the project? seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. my name is monte travis. i represent the d.r. requester, and i'm going to obviously be handling the rebuttal. i just want to make one quick response to the last speaker. the d.r. requester has tried to work with the wells from the beginning, and there have been some concessions, but not all the concessions that they claim. the five-foot set back was part of the plans as originally seen by the d.r. requester and his family. in addition, the d.r. requester attempted to schedule a community boards mediation, the wells' refused. now i don't want us to be sidetracked by that because that's not the main issue here. the main issue here is all about the possible destruction of the character of that portion of the sunset, and in particular, the midblock open space, its light and its air and its sun. the last speaker made it clear he's all for filling a lot of it in with what's proposed, but this extensi

so the d.r. requester, you get a two-minute rebuttal -- you each get a two-minute rebuttal, so...overhead projector. okay. so just to review what the sponsor is offering in terms of responding to the significant sculpting and terracing requested by both the neighbors and rdat, they're offering these 3 foot set back on the west, even though the two neighbors to their east have offered -- have 5 foot set backs, larger buildings with five-foot set backs, they're only offering us 3 feet. they're offering an additional 3 feet off of the fourth floor on the north side. this 10 feet -- they talk about offering 13 feet. this 10 feet is not allowed to be built in because of code because if they're building into the back yard, the rear yard, so they're offering us an additional 3 feet. so you can see this is not really responding to our needs, all right? this is not significant sculpting and terracing. and even with this, the height of these walls in the back will be 57.4 feet and 47.4 feet. and this is from the cor

our family legacy has been tied to the marina since the early 1920's. our d.r. request represents the out pouring of community from the marina community opposed to the 1503 project and since our last d.r. hearing, we received an additional over 34 additional signatures, including the san francisco tenants union. our concerns include loss of our thinks toric community character, loss of vital housing stock, concern over deep pockets, forever changing a community for their own benefits. shortly after our last d.r. hearing, on several occasions, i attempted to connect with the 1503 team. on the 21st of june. we did receive updated plans, on july 26, d.r. representatives had a meeting with the 1503 team, and now three weeks later we still have not received any further follow up. we'd allowed sufficient time for them to provide changes to the plans. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm the architect. i have ongoing concerns about the project regarding roof decks, unit mergers, and overall design. we request elimination of the roof decks, three or 4% of the buildings in this n

the d.r. requesters concerns are outlined in their application in your packets, and they include their concerns with regard to negative impacts with the project's height, massing, and blocking of sun light to the surrounding adjacent downhill properties. the negative impacts they perceive with right side to privacy with regards to the dove deck on the adjacent property and lastly the regard to affordability that this project would with propose. to reconsider the project in relation to these concerns, upon further review, the department finds that the project as proposed does contain and create exceptional -- an extraordinary circumstances that warrant discretionary review to ensure the project's capability with the neighborhood scale and character. in particular, given the site's significant down slope of approximately 32%, coupled with the juxtaposition in the relation to the surrounding properties which features a broad site elevation which renders its west elevation substantially visible, the departme

what this means is that instead of paying the $597 fee to delay this project with the d.r. request, in this case it is free. indeed, this fee does not apply when a neighborhood organization files a d.r. by continuing the item or even considering taking the d.r., you would keep encouraging disnationalnary review requests like this for delay or extortion tactics. the sponsor already scaled down the proposal following the 311 notice, which is unacceptable. what transpires in the letters, and the opposition in general, a clear refusal in any change in their neighborhood and any new neighbors who do not live like them. immigrants welcome on the front yard signs and tell the immigrants add one unit, a few bedrooms and the story. good sized two bedroom a.d.u. and three in the main house for multi-generational household. very common in the sunset district and compatible with the neighborhood character, as well as a good way to grow the housing stock without radical changes. all of this while staying significantly under current zoning capacity. this will be 29 feet high for 40 allowed. our

the appeal ant was con stic cony absent. we were able to come to an agreement with the requests satisfying their concerns and they retracted their d.r. the shoring permit being appealed was reviewed during the d.b.i. required slope review process with our consulting geologist, two engineers, a shoring engineer and structural engineer and required to retain both peer reviewers. the geologist and geo technical engineers have been on site once a week for the last two months during our excavation and shoring process. the excavation shoring has been designed in fully vetted by a panel of local experts in the d.b.i. structural plan checkers. in his appeal, he claimed that the site had shifting soil and sliding as the a pal ant claimed but this is been refuted by our experts during the review process. the main point is there are no a parent issues with the approvals issued by for the permits. second to address the appellant state of objections he had five points. it was unstable soil, which we just addressed. the property was part of an estate still being litigated, which he mentioned, the property should be preserved as a possible archeol

the screen is d.r. barton. i think he likes apple. mike murphy back with us by popular requestli and ashley webster on the company. bull run, we are in it. what are the speed bums? see anything ahead that will slow this thing down? >> near term, no. we talked a lot, stuart, any pullbacks are buying opportunities. you had an economy. great guest on talking about the economy, larry kudlow. the economy is ways hitting on cylinders we didn't think existed 12, 18 months ago. economy is strong. corporate earnings are strong. profits are strong. as long as this continues you have opportunity for companies to keep going higher. stuart: two points, you got it right. you consistently said buy the dips. people may money in if they followed you. larry kudlow wouldn't be surprised by rapid rate of growth 4.6% in the third quarter. he wouldn't be surprised into we didn't know those numbers would exist, 2% growth is the new normal. ashley: becoming growthier, no such word like impactful. do you see anything on the immediate horizon that slows things down? >> i don't see anything on the near t