review to give the project sponsor the opportunity to alter the design in accordance with the following that could the design be more responsive to the surrounding context with respect to scale and two, eliminate inefficiencies and three, units be redesigned to meet requirementses for those with elderly or diabled members. and five, that the project should not exceed three stories in height. in spoon to the commission direction, we have made the following change. to limit to 32 feet in height and four stories and the setback from 9 feet to 10 feet and designed to be accessible for individuals using a wheelchair for mobility. the units are no longer multi-level units and eliminates the need for multiple stairca3 in the entire building and now just the northeast corner is expanded from 4 feet to 6 feet and the change in the design reduces the number of planning

units from two units to one unit. and commissioners, in addition, the project is seeking advantage from the rear yard and exposure requirements and section 134 requires 34.8 inches and limits the height of the last 10 feet of the building to 30 feet in height. and at the ground level. and in addition to planning code section 140 requires that the public street or alleys 25 feet innid withst and the complying rear yard. and unit three does not face the co--complying rear yard and does not meet the minimum standards. the department's recommendation is not to take discretionary review and prove and approve replacement structure. the basis of the recommendation is as following project sponsor has complied with the planning commission direction to produce a more responsible design and reducing the number of stories to three and reducing the mass

by the setback and eliminating the efficient internal circulation. it will result in a net gain of three dwelling units and these dwelling units are family sized dwelling units of two and three bedrooms. the proposed project realizes the maximum density of four units for zoning and the lot size. given the scale of the project, there will be no significant impact on the existing capacity of the local street system and although the structure is 50 years old the review of the historic resources determined that the building is not an historic resource landmark. this concludes the presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. president olague: project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. if i could get the overhead please. at our previous hearing a couple

of months ago we received several comments about the scale of the building and specifically the fourth floor which has sips been removed. we have tried to comply with the adjacent buildings on both sides being three-story building and two story in the front and three stories in the rear. and we also tried to update the facade with more modern style materials with high quality stucco as the base and aluminum rain screen panels and also to accentuate the entry and we have some stone tile. and al to address the smaller building located to the south we have also increased the notch on the third floor in this area and we have also decreased the

volume along the second and ground floors to allow for more open space on the ground floor and to address the smaller building. in regards to the variance, it is a 15-foot alley in the rear of this through lot and this is our rendering of the rear street. it is very -- everyone else has a through lot and we would ask for the same thing. in terms of the exposure from the third unit, it has its own open space and private open space and they have all the egress requirements and everything else that is required. and that is -- as you can see on the plans we have also addressed the townhouse units with a lot of extra interior stairs that ms. moore brought up and revised

that to single-level units hopefully addressing that concern. and now i will bring up the project sponsor. 353 san jose. because i know how late you guys have to stay, i took a day off. having said that, you guys give us some guidelines as to which direction you would like for this project to go, and with our planner, he will give you great

guidelines as well. of course, i did some research on my own as far as one line, going to open houses, to see how i would like to see our family project proceed. my objective is not just to build a quick cookie cutter box and sort of tick off my neighbors and what have you. it is to get compliments from them and charm to the block, as well as keeping in mind the character risk of the neighborhood -- the characteristics of the neighborhood and what have you. hopefully once this is built, i intend to occupy it unit no. 4, which would be the top unit. unit no. 3, i would dedicate to my parents. they actually just got back from india today, so that would be a set of stairs they would have to

climb. currently where they live, they are ready to one story and my dad is pretty active. i think it would be good exercise, and there is also the deck which would give them outdoor space. the other unit would be dedicated to my daughter, who hopefully by the time is built she has graduated and it is a source of income to help pay for this, and i have reserved and offered, as i have always done, to my current tenants. we have kept in mind that it meets all of the compliance of today's safety measures, which currently is not in place, such as if there is an earthquake, fire, and is also ada compliance. president olague: 90.

i like to open it up for public comment. -- thank you. i would like to open it up for public comment. >> three minutes? my name is tom, and i was here in december when we had the previous session with my house mate. we have been co-residence at 353, renters really, 353 san jose avenue the past 20-some years. she could not make it today, so i am speaking on her behalf. but especially on her behalf, concerning two points i want to bring up. the first on her behalf especially. as you may have remembered from december, maybe not, she is in a wheelchair most of the time. apache has acute emphysema,

chronic -- she has a cute emphysema, chronic arthritis. her limitation is about 30 feet without a chair. regardless of what happens today, i am asking that we would be allowed a considerable amount of time to adjust to the fact of moving, considering we also have 21 years of stuff in the house, i am her primary caretaker. it will be on me to make this move. i know my landlord has been very generous about understanding that situation, but i'm just making that case before the commission right now. the second point. i addressed this briefly in december. regardless of what happens today, i like for the property 353 san jose avenue -- i am

concerned about what happens after we leave the neighborhood. specifically, the backyard. again, i know my landlord was generous providing information about the house itself, which goes back to the 18 eighties. we hate to see that go. frankly speaking, i think it adds a lot of character to the neighborhood. concerning the backyard, however, this has not really been addressed. i'd like to protect the old- growth trees and yards. we have a california blossom, we have an avocado tree that is huge. according to the plans, those are to be taken down. i really think it has been suggested -- well, i'm losing it. it has been suggested that the avocado tree be moved.

if you take one look at the avocado tree, even a late person like myself, as a huge truck, height of over 35-40 feet, almost as broad, it cannot be moved. the california plum tree is also -- president olague: thank you. >> could i have more time? president olague: someone may ask for clarification. is there any further public comment? seeing none, public, disclosed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i rode out there and got a look at the situation. i can understand what the rear is going to look at -- look like icing the front. but what is pretty overgrown with a tree and the front. but i think the size of the structure is more appropriate

now, being that the fourth floor has been removed. everything there is two floors, three floors by and large on that street, which is also a very pleasant and quiet street. the only thing i would say is continue to work with staff on the design. it looks like the treatment on poplar street, with the wood siding and french windows, is more like what you see on san jose avenue, as opposed to the newer design which has a little different treatment, perhaps taking another look at that. i am not sure if you need to go with the stucco siding or wood siding, because the building is immediate adjacent to stucco, and two houses down is would. there is definitely a pattern with the alignment of the windows, which i think would be good with the final design. but i think it is a good project. it allows for a good family housing, and will be a nice

addition to the neighborhood, so i am supportive of the move to approve. commissioner borden: second. president olague: sir, did you want to come up and finish? the couple of commissioners said they want you to finish your comments. >> i don't mean to be facetious, but is kind of ironic that the alley bordering the back of san jose avenue was named after retreat, poplar alley. if you walk down that alley, two blocks, from 26 to 24th street, is basically without a tree. the exception? 353 san jose avenue has prominent full growth trees. the blossoms are in bloom from the california plum tree. if i am so much into trees, why don't i move into the country? i work in a place where people are locked up, ok? i have seen broken dreams. i have seen dreams try to be

rekindled. trees count in the city. each individual tree matters. but it's a huge impression. i come home from my job each day and look at the tree in the backyard and it reminds me of freedom. president olague: thank you, sir. i share your sentiment on trees as well, i do. we get it, i think. right. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: trees on private property to not fall under the purview of the planning department? >> that is what i understand. commissioner moore: i believe the design, they have done what we have asked them to do. i am not here to edit the architecture. the answer he gave is what i was looking for.

i personally don't feel there is a lot to be discussed beyond accepting that you meet the challenges that you have met. president olague: yeah, because we did work with the department. that is unfortunate that we have to lose trees like this, but he did work with us and follow the direction and we appreciate it. the project sponsor is willing to go to those least to follow direction. i think that is the commission's request. commissioner moore: i would like to remind the public that we have supported when neighborhoods find trees which are one of a rare kind of a very specific age to see whether or not there could be a tree protection ordinance, which has been kind of started, in other cities. i don't think these trees, just by the specimen that i heard them to be, fall in that

category. but i would like as a public comment to encourage anybody to see something in a neighborhood which they believe is worth preserving to call the department to have these trees looked at and registered. president olague: there are some policies in place right now. commissioner moore: yes, and we could get an update on that. president olague: okay, thank you. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion on the floor is to not take d.r. and approve the motion as proposed. on that motion -- [roll-call vote] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. on the variance? >> on the variance, the requested hearing is closed.

if anybody would like more information on the variance decision letter, please give your contact information to mr. sanchez and will mail secretary avery: okay, the planning commission is back in session. if i could remind everyone to turn off your cell phones or other electronic devices. commissioners, you are on item number 15a and b, 54-62 peralta street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the project at 54-62 peralta

that street is to construct four dwelling units. the project requires a variance from the parking requirements special use district and the planning code to allow five parking spaces where seven are required. the planning code section says off street parking requirements. 54-56 peralta street will provide a three off street parking spaces, and they will provide off street parking spaces. the 60-62 peralta building will provide no off street parking, while the others will provide five off street parking spaces that will be accessible from the adjacent building. two parking spaces will be reserved for the units and the adjacent 60-62 peralta avenue. and the discretionary review applications, the requestor

expressed concerns, including building scale information due to the removal of a retaining wall. inadequate landscaping and lack of cooperation from the developer. the d.r. requestor suggested building mass reductions and density of development, provide off street parking for all vehicles in compliance with the planning code. proper communication with the developer and owner to require public works and public hearing of the proposed changes to the public right-of-way adjacent property. the project sponsor respond with the following changes, reflected in the designs submitted to you. reduce the with of the building by 4 feet, minimize the amount of excavation by eliminating the car left, provide a three-foot rear set back at the northeast corner of the building to allow additional light and air to the adjacent building at 48 peralta street.

provide a set back on a side property line of the d.r. requestor's property of approximately 19 feet, and hence the sidewalk lighting for better security, and at a landscaping at the front and rear of the property. the project is within the building envelope and complies with the building height, and provides the required rear yard. the project open space is consistent with the residential design guidelines, which would expose the upper stories. the project is generally comply with the mass and scale properties, which contains a mixed pattern of development. all of four units are family housing by providing three- bedroom units and want to be a bedroom unit. the department feels that concerns have been adequately addressed and there are no extraordinary circumstances. therefore, it is the

recommendation that the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. thank you. president olague: thank you. d.r. requestor? and we have two. >>. afternoon, commissioners. my name is bob, and i am the owner of the property that directly adjoins the proposed project. i am also a representative of the northeast for all sites rock club -- block club. it would all the members please raise your hand? our objections to this project are not based on the simple development of these two problem lots but on their noncompliant over development, which will essentially transfer problems and hazards to our neighborhood in perpetuity.

we have a video of some of this potential hazards, which you may have seen on the internet. i have it here if you would like to see it again. from a broad perspective, we have issues with both the process and the plan. in regards to the process, we're not trying to pick a fight with planning staff, but we are seriously concerned about what appears to be irregularities. we are disappointed with the planning staff's apparent disregard for required pre planning documentation, as well as the vernal heights special use district code, section 242. this is based on the east slope building guidelines, which were created, "to retain the spirit of the neighborhood and to establish criteria for new

housing design that will ensure as much as possible the continued existence of the east slope character. furthermore, we are concerned with what appears to be a rubber stamping of the developer's plans and his justification for over developing these problem lots. regardless of feasibility or compliance. a prime example of this is the proposed parking scheme. on march 11, 2010, the planning staff request that the developer submit additional specific information about the parking pellet system -- pallet system. the developer submitted details for the system. this diagram that we have on the projector clearly shows that the

car will be driven on in one direction only and must be backed off the pallet. ok, next page, please? essentially, that means only two of the four vehicles could be facilitated by this pallet. you cannot drive ford off the pallet. we had to point this out to staff after the plans were submitted. subsequently, the developer has revised the parking scheme, stripped it of specifics. they indicate now five cars would be facilitated by such a system. commissioners, please take a

close look at the current drawing. not only are the three cars and from not in spaces to minimum code, but the cars cannot be accessed because the doors cannot be opened for anyone to get in them. commissioners, a parking variance has been based on this faulty design. how can this get by staff? are bigger issue, of course, is the plan itself. -- are bigger issue, of course, is the plan itself. the developer wanted to put buildings on the lots that complied with section 242, and they could do so. two single-family homes, one on each lot, would be consistent with the mass and the bulk face that has an average of 1170 square feet, not the nearly 3300

square feet as proposed. such a plan would also respect the slope of the hill, which is another important component of the special use district guidelines. this type of plan, given the non hazardous parking scheme, would virtually eliminate our objections to this project. president olague: thank you. and we will ask for the second d.r. requestor. i believe that issue, the same person. we will start the clock again. thank you. >> however, the developer does not want to comply with the formal heights guidelines and the staff is signing off. commissioners, these are exceptional and extraordinary buildings. unfortunately, they are exceptionally noncompliant and it will bring extraordinary

problems and hazards to our neighborhood. we urge you to take discretionary review. thank you very much. president olague: is that all the time you wanted to use? >> that is all i want it. president olague: okay, we will open it up to supporters of the d.r., those in support. sure, that is fine, would never order. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is terry mills. i am a member of the vernal heights design review board. i don't know exactly how the planning staff analyze this project, but i know that section 242 of the planning code requires the project be in compliance with the east slope building guidelines. the design review board cannot support the project precisely because of the extraordinary

circumstances that it does not comply with the east slope building guidelines and is not compatible with context and character of the neighborhood. the issue of the parking variance is are concerned because the intent of section 242 is to limit the balkan mass of new construction. particulate on steeply sloping lots. -- particularly on a steeply sloping lots. a modification of the plan will reduce the need for a parking variance. there have been no other parking variances in our neighborhood for new construction in the last several years. only for renovations, where the existing building made it impractical to construct more garage space. that means that everybody else who builds in our neighborhood manages to comply with section 242. the argument they should have a variance because the code is out of date is frivolous.

the commission would not consider this argument for other cases. it would amount to spot the zoning on peralta avenue, since all nearby properties have to comply with the parking regulations. this property is not on a transit corridor. there is one bus six blocks down the hill. that is not a transit corridor. in summary, the east slope design review board believes a reduction in the size and scale of the buildings will be a solution that results most of the issues in the case. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, thank you. my name is joan. i live on an unpaved section, and on paved block after