after the d.r. was filed, the residential design team was consulted and they found the proposed project to be consistent with the residential design guidelines as the addition is approximately equal in depth to the d.r. requester structure and only slightly taller by a few feet in the rear. furthermore, atback along the we minimizes light impact on the adjacent property. concerns expressed in the d.r. requester's application about foundation damage resulting from construction are not planning-related issues. the department has received no correspondence or phone calls opposing the project other than the d.r. request before you and in the past few days, since the packets went out, we have received a petition with 45 signatures in support of the project. it is staff's determination that this project does not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances under the commission's pending d.r. reform legislation, this project would not be referred to the commission and as such, this case

d.r. requester? >> i filed a request for a discretionary -- >> excuse me, if you could pull the microphone down a little bit. >> good afternoon. i filed for a descreckedsary review -- discretionary review based on the proposals of my neighbors to build. they are to the south of me. we are on an incline and the proposal that they're building would shade my home. currently, the house is 787 square feet. their proposal, after twice going through the design review, is still proposed at 2151 square feet. we are a row of houses that were built right after world war ii, all identical in a row. these homes have been owned by the same families since the 1950's and i understand their desire to build and i'm not against their desire to build, it's just the size they want to build. the hillside behind the house is steepest at the top of the hill and tapers off as it goes down the hill. i am the third house on the block and the hillside is very steep behind me and the level part of my yard that is usable is only

the d.r. said matter what like to request a continuance, and i will expand on those now. we have also sent another e-mail to all of you explain why we wanted to continue that request. i would like to have that heard now. vice president olague: usually we hear from staff. >> i thought you wanted me to go first. vice president olague: usually -- well, that is fine. >> sorry. vice president olague: basically what happens, the commission votes on whether or not an individual commissioner requests that we hear the item when they are present. otherwise, we take it upon ourselves to vote on whether or not we will have a continuance granted. that is fine. >> i will just go quickly. vice president olague: okay, three minutes. >> her clock has been ticking. >> let's restart, because i was not told it had been taking. vice president olague: well what we will do is hear from staff and understand what the case is, and then we will hear from you and the private sponsor. >> i just want to clarify, i spoke wi

the d.r. request or. without getting into the details, what is it that we would receive from the d.r. requestors if we were to continue the item? >> what would you receive from us? commissioner sugaya: other than if we go ahead with the hearing tonight, there will be public testimony and, obviously, you will tell us the plans are inaccurate and the drawings are inaccurate. if we continue the item, do you plan on having someone -- yourselves, i don't know who -- present alternate drawings? that show what the situation, as you see it, is? >> we would go to the project sponsors and have them correct the images. michael just presented. you'll have looked at those and come here tonight with a bias in one direction with the result of seeing the images. we do not feel that is fair because the images are not accurate. commissioner sugaya: so you had planned on going back to the project architect? >> yeah. commissioner sugaya: okay, thank you. vice president olague: is there a motion for continuance? c

the previously approved d.r. included a staff d.r. as well as two public d.r.'s. the subject property is located at 456 urbano drive, between alviso and moncada way. the previously approved permit included a one story a vertical addition, one storefront addition, and one story rear addition. the commission asked to reduce the overall size of the rear addition. the prime sponsor deviate from the approved plan and received a stop work order. in addition to building numerous features beyond the scope of the previously approved a permit, they also added a substantial amount of dirt around the house, adjusting grade. this make it the department of building inspection job to verify the height difficult. haft prepared a side-by-side comparison -- i have prepared a side-by-side comparison, which are included in the end of the pact, to clarify and prepared the as built from the previously compared plan. the scope of work that bebe gets from the approved plan includes the height of the vertical addition being 1 foot 9 inches taller than the previous approval, the size of th

the previously approved d.r. included a staff d.r. as well as two public d.r.'s. the subject property is located at 456 urbano drive, between alviso and moncada way. the previously approved permit included a one story a vertical addition, one storefront addition, and one story rear addition.

d.r. requestor? >> good evening, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the hillside -- ingleside terrace homes association. my family came here in 1840. today i speak to you as a member of the board of directors of ingleside terrace homes association. i speak for the entire neighborhood and ask you to please take our comments very seriously. this case is pretty simple from our perspective. the owners of this property have been the owners for about 30 years. six years ago they apply for a permit to build up their home. after many hours with planning, the were finally given a permit. unfortunately, from the very beginning, the disregarded the process -- they disregarded the process. they built with the wanted, not what the permit allowed. this brought about several stop work orders which were likewise disregarded. they continue to build even would stop work orders in place. this kind of action is terrible. we're very concerned that in the event their application for another permit as allowed, that the precedent that is said is absolut

the d.r. requestors' sake, i am going to keep these drawings. vice president olague: the staff has their images, and you mentioned something about talking to their architect. so maybe you could work with the project sponsor to have accurate hearings. >> i think if you talk to staff, they will direct you to what you need to do. >> commissioners, it will you be returning your packets for this? vice president olague: i plan to. if there are new drawings, i will the supplement what i have. it just for the sake of the public, if there is an absent commissioner, sometimes the absent commissioner will request would continue the item so when their present they can hear it. if we don't get that type of request from the commissioner who will not be present, we usually take it upon ourselves to vote on that. i felt comfortable hearing it tonight, but if we continue with, that is fine. this will give a little more time and maybe more by what will happen between the prime sponsor and a d.r. requestor, but

seeing none, d.r. requestor, you have two minutes. >> first of all, i like to address that this earthquake shack is not dilapidated at all. the landscaping is still there from what it was here, except the tree has been cut down. the informal review for this case and the response is not throw nor -- is not throurough r objective. that is not based on fact in the record, and a more thorough review is required. the residential design guidelines mention the home should be blended in with the neighborhood. i passed out additional pictures of the entire third ave. they're all mediterranean, stucco, single-family homes. maybe somebody is thinking about a 5000 square foot lot. ithe stud-less portion of the shaq is what made it an earthquake shack. the heater access, pg&e has gone in there and lit the pilot, so i do not know why people keep saying the heater is not accessible. the greenest way is to keep the building as it is out -- as-is. the energy to keep a the way it is it is less than would be required to

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.

president miguel: next d.r. two minutes. >> commissioners, i would underscore the simple request for the minor modification that the project sponsor has agreed to. i notice they have not mentioned it, but we have an e-mail exchange here where it is clear that they were willing to accept this. the conditions being that the garage would not be modified. and he would withdraw his d.r. i am showing you that the dialogue took place and they are requesting that they take the d.r. she has three units affected directly on the main living room of those units. thank you. >> it is difficult when you have neighbors saying it will change our neighborhood. you are the city planning commission. you adopt a neighborhoods plan and deliberated. this used to beat a 50-foot height limit since 1972. you chose to raise the height of it by 5 feet. recognizing the fact that the city needs more housing and that makes sense to build higher density transit corridors. i think you have demonstrated that this building is essentially 40 feet

if not, the d.r. requestor has two minutes for rebuttal. >> i'm done. president miguel: project sponsor has two minutes. >> we depend on the experts to help us measure the property because we did not know what is right, what is wrong. all we understand it is we got approved for 25 feet 6 inches, and it is actually 25 feet 11 inches, so we ask that you approve the 5 inches difference. for the windows, we ask you to approve whatever we have. we thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. it sounds like in reading this report, although it is gone, there has been a lot left discussions about the measurements, but i think it was ultimately decided that it was at least 1 foot 9 inches beyond what was approved. >> yes. commissioner antonini: and there is some question as to what that actually was because there has been so much dirt moved on to the front yard, it is hard to survey, although from the street i guess there is a way to do it. >> right, and the front stairs have also been modified. at al

commissioner antonini: i understand the abbreviated d.r. to save time and cost, but if they are saying that it cries out -- that it rises to the standard, they have to make this modifications so the product that comes to us is acceptable. we all know about the lower floor matrix and these other things we have been falling quite a few years. that needs to be done and that we move it through. commissioner moore: i fully agree. the more clear the package, the more full support, and this package left a lot. commissioner miguel: i have discussed with the director and staff the last six months the possibility of more standardization and the absolute statement that packets should be sent directly back to the architects, designers, anyone else who submits them if it does not meet the minimum standards, which have to be increased in order to give us some type of information that we deserve if we're going to hear these projects. i see no reason why it cannot be done. there should be a standard format, standard requirements of minimal nature for these

i would like to respond to the d.r. requestor's initial statement, which is that nobody likes the design of the current building. that is not true. the residential design team likes the design, the historic resources evaluation team likes the design. planning staff recommended that you not take the are -- that not take d.r. we responded to the concerns by lowering the building by 30 feet. but we are supporting the design. we think this will work well, and so does the planning department's staff. job other's 3 story design is not feasible, is not buildable, and he said he spoke what the department inspector who said it is possible, but there are no stems or drawings from that person. sue hastert tried to tell you the plants and from a few cannot be approved, but we followed plan department guidelines that if approved tonight. it she said we need a variance to get approval, and that is not true. it is helpful to accomplish family sized housing. this is not a particularly narrow street. it is walkable. many have you -- man

. -- d.r. >> i wanted to take a moment and read in e-mail from susan reynolds, the publisher and editor in chief of the marina times. i wanted to write to you about the brickyard. i have been researching it. as part of my research, i went to try the food. which is definitely restaurant quality. they have gone to a lot of effort. the chef worked for free just to put it on the resonate. -- resume. i was very impressed by the attention to detail and financial investment. it is that attention to detail that they are trying to be community involved. right down the street, they have had underage drinking to disorderly conduct on a nightly basis but no one is trying to close them down. over on scott street, when there has been more than one shooting. they remain open until the owners decided to settle. after looking at who was complaining, it made more sense. one woman said she would rather have an empty storefront that any business. i can understand if this suddenly popped up in her backyard. anyone who lives on that street knows there are bars and restaurants and there always have been. she

the d.r. process has really failed and i think that there needs to be a review of that. and i am also a member of the -- and we have worked with the director in trying to get a better design review process. what happens it is the neighbors and the project sponsors and the planning department and the residential design team are separate entities that don't work well together. if somehow we can get them all in the same room at the beginning and hashed these projects out, we could save the city and the planning commission and a lot of time and money and we would be willing to participate in that project free of charge. thank you. >> evening. todd and kevin, todd is on our board and i have known both of them for quite a few years. they have built some pretty nice buildings. i have been living in san francisco for 35 years and we have built an average of three buildings a year. the problem that i see it is the project sponsors will end up negotiating with themselves. every time that they make the request, there is no incentive for a meaningful dialogue. there is no negotiatio

. >> at a d.r. hearing, you need a 4-7. that was a discussion. 8 -- >> is that when the change took place, eight years ago? >> yeah. >> the other reason the apellant goes first is the apellant has the burden of proof. the apellant has the burden of proof in a situation where the super majority is required. >> i think it is prejudicial to the apellant for the fact they have to go first for the rebuttal period. they should have the option. i don't have a problem with that. it would be complicated to say you can go first or last, but to me, the fact that they have to go first creates a higher burden on them than the issue we're having due with, you know, rebuttal. i find -- man, i thate to gitch a percentage, because i'm not noletised enough, but 5% of rebuttals have something in there worth reading other than the guy is wrong, he lied? you know, i didn't shoot my mother-in-law. so do -- to do away with rebuttals is not problem matic in terms of what we gain from it. i think it is too complicated to say when do you do your boa

if not, the d.r. requester has a two-minute rebuttal if you wish. >> good evening, again, larry nolan. the family does not live in the house. it's been turned into an apartment complex, which creates the use of cars and parking becomes an issue. so there's one car parking space that you are hearing about is currently occupied by two cars and what's going to happen is couldn't really tell in the pictures but i believe you have the pictures with you is that the gate will not -- the gate and the cars will not fit. so it's just a mathematics problem that these are pictures of two small cars and if you put a gate there, it's not going to work. so we would like it restored to its original -- original view. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes if you wish. >> i agree with larry, original intent of the permit was there was never supposed to be two cars there and the landscape buffer that was supposed to be there to keep cars within the property is not there now and it needs to be added off the

encouraging data lifted housing stocks with home builder d.r. horton up over 3%. job optimism sent employment agency monster worldwide up more than 3.5%. since the end of october, monster has surged more than 73%. size in the economy is improving, weakened demand for low treasury investments pushing their yields higher. in reaction to those higher bond rates, the dollar rose against other currencies, but not all stocks were winners. family dollar stores dropped almost 9% after reporting lower than expected first quarter earnings. and bj's wholesale club fell over 2% after announcing it will cut jobs and close five stores. elsewhere, cell phone chip maker qualcomm is making a play to get into the tablet computer market, buying the technology company for $3.2 billion. finally, it's a national icon, but it's also a symbol of the american housing market. according to the real estate website zillo over the last three years, the white house has lost almost a quarter of its value, down to $253 million. >>> well, rondo is giving mood in beantown, a thriller in new jersey,

. >> this sounds like it is in support of the d.r. requestor. >> let me finish. could you have a liliaison? i had to put them against the wall to get them to give each other cards. my question is this. we have to come up with a compromise. all i want is a compromise so i never have to hear about this again. the emergency association has been attacked. i was brought in from the outside. i am totally frustrated because those sides would not bend. i think there can be compromises. i think we have to think of what is best for both sides. >> are there additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? you have two minutes for rebuttal. >> we have heard there is no behavioral problems from law enforcement. i would like to take a look at this photograph here. a poor woman is passed out in the middle of the day in front of the brickyard. i will leave it at that. there are behavioral problems. and with all due respect, this is not an issue about the former establishments. everybody has said that they were in harmony with the previous establishments. if it could be ope

just for the record i'll mention once again that item 16, the d.r. has been withdrawn. >> delain? >> our on item 17. 2010.0099 x for 333 fremont street. >> good evening. the planning commission originally approved 340 fremont street in 22 houn 6. the profpblg -- 2006. it would construct a 400 square foot tall building with a podium to include 332 dwelling units, including 40% two bedroom and three bedroom units and have off street parking for 332 vehicles provided in a four-level underground garage. less than 50% of the parking spaces would be independently accessible and the remainder would be valet spaces. the project would include 5e9 bicycle spaces. no changes to the original project are proposed at this time. the planning commission granted extensions to the performance period for this project in 2009 and -- 2008 and 2009 with no changes to the project. this would move the date to 2011. the department only received one letter in opposition of the project and then new residential development. the department recommend that is you approve the extension requests with proposed con

. >> you have a motion and second, to not take d.r. and approve the demolition and construction. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, five-one. commissioners, we are now on item 11, case number 20 10.0736c, 1617 pulte street, request for conditional use authorization. >> for today's authorization request, it is doing business as najalee thai massage that requires conditional use. it would be the first city recognized massage building on pulte street. -- on polka street. we have contacted the department of public health and the police department that regulates the size establishments. at this time, neither agency has concerns about the business or operator. departments that has received letters of support. today, staff just received a letter of support from the mayor's office of economic workforce development, which i can forward to the commission if they would like to review it. in opposition, staff has received two letters from nearby businesses. the department's staff believes the conditional use authorization request would be desirable and compatible w

the staff recommendation is not take d.r. and approve demolition of the current home. the project will result in a net gain of three dwelling units, the project will create family sized dwelling units of three or two bedrooms. the project realizes the four units for a zoning district given its lot size. the project would be another multi-unit building on san jose avenue and it a appropriate infield development. the resource evaluation determined that the existing building is not a resource land hoork. >> com pigsers without public comment, the staff received three telephone calls regarding this. and the size of project and the loss of private use and the fear the project would spur a wave of condos in the area. this project was required to go through neighborhood notification. that period expired on monday. there were no requests from the public for a additional discretionary review for the project. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> project responser. >> good evening, koll missioners. >> my joe good evening commissioners. i'm