d.r. applicant during the spring of 2018. te an 11-page response to his application, along with three additional letters. in ill prosecute, we offered -- in april, we offered changes to the design by reducing the bulk of the penthouse, and also offered to make the deck smaller by increasing the set back on the east side from 5 feet to 12'6". we made an agreement to meet with miss fever of the san francisco tenant's union on the afternoon of april 6, 2018 with a cancellation the night before. she insisted no meeting would take place unless the owners signed an affidavit asserting tenants rights that she spelled out. in the last month, we have received another letter from the first year applicant and two letters from tenants in the same commem building. i spoke with -- condominium building. i spoke with him, and he wrote the planner an e-mail on november 22, 2017 stating his opposition to the projects because of the impacts on his view and the property value. this e-mail is included in the staff report. i spoke with him on decem

d.r. applicant suggested we turn the commercial space into a residential unit, and i thought that was not a good solution because all the windows would be right at sidewalk level. there'd be very little privacy because there's no rear yard. i call it living in a fish bowl if we turn the kmecommercial se to residential. >> thank you. >> president hillis: in the rhenboard, we get there are rules about relocation and the right to return. i think we're looking for you to tell us how you're going to implement those. for example, the conservatory of music did this right down the street where they took a building, tore it down and building another building. they met with all the tenants and figured out as to where they were going to go. the tenants were here, and they supported the project. i think we want to see that on a smaller scale of -- >> what's in it. >> president hillis: yeah. >> okay. >> president hillis: so i'm sensing a motion, a desire to continue. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: make a motion to continue this into next year? >> president hillis: early january ? i'd g

d.r. and disapprove the building application. >> commissioner koppel: no. >> commissioner moore: aye. that motion passes 4-1, with commissioner koppel voting against. this will place this on 18. 2831 pierce street. request for variance and reviews. >> good evening, david winslow. staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2018-04267450 to contrukt a 4th story and 3 story rear. and 5 foot horizontal to the front and the setback. there are four d.r. requesters. the first of 2845 pierce, adjacent neighbors to the north. and 2823 pierce adjacent neighbors to the south. and 2839 pierce, adjacent neighbors to the south. these three neighbors have reached agreement with the project sponsor. the fourth requester who could not be present submitted a letter in the packet concerned with the following issues. >> president hillis: so the three d.r. requesters are withdrawing? >> they're not, i'll get to that. bear with me. >> president hillis: sorry. i got excited. this noise, it's like living on folsom street. [laught

d.r. and deny the building permit application. on that motion -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0, placing us on item 16 for case 2017-1011478drp on duncan street, discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners. before you is a public initiated request for a review of a building permit application 2017.0845.4881 for a horizontal expansion at the front and rear and excavation to add a second unit to an existing two-story building. the project also includes facade alterations and a roof deck. building's historic resource status is a category "c" and it's not considered a demolition by d.r. section 2017. there are two d.r.s, the adjacent property of the east is concerned with four main issues, first, the building is not compatible with the scale of other buildings due to the excessive extension of the proposed building and the excavation. two, that the new construction does not respect the pattern of side setbacks. three, that there are impacts to light and privacy due to the building

application. >> thank you. your time is up. >> you will have a two minute rebuttal. you will have a rebuttal of two minutes. his or any public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. i am the project architect. i'm here with charmaine. this is very simple. they have a two bedroom home and hope to add another with their children's bedroom. they wish to expand this over an existing portion of the building that is currently a roof. so there is the ground level accessible from the street, and you go up one story, and it is half a level. they simply seek to expand that fully to the full building. you can see on the overhead that this is their property. and the adjacent property has done a similar expansion. if you go up the street, there are 18 similar houses they are all expanded to the full footprint. this is not an unusual circumstance. the filer has come before you and presented a lot of confusing issues about permits and building department history. to be clear, they bought this house about 20 years ago. they have done no work on this property. anything that may have been done was done by previous owner

applications have been submitted to legalize the existing work. with this, staff finds a project meets the department standards and guidelines and recommends a commission not take the d.r. project as proposed as it does not prevent -- present any extraordinary circumstances. this concludes the department presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> d.r. requester? >> good evening. >> this is my first. >> i can't hear you you will both have a two-minute rebuttal. go ahead. >> good evening. i have owned my property for almost 20 years. i spent all my money and my work for my home to make sure that everything -- i have a downstairs room that was built in 2009. i know firsthand first hand how important it was to build with permits because of the hundred of code issues that must be followed. excavation of the foundation wall was required. i was very excited to have a family next door and i really welcomed them in the neighborhood and offer them any help they need. when i knew about the project of second edition on the top of the roof, i try to communicate and express my concerns. i asked the owner more than once to legalize the room downstairs in the ba

applications have been submitted to legalize the existing work. with this, staff finds a project meets the department standards and guidelines and recommends a commission not take the d.r. project as proposed as it does not prevent -- present any extraordinary circumstances. this concludes the department presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> d.r. requester? >> good evening. >> this is my first. >> i can't hear you you will both have a two-minute rebuttal. go ahead. >> good evening. i have owned my property for almost 20 years. i spent all my money and my work for my home to make sure that everything -- i have a downstairs room that was built in 2009. i know firsthand first hand how important it was to build with permits because of the hundred of code issues