these additions are fine. a lot of places have these additions. had second- floor addition. this is not being done according to the plans. >> on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. >> it passes unanimously. you are now on item 17. a request for a discretionary review. >> good evening, president miguel. the proposed project is for the

construction of six off-street parking places. it is residential transit oriented. the previous building was deemed a hazard and emergency orders are demolished. the request was expressed a number -- the project has since then been redesigned. and also itemized of the changes. the sponsor is here today.

it is below the height limit. it is consistent with the residential zone guidelines that require setbacks for the upper story. it is for suitable families. they provided below market rate units. they have been adequately addressed and there are no circumstances that warrant review of this project. the planning commission -- that concludes my presentation. president miguel: dr requester?

>> good evening. i am the founder and organizer of the neighborhood coalition. i live across the street from the project. we wanted to embrace the new neighbor. our neighborhood in general, we believe this should work to continue our improvement with a spirit of openness and transparency. this is one of the things that my neighborhood group has had the greatest problem with. we submitted this request when

it was clear that the neighborhood was not being consulted. the project was enlarged. it was not keeping in scale with the buildings around it. it looks to some ways more for the buildings on the other sides. [unintelligible] generally, the project had some design flaws, and we have come quite a distance. it was under-articulated. to make matters worse, the poorly love crated -- located ingress was a blank element of

the facades. -- facade. i don't know if we have a way of looking at that. what we were presented with a long time a gonna -- ago now, you can see the articulation shout of -- shadow. [unintelligible] it is pretty much the same scale and size. we appreciate the setbacks. a lot of things have improved. breaking up the mass was one of the things we are working on. this image fairly demonstrates it. the setbacks are improved.

this is the new design. i think we have lost a lot of what we would consider architectural detailing. the buildings in this image, they look large in comparison to the one in the middle. it might look even better. [inaudible] i don't think this is a difficult thing to achieve. basically, we appreciate [unintelligible] some things are made better by the fact that this is a single

project. we might have more eyes on the streets. that is the main concern. i am just checking my notes. i leave you with the idea that we would really be very pro- development. we want to be a contributory. there are other groups that have come forward with more specific requests. in the interest of their own, i would let them speak on their behalf.

>> president miguel and fellow commissioners, thank you for the consideration of my d.r. request. i live immediately north of the proposed project. [inaudible] i live in this house here. i strongly support development of this property in a timely manner. however, i believe the current proposal would have significant negative impact of the neighborhood and my property. my primary request is to see that they reduce the height to 40 feet.

it calls for a 52 foot high, five story tall building. a roof deck and deck spacing both to the north and south. the surrounding buildings are approximately 40 feet tall. the one recently completed across the street has 58 units and parking. the project is not compatible with the neighborhood because of the size of the roof deck. it would also eliminate views. the shadow catch would diminish or lemonade the potential for

solar panels to be installed on my property. the sponsor has refused to provide an update for the proposal with a roof deck that has been on the table for some time. on the full analysis by the planning department, neither requestor would be affected by the proposal in terms of light and air. >> december -- you can see at noon, it goes to solar. [inaudible] at 3:00 p.m., with a 47-foot

high, it would approach the roof and eliminate the sudden. i have considered solar panels. it would encroach upon that. when we bought the house in 2002, there was a single-story house on the property. the house was abandoned in the subsequently became a nuisance. not long after i witnessed a couple of men undermine the foundation on the west side and subsequently began to have the building inspector called for the house -- it was in imminent danger of falling over and it was demolished without any

notice to the neighborhood. we believe the house was intentionally damaged to acquire a permit. we believe the owners were involved. the demolition permit -- they were subsequently asked to resign. i realize it is very old news, but this property is the foundation of this project. we have received several sets of plans dating back to 2007. the initial proposal to -- [unintelligible] in the subsequent iteration, and

has grown larger and color. -- and taller. president miguel: the third d.r. requestor? >> good evening, commissioners. i am as to how the war, -- i was asked to mediate. here is the 3-bedroom family unit, the project sponsor has

cooperated to a certain extent and made changes that have benefited. the further change where that ruth was lowered -- roof was lowered, the modification is circled there. it involves a slight notch about nine feet long that would accommodate the one window that is 12 inches away from the property line that provides the second window that provides the legal amount of light and therefore the living room. -- and air for the living room. they would be denied their legal ventilation and would become a non-conforming -- they

need the code. we discussed this on monday. he did make the condition which we felt he could not do a change that would be made. this is what we are proposing. president miguel: speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> i am also submitting a letter

from another neighbor. my name is kate, i live with my husband and children. i have lived in the house for eight years and i am also an active member of the local neighborhood association. [inaudible] what i wanted to say and reiterate what others have said is that we are actually really supportive. this is the condition that the property has been in for the last seven years. i think it is safe to say that our entire neighborhood is very happy about the prospect of the

development of going forward. i wanted to mention briefly that we are supportive of the other comment, i am supportive of the others that have been made there is a lack of consistency. . we happen to see recently some [inaudible] at several meetings with the sponsors, we have been told -- i would like to ask that we at least continue.

[unintelligible] the property and the project under have not been the best neighbors. we received the notice, it was changed again recently as december 22 or 23. even the description of the proposal in the packet for this goes on to say that the residents -- it is not really clear to us.

we want a little bit more time. [chime] president miguel: thank you. still d.r. requestors? >> commissioners and anyone present, i am the resident -- president miguel: these are speakers in favor. >> i am in favor. from a personal standpoint, recently a building went up. knowing that that is just across the way from me, i have noticed sunlight disappearing from my

house. it is a feeling of invasion of privacy. with this building in being a five-story building, it makes it worse. i feel like i live in a canyon. i feel like it will become like mini-manhattan in our area. i would like to keep my neighborhood. i am a resident. i think they just want to make a few more bucks in the process,

cramming more into less space. >> i appreciate your patience. i am sure that we all have families that we live like to get back to this evening. i have the privilege of being part -- everybody is supportive. everybody wants to improve on a vacant lot. what we are hoping to do is have something come into the community that has demonstrated through its good faith and transparency of its actions.

it is respectful of the community and of the neighbors that it is about to join. i have a personal stake in this that i have elected to star a family. my newborn twins will be enjoying the eyesight of this property looking into the available windows. there is something here that i hope you take action on. i am not about to try to argue with you that we should not be allowing somebody to develop a property to their maximum profit. it is about individualized self

interest. i think the interest of the community and the interest of the property coincides very nicely. we want development to take place. but the lack of transparency, the lack of involvement, in the design changes are taking place in such a way that it questions the motives. it is at that point that i would ask you and hope you would slow the course of the free market capitalism and allow time to ensure that this new edition to the new committee may sprout in 2011 buildings that came before it in 1911. president miguel: are there additional speakers? project sponsors? >> thank you for your patience.

>> can you use the other microphone? >> first of all, i would like to say that the project's sponsors, i have done them for 35 years. he was a soccer coach for my son. the people that are developing this project care about the city into the community. -- and the community. they are good people. some things i think were set are not appropriate and ballet think the developers are good people. i would like to show you the area. [inaudible]

i know you're concerned about neighborhood context. and neighborhood character. [unintelligible] the other thing i want to point out is the side yards. buildings do have them. they are maybe 80 feet wide. -- 8 feet wide. this is -their side yard. this is where the new project is.

it goes back as far as the existing ones doing currier -- rear yard averaging. what is proposed is better than what you would do under normal zoning and planning. this is the site plan. you see the proposed building another 22 feet away.

another light bulb has been added here. it is only four stories. it is much lower and the front hall. -- in the front. the impact affects the neighbors next door. you can see that if you were to

do a 40-foot building, this is the sky exposure line you would have. with the way that the project is designed, there will be an increase as opposed to what would happen if you have the traditional building going straight back. other improvements that have been made, they did a terrific job in terms of dealing sidewalk improvements. we basically incorporate those. as was pointed out in the other presentation, the drugstore was brought forward -- garage was brought forward. the project before you leave the eastern neighborhood design

standards and the responses to that, there are no exceptions that are required. [chime] we basically request that you approve this project. president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> last project we consulted on, this we actually design. i wanted to remind you that there has been a little confusion about height and setback due to the fact that initially, when this was a lot that was changed through the eastern neighborhoods plan to the current zoning. we would also like to remind you that that process