to file a d.r. and let's see if we can get there with that simple language included in the motion. i'm willing to take that. >> basically the other addition is, and a mandatory public hearing. >> you know, you were saying my -- and a public hearing. informational hearing on -- >> that works for me. >> the community is still -- >> they're ok with it. >> they have the prerogative to file a d.r. if that's going to happen anyway , why not make it mandatory. >> what i'm hoping for is a good-faith effort in our positive encouragement to the developer to meet with the neighbors will be enough. i want to test drive it and since everyone claims that should be enough, if it isn't we include mandtir d.r. languages in our motions. the public hearing would be part of it. >> informational hearing. >> yes. >> i need clarification. how did you -- >> instead of a mandatory d.r. we go with commissioner ant nene's language, encourage -- antonini's language, encouraging -- >> commissioner antonini: maybe i can restate

i think that's one of the reasons the notification issue and d.r. process is usually within 150 feet for a reason. because we really want people that are going to be impacted to be weighing in on this decision versus sometimes neighbors have an ax to grind or other things going on when you get a little further outside the radius. then the issue of 1004.4, the designation for the board of supervisors, i think the property owner issue is huge, like ms. jackson and others have illuminated we want to be sure that communities that traditional not informed about what's going on are coming out to these hearings, really understand the implications, are in a position to essentially vote on whether or not they want to see this happen. i think that is a really important clarification that must happen. i would put that actually in addition to 2/3 of the board of supervisors because i think it's really important in the disenfranchised communities. we've seen it through the shipyard project and other projects that even though you might see numbers, there is still

i err towards the d.r. requester. it is an extraordinary project. it is sustainable and thoughtful. >> i think this is a very modest addition. there is the orientation of the existing building on the lot, and i think it is great to use that, and i do not think it you should be penalized for doing so. we're talking about a very modest addition, 1400 sq. ft. overall, for us very small for what we normally see. a love the fact that your window is part of your solar heating. >> the appellate would have the board believe that members of the commission acted arrogantly when they acted unanimously to support the project. if anything, there was an error for making recommendations based on documents. we request date continue. thank you for your consideration. [bell] commissioner gorse the: -- garcia: well timed. president peterson: there is a question about the licensing of the contractor. >> it is interesting she should ask the question, because we're still working on getting a contractor. in fact, we have been waiting for 4.5 years to do that. we go back t

i think we have to be careful that we're not setting up a d.r. process for our hospitals, much like the d.r. process we have for our private homes. i am not prepared to support this. i would like to support some type of -- some type of citywide healthcare plan, but at this point, this is not the one that i'm able to support. president chiu: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i thank everyone for their comments and i understand where supervisor alioto-pier is coming from. it is isappointing, nonetheless, not to have your support, because i think this legislation, in fact, does codify a lot of the work you've been doing around a number of issues involving healthcare. be that as it may, we believe that the legislation as currently drafted addresses this issue and that's on the issue of the appeal that the intent of the legislation, including, as currently written, is for any appeal to join an existing land use appeal. nevertheless, to make sure that that is as clear as possible, we have worked with the city attorney's of

homebuilder d.r. horton under pressure on its latest results. it narrowed its fiscal fourth quarter loss to just three cents. a year ago, it lost 74 cents a share. the stock down 5.5% today on the company's outlook. the c.e.o. says he's not optimistic about the upcoming spring home selling season. speaking of selling, boeing shares continue on a downdraft on worries about its 787 dreamliner and when it will actually begin deliveries. boeing shares down $2.28 or 3.5%. bernstein research cut the aerospace giant from outperform to market perform. investors taking a bite out of wendy's arby's shares as the fast food firm posts results it calls quote, "not satisfactory" the company lost $900,000 in the third quarter. excluding charges, results were breakeven versus a three-cent gain a year ago. results were four cents below analyst estimates. wendy's/arby's down 1.5%: it's pressing activist investor nelson peltz to say what he plans to do with his stake in the company. he owns nearly a quarter of all wendy's shares. speaking of activist investors, ca

sanchez, the d.r. hearing had a number of points. do you feel that those points have been addressed in this particular iteration of the design? there was the garage parking. the other was the drop in the stairway enclosure, to reduce it to the minimum required by code. >> yes, the department's staff worked extensively with the project sponsor at the combined hearings that were held in october, before the planning commission, and it took a while to get all of those changes made. they were made to the satisfaction of department's staff. commissioner fung: in conformance with all the comments made? >> that is correct. president peterson: it seems there is still some concern there would be a snowball effect in all projects would be of the same height, but because of the downward sloping, i concede that is the case. >> one is the worry about the snowball effect of rear yard variances. as we have seen before, variances are unique by definition. just because there is one granted for this property does not mean variances will be granted for

there was also an appeal of a building permit subject to d.r. of this commission on december 10, 2009. at the hearing, the bicommission voted to approve the building permit as recommended with modifications. the project proposed an expansion of our rear yard cottage and a small new structure at the front of the property. the proposal includes numerous green building techniques, including rain water catchment and solar panels. the palin targeted to not comply with residential design guidelines -- the appellant argued it did not comply with residential design guidelines. the board voted unanimously to uphold the commission's decision and approved a permit with the condition the scope of work excl the front structure, o fórequiring the project spono submit a new permit for the building. the department noted the project scope had already been thoroughly vetted through the process and section 311 cannot be required. that said, the second permit would also be appealable to the board of appeals. that concludes the d.a.'s summary of the board of appeal

on the floor is to approve the amendment for staff recommendation and instead of requiring mandatory d.r., encouragement of the project sponsor to work with community. that would include a public hearing and information -- an informational public hearing on the project. i won't go into all the recommendations of staff, they have been stated by staff and you. on that motion, commissioner commissioner antonini:. >> aye. >> migser moore. commissioner sugaya. the motion passes. >> if we can take out of order -- >> item 11. >> item 11. >> you are now getting ready to consider item 11. 4575 geary boulevard. the institute on aging. >> can anyone fill in for her? >> i don't know enough about the project. >> dewpoint to take a five -- do you want to take a five-minute? >> we're taking a five-minute break. >> the planning commission is taking a five-minute recess.er, geary boulevard, the institute on aging. the proposal before you to modify a condition of approval that was approved by the planning commission and board of supersizors in 2006 this eprevious condition required that additional 28 vale

the appellants have already announced they will request d.r. on that, which is adding a full bath to a half bath and full kitchen to have kitchen. my clients can and wish to move into this home as soon as the interrupted phase 1 work approved by planning can commence. but if you roll the rear yard variance is needed, work to complete phase one will continue to be on hold probably another six, nine months, and later i will explain why so many months. what that means is during those months, my clients will be paying two sets of mortgage, property tax, insurance, and maintenance. the allegations of work potentially expand beyond what the permits showed have absolutely no merit. the existing conditions behind these are very old homes and cannot be predicted until uncovered in the field. when uncovered, they often trigger changes and the scope of work. the contractor then decides with the building inspector whether to immediately seek revision or whether to wait until more unexpected conditions reveal themselves, and then do one big revision. this p

team, who reviewed this project, and i want to make it clear that there was no connection between the d.r. request and the residential design team review. these were two independent things. and, in fact, ms. rosen did not even know that residential design team has looked at this project and made the findings that they did until shortly before the hearing, so there is no connection between those two things. ms. rosen did not call upon that wa. this independent team found this was out of character, massive, bulky, and the other reasons that are attached to our brief. let me leave the board with this. that is the opening to the residential design guidelines. the question at the outset is why do we have presidential guidelines. in short, it is to maintain the visual interest of and never hurt. it is important that the design of new buildings and renovations to existing buildings be compatible with nearby buildings. a single building out of context with its surroundings can be disruptive to the neighborhood character, and if repeated often enough, to the image of the city as a whole. thank you