if the d.r. applicants were not aware of the likelihood of the 264 dore street development when they purchased their units, mr. kennedy should noten penalty liesed for the lack of proper and timely disclosure of this issue on the part of the stagehouse couple association, the listing realtors, or the former unit owners. we feel the d.r. applicants' list and concerns concerning the affects are somewhat overstated and they are actually much less impactful than almost any other likely development scenario. live work unit owner should be aware they have not purchased a property in a normally residentially zoned area, but rather a mixed use service light industrial area which serves many needs. lowered property values, there is no evidence to support their claim of any reduced value to their units. further more, any discussion of financial concerns is not relevant to these proceedings. building height, this is the key point, the proposed two-story building of 26 feet in height is substantially under t

d.r. requesters is the presence of the extension of the bedroom where it's visible there and it would be nicer if it were less visible. that's what i'm hearing. obviously, it can't be any smaller. commissioner wu talked about you have to have a decent size unit and this is a very nice, smaller unit with a bedroom, dining area, kitchen, bath that fits in well with that. but you do need that rear extension. so project sponsor, i don't know if you're amenable to changes that were spoken about, perhaps if there's a chance bringing that down a little bit, maybe a few feet lower to make the unit less visible from the adjacent property. i'm just asking if that's a possibility here. sounds like a is solution. what -- >> bringing less -- >> the bedroom portion of the addition, you would end up probably with a ramp or some stairs there to go from one part of the unit to the other but perhaps if you went from your dining area there on the lower unit and had a little step down of two or three steps do

d.r. an prove the project. thank you. president fong: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. s.i.a. consulting. we got into this project as a three-lot project. we initially filed the permit to restore the existing building that is at subject property. we proposed full foundation replacement, fabric upgrade restoration of the facade, and permit was achieved. and construction resumed and the foundation was replaced, removed and replaced and they were in the process of -- they removed all of the sheetrock from the -- from the walls and they were setting the new walls in. and the new roof was -- the new roof was removed and new roof was supposed to go in and exactly at the wrong time that day, that night of october 3rd was extremely high winds and due to the lack of weight really, i would say, of the building because all of the roofing members and sheetrock and all of that was removed, the building was lifted and demolished basically. the client immediately hired us to be able to

the d.r. for discussion and i propose that they just hear what the neighbors want to say. and they can address the concerns. >> just to be clear, two of the three items were, you think, i have been resolved by the current proposal? which one did not? >> the original plan was an absolute monstrosity, much, much larger than it is now. it was initially 75% of the lot, from the very front to the very back. that was just the actual property. then they had a deck on the back on each floor going up. it was an absolute monstrosity. we brought the city back into our backyard and said, look, this is our backyard. right now, we can see the ingleside. we are on top of the hill. from the front of cars out -- front of our house we get to the fairmont. from our roof we can see oakland. we're on top of the hill. if this happens about all we will see is this building. later on, we started the d.r. is no longer valid. only because of the old plan. the d.r. has no more value so you have to withdraw. i do not hav

the d.r. we tried to contact them to discuss this project. they refuse to even call us back and they threaten to file a lawsuit. after the d.r., we worked with them, with a series of expediters and teams of engineers that a higher. but it seems they could not get -- keep their engineers or expediters and we kept working with a new group of people every year. in the original request, we requested three items. one is to reduce the size of the building and second is to reduce the height of the building and the third is to read -- is to add additional parking. i want to address the question that -- the reason why we missed the d.r. hearing. both my husband and i were at work and i'm going to school part time for my master's degree and i am working full- time. we were under the assumption that the neighborhood had received the notifications and they will be there to represent us. i am sorry that -- it seemed to cause a lot of confusion, but we were under the assumption that the neighborhood was not

the d.r. is no longer valid. only because of the old plan. the d.r. has no more value so you have to withdraw. i do not have time to send you a letter about that but please talk to that neighborhood. >> which one was that? >> the height of the building. we are satisfied with the recession of the depth. and satisfied with parking. it seems like the never have some other concerns but we are not satisfied with the height. >> thank you. president hwang: next speaker, please. kraska evening. -- good evening. i enjoy the neighborhood and i really like them to take down the old house. the reason i want to object is i do not like they put a plea? at. if they put up the 8 feet, i have to close my window. i work the whole day and night and i have no fresh air. number two, -- [unintelligible] for complaint. you scare me. number three, i talked to my friend. he is the architect. i saw him -- he said this is so stupid. never get the permit to build the new building. [unintelligible] thank you. >> good evening. i am honored to address year. i watch you on tv and co

i know that a d.r. was filed. i certainly read it and responded to it in my package to the planning department. the concerns were pretty much the size of the building, the fact that the neighbors felt it was out of character because it had a third story and a roof deck and because of its size it needed more parking. the project sponsor had already made those modifications that he was willing to make by the time we were hired. and based on my communication with the planner he had indicated they were satisfied. we prepared our package for the d.r. hearing and we showed up. not one single person showed up to support the d.r. and all of the commissioners that were present voted to approve the project. and then of course, it has been appealed and we are here tonight. >> i have a question on the issues raised by the appellant regarding the plans and the disorder of an anomaly -- of the sort of an anomaly. the decks were not indicated on those plans? >> when i see the plans, i see those indicated. >> i think the one that

. -- that the d.r. occurred. >> yes. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> president huang, do you wish to give the permit holder 14 as well? >> we have to, yes. you do not have to use them all, but that is your time allotment. seven minutes per appeal. >> thank you. good evening. i represent the permit holder tonight. as you heard, the cases before you are linked with the demolition and the replacement of a single-family dwelling. based on the appellants brief, it is my understanding that her issues are not actually with th. it is more with the process of the demolition and how that takes place. unfortunately, most of the concerns that she has raised are governed by local laws, building codes, regulations. they made no attempt to reach out to us. perhaps there has been some breakdown in communication. we feel there has been a breakdown in communication as well. but we are open. we are willing and able to cooperate and walk them through the process, to explain it to them. we're willing to accept

so take d.r. and approve the project with a raked roof at 45 degrees from the rear line of the project at seven feet to a height of 10 feet to a death of 10 feet. president fong: is there a second to that? commissioner moore: second. >> ammunitioners, the motion on the floor is to take d.r. and approve the project with the modifications that commissioner moore and antonini have stated and summarized by -- commissioner moore: i would like to add a clarification that we encourage the addition of the wall facing would be of light color and add light and a feeling of some kind of finish to it. >> is that ok? >> that's fine. >> including that the wall color be of light color and some sort of finish. on that motion -- >> can i clarify that? >> yep. >> is it the wall or just the wall, we're not talking about the roof? commissioner moore: the roof is not, the roof, we cannot dictate that we want to make sure that the wall is not dark and foreboding but indeed the wall is a positive surface as the open dec

the d.r. requestor is comfortable with it. and the planning commission by a vote is comfortable with it. we would respectfully suggest that you deny this appeal and uphold the permit as is. gregg's mr. snyder, -- >> mr. snyder, the notice of proposal that went out in july, what response did you get to that? >> i can look on the docket. we did not get any requests for discretionary review. as two inquiries or statements of support or opposition, -- as to inquiries or statements of support our position, -- >> [unintelligible] >> the discretionary review hearing on the eighth of december of last year this that there were no comments either in support of or opposition to the project at that time. >> up to that point in time. >> my question is one of the statements made by the project sponsor's council -- counsel, was that the third floor? would it have been in planning? could it have been in code if there were no livable deck in that space, or would that have been out of compliance? correct if i understand you correctly -- >> rath

so it's not just the d.r. condition. >> that's not what i heard on testimony. >> with apologies to mary wood, i will call the question. >> commissioner, my understanding is the motion on the floor is for continuance of this item. the commission has made further suggestions for modification and change of the project, including working with the neighbor that are affected by this and the public hearing has to remain open because you have requested change. and this item would be continued to august 16th on that motion. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> that motion carried 6-0. thank you, commissioners. commissioners, you're on item 16 a and b. case 201216-a, 2012.0039d to 318, arleta avenue and 16b, case 202.0157d. arleta avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners and staff planning department staff. the splan to demolish a two-story dwelling and replace with a tw

there's another d.r. requestor. second d.r. requestor. >> i am judy kaiser, 2806 union street which is perpendicular and it was the yellow building that was outlined by mr. williams. good afternoon, commissioners, and commission director. thank you for your time. as you may recall, our d.r. is regarding the reduction in size and the position of a roof deck at 273537 baker. i am here to report on the progress. working with the city planner ms mary woods and in the spirit of compromise, we have come to an agreement with the sponsor. we thank ms. woods for her professionalism and dedication as an intermediary. if there have been misunderstandings in the past and disagreement -- this agreement will likely have been impossible without her. as per pages a3 and a7, of the revision, submitted by the sponsor, we agreed to a reduction of 5 feet from the eastern boundary of the roof deck, reducing the square-foot it to better line up with the other -- square footage to better line up with the other decks in the area. the total area of the

we went through the d.r. process because the der requestor had filed the d.r. but not withdrawn it. and the project had gone through so much change since they filed. i guess there d.r. was no longer relevant. i remember my conversations with the planner and he was -- he said there would not withdraw the d.r.. so they basically a kind of stopped in the middle of the process. if they still have issues, maybe they did not understand the process and i do not know what the solution is to that. san francisco seems to hold out its hand to people and try to help people. i think there are resources, i do not know what to say. regarding issues that some of the neighbors have raised about the floor plans and it looks like someone will change it into an illegal configuration in the future, that is an illegal configuration. if they attempt to do that, they apart will cite them and the neighbors will log an anonymous complaint and the building in the department will inspect and it will issue an [unintelligible] just because someone does not break the law in the future does not mean we have to pre

maybe it was the d.r. requestor. >> i think there is a small portion of the roof deck on the west side near the elevator. it is a tiny space which is not usable. i think that could be the area. sitting versus non-sitting roof area. >> we have to render its crest -- 350 square feet with a deck being eliminated and that looks like 5 feet from each side or maybe -- was that part of the thing, too, that the elimination is coming from both sides as far as the shrinkage? >> the west side was going to remain as is because it was -- there were concerns if he shifted westward, the adjacent neighbor's deck would be somewhat in his field. the reduction came from the east side of the roof deck. 5 feet. >> that is what i see written down here and that is what i remember. there is a reduction of the rear addition by 6 inches on each side. >> right. >> ok. that is the two points. i do not remember specifically the commission asking for alignment with the rear walls of the existing adjacent buildings but i know there were

it is a d.r. requestor. >> thank you, commissioners. steve williams. as a reminder, i recommend -- represent the family who lives in the

not a d.r., all right? under those -- the e.c. is we would like you to do it, but you can't be disciplined. there was no d.r. it was an e.c. that said the lawyer is the lawyer for the organization. what bob -- >> actually, what it said was the lawyer owes his allegiance -- >> it's even weaker. >> it's a very nebulous standard. >> interestingly -- i'm not trying to say this proves that mardian was not guilty. he did what the aba eventually adopted. he said to gordon liddy, i am not your lawyer, so i'm not your lawyer. i'm going to tell mitchell everything you tell me. all right? a question that you asked and cross-examination, did you explain to liddy that mitchell could waive the privilege. mardian's response was that was a risk that liddy had to take, all right? but, of course, we all know that liddy didn't worry about that because he knew that john mitchell knew as much as he did, so he was not concerned that mitchell was going to turn him in, so i think that was -- >> because what he was saying was that mitchell was the one who

the elder mission merchants and residents association had filed a third party d.r. they were the appellant last night, based on very similar grounds as a review in february. in particular, the urging was that the board of appeals apply a similar reasoning that it had used in a previous unrelated case based on your sense of the users. the board did you -- the notion of clustering. ultimately, based on being nothing in the law to prevent clustering end of the case in question being factually different, the board had denied the appeal and the pull of the permanent, your approval of the dispensary -- did uphold the permit, your approval of the dispensary. >> you don't have to talk about them, but what were they? >> a small, old, but not historic cottage. a drm variance in september. that permit was upheld. finally, a permit to replace spiral rear stairs with non-spiral. >> thank you. with that, we can move onto the last category for public comment. they may address to for items within your jurisdiction with the exception of agenda items. >> you all directed that there s

i am going to make a motion, subject to amendment regarding the other roof deck, to take d.r >., not approve the deck on top of the garage structure, require the illegal door to be replaced with whatever it was beforehand, a window or wall -- i really don't care. as i say, i would be open to any comments regarding the roof deck on top of the proper building. commissioner moore: second. commissioner sugaya: second. commissioner borden: i used to live in this neighborhood. i know the style very familiarly. i want to support to not have the deck above the garage. i think it causes a major nuisance. it is not a publicly accessible and open space. it is not available to everyone in the building. it is the use of one unit at the disadvantage of the larger community. it could be precedent-setting. i understand the project sponsor may have felt this was something they could do, but i think a better direction to staff in the future is we do not think this is acceptable and should look at how the code needs to be redefined. it does seem to be a side yard, not a rear yard. that needs to be deal

since there was no certified d.r., could a project sponsor appeal -- eir, schoodic project sponsor appeal independently? >> i will let tom answer this, he is also a deputy city attorney in our office. >> the answer is yes. it is a separate discretionary decision. the board of supervisors could not have overruled the commission and granted a cu until the environmental review process had been completed. they had an obligation to appeal the denial of the cu within the time set for it. and the board had an obligation to calendar it and had the board wishes to overturn the commission's denial of the cu, they could have held the appeal and informed the commission they were holding the appeal until the environmental review had been completed. yes, in the denial of the cu without an eir is appealable. they could not have taken action until the environmental review was done. commissioner antonini: the board could hold the cu until the approval process to work? >> yes. commissioner antonini: thank you. i do not know how practical it is, but it is possible. a couple of other things i wanted to menti

it is unfortunate that no one attended the d.r. hearing. there was the opportunity to do that. it is unfortunate that may be the neighbors did not communicate about someone being present their but the process was available and it was not used. at this point, i do not feel we have any other choice but to uphold the permit. >> i would move to deny the appeal. >> ok. >> we have a motion to upheld this -- of polled this permit on the basis that it is code compliant. -- uphold the permit on the basis that it is code compliant. the vote is 3-1. this permit is upheld as is on the basis. thank you. president hwang: i will call the next item. appeal no. 12-055. subject property is at 99 marietta drive. protesting the issuance on april 13, 2012 to lease a burrell -- lisa burell to alter a building. we're going to start with the appellant's council and you have seven minutes. >> thank you and good evening. president hwang and committee. i represent the appellant, mary maxon.sh she is on assignment at the white house in d.c. but i in august she will be coming back to her home at 95 murieta

tehe d.r. commissioner ruled in our favor. the neighbor's lawyer contacted my are contested -- my architect. these white walls were built to give the neighbors more light than air. this made the project more difficult. we told people where we were willing to cross the windows in an effort to provide a confession to the neighbors. they never responded to our offer, again. this same month, the day requested access to our rules. in neighborly fashion, we granted full access. two years into the process, they are now appealing kafka we are a family trying to build family oriented units, making extreme concessions for our neighbor's benefit if, only to feel trampled on. thank you very much. i am all done. >> thank you. do you have any questions? >> can you explain what you do it is the concessions -- concessions you gave? i agree keepnot think i have a d understanding of what the concessions were. >> we do not pretend week believe we could build to this. i'm showing you the envelops so you can understand we are not building to that.

we will bring you a d.r. special report this afternoon about what will lead us back and here's a hint. it's all in the culture, my friends. but first, the latest move in new york that would get you, whoever you may be in more trouble for selling soda pop than dealing weed! ari fired off about this last week. the panel will be here after this. what's up with the size of our pre historic friends? you'll find out. follow the wings. [ mechanical humming ] [ male announcer ] we began with the rx. ♪ ♪ then we turned the page, creating the rx hybrid. ♪ ♪ now we've turned the page again with the all-new rx f sport. ♪ ♪ this is the next chapter for the rx. this is the next chapter for lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection. [ male announcer ] when a major hospital wanted to provide better employee benefits while balancing the company's bottom line, their very first word was... [ to the tune of "lullaby and good night" ] ♪ af-lac ♪ ♪ aflac ♪ [ male announcer ] find out more at... [ duck ] aflac! [ male announcer ] ..

in 2014, we hope to be back before you with a draft d.r. and moving forward toward adoption -- eir and moving forward toward adoption. we in november presented a series of land use and urban form principles. ducouer objectives for the plan have not changed. -- the core objectives for the plan have not changed. we're supporting growth in this area, this is an important resource for the city. up and down the corridor to market street. it is an appropriate place for the city to grow in terms of jobs and housing. secondarily -- the other major objective is to create complete communities. it means ensuring that the growth builds on the important factor south of market in a diverse mix of uses. supporting infrastructure to go along with growth. to orient you in terms of zoning for the plan area, at the northern end of the corridor is the downtown in yerba buena. there is some of the eastern neighborhoods ounce of mixed use residential in that southwest part and south of the freeway, those are the service light industrial areas as well as the area

keep this application -- we will see this application return in about 30 days, assuming there is no d.r. requestor. >> move to continue. >> second. brecht's same house, -- >> same house, call? >> do we need public comment? >> yes, you do. sorry. gregg's any public comment? -- >> any public comment? seeing none, will continue. >> same house, same call. >> got it. item number d, england, james, a goldstar bar, 1520 california, place of entertainment permit. >> this has a whole different back story that is not really important other than to tell you that this was an application posted and then a c requirements -- a cu requirement was unearthed. at this time, the applicant has been notified that the cu requirement has been in place. this is also an application for a billiard establishment. we are asking the commission to continue the place of entertainment permit to the call of the chair. it will reappear if the applicant does see you for entertainment. and you will see the billiard parlors -- parlor come back to you at the next meeting in two weeks. >> any public comment? seeing none, do w

toll brothers and d.r. horton.hey actually advanced less than these other two, which i would call the weaker ones. they went up about 100%. they're still actually putting in higher lows and higher highs. and that's a good thing. you want to watch those two stocks. if they start breaking down, it's way too early to get into the housing sector. >> thanks, dan. simon. >> okay. let's recap some of the other big headlines driving the session this monday. salesforce.com buying social media marketing firm buddy media for almost $690 million in cash and stock. stocks that are hitting new highs in this session, pinnacle west trading at levels not seen since april 2007. duke energy at levels not seen since april 2002. on the downside this monday, abercrombie & fitch at a two-year low. electronic arts trading at levels not seen since may 2000. and radioshack at all time lows certainly back through our history of 1968. let's send it to a woman who won't remember the beatles, jackie deangelis. >> hey, simon. we're watching shar

the offside alternative, as drafted by d.r. office, does not include that appeared to claim that one is the other is completely inadequate. this eir is completely inadequate. you should not certify it as this time. we can have great feelings for children in this city and also a great resource in -- we can have great field for children and the city and also a great resource in golden gate park. if you proceed, you were not fulfilling our responsibility as members of either commission. thank you for your time. it has been a long night, and we do appreciate your work. >> i am having a difficult time understanding how the planning commission can consider certifying the eir for the renovation of the beach chalet athletic fields. the eir is a blatantly biased. it's even includes basic errors of math. the current field covered 9.4 acres, but the total size would cover 11.2. in numerous places, the eir calls this an increase of 6%. it's it's actually 19%. -- it is actually 19%. what else have been missed? i fell the planning department

six hits since returning from the d.r. nats now leading 4-2 over the red sox in the 7th inning and sox have runners on. let's hope the performance doesn't get wasted. orioles not going away in the a.l. east. mike fontenot, bad phillies' defense. phillies three errors on the day. baltimore up 3-2. 7th inning, good baltimore offense. this game is now tied in the 9th, phillies, orioles 4-4. imagine being an executive for the belmont stakes, you were about to host one of the biggest television events of the summer, casual horse racing fans, fanatics and everybody in between was probably going to tune in to see if i'll have another could claim the first triple crown in 34 years. that drama became a pipe dream yesterday shortly before noon when the horse was scratched because of tendonitis. so the new favorite is dublahan who finished third in the derby. he did not run the preakness at the belmont. we'll have highlights coming up for you at 11:00. >>> second tennis grand slam title of the season on the line in france. maria shar