feet above it so it is actually down the hill from the dr requestor's home. and which and it is still yet taller, at the end of the day. and lastly the planning code may be met. but the residential design guidelines have not been and we have laid it out clearly in our brief, we are here if you have questions. >> project sponsor you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> we have worked wither closely with staff over the last three years and we have worked closely over the dr requestor over the last three years. all of the neighbors sentiment has come at us in the literally the last two weeks and we frankly don't think that it is fair. we have, the project has been reviewed by the residential design team on three occasions and it is code compliant and with the residential design guidelines and, we hope that you will approve the project as designed. thank you. >> okay. the public hearing is closed. and opening it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. >> interesting discussion and a couple of things that i think are pretty clear.

first d-r requestor. oh, i'm sorry. >> the d-r requestors are the immediate adjacent property owners to the south and north. [speaker not understood] is a resident of 137 17th avenue. the property to the south. and [speaker not understood] is the owner of 129 17th avenue, the property to the north. ms. seto's concerns include the following. that the project is incompatible with surrounding buildings with respect to depth and negatively affects the mid-block open space. that the project's form is incompatible with her building with respect to the shared driveway. that the project negatively affects views of the mid-block open space. and that the project would negatively affect the ability to have a garden or landscaping in the rear yard. mr. zucker's concerns include the following. that the project sets a precedent for futurer development in terms of building depth, that the project in conjunction with the existing nonconforming garage structure negatively affects light and air and air to his property and

regarding the d-r requestor's plan alternate, the d-r requestors provided a series of floor plans that they feel show how the project requirements can be accomplished within the building footprint. however, a cursory review quickly leads to the obvious conclusion that this only appears possible through the use of an impossible size for an elevator and extremely narrow stairs and circulation pathways throughout the house. the alternate design completely fails to meet the most basic accessibility requirements and makes an excellent case to locate elements of the project outside the current building envelope and make care of use of the open areas of the lot. one of the last speakers mentioned in proposed modifications, we did reach out to the d-r requestors yesterday and sent some proposals which we've more clearly represented here. in deference to the objections raised by the d-r requestors, the project sponsors have proposed the following modificationses to directly address the specific areas concerned. number one, we're proposing to move the side addition on the north side of the prope

project. >> yes. >> so it appears there are no speakers in support of the dr requestor. and so we will ask now the project responser and you will have five minutes. you might want to try, there are two microphones there. there you go. thank you commissioner and thank you commissioner chair. my name is cam win owner of the house of 225 santa anna avenue and i have written a request two and a half years ago requesting to remodel my house so that i could live in it in my wheelchair situation. and also on my health situation. in the request that i send via mr., the agent of mine, johnny derosa emphasizes that the three, i am sorry the four objectives that i would like to have in the project both in writing and in drawing, objecting number one the place for me to live has to be healthy, medical, ha bitable. and that includes the air should not be stagnant, should not be full of water in it, and therefore, digging deep down and would not gain me that kind of healthy air to live in. and objective number two, is to keep my house especially with the structural design as it was de

and your neighbor that the dr requestor's building, has wood elements on it. but, i am not trying to get you to do with it or perhaps through some kind of a color pallet, you know, if it softened the effects so to speak. also in terms of what is before us, and we are looking at if we don't take dr, we are looking at a four story building because you have eliminated what would be the fifth story,; is that correct?? >> yeah, we understand that, i think. >> i am not inclined to take the dr. >> and the requests for the project architect. and so the one thing that makes it a little harsh looking is the lines are kind of straight going back on the two sides and you have not taken advantage and there are some windows on the side of the dr requestor, but not much on the other side and there are not really any articulations and the dr request's building has articulations that softens it and i am not sure why you did not take advantage of putting it and i know of the property line windows but i would not expect the dr requestor to take out the stairway and fill it in bu

and i think we've gone through a back and forth with the d-r requestors. they have ranged from solid railing to a planter to pulling it back. to be quite frank, i'm 6 foot 3 and 6 foot 4 with heels. when i stand on the deck five feet back, i can still see into melinda's bedroom. i just wonder at what point the precedence might suggest that this is a [speaker not understood] condifficulttionv and this is a reasonable expectation of privacy, but not an absolute expectation of privacy. ~ condition if i could turn the last few minutes to the owner. >>> hello, good evening. my name is lee horner. i am the owner of 300 winfield and, first of all, i would just like to say we sympathize, we sympathize with melinda with the illness. that's just no question about that. so, on our behalf, our architect started discretions early this year and i first met with our neighbors at 301 prospect mid april to discuss an appeal on another permit which was related to the reroofing of our house. and later on, our neighbors withdrew that appeal. 301, our neighbors at 301 prospect

okay, seeing none, d-r requestor, you have a rebuttal. >>> we sure thank you. i just want to quickly review the compromise that the project sponsor ha given us and note it was submitted yesterday after close of business, this after four months of asking for something. ~ has [speaker not understood] is the proposed new building and the red drawn on by mr. armor is the new proposal. ~ the yellow you'll note that it's very difficult to see any of the yellow on the outside of his red line. that's not an effect of the small scale. that's an effect of the fact that this isn't any compromise. so, almost all of the proposal is still going to remain. this is one floor, another floor. so, we get one corner on one floor taken away. the elevator is needed for accessibility, we agree. we want to help them build an elevator. a circular stairway in the side yard is not needed for accessibility. that is the biggest problem with this proposal. we also do believe that the elevator can be accommodated within the buildable envelope. the deference to mr. santos, my friend, we had a

their house in the past and i often -- i will always go to visits whenever i'm requested by d-r requestors or project sponsors and i've done it for the 11 years i've been on the planning commission to try to see for myself what the situation is. and when i was there, it happened to be a month when the sun was towards the north, probably may, maybe june, and it was a time of the day when the sun was going down and you could clearly see that most of the light into the kitchen was coming through a window that faced through the space between the two homes on broderick street. and in the upstairs bedroom that was shown earlier, the same thing existed, in fact, that had no other source of light other than a window that faced out there. now, we realize that, you know, there is no absolute requirement that that area be there because they are property line windows in a technical sense because as has been explained, the lot on the corner was a very wide lot, 33-1/2 feet, and the rishwains' lot and the other lots are narrower. but i think i am in agreement that there is a pattern. i have studied it v

we've got 45 -- 43-1/2 feet of separation as was mentioned between the house, the d-r requestor's house and the location on the deck. even detached homes in san francisco frequently have -- if they're lucky -- three-foot separations. in the case of my house, which is in a detached neighborhood on the west side, three foot on each side. so, if i've in one of the rooms looking south, my neighbor is in her bedroom there, we have the windows open and mine are open, and we can see each other. i mean, it comes with urban living, but this is an extremely long area there. so, i don't know that the idea or the solution of the fence i don't think is a good one because it's only going to cut the light and air to the bedroom in question of the d-r requestor. probably you want to get as much light and air in there. so, i don't see that as being a solution. but i'm not really sure that we need to cut a lot of size off of here. we have had situations often with our decks where we don't bring the railing all the way to the very end of the deck. it is -- i would entertain the possibility of recessing it

before it goes back and reflect its should be a requirement of this design and i know that the dr requestor talked about the property and the context of his house, but the rest of the neighborhood is much smaller than his house, and the house across the street is extremely smaller. i thank you for listening to the impute of the neighborhood and it is our naid and i think that the neighborhood of san francisco gives san francisco charm and the neighborhood sensibility should have as much, if not greater priority than the sensibility of the san francisco planning department. thank you for hearing our position. >> next speaker, and i will call a few more names but come on up. >> denise kelky, mark hump rey and dale milfay and elizabeth more. >> i am mark and i live on the same block of the proposed development at 548 dunkan and i have lived there for 48 years and i have been convinced for the neighbors in the neighborhood even longer and just by viewing the current status of the neighborhood, that this development will be a jaring and intrusive and unattractive addition to the valley that we l

gallagher is representing both d-r requestors? >>> i am, mr. ionin. >> thank you. >>> president fong, commissioners, good afternoon. for the record my name is mary gallagher and i'm an urban planner working for both d-r applicants, pam and darren, [speaker not understood]. as mr. cabrera just told you, the project proposal is for an addition in three different directions. the first floor expansion to the front, a multi-story expansion and acquired rear yard which triggers a variance, large four-story expansion into a currently open 8-foot side yard. i'd like to start our presentation today with a little history about the site and the neighborhood. because in this case, the historical context is really key to help understand the importance of the issues that we've raised. as you know, the marina was the site of the pan pacific international exposition of 1915, east of baker street was torn down at the end of the exposition and streets were laid out to foster development. civic discussions ensued, how should this land that is down here be develop

. >> there is no reason that the rest needs to be paved and i think that dr requestor and the rest of the neighborhood would be appreciative of the green space there. thanks a lot. >> you are welcome, thank you. >> and i also am familiar with this area, i drove out there it is not far from where i live and there is a great change between santa ana and boneto not going in those houses whether you have ocean views from the rooms on san bonito or not, i can't really say it will be requestable whether they really exist and i have doubts that a two foot change in elevation is going to eliminate the views even though the views are not protected by us. but, it seems that great change may not be enough to allow every single house on san bonito to look over the topps of santa ana to the ocean. and so that would be the first thing, and this is well drafted, and this is one of the neighborhoods that is well maintained and the houses and the houses are maintained and the houses are well maintained and they are single family homes as they should be and so it is important to me that it stays that w

letter from stephen williams, attorney for lindbergh low & eva chan low, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa no. 2013/06/06/8900, which was issued on june 10, 2013; the appeal period ended on june 25, 2013 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on aug. 26, 2013. permit holder: matthew wren. project: shoring plan and foundation replacement. for that, we'll now move to item 4 a. sf 41234 mr. williams, you have 3 minutes. >> thank you, steve williams representing the low family. the property is a 6-unit apartment building in residential mixed between pacific and jackson on a very steep hill. can i have the picture, please. going up towards jackson. here is the subject's property and the low's property. most of the buildings are more than a hundred years old in this neighborhood. the project is to put a new floor on this building and to create a super unit by combining an existing unit with a new floor. they are also going to put in a new garage, there is very few garnls -- garage for this block and the top floor only. surrounding neighbors, 4

letter from raquel fox, attorney for john tynan, kurt mueller & jason thrupp, requestors, asking thathe board take jurisdiction over bpa no. 2012/10/29/2977, which was issued on april 18, 2013; the appeal period ended on may 03, 2013 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on aug. 05, 2013. permit holder: urban green investments llc. project: repair wood frame in basement; replace retaining wall in basement; rebuild one bay windoww>> item no. 4 a. the subject property. sf 41234 we will start with the requester. you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. good evening board members, president. there is probably not enough time in a whole day to discuss all the issues so i will focus on the reason we are here. we are here because we are seeking permission to file an appeal even though this permit issued in april of 2013, the tenants just found out recently about it in connection with the revised revision to cost permit that is issued in i believe june 27, 20126789 , there was no notification filed in october of 20126789 there is no posting, no letter, no phone call. if you look

out i go to a lot of boards and commissions and i would like to talk about an incident since the requestor of the waiver brought up the issue of being appointed and serving on the arts commission so forth. the fact that really does mean that he took an oath of office to support and defend the constitution of the united states and that of the state of california, and he has been through the sunshine ordinance task force training at least three times. signed at least three affidavits that may be more at this time. and yet, this is a matter of public record at a public meeting of the arts commission, mr. peter war field executive director of the library users association got up to make comments about the fact that they were failing to follow the sunshine ordinance, and while i know under the ordinance, members of the boards and commissions were allowed to respond and they are not allowed to be abusive and i would say that the comments that there smith made to mr. warfield were abusive and i would suggest that you go back and review those comments. one of the comments was i don't have to liste

i've been brought in by the d-r requestors and the neighbors to present some certain documents some of which you already have, others you don't which i'd like to give to you now. and these represent some studies that were done on the property. ~ sun studies the first set of documents i wanted to talk about were the floor plans that you've already received. i'd just like to be clear that these floor plans aren't represented to be a substitute design for the project. it's obvious with some difficulty to take a much larger [speaker not understood] and shrink within that all the problematic requirements and make it work. however, i think the floor plans in general show that with some obvious trade-offs, a fit is possible to stay within the existing building envelope. i'm only going to show you the ground floor level. the floor levels are fairly similar. the trade-offs that you see are the depth of the garage which is deep enough for a couple navigators, suvs, and the clearances around the stair are held to a minimum of three feet wide which for stairs still fine, considering the open space