d.r. requester is the adjacent neighbor to the north, the d.r. requester of 275 avila is concerned with two issues -- [inaudible] >> -- contrary to planning code section 181, and number two, impact related to the density of the tenant occupied building will detract from the cleanliness, safety of the neighborhood. public comment to date, the department has received -- actually, we did receive two letters subsequent to the publishing of this package in opposition. no letters of support. in light of the d.r. requester's concerns, the department has reviewed the project with regard to the residential design guidelines, finding that the a.d.u. was built within the existing envelope. and that number two, no causality with regard to the cleanliness, safety or density of the neighborhood has been made. the project sponsor has indicated willingness to revise the project to contribute to a further attractive and safe recommend. with this, the department recommends that the commission not take d.r. and accept the project as proposed. >> president hillis: al

d.r. requester is adjacent property to the south. the reasons for the d.r. request are two. first impacts to light and air. impact to privacy. public comment to date. department has received no letters of support or opposition. in light of the concerns department rereviewed the project with the residential guidelines. vertical expansion by racing the roof and adding dormers is sensitive with minimal increase in height. it is approximately 20 feet away from d.r. requester's windows due to the 17-foot side yard and three foot deep light well to the south. location of the subject building to the north allows indirect light. in your package you can see renditions of that. the difference between the current and existing. number two. additional pairs of windows and dormers are appropriately sized and located to not present any you privacy. it meets the standards and guidelines and you approve the project. it does not present any extraordinary conditions to justify further conditions to the code compliant project. this concludes my presentation. >> d.r. requester. welcome. you have

d.r. requester's property. to date the department has received no letters in opposition, but 15 letters, plus, in support of the d.r. of the project sponsor. in light of the d.r. requester, the department reviewed the project and found that the zoning administrator had determined that the variance, the 2006 variance decision letter issued on october 11, 2006, remains valid and the work performed consistent with that approval. the d.r. requester came to that existing physical condition that is neither exceptional, nor extraordinary, in its circumstance or impacts and was able to build a residential building in a similar location with no impact from that roof deck. with this, staff finds the project meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommend the commission not take d.r. and approve as proposed. it does not justify further modifications. that concludes my report. i'm ready for answers. >> president hillis: okay, d.r. requester? >> good afternoon, commission. i'm mark churnov on behalf of the requ

d.r. request earn. rent control is not regulated by the planning department. third, removal of ground level garages and infill of u with accessory dwelling units serves the city in a number of ways. one, fulfills adding housing stock in an existing building, activates the ground floor, removes curb cuts with the cars entering and exiting the garages. the removal of garages increases the available on-street parking in the neighborhood and other street scape improvements such as planting of trees. lastly, it seismically strengthens the goals. it meets the department standards and guidelines and recommends the staff approve it. it does not accept exceptional circumstances. i might add that we have our a.d.u. team lead in the audience to answer any a.d.u. specific questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. d.r. requester? not here. project sponsor here? is there anybody who wants to speak on behalf of the dr? no. okay. project sponsor. use the big mic there. you can use that one. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the project architect for the project. >>

d.r. and review of the shadow impact. let's hear from the shadow requester first. for five minutes. then the project sponsor, you've got also the shadow issue to talk about. >> we have two items, five minutes for the project sponsor. but we have adoption of findings for the shadow, which typically the project sponsor would have five or ten minutes. normally, the project sponsor would have a five minute presentation or 10 minute and public comment would be three minutes. so i think this is appropriate. because we've got the dr and the shadow. >> hello, commissioners, south market community action network. the type of housing is out of character with the surrounding area that contains many multi-bedroom rent controlled buildings. it contains market rate sros which are unaffordable and is not the tape type of housing needed for children, youth and families. in this area, they make $50 through thousand or less and. the park contributes to the neighborhood's character in that area. 1075 increases shadow on the park. this does not preserve or enhance. by containing 25%, this project is ex

d.r. was filed of the building permit which was then brought forward to the planning commission who then substantially reduced that proposal in size. that was subsequently withdrawn by the project sponsor's request, so that was kind of shelved for all intents and purposes by the former owner of the site. in february of 2014, the project sponsor filed a new building permit, proposing a code complying alteration as well as another existing addition which included a vertical addition and horizontal addition to the building. the department worked fairly exhaustively with the sponsor. we typically do works iteratively with the sponsor. so items get reduce index size and volume as perwhat -- based on what they kind of provide to us. and ultimately, i guess i'll focus a little bit on two kind of main items that the appellants are bringing up, particularly with regard to the rear yard as well as the compliance with the residential design guidelines. i think two things are getting conflated and confused in the discussion of both. planning code section 134 outlines a rear yard for most residential buildings, particularly in the rh-2 zoning requirement. this building has a baseline requirement of 45%. the