dd seeing none, d.r. requester, you have two minutes for rebuttal. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the architect. i was asked to look that the for the neighbor's plans. the first a much larger project that didn't go through. they did not -- they did not retain me, however, to look at the variance drawings. they felt they could read them accurately. and, again, on the overhead -- sorry. this was the drawing that the binellis received from the planning department showing a solid railing. essentially and very briefly, the request is really about the process of plans approval and whether a project sponsor can make changes to a project after a variance is approved. and come back with a different shrine or slightly different design. again, this is not a huge item in terms of the architectural aspect of the project. the binellis are not opposed to the variance. in all of the history of their work with the neighbors in trying to reach a compromise, they have been strictly asking for this solid railing for s

president olague: d.r. requester. >> my name is marvin frankel and i'm with the russell hill neighbors. to give you an update of where we are with the developers and since we last spoken, even though we would like to see the current use remain, we understand that the current zoning is what it is. and have tried to work with the developers and creating an amicable situation where it's best use for the community. we were shown three different possibilities, one was a 25 parking space option. one was a 19 space option. and one was a 17 space option. we originally chose the 25-space option. and the developer then found it was economically infeasible or not to his liking. so then we chose the 19-space option. and then the developer felt that the -- there was a window involved in which it would be better used as a unit than a parking space. so we would still like to see 19 spaces in the project. and we would like to see -- ints a modest request, we believe, and easily achievable. we would also like to see all the

a couple of things, about the d.r. on this project. the project sponsor worked and added to the project. recommending approval of the project as it was. also, the project sponsor paid $7.5000 to the appellant. if i could address the water intrusion issue -- the project sponsor paid $7,500 to the appellant. they came on to the appellant's building and said of the new wall over it. -- set up the new wall over it. it is a construction defects. -- defect. so at this stage the roof collapsed, the water membrane came off between the two buildings, and the water got between the buildings, and that is when the problem showed up. it would have showed up every way -- showed up anyway because the membrane -- both parties agree to water-proofed between the two buildings when the building at 1138 page street is complete. that will resolve that issue. i would say this. as far as the roof collapsing, it is an insurance issue. they are working to resolve this, and that will get solved as it goes along, so i think the key here is that all of the proper

a d.r. action memo says the project proposed could have potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood. we do credit the planning -- the planning department with recognizing the project has significant impacts and requires mitigation. but the measures the planning commission adopted won't work in this indication. for example, closing the padio doors by 10:00 p.m. will do nothing to mitigate the tremendous noise that was just spoken of. what's happened is 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning on the weekends, busloads of people are showing up and lining up out in front of the brickyard so they can come in and once those doors are open, all that noise will be projected out into the street. you will hear the planning department say the proposed conditions are not mitigation measures under ceqa. and yet the identified noise impacts are not ceqa impacts. i'm here to tell you that no court is going to believe that argument. permitting agencies don't talk about environmental impacts and mitigation measures

withdrew the d.r. subsequent to that, a new owner took over 1140 page and since then a number of issues have arisen. the permitee apparently started work without the proper permits, and that has been acknowledged by the letter submitted by ellis barkley. under some permits having to do with structural and foundation work, preparatory to extending this building, the neighboring owner did a substantial amount of work that was not allowed, and in addition, on march 12, the roof of that property collapsed. it was a saturday. a lot of my client's tenants were home. they were startled, scared, and debris fell into the light wells on my client's property, and some of the wall of my client's property was affected and harmed. as a result, a notice of violation had been issued to my client to secure a building permit to come in and fix for wall, and she cannot even get to that wall because of the adjacent wall on 1140 page. i think it might be helpful to show you -- commissioner hwang: sorry, could you say that

the project is subject to d.r. request filed by the developer of the proposed hotel at 942 mission street next to the site, but the d.r. requestor no longer object to the project and has withdrawn his objection. the department investigated the possibility that a community clubhouse or neighborhood center that primarily serve persons under 18 is located within 1,000 feet of the project site and to examine the possible concentration of mcd's in the vicinity. the department has investigated several sites in the vicinity and confirms no community clubhouse or neighborhood center that primarily serves persons under 18 is located within 1,000 feet of the project site. while concerns have been expressed about the potential overconcentration of mcd's in the area, there is only one other facility within a quarter mile and only two more facilities within a half mile of the project site. on june 1, staff attended a meeting organized by district 6 supervisor kim to gather information and hear concerns. it was attended by two s

i received a number of calls to overturn the d.r.. i know it goes to the board of appeals to review that. we do not have the authority to look at whether or not it was in bad faith that the patio is removed. that is behind us korea our decision is very, very narrow, and i take that commitment very seriously to review what is before us in a very narrow manner, and i understand there is a bit of a debate here, but my understanding is that the language according to ceqa is whether the project will cause a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise in the vicinity of the project. and as much as i share an understanding neighbor concerns, and i do not know if everyone has a copy of this, i have extra copies, but there was a test that was conducted when the property was close to capacity, and all of the doors were open, so not just what was required according to the planning commission, but all fire doors were opened. i do not feel i am in the position to overturn the planning department and inspectors who have been out two times n

if anybody had followed the d.r., you have to do all the mailing labels, all the work chase bank does not want to do we had to do, and the planning commission has the right to hear things the public is interested in. every step of the way, the planning the park and is denying our right to bring this to the planning commission, where this clearly belongs. i also have with me the petition. i submitted a copy of it. we have several hundred residents. you have the overhead, it could. i did a random sample and got about 75% in the seven blocks square, and i would also like to speak back to the square footage issue. i did calculations myself, twice, and i found out the space is over 4000 square feet. we did a public record sunshine request and we found -- we did not know about this until we got a brief, and i just wanted to show you one of the emails. basically they want it to change this space. bu>> thank you. next speaker, please? >> yet, commissioners, joe donohue. listening to him, it was like regurgitating all the issues from last hearing. listening to him is beating a dead horse. thos

d.r. considerer. -- requester. the other mic. >> thank you. president olague and fellow commissioners, thank you for takeing the time to listen to the matter. i would like to ask how much time we have to speak. president olague: you have five minutes. >> thank you. my name is tom and my wife and i live next door at 472 connecticut streetment our home has been in our family since the 1920's. i have lived in our home since i was 12 years old and my wife and i have lived there together for 23 years. our home is downhill from our neighbor segues at 472 connecticut street. if you look at the current photo, here is our home and here is our neighbor's house. the existing deck is here. the deck has always had a solid railing. proposed deck railing is two feet, 10 1/2 inches from our property line. the next photo shows a current view from our home looking at the deck and the railing shows how close it is to our existing rear yard facing windows and our deck next door. the reason we're request discretionary review we're asking to variance from approval

his name was d.r. hubbard.he first african-american to win an olympic gold medal in a track and field event. yes, jesse -- before jesse owens. in 1924 he was to run in the 100 yard dash. there has been a transatlantic debate as to who was the fastest human being on the face of the earth and they were going to resolve it by and paris with my great uncle. when he got to paris, the international olympic committee would not allow him to run in the 100 yard dash for the high hurdles. both that you had to qualify for. that would not let him do this because of his color. as you know, eric little did not run because the final hundred yard dash was on the sabbath. he told my generation that one of the greatest investments in his life was learned by not participating and by getting to meet, interact, and cray with their acquittal. there was a term that became our clarion call in our family. it was fidelity of faith. fidelity the faith was a system. proud americans. fidelity to faith is what would lead us to take a stand

his name was d.r. hubbard. first african-american to win an olympic gold medal in a track and field event. yes, jesse -- before jesse owens. in 1924 he was to run in the 100 yard dash. there has been a transatlantic debate as to who was the fastest human being on the face of the earth and they were going to resolve it by and paris with my great uncle. when he got to paris, the international olympic committee would not allow him to run in the 100 yard dash for the high hurdles. both that you had to qualify for. that would not let him do this because of his color. as you know, eric little did not run because the final hundred yard dash was on the sabbath. he told my generation that one of the greatest investments in his life was learned by not participating and by getting to meet, interact, and cray with their acquittal. there was a term that became our clarion call in our family. it was fidelity of faith. fidelity the faith was a system. proud americans. fidelity to faith is what would lead us to take a stand fo