of a family of four people. they've kept us in the loop in everything throughout this whole purpose. as a neighbor, no one likes construction, no one likes the dirt, the noise, but even though they're doing construction on the other side, they've been very transparent with us. whereas the other people don't live in the neighborhood. i had to find out where they live from the construction people. these people, they've been very transparent with us through the construction process, and any concern we've had, they've tried to address them. i'm fully supportive of the plan, my wife is fully supportive of the plan. yeah, i'm supportive of it proceeding. so if you have any other questions, let me know. >> thank you.

>> yeah. >> next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is suma mcwhirty. i live at 1705 alabama street. i bought it with my husband in 2006. >> do you mind just adjusting the microphone. >> yes. better? >> yes. >> okay. so like what was just said, i feel that kelly and jason and their team have been very forth coming. i have been living over seas, and they reached out and were able to share the plans, talk to me, answer all of my questions about the project. i think that the design and the scope of this project fit well into our neighborhood? we have, i guess what i'd call an eclectic mix of homes.

i have seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood in the 12 years that i've been there. some are changes to homes that families who own them and lived in them did themselves, some homes were bought and flipped by developers, but i would say that for the most part, these changes have been great for the neighborhood. all of us have seen our property values go up, and it's a different place than it was 12 years ago, and i feel that this property will continue that trend. i understand, you know, for all of us, our home is a big financial asset, and we want to protect what we have. we want to protect the benefits and the things that we feel that we have in our property. i know that there's some concerns about light, about air, flow, about, you know, just changes to how that will -- that

will be for neighbors. i -- if you -- if you're on the block, you'll see my house is like a little peanut house next to everyone else. i'm actually the house that's the smallest and lowest, so i've dealt with those issues in the past, but i feel that we live in a city. sight line to your neighbor, you know, close proximity and i guess density are part of what living in san francisco are about for good and for bad. but i think that this -- this home is -- is not going to bring anything negative to the neighborhood, it's going to bring something positive. and one last sentence, i think that -- i love our neighborhood, and i think the neighborhood isn't just a collection of buildings, it's about people, and this family is part of what i love about it, and i think -- i would think that other neighbors would feel the same. all right. that's it. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >>t