the property is across 27 street to the south are located within the rh 3 zoning district and are three to four stories as well. 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

units are larger than many others in the neighborhood, it maximizes the density allowed, but the zoning rh-2. this concludes my presentation i'm available for any questions. >> vice president melgar: do we have a project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. apologies. we have a project team that's stuck in traffic. i wonder if we can move on to the next item and -- >> vice president melgar: we already started hearing it. could have asked before we started it. are you ready to make a presentation? >> i guess if that's the option. the basics of the project are pretty straightforward. obviously, you have the materials in your packet. it's -- it's been designed to be compatible with the existing property. it's a small house that sits on the property and it will be replaced with two units that maximize the density for that area. there are two family-sized units that are designed to be large enough for family use, but not overly large. we propose a roof deck. they're looking a t the upper space the neighbors are supportive in terms of the existing building. privacy view lines, it's been de

drive between burl web drive at bella vista way in the westwood highlands neighborhood within the rh one zoning district. the proposal includes a third story addition and a second store -- second-floor remodel which includes replacement of the existing second window sunroom. with a walled addition with dark. the third floor addition is setk 12 feet from the existing rear and includes the additional footprint of the addition. the requester is the adjacent neighbor at 517. the department was advised that the requester will not attend today it was just hearing due to a conflict at a court proceedi proceeding. so i will read some of her issues -- -- issues into the record. we did receive three items of public comment in opposition after package. whicwhich i had to pass forward. let's see. 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 architectur

property owner was found in violation of the planning code for operating a group housing use in an rh-1 zoning district where such homes are not permitted. the individuals were largely students of san francisco state university. following the planning code and d.b.i. violations, the property began -- the property owner began working towards compliance, slowly vacating the house and working on the building permit application before you today. the property remains vacant once it was cleared out after that group housing violation. and in addition, the property owner paid the planning department nearly $30,000 in enforcement fees for that violation. while the property owner originally proposed to legalize all the unpermitted alterations, the planning department worked with the property owner to remove certain features that were not necessary. preservation staff reviewed the front facade and gave ceqa clearance for the stucco conversion while planning staff reviewed the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the house. in the end, the final number was ensuring that each bedroom was livable and the dwe

frontage that is planning code compliant and adequate lot width and size for two dwellings in an rh-2 zoning district. the developers are experienced over many years and their structural engineer has produced drawing for hundreds if not thousands of san francisco drawings. one would not know that from reading the permit history and the complaint history for this project after mavis and chang brought it. drawings did not -- [inaudible] >> -- nearby neighbors, and their uninspected foundations encroached on the lots of adjacent neighbors. in begging for giveness tonight, the sponsors make another false assertion that a two unit building on states street frontage is infeasible. their credibility to make such a statement is undermined by their behavior and my attached plan. as you can see on the overhead, in fact, i don't have time for that. without meeting either of the corona heights special use district and feasiblity requirements, there is no justification for a conditional use authorization. consistent with the letter of the ordinance, your commission should be required that two units be de

>> president hillis: i think the zoning districts where it applies is listed. it's generally non-rh and non-ct districts. so i think it's calling out where and what zoning district it applies. >> commissioner moore: i would like it explains why there is uncertainty of where it applies and where it doesn't apply. i would like to hear that, so we can properly respond to that concern. >> i think that not only in the mission is there a lack of clarity, but we know it's in certain n.c.s and not others. there are certain islands, but we don't know where they are, frankly. i would love to see a map. that would put some people at ease. but there are other neighborhoods that we hear from, tenderloin, where we believe it will apply widespread to those communities. we would love to see it mapped, if we could. >> the tenderloin is excluded. north of market, s.u.d. that's in the planning code right now. central soma, all of soma, basically, excluded. they're density decontrolled i was trying to pull up the zoning map, but i don't think this computer is connected to the internet. >> commissioner