l-shaped 13,480 square foot lot located at the corner of buchanan and north point street. new construction kansas city oft four-story building. -the dwelling units are family size. six of the eight units have private patios or balconies and all of the units have access to common open space located in the central courtyard. the new building will replace one-story garden shed building. which is currently used as an office and has existing drive-way. garden area underwent resource evaluation and neither were found to be contributing features of landmark site. the evolution of the building design is clearly illustrated in

the project plan, included in the packet. a certificate of appropriateness was approved by the historic preservation commission in november 2018 and project sponsor has addressed the two building material items that were conditions of approval. both the historic resource evaluation are included in the project packet. large lot development rares c.u.a. approval in order to promote, protect and maintain a scale of development which is appropriate to the district and compatible with adjacent buildings. the subject and opposite block phase contained mixed use and residential buildings ranging in size from two to four stories with two to 28 dwelling units. building of this size is

completely appropriate for this site. the project sponsor has made numerous modifications as directed by the historic preservation commission. the department has received a letter in support of the project from s.f. heritage, two letters in opposition from representatives of the neighboring 159 1598 bay condomm association. none the letters site objections to the c.u.a. for large lot development and concerns are mostly based on construction, lots of views and loss of light and air and preservation issues which has been addressed. these letters are included in your packet. after the commission packets

were distributed, two additional letters were received. one letter is from business located directly across the street in support of the project. one letter in opposition from owners of a unit within 1598 bay street. these owners site loss of views and compliance with historic preservation, regulations as their concerns. staff recommending approval of this project as noted in the executive summary. the project are better utilize this large lot, received approval for the historic preservation commission and add eight dwelling units to the city housing stock. this concludes my presentation. i will be available to answer any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: project sponsor? >> just for clarity to the project sponsor, both the conditional use authorization and variance have been call and

consider together. you should speak to both matters at this time. >> just to clarify the time for project sponsor -- thank you. good afternoon commissioners, thanks for your time today. thanks the staff for the presentation and the work over the last 2-point two and two a. weaver come -- we're coming through with a beautiful project. if maximizes compatibility. it opens up new views of the landmark building. we really enhance the street light of the area. project has gone through a great deal of community outreach and multiple discussions and individual neighbors over the last few years. it was thoroughly reviewed by

s.f. heritage. to give you a background about project sponsor, ceo roger walter has been in the neighbor for 40 years. he's had a building across the street and loved the gas light building. in 1998, he bought the building it needed rot of -- lot of work and the interior of the building was completely redone. he continues to invest in the building and the garden. he's invested if the site and is excited about this developmental we're here about today. i will introduce maggie smith i believe she'l -- she'll walk you through the preservation issues. thank you.

>> president hillis: ms. smith, welcome. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm maggie smith. we have been providing consultation to the project sponsor. here is a subject block. the subject block project site with the parcel boundary is marked with the outline. landmark 58 was located at the northern end of the parcel. you can see with the notes. it was originally the administration building of the san francisco gas light company station. there's a nonhistoric garden at the centre and nonhistoric courtyard garden house workshop building at the southern end. the historic building was constructed by 1893 as a part of

the larger industrial complex. until 1958, it remained in hands of the san francisco gas light company which later became pg&e. the building was designated landmark in 1973 with the development of the san francisco gas light company, northeast station. it must be interpreted for today's standards. the nomination had only five sections, owner, location, history, architecture and surrounding land use and zoning. what was referred to as antique, that was only its current name at the time. the nomination indicated a property as formally san francisco gas light company. the history section focused on the gas light company and lightly touched on the technique just to bring the time line to end with the current section.

landmark 58 was not stated in the initial landmark designation but it has been determined 1893 to 1958, when the gas light company owned and operated and occupied out of the property. the property use did not have sufficient significance. particularly as it was not their first location. the nomination also reviewed by preservation staff and planning department and they have agreed that the period of significance should be tied to the property association. in 1958 they bought the property with accompanying new garden and new garden house workshop. this incurred after landmark 58 secured its significance.

around 2000, the garden was relandscaped with planting and design to become the courtyard as it is today. although the 1973 landmark designation notes that the garden house workshop as equaled impressive, one story building g is an altered building with a mixture of architecture style. in 2016, they completed a evaluation as part of the ceqa review process. we found the garden house workshop are not individual historic resources and are not contributing features of the landmark. as they are not associated with the development of the gas light company, northeast station of the architecture style. this was confirmed by the planning department and preservation team review form th.proposed project will demolih

nonhistoric garden workshop building to construct the four-story residential building. the historic preservation commission has approved certificate of appropriateness.

>> good afternoon. >> president hillis: we'll give you two minutes. >> i'm the architecture for this project. i'm going to let the images speak for themselves. can we just roll through them. this is the shot that shows the new building witing with 1598 oe right and landmark building on the left. notice the space between the buildings. looking back towards 1998 with our building in the middle. view from the sidewalk showing opening up the garden wall to give view into the garden and gives them activity to the sidewalk and opening up the views to the historic building. this is at the entrance of our building. this is views looking at the

back of the building building.[indiscernible] i'm trying to show the relationship between 1598 and where the black area is there. the yellow indicates living rooms of three units facing both the street and the side of our unit. the blue indicates one bedroom, there's three of them. the impact of the building can be seen here in this relationship. that concludes my presentation. >> president hillis: is there any public comment? i have one card.

if others like to speak, just line up on the screen side of the room. >> i'm stewart morton. three of you know me well. commissioner johnson, i'll give you a bit of my background for your information. 1971 i was one of the founding directors of heritage. i was asked by mayors to join in landmark for it. we have been working in the neighborhood. i find something very dishonest about this process. note that if you listen carefully, they defined the period of significance as being when pg&e sold the building in

1958. page and turn ball report was created by an employee of the the developer. if you read the case report, it mentions all of lot 3 which goes on the south end of this parcel, including the garden and the garden shed. they requested the landmarking. part of their operation, they came to tow town in '58. jackson square was hot stuff for techniques then. they created their own designation and did very well there. now, page and turnball report 33 declared period of significance

stops. this property has been known as maryville techniques. also sometimes san francisco gas and light. i think the city planning, heritage have agreed the page and turnball. who is to determine the period of significance? it hasn't gone through a public hearing. it's just been dictated by employee of the developer very conveniently. i find that very offensive. by the way, it's not mentioned that the lot number is a landmark in your agenda today. it's very seldom mentioned as a landmark. it's a rigged deal. after listening to item number 13, i can see why. we just need eight more units.

>> president hillis: next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is carolyn lee. hyme herthey are the neighbors g adjacent on but canaan. we written in opposition to this project.

we're strongly opposed to the development of a project that will be in violation of the city's planning code. first the historic preservation commission completely ignored the 1973 landmark designation. demolition of the garden house and landscape garden to make way for this project, the spatial relationship in the immediate surrounding of the maryville technique building will be impacted. the city has not appropriated addressed the designated ordinance which cast out on how project can be categoryically democratic from ceqa. an exemption cannot be use by change of significance. second the project is requesting a variance for rear yard

requirements. the zoning administrator is not going to be able to make required findings for variance. the proposed projects will be impacting for the adjacent neighbors. it are impact the open space. there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would apply to this property. the fact that there is all ready an existing building on this parcel in attempting to force second building on to the same lot, cannot be an exceptional circumstance. this is self-inposed -- self-imposed hardship. the project is too large for this building. doesn't fit. we request that you deny the project applicant's conditional use authorization and its request for the variance. thank you. >> president hillis: next

speaker please. >> thank you for this public hearing and your consideration. i'm resident of 1598 bay street. commissioners i have objections to the project. they are first parking. there's eight unit and only one parking spot. it should be one space per unit or eight spaces in total per the code when the application was submitted. two the setbacks, the project has impact on -- the project seems to ignore the 25% rear yard setback and have a zero side yard to makes the

project a bad neighbor. it should not be granted a variance. they do not meet the number two and number three criteria on page 4 of the draft motion in your package. very important to proposed structure are affect the rear yard setback of our project. the architecture mentioned the space between the buildings, the space is completely year yard setback of 1598 bay street. the proposed project is on the property line and covers up that whole rear yard. third, the site contaminated site with hazardous materials underground. from the previous gas light storage tanks. the project should include remediation and vapor barrier or

system like the one installed 1598 bay street. i didn't receive a public notice. rest of my concerns are outlined in the letter from the attorney that's in exhibit h. >> president hillis: , next speaker please. [please stand by]

>> the building is way out of proportion, so i agree with the previous speakers for its location. on a very personal note, i live

right behind the 5098 bay street project." used to have a beautiful 180 view of the bridge to the pacific heights, and now i look at a brick wall that is literally from me to you, that distance. so this project, and that is from 5098 bay street. so i had to live through the construction cat i don't have my afternoon light, which is a reason why i moved to this spot to, and now i have a 45-degree view of what's left of the bridge, and this side will be more of the same, more construction, less light, quite frankly, i think it's not going to add any value to the neighborhood, and i almost would rather see a affordable there as opposed to units for a few privileged few. that's all i have to say. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i own the 12 unit building across from the project that is being considered here. i had it built 45 years ago. i've been in the neighborhood for quite some time, i have seen two blocks of the commercial streets changed considerably over a period of time from gas stations to old apartment buildings now and condominiums. my concern is the street parking and the congestion that will happen, since the project only has one parking space for eight units, all the other units are going to have their cars parked outside, and going back and forth. those two straight blocks in the area is only commercial between chestnut and the marina boulevard. safeway trucks come and go in

that area, on those two blocks to park in their parking lot, and we have buses coming back and forth. with that project and adding more congestion, it will be really difficult for the neighborhood, i have to emphasize that it will also block airspace in front of my building. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon, thank you for hearing all of us today. my name is lanie, i've been a homeowner at 3615 buchanan street for 25 years. i don't know if the committee does say to make visits to potential construction projects, but if you did, he would see that buchanan street from bait to north is a very narrow and short residential street.

after going through five years of construction hell, the demolition of the chevron station to having it empty for two years, and then another three years of construction for the 5098 project, this new construction would cause not only traffic congestion, it would be very difficult, as the previous speaker spoke about, the number 43 bus turns right on from bay street to buchanan, and then to marina boulevard, as well as the safeway trucks, and to manoeuvre around dump trucks, construction machinery, would be nearly impossible. i'm almost anticipating them having to close off buchanan street for this construction, which would make life just a living hell. the noise, air pollution and basic construction congestion would be horrendous to this

small neighborhood. another resident at 1550 bay was not able to stay for the length of this meeting, and she asked that i read her statement. regarding the tree planting and protection from -- cemented by the project, the boxes checked are very misleading, and one thinking -- thinking sidewalk trees would not be destroyed. there are seven sidewalk trees on buchanan over 20 feet in height, in over 41 inches in girth. three of these trees, and a a streetlamp are alongside the project's site. many of us in the neighborhood watch the 20-foot deep excavation shoring and toxic remediation process of the lot next to 3620. there were caterpillars, cranes, dewatering tanks, drilling rigs, excavators, generators, trucks, supply storage areas on all three sides of the 5098 bay

street project for two years. it is impossible for even half of this stored equipment to operate and be stored on only one side of 3626 excavation and shoring pit without it destroying the trees. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hello, my name is ronnie. i live at 1550 bay street. my own apartment looks directly into the building that is in question here. it has not been determined if the project violates california environmental quality act, section 15300.2, concerning its effect on the environment. from a tenant's point of view, they will destroy our light to air quality, and and views, plus we would be looking at a dark, ugly blank wall. this is what my apartment would be looking at, since we went --

i'm sorry, we'll be facing a dark and blank wall. we would be going from a view of the golden gate bridge, to probably an elevator shaft >> thank you. next speaker, please >> my name is arnold, i live at 1550 bay. i would like to first submit to you a petition of 50 neighbors signing up to be against this project. commissioners, in january, 1974, the san francisco board of supervisors passed ordinance 12-74, designating the entire area of lot three, block 459, that is the l-shaped lot, known as 3640, 3636, and 3620

buchanan, and 1595 northpoint as the murray bill historically significant landmark 58. this ordinance, besides being passed by the board of supervisors, was signed by mayor joseph allie otoe, and recorded in the official records of san francisco. however, the historical preservation commission and the planning department totally ignored this ordinance, and relied on a page document repor, ordered and paid for by the developer of 3620 buchanan, and that report stating that except for the office building, the other areas of the lot did not have historical significance, the areas that we are talking about now for this proposed construction.

no historical preservation standard or formula exists for declaring that historical significance ended in 1958 for that area. it is just what they said it wa. the historical preservation commission, and the planning department completely ignored a san francisco ordinance, and adopted a recommendation from a private consultant in the employee of 3620 buchanan developer. i ask that you vote against 3620 project. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please >> i am at 3511 laguna, number 3 '02 -- number 302, there is a lot of activity, construction that we just had finished, also

at the mus county park, they are doing a complete irrigation. there is more noise from that, and i definitely have concerns about the environmental ground contamination, and as far as traffic, it's very narrow, and i believe there's going to be serious problems for everyone, especially the city if they approve this, because we have goodwill at the corner of buchanan and bay, we have the safeway trucks that were mentioned, the number 43 bus, and then we have lots of traffic, buses for fort mason, it seems like sometimes of the year, every weekend, the streets are closed off for some other marathon, so there's going to be

-- i don't see where they will be able to set up their construction unless they are going to take over the entire sidewalk and lane of traffic. and i don't see how they can legally do that on this part of the street. i thank you for listening. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, members of the planning commission. i have lived in the neighborhood for over 18 years. i'm here to represent 1598 bay homeowner's association. i'll move quickly. this project was not properly noticed. many of the 28 residents of 5098 bay did not receive the required notice. secondly, proper consideration was not given to the historic property, especially the historic garden. the sponsors demolishing a large part of this beautiful 110-year-old garden to crime too big of a building on too small

of a size. the proposed building dominates the important historic building next to it and violates the important spatial relationship. the proposed signed does not address the good neighborhood design standards of the city. instead of a vibrant residential area, we're getting a brick wall with no street activation. fourth, the proposed building ignore its good sense planning. there is no rear yard setback, there is no side yard setback, disingenuously, the architect mentions but this between the building >> sorry, go ahead >> did we have a malfunction? >> yes. >> how much time do i have? you have two minutes. >> going back to the common sense planning, no rear yard setbacks, which we provided, and no side yard setbacks.

literally there is 3 inches between their building. you could reach out and touch their building from our building. any setback from a deck -- between the buildings was 100% on our property. next got the environmental contamination. this is part of the mgp coal gas process. there are dangerous levels in the soil. there measures are required that have been totally ignored. it needs to be addressed. we did reach out and met with the project sponsor, none of our request were listened to or addressed. on behalf of the 28 homeowners, and also the other 50 neighbors who signed the petition, that -- we respectfully ask you to deny the current proposal and have the applicant to meet with us to address our concerns. thank you for your time today.

>> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seen on, we will close public comment period commission are more? >> could you please ground us a little bit in the community's question regarding the 1974 landmark designation by the board of supervisors, designating the whole lot as a landmark 58. we are sitting here and looking at historic preservation, feeling that question, and dealing with it, but it comes to providing us with the answers. i am in no position to understand the challenge. >> sure. i will do for this question to our preservation staff of this project. it did go through an h.p.c. review >> i am with the planning department staff, preservation planning.

so with the 1973 landmark designation did outline that the entire block and lot were to be part of the designation, and as such, the proposed project needed a certificate of appropriateness to be reviewed both by the architectural review committee of the historic preservation commission, as well as the full historic preservation commission. so there is understanding that the proposed project is located on a landmark site and does require the appropriate preservation entitlement. i'm sorry, i'm not sure if that answers your question >> without having to historic preservation deliberation in front of us of how they dealt with that question, is a little bit difficult, because obviously we do not touch much on it except what the commission the france u.s. i would be curious to hear mr

fung comment on it. he was sitting next to you. your grandfather developed in that area. could you give us an overview on your thoughts on that. i'm sorry to ask you that directly, but i'm always fascinated by your own memory on that part of time >> well, i can only share -- probably early -- in the early seventies, my grandparents had developed this sheltered cove apartment building which occupies maybe two thirds of the block. i think this is long before it historic and considerations. it is -- i agree with some of the comments. it is a tight spot. buchanan is a tight and narrow street. it is beautiful because of that. laguna, with the hard right hand turn coming off of bay creates some congestion for pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic, and safeway being there, who knows what happens to safeway in

the future, that is a very large site, maybe it is an opportunity site in some ways, i will pass it to commissioner hillis, whose office is nearby and maybe he can speak to the area. >> i go down this street probably two or three times a day. i have seen the construction happen on bay street in the apartment building and go from gas station to two apartment building, which i think it's great. i know the neighbors had to endure that construction, but i thank you all heard the issues we had before this item. we have a hard time building housing and finding site for housing. clearly the work -- the gasworks building is a wonderful building. it is a great landmark. it doesn't have a ton of context given that the gas tank itself, which we said we see great pictures of on our own historic

site is no longer there. that would be more of a context with the gardens in the small adjacent garden structure building, although they are nice, and i think they're quaint little buildings, that we've obviously have to balance the need for housing, the need for the few housing site his that we do have. we do not see a lot of projects in this neighborhood. i know we have buried into the neighbors were two of them, although a lot of them were from that original conch -- project. so i think overall, i like this project, it is a good project, i also injured the traffic on buchanan street, safeway, fort mason generates a lot of that cat but i think it is a good, appropriate use of this site. i'm generally supportive of this project, as i was of the project next to it on bay street, turning the gas station, which was long fallow, into housing. i agree with commissioner fong. i think the safeway site is another one that could happen at

some time. i don't think there is an application or its close, but there's few remaining sites in the marina to develop housing. so i think this is an appropriate site. i appreciate the commission and their design guidance on this. i think it works and looks good and fits on that street. commission are more costly i like to elaborate a little bit, appreciating both of your comments, affecting on the past, you effecting on the present, and knowing the area well this commission does not have much experience from the historic preservation interpretation and nineties 73 or 1974 from the transitioning to opportunities in the landmark site and building on it. the, just picking up on what commissioner hillis is saying, it is a comfortable project to me, what i would have liked to

see, just hearing's comments is a 3d context of the adjoining residential buildings. unfortunately, for the record, this commission cannot comment on views. views are not protected. they are nothing we have any jurisdiction on. we all know that something will disappear as we densifying the city. at least we still have quality of life. i would like to see some simulation that would give us a slightly better understanding where these buildings are. there are no letters, no maps or anything in this attachment to my package here, i would better understand where the neighbors who were speaking are speaking from. i am inclined to support the project, but i would not mind getting a little bit more

feedback to some of the pertinent questions, which i think our answer to, but not quite answered. and that is really asking the historic preservation commission one more time, asking heritage of how they see, not just in this project, but in other projects, transitioning from landmark sites to landmark buildings, and creating opportunity site his -- sites but we need also additional guidance other than what historic preservation says as a commission. they could discuss it as a commission themselves, with that is what i would like to do. >> do you want to -- >> tim fry, department staff, if it helps with your deliberations, i can give you feedback based on the motion in the case report that was included in your packet to, because the comment and questions that commissioner moore races were also raised by the historic preservation commission, in one of the main factors that they considered was the fact that from -- historically from -- as

commissioner hillis mentioned, this was a dense site. it was not the garden environment that you see today, and it was essentially an industrial site. with the changes over time in the garden structure, in the garden being introduced, that certainly has given a notion that there was a large separation between the existing landmark building and to these industrial uses, however that did -- that context did weigh heavily in the commission's deliberations. secondly, the fact that the law it is called out in the designation does not preclude changes happening on the landmark site. it just says -- just requires a certificate of appropriateness process to go through the historic preservation commission for its consideration. so the design was review by an architectural review committee. they did take -- they did ask

the project sponsor to make more strong design cues related to the roman revival building, which we believe they did. we understand, and they understood the public's are concerned about the development in a dense area. i will note that the historic preservation commission was split, and this is one of the first split folks that they've had in the last ten years that they've been around, and that was because, you know, they did feel that moore's designs could be accomplished, better design could be accomplished through another hearing, however, at the end of the day, they fell to the architectural review committee's comments have been addressed, and they felt it was fair to move the project forward to. i hope that gives you a little bit of background, i'm happy to answer any other questions should you have them. >> thank you. commissioner johnson? >> i was able to review the transcripts from the last historic preservation committee and see that there was a lot of

debate and back and and forth, particularly around some of the concern around some of the questions that have been brought up about the landmark designation status, and hearing the community's concerns about density, construction calculate, and air. i will echo what has been said already. i understand some of the concerns of view, unfortunately they are not protected with concerns to air-quality, it has been articulated from many departments, and i think, you know, ultimately, we do way the determination of our colleagues on the historic preservation commission and others to make decisions like this, so also just looking alone at the project, i think it's a good project, and i am in support of

its. i will support this project >> commissioner moore costly mac i would like to weigh in one more time. is very helpful to hear historic preservation explain the background, that there is room for reinterpretation, and then where the rubber hits the road for us is the project has to be architecturally from our perspective, knot being the historic architectural review, the project definitely has a sensitivity and adjacency to a historic building. it definitely shows all the things he needs to have in order to fit. the rest of the questions are the discomfort of the residents having undergone lots of stress due to nearby construction, unfortunately it's kind of stupid to say, we all suffer in our own ways, day in and day ou,

on never ending construction, no matter what we do or where ever we go, including in our own backyards and in the block, and next to our own residences. that is not a consolation, but it can unfortunately not deter us to support, are not support this project.

>>. >> commissioner hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think mr. frye added depths to the project that made me feel comfortable with that. there's one last question to

mr. teague, design client at plan stage. there's one comment that the department does not allow installing transformers in the public right-of-way but to talk with pg&e with the public to be located on-site because the street is narrow, and i assume that's the reason the department does not support it. has that been addressed? >> yes, it has. the building will only require 400 amps and pg&e does not require an amp for 400 watts to a building. >> commissioner moore: okay. then i think we're ready -- >> >> commissioner hillis: very good. on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: very good, commissioner, that motion

passes 4-0. what do you say? >> clerk: item 16 was continued, item 17 was withdrawn. placing us on item 18. [agenda item read] discretionary review. >> commissioner hillis: mr. horn? >> good afternoon, commissioners, jeff horn, planning department staff. item before you is request for discretionary review for a building at 2337 taraval street. project was located on the south side of taraval street near the intersection of 34th avenue. subject is located within the taraval street commercial district and a 40-foot height and bulk district. the home was constructed in

1912 and located at the rear of the property. the area surrounding the property is mixed use commercial and residential character. the project proposes to construct a 33-foot tall, 3,147 foot three-story mixed use building, providing five units over a 593 square foot ground floor commercial unit located at the front of the property. a 2,170 ground floor over garage property at the rear will remain, and the existing stairs will be removed, and the existing garage will be converted to a ground-fluorentry. the proposed new construction would block this building from public view, and the project sponsor submitted a historic resource evaluation to study the age eligible historical integrity of the building. the department's review determined that the project -- that the home was not eligible

for listing on the california register under any criteria either individually or as part of a historic district. the d.r. requester filed with concerns that -- to the impacts of the loss of the victorian home from public view, impacts from light from residential unit at 2331 taraval street, and the residence's fronting on 34th avenue and the loss of off street parking. mentioned the new construction is located on the north side of the property which would lead to a majority of shadows being cast on taraval street due to the sun angle. the midlot open area maintains access to light and air to the d.r. requester's sky lights and the rear yard to the adjacent neighbors of the west. the proposed struck sur is

comparable to the mass routing structures. this concludes the presentation. >> commissioner hillis: okay. d.r. requester? yeah. first, we take d.r. requester and then followed by the project sponsor. welcome. >> hi. >> commissioner hillis: how are you? >> i've been on taraval street since a kid, and we have the family business next door. i've served in our community for over 25 years to make it better. what we're seeing here today is a home that even though it's not of historic value to make san francisco better, to us, it's a beautiful home, and it's set back. and now, what we have is a proposed huge building to go on the front lawn, which to us doesn't make much sense at all. i don't know if this housing is

going to be affordable, and i don't know if any of it's going to be subject to airbnb. what i do know is that the loss of this house, at least to me, would be more than hurtful because of this big structure going in front. i know that we need housing. i know we need affordable housing, as well, but for this property, this little piece of taraval street, this little piece of san francisco, whom i love so much, and i live in san francisco. i don't live on san francisco, still got the scar from playland on the iron slides. sprained my ankle at the ice skating rink on 48th avenue. i'm asking because you guys have so much power to really help us think this through. you lead our way, please, peacefully. >> commissioner hillis: thank

you very much. is there any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stella lu, and i am the neighbor to the west of the project. i am close -- i would say the first -- you know, that the proposed construction would be -- block the emergency exit from the property that are on 34th avenue. in fact, at least three houses that are next to our home rely on that back yard escape route. and with this proposed project to move forward, we could lose or access to fire escape route. this is a real possible -- a

possibility of being trapped without escape in an emergency. this proposed project would endanger our life. second, the new construction would completely eliminate the existing parking space. the current proposal doesn't include plan to construct parking space for the next mixed use building, the three story house. with customers and residents competing for parking space, this will increase effort to find parking in the

neighborhood. finally, for the permit application, this new building will be three stories high -- stories tall, and at this height, this new building will cutoff the sun light to four of our bedrooms completely. furthermore, with this construction of the rooftop area, the privacy in our four-bedroom was diminished completely as the bedroom of our house will be visible to the preying eyes. we will suffer loss of privacy in our bedrooms and the quality of life as a result. it will cause property value to drop exponentially.

in conconclusiolusion, i would, if possible, i would like to request an environmental impact study for this project. thank you. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is terry fowler. i live at 2410 34th avenue, homeowner. been there since 1975. this project, after listening all afternoon about the need for housing, yes, there is, but this project would produce only two new house units and then affect our whole neighborhood. right now existing,