for. so right now, they're in front of you for two roof decks, three decks, four open spaces, adding up to 900 square feet. they're claiming the garage deck is for their family. i don't want to get involved with the mother, although they have a deck right off. the question is, how much is enough and how much is too much? and that is what you guys talked about in august. >> good afternoon, my name is elizabeth gordon, i, along with my husband, own 50 clifford terrace, immediately to the east of the subject property. that home is owned by dorrian and julie stone. we respectfully ask that you exercise the special power of d.r. as an exceptional and extraordinary circumstances associated with this project. no other home in the immediate area has a roof deck on top of a back garage. much less one that is illegal

and much less one that is skirted the law for more than 50 years. and as used, for the past three and a half years, has invaded the privacy and disturbed the tranquility of the most immediate neighbors. those standing on door yan and julie's back garage roof deck look in my master bedroom, master bathroom shower, kitchen, dinning room, living room. the three feet that dorian and julie proposes to reduce the existing deck by on the eastside does not eliminate a line of sight that they and their guests on that back roof deck still have right into our home. the reciprocal privacy will only be attained if that back deck remains with tall trees planted to block those lines of sight and yet we don't want to be in that position of having to plant those trees because they will block our views and block their

views. there's nothing unique about this property that justify it being permitted to have a back garage roof deck with no other neighbor has one. of the 14 properties, to vacant lot 32 only three were built with garages long ago and only the stone's have a roof deck on top of that garage. the other two of the three properties, originally built with a back garage, at 40 and 50 clifford terrace have excavated their back yards to make viable their backyard use able open space and even so, 50 cliffard terrace gets shade and stampness, something the stones complain about to justify their decks here and yet that isn't unique to them at all.

as we have that as well. approval of the backyard roof deck and related standing and steps would cause unreasonable impact that it sets dangerous precedent. just by reducing a few feet. it rewards buyers and their sellers and brokers who are remiss in their initial investigation of a home and its permitted status. it prioritizes the large living and big process of one family to the did htoit puts other familie told they have no right to a view. please, take d.r. and please deny legalization of the back garage roof deck and the related landing and steps. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comments in support of the d.r. request?

is there? >> my parents are liz and tom. this is our family home. it's at 50 cliffard terrace and i'm here to read a letter from the name on the other side, who is not able to be here today. >> you can submit the letter. you are part of the d.r. team? i mean you are the family of the d.r.? >> i'm family of. >> these are my. >> just submit the letter. can you submit it. you can't take his time. if he is not here. she's not a member of the public. she's part of the d.r. team. we'll read the letter. any public comment and support of the d.r.?

seeing none project sponsor. >> so the project sponsor now is able to speak. we're on public in support of the d.r. >> hi, i'm part of the family. it counts as being part of the d.r. >> i'm tom. >> you can't speak. >> you are the property owners who are d.r.ing this. we would go on forever on public comment if that was the case. you are a member of the public? >> i'm a neighbor. >> no blood relation? you don't live at house. >> none whatsoever, thank you. >> you can submit letters if you have a let are you wanted to submit. >> good afternoon, my name is ellen, i live at 175 upper terrace. i've lived there for 33 years

with my family, adam and juliet. adam is in los angeles. three years ago, i contacted liz gordan, highway didn't know but met at a party she hosted at her house about our serious concerns that the stones were using the roof of the garage. in a new and different way. they were using it as a deck for entertaining and for mr. stone's many business calls. for three decades, before the stones purchased the home, the roof was never used as a deck. and that is why we never complained about it. because of how the garage is situated on a separate lot from the stone's residents and bordering on two property lines, liz and tom's and the easement, that's the road, the noise that is generated on the upper roof is like a megaphone. it's like a bullhorn.

it radiates and especially in our direction. mind you, we've lived with neighbors, for many years and never had a problem. i spoke with staff last week and they didn't have a memory of my poise anspouse and i writing a f our loss of tranquility. our concerns got lost in the shuffle. the stones have outdoor space and can have more outdoor space with the deck off their kitchen. they are not entitled to transform the roof into a deck. the city has said the deck is illegal and cited the stones. r.n.d. said they don't need two decks, pick one. pulling back from liz and tom's property, line three feet there's nothing for us. let's be frank, why did they want it? they want it to enhance their view. their desire for an enhanced view should not outweigh our right to tranquility. these are not unsophisticated,

uneducated purchases. highly educated and sophisticated, war ton school of business and a highly trained nurse. perhaps there should be an exception for an illegallality if it were something critical. pardon me for thinking as a judge, because i have been one for over 20 years, but i don't believe that i will legality should be rewarded. please consider our rights and concerns which have not been considered by staff. so thank you. >> thank you. >> any additional public comments in support of the d.r.n. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. my name is thee o'er and i live at 17 a upper terrace. i just wanted to say that in the long time that we've lived in the neighborhood, which is 33

years, we have volunteered our property for the neighbors to meet our new supervisor, we have had meetings in our house when the museum was closed so the neighborhood could participate. we have been, what i call very good neighbors. i've never attended a meeting to objector protest a project, believe me in our neighborhood, we've had many, many projects. i want to have peace and tranquility at my house also. i know we live in the city. we live in a neighborhood that has not only lots of houses but lots of people, lots of children. but peace and tranquility is entitled to some expectations. the noise have the elevated deck that's on the property line with the easement reverberates into my space.

we have listened to it and been impacted by it. the present situation is not fair. the impact that we get is that no one in the neighborhood should have the right to build on a separate lot, build a separate structure from the house. there is privacy and tranquility that is a valuable asset to me and i hope to everybody. i wish to add one thing, the gentleman who wrote the letter couldn't be here and i would like you to consider his information as well. the recommendation is that there should be one deck. we're not objecting to the deck off the kitchen. we are objecting to the deck on top of the garage. which definitely impacts me. thank you. >> thank you. >> additional public comments in support of the d.r.?

seeing none. we'll move to the project sponsor. >> good afternoon. we are excited to be here. as you've heard, it's been a long process. you also to staff for rep operatiopreparation. the box i brought is an outpouring of letters of support that the project sponsor has received, leading up to the hearing. i'd like to give this to the commissioners. i'd like to turn your attention to the actual project at hand. this is a beautiful neighborhood filled with houses of various scales. from multi stor-unit apartmentsh

single-family homes. this dot map represents a couple of different things. one thing that is significant is there's a blue dot. it's hard to read but i'll show you. pull over that microphone. he want to be able to hear you. >> this blue dot is a roof deck on the back of a rear yard garage. the red dots is that the houses of four stories and the orange indicates houses approaching the 450-foot height limit. it's showing context for the property. the houses on the blocks, as you can see, are subject properties. it has historic significance. when we're proposing our addition to it, we're pulling back from the street face to make it very gentle presence to the street. we're going to go into the existing and the proposed site plan. the existing site plan has the roof deck over an existing garage, which we're seeking to legalize that roof deck.

there's an existing walkway that received an n.o.v. that's what we'll take down. we'll be removing some of the outdoor space of the rear yard. there's an existing balcony that is hanging over the rear of the building. we are proposing to take that off. the new roof deck we're putting on the top floor would be behind the line of buildings and we'll get to that in a second. i'd like to point out that the neighbor on the ep slope has a balcony that goes out past the edge of the property. and the d.r. requester has a deck that goes out past the edge of the property. past the rear yard averaging line that required a variance to construct. oiour proposed plan pulls the fourth-storey addition back from the face of the property to respect historic preservation codes.

although we would have liked to be able to preserve more of this light well view for the neighbor, the up slope, this is where we're allowed to build. in addition to keep it quiet to the street we have a lower roof line stepping up closer to the 40-foot height limit at the back. where we're building new we're respecting the adjacent neighbor's light well. i can show you a sun study where we study whether a three foot setback from the property line or a five-foot setback would make an impact on them. over at this side of the property, instead of extending out past the corner, we decided to hold the addition back and hold it aligned with the adjacent neighbor to respect the windows that they have here. at this small area, before we even submitted for planning, we removed an outdoor walk-out balcony in order to respect the privacy of the adjacent neighbor. we have a roof deck that is off the master suite. it's tucked behind the line of

the rear yard averaging setback and tucked behind the building. i'll show you views for that. when we went to r.d.d., after we got an n.o.v. for the walkway, we're removing the walkway and putting a six-foot planning platforms with stairs down to the yard. as you heard in the staff report, that does not require a variance. the variance is required for the stairs to lead up to the roof deck. the roof deck is allowed on a existing non conforming rear yard. we set this back away from the neighbor's property in consideration of their privacy concerns. as you heard from some of the adjacent neighbors, we are on an area and i just wanted to point out, i'm going to flip the pages. we are on an area where a lot of room behind. >> pull that down, we can't see it. >> we were on an area with a lot of room behind so it's a different situation than being right on anna jays enter neighbor. there's some space in between and some buffer which is different than many places in

the city. our upper floor addition. our upper floor addition, much has been made about the seismic. we're looking at a -- >> thank you, your time is up. >> you have a two minute rebuttle. >> is there public comment in support of the project? >> leave it right there. >> my name is gabriella and i live at 48 clifford terrace, right next to the d.r. applicants. i was here two weeks ago. super nervous, sad, frustrated,

angry. because this filed a d.r. on our roof deck project. you all voted unanimously to approve my project so thank you. liz, the d.r. applicant is a real estate attorney and developer and often intim dates and bullies to have her way. i want you to know other neighbors supported my project but were afraid because liz would hold that against them. it's sad and crazy that one neighbor can use a d.r., notice of violation and who knows what else as a delay tactic. i'm here today in support for the proposed project at 60 clifford terrace as there shouldn't be delays. dorrian and julie have waited four years. we find it hard to believe that the d.r. applicants would object to the vertical addition. given that the d.r. applicants have asked us in writing for unconditional support for their vertical addition. and have plans of adding another floor to their own house. we have come to understand that liz is always very aggressive in

trying to negotiate the best deal for herself. threatening lawsuits. when she doesn't get her way. and it saddens me that liz is putting neighbors against neighbors. we ask you to support dorrian and julie's project as currently proposed. i also want to say a couple of words on behalf of a neighbor who is a nurse and couldn't be here. she lives a block away and wrote a letter of support because she has a roof deck own over her garage. she mentioned no one has a roof deck over the garage. that's not true. this is a house on 80 upper terrace. >> you need to speak into the microphone. >> here is the roof deck and you can see the walkway. there's the garage. here is the garage with windows. there's the roof deck. >> pull that down, sir. >> i'm going to read a little bit of her notes. but she's not here. we live at there and have been

there 4.5 areas in this neighborhood. we are writing a letter of support. like the stones, we like the design and think it enhance and alliance the character of the neighborhood. the propose seems modest and reasonable. we recently completed a project on our home that shares characteristics with the stone's project in regard to the back walkway and the deck over a separate garage, our plans are right here. we submitted the plans through the city 2015, received approval in summer 2016, and begun construction in the late summer of 2016 and completed the project in the spring of 2017. our neighbors were nothing but supportive throughout the process. we are surprised that the very different experience the stones have had to protect their a feature of their home. >> thank you, very much. >> i have a comment. >> your time is up.

>> any additional support? d.r. request, you have a two minute rebuttle. >> i'd like to respond to some of the comments made. there was reference to how they were willing to cut off three feet at the eastside of the existing back garage roof deck. in fact, like i said before, it doesn't change the view lines directly into the very private parts of our home. gabby, with the neighbor next door, characterized me as a developer, which i am not. i was formally a real estate attorney with a great law firm and retired from that law firm in 2003 and then got my real estate broker's license and i have clients and invest in property for my husband and me. that's it. i too, with both respect to gabby's roof deck at 48 clifford

and the project at 60 i approached people who said they were too uncomfort about writing letters of support because they were afraid of retro buyings from both of them given very intense personalities. the only lawsuit that i've ever threatened was when gabby had a contractor come in our property when my husband and i were on vacation in 2008. they had them lay a drain to solve their water intrusion problems. that was discovered two years later when the buyer of her property sued them for various allegations and i got a call that in a deposition it came out how did you solve your water intrusion problem? i laid a drain on liz and tom's property. when people do those things, there's discussion about what are our legal rights, why did you do that and obviously this is that coming back. i would be happy to address any

of those allegations at length. i'm a very reasonable person. >> all that is in front of you is the roof decks, that's all that should be in front of you. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> you have a two-minute rebuttle. >> this could be a very helpful thing to see. >> this is the stone's bedroom and that's the view of the d.r. requiring deck at the d.r. requesters house. that's the balcony. >> pull that down, i can't see that. >> sorry about that. >> that's the balcony that we're removing voluntarily. this is the view outlooking on the deck. this is the adjacent neighbor's balcony that stick out past the

property line on the upward slope. and one of the people who speaks here today, this is a roof deck on their property also at the back of this easement area. so, just thought that was helpful context. another thing that the d.r. requester had asked us to do was to give her a view of the roof deck from the top. as we said, we've had it at the rear of the property off the master bedroom. it's a difference of public space. it's a quieterrer use. we were showing there's no views. and while there is a deck that is here, and the deck that looks here that we're also talking about is at a open space and it is true, you can turn back and look at the d.r. requesters' house that most of you will agree that most people will be turning and looking at that. not at the homes behind them. so i did mention a shadow study to talk about the light well and whether it's three or five foot setback would make a difference

and that's here if you have questions. is that my time. >> you have 24 seconds. >> and last but not least, it's probably helpful for you to see the design of the house in these 24 seconds. this is the house from the front. can we have the overhead, please. >> there you go. >> this is the house from the front. from the street. and from the rear and while we have glazing at the rear, i would like to say the glazing is outward facing and not directly into anna jays enter property. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so we'll conclude this portion of the hearing. commissioner richards. >> so, wow. there's a lot there. i guess the question, who constructed the structure that has the notice of violation and the requirement for the variance? did you buy the house like that? did you construct it?

>> that was constructed in the mid-60s by the previous owners who owned the home for a number of decades. it's both of walkway and the deck in the same place in the packet you should see an aerial photo from the mid-60s that shows it's in place which pre dates the purchasing of the home. as well as the development on the back of their home including their glass facade that they are complaining about. >> thank you. >> there's an additional fun fact about this. this deck -- >> you have something on the overhead. >> this forms the justification for the d.r. sponsor variance rear yard deck. >> great. thank you. >> so -- >> this photo is from aerial archives. >> thank you. >> a question for the zoning administrator, if i were to construct a garage like the project sponsor's house, with a deck on top. i wanted to put a deck on it, could i today?

>> under the planning code if you have a exist structure you can put a deck on it. it does not trigger a variance unless you have a solid fire wall. it is generally allowed. this is something that is somewhat routine. we see people who have non compliance portions of a building, whether it's a garage structure or part of the main building itself. i think it is a required rear yard or front setback, they will put on a deck structure and the deck itself, as long as it as open railings and it's flat against the roof is allowed. we have a 10-day notice to the neighbors. when we trigger the variance here, it's the steps. >> ok. >> thank you. >> mr. moore. >> what is of concern to me is the legalization of an illegal deck in conjunction with enlarging the home and building another substantial deck off the bedroom. while we all need to be concerned about sufficient open

space, we need to be concerned about interaction between the spaces. [ please stand by ]

review. . . basically a quiet nature of the rear yards which exemplify the traveling of noise throughout the day. and is unfortunate and is locked and i cannot personally support the legalization of the rear deck. >> this is an impact and will see or hear each other, but to me it doesn't rise to a level where we need to take d.r. there are obviously issues on clifford street from what we

have heard in the past and in this case. i personally have a trampoline that my kids are on probably at hours they shouldn't be and i am sure my neighbors don't particularly like it and some of them beyond my block hear it, but a good, creative use of the top of the garage and the same noises could happen in the yard that can happen on a deck. we are in a dense, urban neighborhood and no doubt there will be the impact and people will have to look at each other, hear each other, but this doesn't rise to the level to a level of i think we should take d.r. and eliminate good, valuable, open, usable space for a family here. >> a question for mr. winslow. on page 3 the residential design team review said the project

sponsor and with removal of one of the decks with the garage roof deck or new deck adjacent to the building home wall with the variance would have no exceptional circumstance. and if you look at this proposed site plan, there are still two decks. >> that is correct. that was at the iterative design process. there was a larger deck that would have required a variance. because it did not meet the designs of that 136 provision. it went further out into the rear yard. >> we now have a landing that doesn't need the variance. >> we have no balcony. >> correct. >> commissioner moore. >> there is one other comment and i know that is not in front

of us, but the renovation of the particular building raises a question for me and that is the addition of the e.d.u. since the addition of the structure, the bedroom, requires my major excavation and enforcement of the foundation of the building, if you would refer to drawing a2-08 -- no, it's drawing 8502, and you could easily excavate to full height clearance behind the garage behind the ground floor for the whole other dynamic and this is a truly missed opportunity for the addition of an a.d.u. with much ado.

as i see that from is a missed opportunity for us to see the addition of an a.d.u. i wanted to add that as a comment. that is not in front of us, but definitely in the alteration plans of the building. >> we absolutely did consider that. we went back multiple times and multiple people take a look. it is solid rock. neighbors tried to excavate the backyard and it has been a headache. the original plans at the garage for 6 f 0 foot was shrunk in part because of the headache. we have here the previous owners of 50 clifford terrace to talk

about the difficulties they have had. and we have absolutely looked at that. in addition to the implication on construction would mean an additional room below, other rooms above with the living-room kitchen area. and between the construction costs and seeing other people expend far more money than they anticipated the experience of previous owners going to the rock, we decided to pull back, but spent multiple rounds investigating that. >> appreciate your comments. i am unfamiliar with the soil and foundation conditions in the area, but i would like to point out as a commission to keep a vigilant eye on the opportunities because the particular addition could occur within the envelope and be november sweat at all to have the addition. >> move to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> if nothing further, commissioner, there is a motion to not take d.r. and take the

project as proposed. on that motion -- so moved. that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner moore voting against. >> close the public hearing and historically i have been supportive of variance applications for rear yard decks such as that which was sought by the d.r. requester. and in that case they were seeking a deck that was directly accessible from the main living level. the rear yard living space that is directly accessible from the main living floor and is just a stair, i don't see the necessary

variance. and i can't support the variance application. >> just a question, mr. sanchez. can they access to garage deck through the garage? >> a they may be able to do so to make that happen without a variance, but it would be more complicated. >> all right. we can move to the next item. number 19, 2420 taraval street, discretionary review, case 2017-004301drp-02. >> good afternoon, commissioners, president hillis. before you are two questions for building application 2017-03242277 associated with the proposed project at 2420 taraval street.

the project proposes a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of an existing single family home to accommodate two additional residential units. the project also includes legalization of the raising of the subject property by 17 inches. it is on the north side of taraval between 34th and 35th avenue within the parkside neighborhood and located within the taraval street neighborhood commercial district when a 40-foot -- 40x height and bulk resignation. the reason for the d.r. is the project will result in the loss of natural light, privacy, and mid block open space. the project will remove the source of light to an unmatched lightwell by expanding the subject property. the residential advisory team does not find an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance to warrant changes to the proposed addition for the following reasons. one t proposed expansion is contextual and compatible with no blocks to the mid block and

light and air to the adjacent neighbor with a 3 foot and 5 footsteped setback proposed along the western property line. the request to the matched light well is not necessary due to the existing conditions. the project was determined to be categorically exempt for ceqa. to date as of yesterday we received 12 signed letters of support for the proposed project. the department finds it to be code compliant and recommends approval as proposed. this concludes my presentation. >> d.r. requester. thank you, mr. winslow.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am hear to express my concern about the proposed -- >> excuse me. please speak into the mic. and pull the mic towards you. and then just pull that -- just position it. >> -- the property and since 2011. our major concerns for the proposal is, one is the extra shadows overcast on to our backyard. this is the google map. you can see from here this is our house and this is 2420. and then this house here is the same land and not show -- and shorter than the others. this is the same depth. and our morning sun is on to

their open space and the backyard. and in the afternoon because 2420 is longer and tall trees on the side, we are losing that afternoon sun. it depends on the sunshine on the open space in the backyard to have mrning sun. here is the shadow study provided. and you can see the worser thing is in the december. i want to point out here so this is the existing one so which means the current one. in 2014, the neighbor raised the two steps up i think 17 inch and we lost that area on the area in the wintertime already. and that is only 6 feet left all the way back to our backyard.

then because the addition fill that space in their backyard and our 6 feet is totally gone now. so that is why -- in the scale down to save the 6 feet all the way back. you guys mention about exceptional -- i'm sorry, and the extraordinary circumstances. and with the sunshine and to give us a little bit and 6 feet i hope you consider that. i didn't ask for more.

i want to talk about the windows here. toward our backyard. and this is on all three floors. this is the point hear and the areas with the back of our house. you can see that we have the windows here and here. look at the back at this one. this setback is three feet from our house and the windows and which means when we do this additionally and between our windows and will be about 4 feet. and for that, we have that over

here and about 2 feet. and between the two windows is even closer. so i am suggesting that is a possible, like those windows move to this part and just as that area window and to move that so that is no window on our side. the second thing is that window is here. this is a breakfast room also against the wall and the distance between the two windows is the thickness and is that possible to move this window a little further away from the

wall for privacy and safety things. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. there is a second d.r. requester. >> commissioners, thank you for your attention to my d.r. >> just pull that down so we can see it. >> the owner at the property 2421 and taraval street -- >> do that a little bit more. >> and we acquired this property with the pre-existing condition in 1919 when it was built.

we took advantage of every space that we have available on this property, and that includes i have the lightwell here that we received sunlight through and the air from outside and asking for the matching light well. and with the building that is important to me just like any other neighbor to cause their depreciation in a way. and the whole plan of this is out of scale with so many things involved here and i am not certain if this is correct. they have the roof shows parallel line with me, but i have a huge, open gap here. they already illegally raised

this property 17 inches without permits and that also took advantage and the d.r. was the rear extension only and not having to do with anything illegally raised. after they were penalized for the situation, they add this to the notice. i don't know which situation i am dealing with and at the same time in the planning they should not have the roof parallel to fine and to my property line which is not true because i can prove that i have a gap from the roof and mine is misrepresentation of their drawing in this planning and prove from the back point of view where i do have that open

space and the roof is still higher. i don't know if this project going in that they can basically elevate the ceiling height and cover everything up because it is confusing with the map and the drawing and never clarify how to raise this 17 inches. part of that 17 inches and they have additional 5 inches into that planning into the project scope. and here i am not sure what i am here for with many scopes that are irregular in this d.r. >> do you want to fill it in for me? >> i was asked to see if i could broker a deal. i had a deal. >> one of the owners of the d.r. balked. she changed her mind. there is a deal to be had. so you guys want to walk out and have really angry people versus this can be settled.

and along the lines of help from mr. winslow. and everyone walks out and is mad as hell and there is a reasonable deal here. that is too sad because life is too short to happen with the anger about to happen with this. >> thank you. is there public comment in support of the d.r. requesters? >> hey, how is it going? i look at 2426 taraval street. right now there is not a lot of sunlight already. both buildings on both sides extend pass 2426 taraval. and extending it further, there will be no no sunlight and to

the backyard and requesting they don't get any units at all. to go to both sides and extend it past the way it is. >> any additional comment in support of the d.r.? project sponsor? >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. and on behalf of the project sponsor, i would like to thank staff for working on this project. and to make this into a very worthy project that the commission can support. mr. lamb is a life long san francisco resident and attended george washington high school and he and his wife and three young children live at the property and would continue to

do so after the project and in one of the units and would like to have his father-in-lawly in the lower unit and a third unit on the third floor. just to give you a little bit of context about the property, this is the front facade. the blue building is 2420. the two d.r. requesters on either side. you have seen this image, 2426 taraval here, the subject property. this is 2414 taraval and the

rear addition will be a significant improvement aesthetically on the building wall. just describe the project real quickly is proposing three new units and the ground floor 600 square foot unit is well designed with good rear yard access and two flats above. and both of about 1,100 square feet. the project is just under 30 feet tall and would allow another floor. he is not seeking a roof deck. and the taraval neighborhood commercial district and mixed of uses is allowed and encouraged. good access to transit with the line. it's right there with the transit first policies to

propose one parking space and three bicycle parking spaces and this is project that the commission has been asking for and the unit mix and the size and the density and access to transit to be sensitively considered the neighbors. i would like to show you that with the site plan. so here you can see -- we are set back 6 feet from the required rear property line from the ground floor 5 1/2 feet. up above, the two upper stories are 3 feet from the rear property line. on the side, 2426 property

matches the depth of the 2014 building. the d.r. requester at 2414 has expressed concern about the lightwell. as staff indicated, there is no matching lightwell on the subject property and that would continue, as you can see here, she has a large cover and the best way to provide additional light and air would be to remove that cover. this image shows the small area

here about 16 inches that would be covered by the proposed project. this image is important as well because of the rear building or side building wall of 2414. that is the building that is providing most of the shade to both our property and 2426. the d.r. requester expressed concerns about shadow. this is the image she showed of the top image and the blue area is the existing shadow and this is the additional shadow caused by the new addition. we consider that very minor.

these two images show the additional shadow at 10:00 a.m. by 12:00 noon, there is no shadow. and we point out that the residential guidelines recognize that this will create shadow impacts and we provided ample setbacks, generous setbacks from the rear and the side as suggested by the design guidelines to minimize the impacts. the d.r. requester expressed concern about the windows facing her property. they don't provide a lot of visibility, but web would be willing to use opaque glass to reduce any impact there is. and i will conclude by

reiterating the neighborhood support we have. mr. winslow mentioned 10 letters of support and signatures. we also had four emails sent in and the neighborhood group west side is best side has expressed support of the project. we hope the planning commission will as well. we are available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> all right. thank you. any public comment in support of the project? >> hi. it is me again coming to represent the 240 folks on the west side and i am -- i don't know when the item would be. i was supposed to spend the afternoon with my son. i am a full-time day the tomorrow is picture day and that is the only time of the year we can have bring this forward. and the roof decks and disputes

between neighborhoods. that is also very dear to me why this project is very important. and all my friends have kids in school and able to have grandparents not too far. my parents live 6,000 miles away. there is no way i can bring them on the current rent. my mother is a retired teacher and my dad still works as a teacher. there is no way to afford their teacher's pension especially from europe. the rents that you see here. so with the projects like this one, and multigenerational housing and you need to i a prove that. you need to approve that and with more. the last two times to remove one unit on the same long and the

other two miles away. and there is a no brainer. but what i want to say and we put that in the letter and the d.r. a delay of one year for two units is not possible. we cannot have these kinds of delay before to i often watch you on sfgov tv and talk about how much space we have using the current zoning. the current zoning here is four stories, four units. if you can go five, six stories, 10 units. 25, 30 percent affordable. if we are people next door every time selfishly say, no, i don't want any new neighbors near me because i won't see light. you know who doesn't see light? the technician and the janitors at my work commuting to tracy to

stockton, elk grove. they don't see the sunlight or the kids on the weekends. we don't want that anymore. please approve that. don't encourage people to request d.r. anymore. it is only going to get worse. we cannot afford to to do that. if we delay two housing two units one year to increase the costs, it is not going to be possible for me to stay here. i am a renter on rent control and not for my children to live here and deny the d.r. >> thank you. any additional public comment in support of the project? seeing none, d.r. requesters have a two-minute rebuttal.

just pull that mic down towards you. this is the 6 inch i talk about to lose the 8 inches and that is the feet all the way back here. this is a minor thing and can you imagine that is no sunlight at all. that is different. and if we now have 6 inches and that is still acceptable, but this is nothing. i want to think about that and also the windows, and i don't know your name -- >> speak in the microphone

police. just speak into the mic so we can hear you. >> and mr. lamb remind me that i am as an owner on that street and i can add two units, too. and one is for privacy for my tenant downstairs and with the possible extension later and facing back on will have another d.r. and for now support this d.r. and i am so tire and i don't want to go through that process later and that is why i requested this and design wise, you can dot not do it. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> for my concern, i want to make