the first d.r. requester and project sponsor have worked to provide conditions of approval to address the operational issues. the department reviewed those conditions and determined which ones that both fell under the purview of the department and were enforceable by the department. those conditions are provided as attachment a in your packet. the project sponsor feels these proposed conditions of approval are reasonable solutions to this issue. and support the planning commission taking d.r. and approving the project subject to those conditions. this project was not reviewed by the residential design team because it did not fall within a residential zoning district and additionally the d.r. requester's concerns did not include external design. however, under the commission, the reform would be referred to the commission as the d.r. applications are in response to the proposed land use and not the building design. the department recommends that the commission take d.r. and approve the project with the propose

the code allows. and as a result we request that you take d.r. and deny the project and request that it be scaled back in order to be code-compliant as well as compliant with the residential guidelines in the neighborhood. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> with this -- [inaudible] three years ago it was four story and balboa and -- [inaudible] everybody against it. and then finally they united the project. [inaudible] you can look at the picture. 2630rks three years ago. four building. fourth building. [inaudible] only allowed him to build -- [inaudible] thank you. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? if not, project sponsor. >> good evening, president miguel. and commissioners. my name is john. i am the project engineer representing the project sponsor over there. he want me to make sure i thank the planning department for all the help they have had. we were working very close with people and they all helped on this project. they have made num

thank you for your time and -- please support the d.r. request. thank you. >> sponsor. >> commissioners, i like to remind you that the neighbors, the d.r. requesters have not proven or shown any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that warrant taking d.r. these also point out that elizabeth street which you heard tonight is a far steeper street than lloyd street. lloyd street is a walkable street. some of you have walked it. i also like to point out that the neighbors have never disputed the fact that we met the various priority and planning and housing element that is are important to san francisco. and also the importance of providing family sized housing with three bedrooms in each unit. they never deny the fact it is impossible to achieve that goal. with a three-story structure. i also like to point out there are penthouses in a -- one-block radius of the project. there's nine within a one block radius. this image is in your packet. again, regarding the overall scope and size of buildings, compared to others within the neighborhood, as w

thank you for your time and -- please support the d.r. request. thank you. >> sponsor. >> commissioners, i like to remind you that the neighbors, the d.r. requesters have not proven or shown any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that warrant taking d.r. these also point out that elizabeth street which you heard tonight is a far steeper street than lloyd street. lloyd street is a walkable street. some of you have walked it. i also like to point out that the neighbors have never disputed the fact that we met the various priority and planning and housing element that is are important to san francisco. and also the importance of providing family sized housing with three bedrooms in each

the general plan. if you have any questions, thank you. president miguel: thank you. d.r. requester. >> good evening, commissioners and staff. my name is jeff matt and i have been the agent for the d.r. filing and for 18 years, a self-employed commercial interior designer and resident on shipley street, approximate to the project. i generally support the project as proposed. but with reasonable concerns about ensuring that it will be subject to responsible management for its residents and the neighborhood's benefit. as is detailed in the d.r. filing, the global village hostel was -- before it was closed and subsequently burned, a difficult neighbor. and to most, an unwelcoming hostel. its poor management caused it to be a part of a group of problematic establishments on or immediately across the street from block 3753. these include two liquor stores with history of a.b.c. violations, and sales to chronic ineastbound rats and a 24-hour -- inebriates and a 24-hour hustling and drug sales. it was host to drug dealing and use, probable prostitution, and a home base for at least one rep

i want to start because i know our paper has very much responded to the concerns that the d.r. requesters and the neighbors have raised. i want to make very clear at the outset that we proposed the conditions that the d.r. requester has included in his packet. at least mr. solas' packet. he added another page of conditions but we were willing to engage in all the conditions we provided to you in our papers and we had worked on those at a larger building and smaller building where we came up with them. there was always an understanding the possibility that the city may not be able to enforce them. and appreciate the limitation on the zoning administrator. the had offered that we can file this but we can still talk and include the whole host of conditions. we never heard back and we left it at that. we agreed that you take dr and continue with the conditions that have been recommended by staff. there are concerns in respect to security. there are many redundancies bill to those conditions and we think that they will be successful. the second point i want to make is that this has become pers

calendar, item 14, 2009.1003 for 1140 page street, know that i have received a letter from the d.r. requesters, deciding this is no longer for you for consideration. item 15, 20010.075, i have also received a letter from the d.r. requester. this item has been withdrawn also and is no longer before you for your consideration. with that, commissioners, i am not aware of any other item on calendar being continued or withdrawn. president miguel: any public comment on items proposed for continuance? if not, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> so moved. president miguel: second? vice president olague: second. clerk: on the motion to continue item 1 to october 14, 2010 -- [ roll call ] clerk: thank you commissioners, the item has been continued as it has been proposed. commissioners, you are now on your consent calendar. item 2 and 3 consequence suit the concept calendar, they are considered to be routine and would be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission, there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff request

it took us until august 2 for the d.r. requester to withdraw his frivolous d.r. request. and then it took six weeks to go to three people sitting within 30 feet of each other on the first floor of 1600 mission street. those were p.p.c., d.p.w., b.s.n., and finally to the central perm -- central processing bureau. and the last one performed admirably. what i have liked to have done was to be able to pick that permit up after d.b.i. reviewed it when it came back from planning, it was reviewed fairly quickly the first time by p.b.c. but every time it went someplace else, it had to go back to p.b.c. they said, oh, you have to start all over. and so each time it went to another person, there would be like another three life week late. [tone] a permit that they had to just put a few notes on. that was the third entity. it literally didn't take half an hour for any of those people to look at it. and yet it delayed my client, so he missed a whole year. he can't take the roof off of his house to fix it now and upgrade the soft story because he'll have the roof off in the rainy seas

additional speakers in favor of the d.r. requesters? >> president miguel, the commissioners. >> thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak in front of you. my name is sammy. i live on 51 scott street. i'm at the bottom of lloyd street, a -- i'm a house away from the proposed construction. it is a four-story building with a penthouse, roof decks and -- on a very narrow and very steep street. if i play -- they show either side of the street. it will rob the neighborhood. it will rob the character by mass and also by stein. i am directly affected by this building as you will see through these pictures. this is the view of my backyard right now. look through the light and to the sky. and this is -- what it will look like. so, i won't take a lot of your time. we know it is getting late. i'm a banker, i think it it can be made -- economically, financially, vital project with three-story building and which something, which all neighbors can live and be happy with. i constitution for -- thank you for your consideration. thank you. >> sue h

additional speakers in favor of the d.r. requesters? >> president miguel, the commissioners. >> thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak in front of you. my name is sammy.

. >> i support the d.r. requester -- >> would you like me to respond to that? >> no. i don't. 078 r only condition to support a continuance is several architects in the d.r. work together and come up with something that works. it is not necessarily exactly the expression of architecture but the general principles of massing and appropriate fit including size. >> i want to add we're not rep -- replicating the building. nobody is asking you to design an artificial victorian. if you could work it out with the neighbors, hopefully we wouldn't even have to see it and you could resolve that. that would be ideal. >> olague? >> yeah. again, it is what everything was saying. i don't need to see a gabled roof and mock -- what do you call the windows. bay windows. that's not what i'm -- whatever. i think work with the -- with the architects and maybe -- that's good. >> commissioner antonini: i'm not locked in with the three floors. it would need to be something that blends in. you could go through neighborhoods in san francisco and see different architectural styles and see massi

the d.r. >> good evening. my name is jean. i'm the other d.r. requester. i live at 711 27th avenue. another historic e.e. young building which has been in my family for over 60 years. the home was built in 1912. it's almost 100 years old. in addition to the issues that were raised by the previous speaker, i'd like to point out a few others that are of concern to us. the first is a reiteration of the issue regarding whether or not this is a demolition -- a de facto demolition. if you look again at -- i'm sorry, i don't have it. but if you consider the drawings that she showed you, it appears likely that this would be considered a de facto demolition, especially in view of the fact that if this building is four stories, some of the walls, the developers said, would be retained would probably have to be reinforced and therefore really aren't going to be retained in their original form. weem we'd like to request that the -- we'd like to request that the question of whether or not this is a de facto demolition be reconsidered. another issue that concerns us is related to the fact that this building is a two-fa

the things for example that sfruck me in section 1004.1, any member of the public can request designation and thought about the d.r. process, and people claiming buildings are historic and i don't know how that process would inform our d.r. process and i know commissioner martinez says there are going to be procedures, i would really like to know what kind of documentation, i think it would be important that your commission really think about how you spell that out for documentation for the determination process. because if it does have an impact on you know, the other sort of permits that happen in a process it's important to figure that out. that's part of our concern with kind of moving forward on this today. the other issue about section 1006.3 with the notification within 300 feet, one of the issues when it impacts a noncontribute tore building is something of big concern. i think that's one of the reasons the notification issue and d.r. process is usually within 150 feet for a reason. because we really want people that are going to be impacted to be weighing in on this decision versus sometimes neighbors hav

the things for example that sfruck me in section 1004.1, any member of the public can request designation and thought about the d.r. process, and people claiming buildings are historic and i don't know how t

d.r. and approve the demo. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is that you do not take discretionary review and approve the demolition as requested. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice-president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. >> we'll take a 10-minute break. >> commissioners, a 10-minute >> the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you're on item 19, a, b and c for kice number 2009-ddv for 374 fifth street and 19-c which is case number 2009.0288-c, for 235 o'farrell street. >> the project before is you a discretionary review and variance application for 374 fifth street. the proposal is to convert the existing three-story, 47 room tourist hotel into a 46-room market rate residential hotel with single room occupancy, group housing rooms, on the second and third floors, a