and at this time, the dr requestor are concerned that the proposed project exceeded the scope of the work of the original permit and the building should be restored to the original condition, and the dr requesters are concerned about the merger and the removal of the historic materials and generally the requestors are also concerned that the project has not received proper due process and that has not been served properly. in closing the department recommends the commission to the to take the discretionary review and approve as proposed, the correction of the height should be approved as the building was indeed lifted three feet and that is consistent with the previous approval and the proposed side additions will be with the public right-of-way and the vertical additions are actually within the existing building footprint and to the rear of the property and the project has been reviewed as one consolidated project wrapping all of the elements together in one project and that includes the environmental review for the purpose of ceqa, i would be happy to answer any questions or comment

new information to add but i want to reaffirm that the variance should be denied and support the dr requestor dave ryan and the dr should be taken thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> and my name is michelle meyer and i did speak last time, if possible i would like to reiterate what i said last time, thank you very much. >> my opinion is that the planning commission should refuse the variance and should take the dr, and because the developer knowingly bought a very small lot unsuitable for the scale of his proposed development and in seeking a variance today, the developer is addressing a lot size restriction of his own making and the sellers were very clear in the setting instructions as you can see right here and the listing states that these properties being 1018 clayton and 1055 ash bury are to be sold to one buyer, and historically the property on ash bury was occupied by a garage, and on the developer rejected the suggestions that he complete the purchase, as originally listed and rebuild the garage on ash bury and it is possible that the cost associated with the complex enginee

. >> so dr requestor and, there are two and i believe that mr. arcurry will give his time to mr. zuresky. >> good evening, commissioners my name is ervig zerestk and i represent the building next door, immediately to the south. we met once before in 2011 when you took the discretionary review and at that time, before us was a set of plans that depicted the building as 34 feets, and it has been incorrect since. what i am here today, is to address primarily the issues of jurisdiction and the legality of the permits. it is a threshold issue, before we can proceed in any way to the subnative issues which we have not responded to today, we have address the procedural and the jurisdictional issues and therefore, in order to not wave our rights and in order to be able to proceed in traditional venues, we have got to take this issue and jurisdiction first and foremost. the issue of that we face today, is that in our neighborhood, we have never had a case like this before. lots of people have remodeled and improved their homes this has never been a case that we have seen. when we last met

really about, and i am surprised that the neighbors don't know it if you could turn this on is the dr requestor, has a roof deck on that garage, on ash bury, and that view, which is lovely is going to be partially taken away, and everybody on this street, probably has been on this roof deck and this is what it is, saving a view and taking a young family and telling them that their house is not going to be built, so that view can be taken. i recommend that the commission let this project go forward and deny the dr thank you. >> thank you. >> is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon commissioners and president wu, on the last hearing for the 1155 ash bury, i spoke about what a view that collapse of the process that was intended to provide the public oversight for the planning process, but turned into an all warfare mud slinging character asays assassination and we saw that in the last hearing and really the intention of this particular individual is to build a home for his family. and unfortunately, the project, and for project sponsor, the dr requestor is one of these entitled indiv

embellish your house, but this has been so many violations that we are saying that we support the dr requestors because of these violations. now, number two, if you decide to build, to vote for this there will be two repercussions one of them because of all of these infractions that they have not followed, every other developer in town can use this case as a precedent case and it is going to cost the department a lot of money, because there are going to be more dr and more problems, and etc.. number two, if you decide to vote for this, i think that they should bring the back wall back to the original, and i think that they should do the correct 36 inches, and they don't need dormers on both sides because the 7:00 sun comes into the last speaker's house. and he is not going to have any. and why do they have to square off the top? just leave the roof at an angle so more light can comes into the backyards? the reason why i think that you should continue this, and find out what your legalities are on this because it was heard in several different departments, i think that there are ways more ways t

and unfortunately, the project, and for project sponsor, the dr requestor is one of these entitled individuals who is choosing to take advantage of our system. would the process calls for the labor working together, to resolve their differences and they would call those who work with the project sponsors bought off, and and wish to place an elevator on his home, not so fast according to dave he must first prove the disability to dave and if the owner wishes to build. even without a house, he is proposing to build a six story building, each though it is three from the street and five >> okay. seeing none any public comment on that item? >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm inclined to support this project all of the comments it's a vacant lot quite a ways away from the neighbors as far as the impact of light and air it's not having an effect and was appointment out the views are not protected on someone's property you don't own those arguments are not valid and also staff seems the height is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood there a number of building in the area that are 3 floors it bec