dr requestor, first dr requestor. >>> good evening, commissioners. my name is don house and my wife and i live in the property behind the subject property. i brought a picture of the property a we see it if that can be seen. another view of the property from our back, the back of our house. first of all, i'd like to say that we welcome mr. clark's intentions to improve the property and we have been working with mr. crock since his first application notice three years ago. ~ it should be noted that mr. crock submitted plans in 2009 that were not included in material sent for this hearing. those plans sent to the neighborhood in march of 2010 of the subject of our dr and included the removal of kitchen and lower remodel of existing building. at that time the planning department had advised mr. crock that demolition of the existing building was the preferred development option. the option -- that option was pursued at the behest of the neighbors behind the property, but determined as not financially feasible by mr. crock. at a meeting we attended with -

thank you very much. >> second dr requestor. you have two minutes. >>> thank you. john casey, [speaker not understood] property management again. the one point i wanted to bring up, the project sponsor's continued reference to the front of the property setback. but as we know, it's offset by the variance request to the rear of the subject property which severely impedes the open air space and privacy to the rear. so, again, i am strongly opposed and request -- based on all the facts, to reject the project. thank you. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >>> firstly, i'd like to address a couple of things mr. williams said. he makes mention of in his submission we are creating a fourth floor. we are creating a fifth floor to be clear. it's an existing three-story above basement building. we're creating a fourth floor addition. there are a number of inaccuracies. we've also got [speaker not understood] about not seeing the actual building in question. this image shows the white building is the subject property. the building up the hill from that

you take dr and approve the project with a 5-foot set back on the dr requestor's side and extend the wall out to the line or whatever we are calling this thing, the averaging line, that we can build out to that averaging line at the back. >> second. >> public comment is closed. thank you. >> commissioners, borden? >> i know that i mean that i just feel like we are going to modify the person's project at least we should figure out with the architect how that works out because five feet is a lot. that is the other factor, when we are evaluating these projects in reality it is moderate in the things that we see. and those things also have consideration. >> maybe the project architect could just talk about that, i am sorry. >> so the five foot set back, on the property line, for your floor planning? how does that... >> first of all, i want to address that, again, there is like 15 stairs are right on the property, the common property line and we are not even going to be close, we are going to be pulled back 6 inches from that solid wall. so the casing arounded five-foot not is related to

the second dr requestor. >>> good evening, commission, president fong. thank you for your time today, this evening as well as for those that i've met and also i've communicated with prior to today. my name is john casey with cnc property management. as the dr applicant in rejection of the jones street project, i represent myself as the owner of the abutting property to the west. i represent the properties managed by c and c, and lastly the residents of the properties share the same position of rejection [speaker not understood]. with that said, we do understand property improvement may arise, but at the negative expense to many neighboring and/or nearby properties and the community as a whole. negative impacts as proposed are noncompliance of the sf building code with need of a rear yard variance that would exceed approximately half of the rear yard distance, currently the rear yard deck. [speaker not understood] with pro poed vertical addition, no respect to building character type for proposed masses, modern box type structure on top of a century old [

seeing none, dr requestor, you have a rebuttal. if you choose. >>> we have no problem with two structures. in fact, three proposals we agreed to with mr. crock where -- but each of them involved removing the kitchen from the rear building and putting it in the new structure. that we have no problem with. we would support that. we also supported the remodel of the existing structure with no building of a new structure. so, i think we've, over the years have been willing to compromise and, in fact, supported those compromises. we only had a problem when at the last minute they changed and wanted to leave the kitchen in the existing structure and not put a kitchen in this big structure in the front. it just doesn't make sense to us. so, that's one point. i don't understand the building being in compliance. i suppose that means it's an accessory building. it fits that specification. it seems odd to me. we didn't pursue the demolition after mr. crock decided it was not feasible financially. we didn't push that. there's -- if there is a

first dr requestor. >>> good evening, president fong, members of the commission. i'm steve williams here. fortitude is amazing as usual. i represent [speaker not understood] brother and sister whose family has owned the a jaytionthv sept building 15 17 jones street for more than 50 year. and that's the kind of neighborhood this is. people come and they stay, they put down roots and build communities, they maintain ties. you're going to hear from people who have lived there 30 years, 40 years, 60 years. i met a woman this look who lived on the block 60 years, she's here tonight. lived on one side of the street as a child, got married, moved to the other side of the street. this project is universally opposed by the neighbors. we submitted a petition that is exhibit 9 of more than 400 people signed it who live right in the neighborhood. we also submitted a map that is exhibit 8 to show you where those opposing neighbors live, including a 35 year tenant of the subject building. now, why this outpouring of opposition? first of all, the project sponsor has not been for