the d.r. requester indicates that unfortunately she was a native -- unable to attend the hearing today and she would like me to convey to the commission that her inability to attend in no way indicates an eight munition and her opposition to the project. she also wanted to note she was contacted by the architecture team for the project sponsor yesterday. but it was such short notice and she did not have time to meet with them in general. her d.r. concerns are at the proposed height of the addition. it is at a scale with the herat door site -- height of surrounding homes and that the depth of the second level of the property is already at a sale of the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. closing off the existing solarium and extension of the second floor. it would exacerbate and add scale as surrounding -- as compared to surrounding homes. additionally, the third story would negatively impact privacy light and views. the initial architecture of the project was relieved and the new architect was en

requesters have made three requests that are to arrange the planning process for their request and the d.rapplications. it was for a legal agreement with the owner. these three requests we are prepared to accept. the requests are to remove they're proposed parking space, which i understand is historic with a 100-year-old curb cuts. number 2 is to remove the front dormer. number 3 is to remove the rear dormers. i think that the permit that is before you today, which as i understand, it has been imposed on the owner by the planning department as part of this enforcement process. it scales back substantially from where it was at the time of purchase. so these concessions would be in addition to that, giving up quite a bit of space and obviously value in the project. if there is something else that you think would help resolve this, i am all ears. i would like to resolve its. i would like to meet with these neighbors. they should also meet with the buyer and this is supported, this is supported by the sloped designer review board. we spoke a moment ago. i am happy to answer any questions. i wo

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 neighborh

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

first, i want to thank president cohen and supervisor safai, the d.r. requester and all of the community members that came out. you clearly have a wonderful neighborhood that's truly knitted together. exami and i appreciate you all coming out and participating in the civic process. it's about how our city departments and systems will enforce laws and codes that promote safety and benefit the community. community trust i think is our best asset, and when bad actors fly under the radar and clearly flout the rules and public safety and quality of life of the residents, that erodes the trust and undermines our system. we see sometimes people who do what they want and ask for permission later, and i'm here just to say, not today, and not on our watch. i am fully in support of taking d.r. and disapproving -- but also, this case begs a larger question, one this commission has talked about quite a few times. one is when we have bad actors who clearly are flouting our city's processes, how are we tracking them? how are we holding them accountable, and how are we making su

used on each bedroom and ensuring it remains livable, fore these reasons, the planning department requests that you not take d.r. and this concludes my request. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. d.r. requester. you have five minutes. >> okay. i want to thank the supervisors for showing their support in come bei coming here today. i'm -- it's hard to follow that because they -- they really kind of nailed where we're coming from. we feel that the owner of 278 monticello has shown that he has no regard to the planning process from the very beginning. we don't think there's any good reason to allow him to be forgiven in lieu of prior permission. doing so sets a precedent that undermines the permitting process and shows other developers that it's okay to build beyond the approved scope. it shows that one can budget for penalties which ultimately allow the project scope that would never have been approved during a normal process. this is a new process that circumvents the logic and safeguards behind the current permitting process. i have, i guess, some slides to show, if that's possible. okay. so it's -- it can b