d.r. requester made. there's kind of a lot going on, but there kind of has to be to get two units into it. i'm not sure what that would get us, some of those -- some of the changes you're asking for. the top floor is pretty small, it's pretty set back. it is higher than the adjacent building or what we typically see, but i don't know what we'd get at from kind of taking that off or minimizing it, so i think i would agree with commissioner koppel. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i've looked at this really carefully, and i could not find anything i question. it holds defining lines, at least to its neighbor, and the fact that the rest of the block does not do that is not a reason we would hold it back to the stepping line of the others. i personally think we should not take d.r. and approve the project and it's a motion. >> president hillis: all right, jonas. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, there's a motion that's been to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion [roll c

d.r. requester. >> at their word to filed? >> -- there were to filed? >> i paid for half of it. >> there is one d.r. >> are you mr toole? >> president hillis: you are the d.r. requester. >> yes, sir. thank you. my name is frank and i am the property owner at 170 vienna. i do have several concerns about the project. i heard the commission express your own concerns about protecting sunlight in the central soma plan and i know you are very conscious that sunlight is precious in the city, especially during the winter months. i have a one bedroom house and that one bedroom has one large window which provides most of the light into my home. the second story addition to the project would block light and greatly impact the livability of my home. i request the architect proposal is to do a shadow study to which they receive no response. although i do appreciate the modifications done. my second related concern is the bulk and scale of the project. and yes, the existing side of 180 vienna -- size of 180 vienna is small. looking to the left and the right from the r

d.r. request requested comment on their concerns back in december, and in the e-mail they sent then also mention thad they failed to include -- mentioned that they failed to include us, and there was no spops to that e-mail, either to the other requester nor to reach out to us i think speaks to the fact that there's been no effort to involve us and why we're asking for a continuance. if i can just respond to his -- to sven's presentation. his deck view actually showed the view looking into our bedroom and said that that resolved it, but it shows that the window that you're looking up into is our master bedroom and he didn't address the fact that if you turn, you'll be looking directly into our children's bedroom windows. he also changed the fact that the r.b.g. constitutes a cottage, and it's true, but it doesn't constitute a cottage that's blocked in on all other sides. lastly, he showed there's a tree there. the tree in the architectural drawings looks much larger than it actually is. i think in mediation, we agreed that it does not block sun and light into our children's bedroom. thank you. >

d.r. requesters. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeffrey eade. i was the architect for the project at 2515 broadway. i appreciate the opportunity to respond to the d.r. applicant's comments in front of the commission members here today and to address any questions you may have. over the course of about three months this past spring, we were involved in discussions with the adjacent neighbors to hear their concerns and see if there was some common ground that we could achieve to help relieve those concerns while still providing my client the opportunity to remodel their home. we met with 2517 broadway and her attorneys on three separate occasions and corresponded openly during this time. we offered to meet with 2513 broadway, and he agreed to meet with us once at his attorney's office. their concerns were made known to us, and we provided suggestions of how we could address those concerns which are detail index a letter provided to you on september 13. most of miss hockchild's concerns were reasonable and we suggested methods that could be implemen

d.r. requester here? are you getting people from the hall?good afternoon, commissioners elisabeth junk from the northwest team leader. the abbreviated discretionary review before you at 2740 buchanan street is for a 68 square foot addition at the rear of the existing building. the existing building is a three-story two unit structure, constructed in 1938. the addition will be at the rear of the building along the south side property line. it is an infill of a 3.5 foot wide by 19.5 feet deep notch. the project includes widening the existing second floor roof deck and adding a spiral staircase to a new 356 square-foot roof deck on the scope third floor. there is no change to the building footprint or increase in building height. briefly, the d.r. requester concerns are that the proposed addition will block for property line windows, blocking light and air. it will allow unobstructed views into homes and that the large deck can accommodate large groups of people, thereby having increased noise. there is no other public comments received during t

d.r. requesters. >> sorry, trevor summers. i filed the second d.r.is is an eviction notice that was given in 2015, just to establish a pattern of behavior. so i would like to briefly stay, in the last d.r. hearing, there were two things that the commission said to. they said the building was empty and the plan would be approved. they also said that if there was no fourth floor, the plan would be approved. i would like to note that the project sponsors and the five months since that meeting have not submitted any new plans. they have used up time to continue to pressure the tenants to accept buyouts and leave. so i've got a letter that i want to read from the property owner next door. i apologize i'm not able to attend this meeting in person. i was uninformed about it and not aware until tuesday of this week. it did not give me time to give -- to rearrange my schedule. i have not seen any new plans despite asking for them repeatedly. the owner ignored my e-mails emo street added into the process. it is difficult for me to follow them. dates change and

d.r. requester?welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is josephine chan. i'm here with my husband, darwin , and we are the property owners of 1886 funston, right across the street from the proposed building project. we have several concerns about this proposed project. one is bulk and scale. the relatively large and nonconforming size of the home, particularly the depth of the home front to back, is not compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. the proposed building would impact sunlight, privacy, potentially the ability to see outside, and includes the removal of one massive monterey pine tree. it would negatively impact the ability and enjoyment of our homes. secondly, his environment. we are concerned about the removal of this massive 75-foot tree. as part of the development of the lot. the tree trunk is 3 feet in diameter. currently, it is very healthy. the trees within the footprints of the proposed lot, near the rear edge of the house. if the footprint of this house is slightl

d.r. requester. >> i'm curious as to why it was pulled from the consent calendar. we've had a great relationship with the owner, but we agree with those terms. >> president hillis: great. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, i'll close public comment. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i asked it to be on consent until late yesterday evening. i got requests from the public to clarify that the judgment that came from the planning commission on november of 2017 had not been properly processed as d.b.i. and only miss tran just a few seconds ago told me that as of this morning, that issue was resolved. so my taking it off consent is basically being answered by that particular statement. i am obviously supportive of the project because it did address all of the issues that we had originally objected to, however that was a very important issue given the fact that we still have a disconnect between planning and what this commission puts to record and when it comes to be acknowledged, this is almost nine months later, and that is where the concern

d.r. requesters. i did not file a d.r. with the second 311 notice issued. i had concerns, but i trust that the project sponsor will do the right thing and abide by the rules. to date, the project sponsor has never reached out to me despite my attempts and has taken into responsibility for the damages caused. i'm requesting no permits be issued until my and 661's property damages are repaired, and the property line sensors are replaced. to protect my light, air and privacy i'm requesting a set back of 6 feet off my property line past my building and no fifth level. i have a petition signed by 40 noe valley residents in support of my request. there will also be an increased negative impact from the result of putting a wall up that has been gone for two years. for your information, i've highlighted a couple of comments made by president mccarthy at this month's president hearing. this case is an example of a complete misuse of system to consider it anything other than a complete demolition would be fooling yourself. this case needs to be sent a signal: all pen

d.r. requester for both the grandview and the new hampshire. i support continuing 505 grandview.e are close to reaching a deal with the architects. they have been great. we just need a little more time. and then on 701, i do not support the continuance. this is in an a.d.u. project. we had several tenants, who are going to lose their garages and be displaced. one tenant has been -- has taken a buyout. they were pressured to do so. the other one does not want to move but but she is under tremendous pressure to take the buyout. i just would like you guys to watch this project so that is not on the table. because she is the lone wolf here and it's not fair to her. the planning department is looking at plans and not really considering how tenants are faring in these plans. thanks thank you. any additional public comment? >> hi. my name is christina tran. i am here for 701 hampshire street. contrary to what she just said, we are not pressuring the tenants. we actually took all of the buyouts off of the table. >> president hillis: right now we are only taking public comment on the matt