to oppose the project before. we are not aware of any opposition to the extension. we are going to try to keep our presentations brief. i will be followed by cedric young, the project manager who will talk about the plans for the project and he will introduce alan martina's to review the project. then we will be happy to answer any questions you might have. cedric young. >> thank you, president olague and commissioners for consideration of our request. i am the vice-president for 290 sutter. it is affiliated with madison marquette, a national real- estate development company that manages properties in the bay area.

this is across the street from the white house building which houses an interpublic flagship store and is adjacent to the traian hotel -- triton hotel. shortly after our approval in 2008, the national economy entered a recession for which there is currently no recovery. because of the current on certain state -- on certain state of the economy, we see no reason signs that the economy will approve sufficiently to allow us to secure financing for the project. we are waiting for the bay area and san francisco economy to improve and strengthen. we are requesting a three-year extension for the approved project. we believe this is the most realistic schedule to allow us to be successful with this project. it is our strong hope that with improved economic conditions, we can be in a position to secure

the site permit in 2014. i would like to introduce alan martinez to give you a brief overview of the product design. he has a history of developing x-ray building design and develop the design that was improved -- was approved by this commission. thank you. >> good afternoon. in thinking about what would be a building -- would be a good building, i looked at two things britain the first was standard guidelines for new construction in the district. the second was how the existing historic buildings worked initially when i walked around the district. in terms of the guidelines, they asked for compatibility. noticing that most of the buildings are built to the

property line. most of the buildings are also simple, rectangular in volume so i wanted to keep a simple plot shape. i did not want to do some sort of elaborate shapes. the guidelines call for a two- part or three-part composition, so i did this with the base and the top. >> i repeat for repetitive window placement, organizing them in various band of colors to provide details. you can see the buildings in the distance. [chime] president olague: they are only at 5, so we can give a little more time. >> it will be of light tan, off white. they're organized into these repeating daybays.

they pick up elements from the surrounding buildings and develop them for new purposes. i noticed a lot of the buildings have three different features. between the windows, we design the balcony for the tenth story. we see this in building -- it is kind of hard to see. can you focus it is? -- focus it? condition of the photo. >> anyways, this building was

the inspiration because it had a balcony on this level -- you often see the balcony at the top story. this is at the top of the building. it is a multi qc quite often. the many different profiles all over the district, you probably have seen them all the time. part of the reason we did this,

walking around the district, the organization between the windows creates a rich texture surface into the building is seen at an angle. that is what i was trying to reproduce, and if it shows one of the neighborhood buildings at an angle and you get this rich texture. that is what i was trying to do here. because they are in vertical strings, there is this alteration of flat and around that when your eye scans the surface, it creates a really rich impression. you see the buildings are all different proportions. what they have in common is this rich surface texture. this is how the merchants were showing off in these buildings, not in dramatic gestures, but in the overall richness of the surface texture. that is how i have had to make

it overall compatible with the feeling of the district. there are many different styles, there is a gothic, modern, there is a victorian, classical, and even mission motifs. the architects that i really admirer were really trying to land architectural styles to come up with a style that is unique to california. that is what i tried to do also in this. the way that this is reminiscent of both victorian architecture and architecture from other cultures, the spanish architecture, the sort of inverted tapering of columns that you see typically in mexican and spanish architecture. i am trying to -- but what

interests me is to do a blend of different kinds of styles to create something unique for california. president olague: i would like to open it up for public comment at this time. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner miguel: i moved to approve with conditions. >> second. ã9qj? arçj÷ president olague: oe close public comment -- i gave it enough time. >> i appreciate what mr. martinez has done, we don't see how this began, but suffice it to say, it came along way from the original plans. this is a building that is really contextual with

downtown, and i am hoping to see it built as soon as possible. >> ims to seconded that motion. -- i missed who seconded that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. i believe the director is filling in for the zoning administrator. >> i approve the extension of the variants as well. >> that places us on item 18 on the regular calendar, case 2,011.0547d. request for discretionary review.

>> of the afternoon, planning commission. this proposal is to add a 12 foot by 18 ft 1-car garage. it will be constructed beneath the second floor front entry patio for the front of retaining wall. it will be installed to cover the opening. the following is a brief synopsis of what has transpired so far with this property regarding requests before the department of public works. the project received a tree removal permits. it allows removing a street tree, and the privately-owned tree on the second floor front entry patio in association with the proposed garrote. provide documentation for the planning department and all required building permits use of

mapping. project sponsors received approval and is waiting for approval from planning and the bureau of engineering after this hearing. we ask that the tree removal permit is granted. the board of permanent appeals imposed one condition, a replacement treaty granted with the size and space being determined by the department of public works. it showed a replacement trees on the site plan. the department supports this project primarily because a proposed broad fits with the planning code requirements. it is reassessed 6 inches from the retaining wall, the planning code requires a street tree to be planted. currently, there are street trees in front of the subject

lot. what will be removed, the second will remain. it fulfills the requirement for one street tree. the location of the garage door is at a higher and, incompatible design of the other broad doors and the location ordinates with a curved cuts that will save on street parking availability. the request foor has to demonste that the project created extraordinary or other circumstances. it will require raising the retaining wall to gain inappropriate by affecting the street appearance without complimenting the neighbor character and will result in a warping of the sidewalk in front of the residents.

and the proposal will not be coordinated as well with the reducing the availability of on street parking. the position is that we feel that it is appropriate, they have gone to the necessary steps to request to have the trees removed. they upheld the decision, and based on this, we feel it is inappropriate design. president olague: d.r. requestor?

>> good evening. i am the requestor. i live next door. pictured on the photograph, i live here. the project sponsor's current plan will dramatically alter the visual character of our streetscape and the overall neighborhood context by requiring the removal of a significant juniper tree to tree. the landscape on the street is very special in terms of himens.

it is one of a grove of four. an alternate proposal for the location of the door has been collaborated between the architects and he arborists. preventing construction whoa not disrupt the neighborhood landscape. issues contrary to what has been represented, and of the of the proposal offers greater pedestrian safety by clustering the existing front stairs which are an encroachment whiff of the driveway, though it eliminates an additional wall that appears on one side of the proposed driveway because you were nesting the two together. the planning commission of the neighborhood association in a letter of september 19 has asked

the planning commission to determine if there is an alternate plan that would preserve the streets cave that we consider to be valuable to the neighborhood. the abbreviated analysis did not address into of my concerns from residential design guidelines. it is within the purview of the planning commission to take it as the d p w tree removal permits hearing and a board of appeals process he did not include an evaluation of residential design guidelines. this photo illustrates the proposals for the garage door. the red dotted line is the plan

the sponsors, and the green dotted line is the alternative proposal. the alternative proposal saves both trees, there is removes two. -- theirs removes two. this is with the replacement designated to go into the white in deadline. the significant june emperor is magnificent and commands a very prominent place in the neighborhood landscaping. i joined the neighborhood association and their request for asking the planning commission to examine the possibilities in taking a discretionary review. thank you. president olague: we will hear from the supporters of the d.r.

requestor. >> i'm the architect of brought into health and look at this proposal. he asked me to see if we can come up with a better proposal than what the project sponsor represented. when we looked at the street trees, their relationship, we can create a ride in that location between the street trees. we can see how we can save is, we brought in arbors and took a stab at what might be a better proposal with respect to construction, with respect -- the overhead. with respect to less impact on the environment around the streetscape and trying to me ha the streetscape with regard to the neighborhood design guidelines.

in regards to the warping, we examined the slope of the sidewalk. we split the sidewalk with respect to the height of our entry which is very similar to the way that the request -- the project sponsor as the sidewalk as well. it is about 12 to 13 inches on either side of the way they split. so that as the request per's entry. -- requestor's entry. you have 12 inch is going up on the left, 12.5 and 13 inches going down. they also have three encroachments with existing

stairs. also, we are looking at to encroachments, existing stairs as well as one encroachment on the side for the side wall. we thought that you can see the outline, and he sketched out lines of the distant trees, and this up here is an abstract of the existing juniper. these are extremely crude sketches. but they give you the sense of destruction and excavation that has to take place here. what needs to take place is the entire upper level including the stairs for excavation probably having to remove the upper walkway. what we tried to do is a lie in the retaining the wall which is -- and i'm sorry. which is this wall right here.

and we tried to -- [chime] president olague: thank you. are there additional speakers? you can come up to the microphone. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i hope you can hear me now. i am joann nelson, and i live two doors down from the applicant. i have been living two doors down from the applicant. i am very opposed in having the

june upper cut down and the device that the applicant wants to build a one-car garage exactly on the left-hand side. a one-car garages doesn't take up all of the retaining wall, so this gentleman that just spoke before me put it on the right- hand side, right next and adjacent that if it's up to the steps, coming out to the sidewalk. if they do not go on with that option, then i have a solution that the one-car garages can be built in the center of the retaining wall so there remains plenty of space on the right- hand side and on the left-hand side to keep the tree alive.

let me see what i have here. let me get to the root of this issue. the hollywood juniper is situated in the very utmost corner of the property. and in between the end of the retaining wall on the left-hand side, they will still stay intact if they put the raj in the center of the retaining wall, and 20 feet wide. in the background, in our backyard -- we have junipers

that are in pockets and i do not try to have you visualize this, but they are 10 feet wide. and 13 feet tall. just 1 inch over. [chime] president olague: thank you, ma'am. are there any additional speakers? seeing nione. this was three minutes. we have a clock, it's time. >> it goes very fast. president olague: yes. project sponsor?

>> good evening, president and commissioners. we plan to build a single car rock underneath the house because unlike many other homes, we don't have one. it requires the removal of a public trees as well as a private tree on our property. this is the picture of the public tree. and also the tree on our property. which we plan to replace. the sidewalk tree can't be replaced because we required to remove its in order to have access from the street to the proposed garage. the d.r. disregards two elements of the residential neighborhood guidelines. specifically, character and architectural features. there are really two issues

here, was the removal of the tree, and the 2nd his location on the facade of the house. we maintain that our plans are compatible with the neighborhood character as well as with the design of the existing homes and they don't contain any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. we have a permit that was heof e old and held up in our favor in january. they proposed that we move it 6 feet to the south, partly to try to save the tree. according to the bureau of the urban forestry, there would likely be significant impacts to the tree roots even if the roger was shifted to the south. i think it is likely those impacts will contribute to the decline of the tree. affectively, wherever is, the tree will not survive.

we also have an e-mail, it is a moot issue. i'm glad you will be replacing the tree, this clearly indicates the organization accepts the tree removal permits. they propose we relocate it 6 feet off of his property of hill in order to center it on our property. his goal being to address his architectural feature concerns. what we like to do is show you the street where it is not centered, but located approximately in the same place that we are proposing, towards the lower end of the property. you are seeing 10 or 12 different homes were the garages

already located. it is exactly the same place that we will be locating hours. in every instance qc that it is located at the lower end of the house, which is exactly where we plan to locate hours and we maintain that our plans are consistent throughout the neighborhood. i think we have shown you enough examples now for you to realize that this is not inconsistent. the proposal to relocate to the center of the house is not just impractical, but it also has undesirable impact. it would require us to increase the height of the retaining wall at the front of our home in order to have adequate height. this would disrupt the street of parents of our home and would be incompatible with other homes on the street, the very thing that he says he is trying to avoid.

secondly, the proposal requires wording of the sidewalk. this would be both in convenient to pedestrians and create safety hazards. finally, i would like to show you a photograph of his property prior to demolishing the previous building. on the left is a view from the street. first, removal of trees both on the sidewalk and behind the retaining wall. secondly, i would like to draw your attention -- [chime] i have 30 seconds. president olague: go ahead. very confusing. >> the second thing i like to draw your attention to is the carotid the lower end of the property. if the evidence shows that the plans are consistent with the neighborhood, don't contain extraordinary factors, moreover, it will not