d.r. requester currently live in the property for which the person is requesting the d.r.? >> if you don't mind, i would like to defer the question to the requester. commissioner moore: may i ask the d.r. requester to identify whether or not you are currently living in the property? >> tenant occupied. my tenants have moved. my husband and i plan to downside. my husband is terminally ill, cannot navigate the stairs in our current home. we will be moving into the house, we will be moving into the house and the depiction that they gave you. commissioner moore: i only wanted to ask a question, yes or no. at the moment you are making the d.r. request, you are not living in the property. >> we will be moving in. commissioner moore: i just want to clarify because somehow a she said, he said, i hear a disconnect in communication and it's really difficult. i also have and i have voiced that to mr. teague, the staff contact on this project, the depiction of the package was extremely weak and incomplete to the way we normally look at these things. some of the issues expressed by the d

d.r. requester we hear from first. sor bethat. d.r. requester? [speaking chinese] >> good afternoon, my name is w win see long, i reside at 910 silver avenue. the reason i object to this proposed construction is because the fact that my house is about seven foot below the proposed site that they're going to build. my second story is actually their first floor right now, it's all the houses are independent of each other, there's no attachment at all. however, the proposed building would have make some attachment to my building and i have consulted with certain architects who would say that it would affect my own building. in case if there is any reason for a wall collapsing, my house will suffer and i will carry the brunt of all the support for his house or their house. the original reason why i purchased by home at the address it is right now because of the detach. , on an independent base if any of this proposed attachment is going to be made, is certainly would change the structure and also the appeal of my home and probably would create furthe

vice president olague: no, that is enough information. >> finally, we had requested the d.r. to mediate, we requested this as soon after the 311 notice was filed. we set up one date. and had to be rescheduled because of the world series. aanother date was scheduled and that was canceled because of family health issues. no further mediation was set up again. we contacted the project sponsor and michael smith to find out when mediation was god be rescheduled. we did that friday. michael smith said the city now basically eliminating the mediation process. we found this out on friday. as soon as he sent this be met paul -- as soon as he sent this e-mail eliminating the mediation, the product sponsors said they did not want to mediate. this from my perspective is not something that we expected to happen. we expected mediation. we wanted to work it out. it would not want that part of the process withheld from us. so i think it is something we should take up from a continuing perspective because we have not get our fair share of the process, we believe. vice president olague: thank y

d.r. request youors and appealed, but the decision was upheld. there are three adjacent neighbors, two neighbors nearby, and the neighborhood association. the d.r. requestor is concerned it would impact their privacy and noise, that there would be noise impact from these as well into adjacent rear yards and the amount of encroachment has been granted through the rear yard variance is unprecedented for this district and this neighborhood and violates the residential design guidelines. to address their concerns, the d.r. requestor wanted to be reduced by 5.5 feet. on the overhead, just walking through the project quickly, this is the matching study that you all have received a new commission package. this is the one with the most detail, the subject building. this is uphill, to the west. this is the other building to the west. another d.r. requestor to the east. this is the proposed addition. there would like to see this reduced by 5.5 feet -- they would like to see this reduced by 5.5 feet and would like this roof deck removed. the department is s

d.r. request. i live immediately north of the proposed project. [inaudible] i live in this house here. i strongly support development of this property in a timely manner. however, i believe the current proposal would have significant negative impact of the neighborhood and my property. my primary request is to see that they reduce the height to 40 feet. it calls for a 52 foot high, five story tall building. a roof deck and deck spacing both to the north and south. the surrounding buildings are approximately 40 feet tall. the one recently completed across the street has 58 units and parking. the project is not compatible with the neighborhood because of the size of the roof deck. it would also eliminate views. the shadow catch would diminish or lemonade the potential for solar panels to be installed on my property. the sponsor has refused to provide an update for the proposal with a roof deck that has been on the table for some time. on the full analysis by the planning department, neither requestor would be affected by the proposal in terms of light and air. >> december -- you can see

d.r. request for? -- in favor of the d.r. requestor? commissioner miguel: the other microphone. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 684, fourth avenue, next to the d.r. requestor. i am a fifth generation native san franciscan. i wanted to show you my yard and the d.r. requestor's yard. it is hard to describe how to important someone's back yard is when you live in a city, in a very urban area, which the permit applicant mentioned it. it is our oasis, and it is my therapy, it is my sanity. it makes the city and even better place to live in, and i hope that you take that into consideration, the fact that the city is trying to be more green. for some people, that is an important part of it. that is going to be a big intrusion on air and especially likeight in our yard because the property sits to the south, southeast. it is a very tall, 30-seat building, right on the property line. there is also a deck right on the property line, second story deck that will be looking directly into our yard and windows. we did not know a lot about

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 gate that's supposed to be there to screen the cars on the street is not there, and th

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 tall visually, and it is set back 15 feet from the front. basically 32 feet from the rear property line. that impacting neighbors in any significant way, there are those diagrams that get more by having the building design the way is as opposed to a 40-foot building that would match the existing development. i respectfully ask the not take the discretionary review and you approve this project has designed. we're open for the design modifications w

before you is a request for discretionary review of the building permit to legalize construction exceeding the scope of work that was previously approved in 2007. 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 inc

before you is a request for discretionary review of the building permit to legalize construction exceeding the scope of work that was previously approved in 2007. 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. 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 with the net but and it recommends approval. at the project would provide greater diversity of uses in the theory that rigid greater uses of the area andpol street