you have a group of neighbors that hopefully was involved with that. we have come before you with projects and we lowered the building 50 feet that is required in the eastern neighborhoods to get the higher or lower floor. that is something that we can get no confession on any other project that we designed. we're doing three buildings and they would not allow us to lower at 1 foot. the neighbors have agreed to extend the planners have agreed to it. parking is the same. we meet parking requirements. we have done almost everything

they have asked. that initial plan that they were showing you was kind of victorian. this is a modern design. hopefully, you're not going to ask us to go back. that was 1980. we need to look more victorian. it is modern architecture. as far as the changes go, we have given almost everything. we have modified it considerably. stuff keeps coming up. we don't understand why we can't have a list of things and get it solved. we need the separation.

we need to have a certain amount of separation. what in the front and one in the back. we have disguised its. i don't see what the issues are. we have gone over and over with the design or the and below projections. at this point, it meets the letter of the code and then some. [chime] president miguel: thank you. additional speakers in favor of the project sponsor? i hope it will not be the same rate as before. -- parade as before. >> i am up here for the second time for a different cause. i am a representative of the owner.

the owner could not be here this evening, which he has given the honor of the project her full approval of the project and said that she felt it was ok for him to build whatever suits him. i live in the valley and i am in the mission district quite often. i see the need for additional homes, additional properties such as this to be built and as they do the same. president miguel: thank you. >> regarding the picture you saw a few minutes ago on the vacant lot, the building next door and the building to the east had a

fire about 34 months ago. i gave the builder, the contractor permission. i want to make that clear for the record. president miguel: thank you. additional speakers? >> commissioners, i'm from crg. the project sponsor has communicated with the requests made. 30 modifications. the% were agreed to. there were requests for a payment and the work to a neighbor. the sponsor agreed to 24 out of 26 of the items that were requested. i support this project and ask

you do as well. >> thank you. i am a project manager for this project since its inception. not to recycle what has been said already, let me address a couple of things. the lack of transparency, i am offended. i personally sat at least three years ago.

i have met in a bar, locally, where all of the neighbors could show. there has been total transparency and involvement. secondly, to be fair, he did knowledge of the major and substantial changes that have been made. we addressed all of the issues with the front of the building. the people at the back, they have unfortunately, i think, it feels like it has played out concession after concession. what they have already alluded to, they were made. the system as it works, would they remove the d.r.? no.

not promise, but we agreed after a meeting that i would send them a full list of everything you had done. there was an immense amount of work here. can you put a list together of the changes you have made? and we can make a decision based on that. i did that according to their wishes and i did not hear back from them again. we got down to the final hour, and this is not conjecture. they said of course, if you're going to take a look at the way the system works, we have is next. why would they bother removing it? we have met with them in their house. there has been total transparency and flexibility

that has changed to accommodate everybody. in light of the fact that honest dialogue has taken place, allowing us to move forward. [chime] >> i will be brief, commissioners. let me just tell you that i feel transparency is important with any project. he has made all of the concessions or close to all of them. commissioners, i urge you to approve this project.

>> hello, commissioners. i participated in the rezoning to have more housing. let me just get that across to you. at that was one of the reasons behind the zoning. >> i'm here representing small property owners. i support the owner of the project. president miguel: thank you.

>> my mother grew up in the mission. i like the mission. i have known mr. murphy for 25 years. i think this project is excellent because it is a tragic first project. -- transit first project. mr. murphy will work with the neighbors to create a good end. president miguel: thank you. >> president, commissioners. you have had a very interesting and long evening. i have just spoken with the owner, and he's asked me to say to you that we have a very lrage

-- large group of people in the room that want to talk on this project. in the overflow room, we have another 50 people that would like to talk. that is because of the huge impact this will have on the environment and the macro economy of the area. he would ask me to say that we will stop the speeches at this point because we are all going to talk about supporting the project. in the huge benefit it will bring to everyone. thank you for all of the hard work you have been doing this evening. president miguel: you have two minutes each, d.r. requestors.

>> i feel overpowered here. let me point out that the last half-a-dozen folks, they don't live anywhere near the project. they won't be impacted by it. reviewing the project, and also review the plan and looked at numerous objectives and policies that are in there. i want to bring up the obvious one that is referred to here, to maximize development potential and keeping with neighborhood character. it uses the word character 44 times. that is very important in these guidelines. i see that this project gets the

benefit of the higher density, but it fails to fulfill the other part of it, staying in character with the neighborhood. of all the ideas that are promoted, all of them are encouraged or discouraged. there is only one item that is strongly discouraged. that is street level parking. i wonder if they would consider eliminating street level parking to identify the high density development appropriate for this area without sacrificing the quality of the neighborhood. the neighbors spoke to the east and west. those are large apartment buildings. they would also be diminished and their value.

one last thing, it is a strong recommendation to build family housing. [chime] i think it is going to be hard to keep families and their. president miguel: next d.r. two minutes. >> commissioners, i would underscore the simple request for the minor modification that the project sponsor has agreed to. i notice they have not mentioned it, but we have an e-mail exchange here where it is clear that they were willing to accept this. the conditions being that the garage would not be modified. and he would withdraw his 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 with respect to the elevation. it has been demonstrated that the architect is very versatile. he did the design in he can do whatever he wants. he is very capable. in terms of process, you can't design for two people. that is why he likes the victorian motif. that's fine. we are working with in the residential design team. [chime] that is who we listen to. you can't please -- president miguel: thank you. commissioner borden: this is a lot different from the case earlier. i was one of the commissioners that spent months with the few

of us that were able to go through the majority of the eastern neighborhoods process. it was not easy figuring out the process and the height and the zoning and all that stuff. it is refreshing to see a project that comes in requiring no variances or exceptions and below the height limit we sat. that is what we asked for. it wasn't something that we sell 20 years ago. it was the last couple of years. it is hard to do a project that does those things. i understand the concern, and the issue that we deal with is knowing that people would be upset about a taller building. the project sponsor could do 55 feet. i think that there is obviously some issues with communication

among neighbors. i am glad to know that the picture we saw was the result of something else and not a general maintenance of the site. i would like to think that hopefully, in the future, the project sponsor will move forward in a much better direction. i spoke to him about my concerns about their and they assured me they had done community outreach. i wanted to say something about this piece of metal. -- the submittal. i don't appreciate the name calling of our planner. it was inappropriate and wrong. there are some things that are outrageous accusations. it is never the right approach to go. you may not like what the staff is saying, but is never

appropriate to make acquisitions -- accusations the are quitedamnig. -- quite damning. in deference to their agreement that was made, they will make the modification. my motion is to accept the modification that the project sponsor agreed to. in to approve the project otherwise. >> second. commissioner antonini: it has been a long process and it was interesting to see the earlier purgation. i would have been fine with a few units workings. the project sponsor has been encouraged to build a higher

building and build more density and smaller units. that is what the project is. we can't go back to where we were before. i would like to see a couple of design things. if we can somehow cover up that stairwell. i know you have to have it, but the building would look nicer if you didn't look into an open stairwell from the front. and possibly we could articulate be smaller windows a little bit. and perhaps has strengthened the top of it. those are some of my design ideas. you can work with staff to make the design changes and i think the envelope seems to be fine. i did want to ask a question about this motion.

it did ask that this agreement hobby codify that? >> i believe what i saw was not what we had agreed to. there is a property line window essentially. they have windows that are property line windows. i don't think they are necessary. we would matched to their light well. they are asking us to step back where they had property line windows. >> whatever you signed up to is what i am talking about. >> i would like to have the drawing back up so that there is clearly on that. >> what are we gaining by this there?

it doesn't seem like a serviceable space. you can't do anything with it. what are we really gaining with that foot? >> maybe you can pass of the e- mail. >> on the very last sheet. it is directly from what they mailed. >> this is not modified. the property is set back 1 foot and only requires a two-foot incursion. it's not one foot past the window, the angle starts where the window begins. president miguel: we are just

saying where the light well is matched. is that what we're doing? do you understand that? >> [inaudible] here's the rational. that one room that comprises the living room -- >commissioner borden: i made the motion of something that was agreed to. >> the whole reason is to allow

that living room ventilation. it is not about life. >> if they were in agreement, we wanted to make sure it was part of the plan. if there is not agreement -- >> [inaudible] commissioner borden: so the modification would be to take the d.r. and match the light well? >> that is how it is now. the whole reason was to allow that one window to be free. commissioner borden: i understand your point. the building is otherwise compliant. we were trying to make an agreement there and we would like to recognize a private agreement when there is told

there is mutual agreement so that there is something to be held later. >> perhaps what we could compromise on is where the light well is, match that at the same 45 degree angle. you get that matching. president miguel: that would be my interpretation of it. >> matching the 45-degree well. commissioner olague: is that okay with you guys? i don't want to belabor it, but i want a sense of what you actually -- in going through some of the materials, it is sort of alarming the number of

allegations that are made here. i might ask mr. murphy to respond to some of them. there are all of these sort of allegations in this document. i didn't really want to go into it. i wanted to second the motion because i wanted to make sure there was language that would make something enforceable on some lovell -- level. why did not get to address this with mr. murphy, but i wanted to encourage a more positive interaction.

it seems in the past, that has not always been the case. >> this change shown in the drawings would go a long way to satisfying end. there is concern for having to defend the property rights. [unintelligible] commissioner antonini: the only other thing that i would mention, hopefully continue to work with the staff on that. they did mention [unintelligible] commissioner moore: i wanted to take a second in discuss the suggestion by commissioner

antonini. i do not think i want to participate in a design recommendation like this. it comes -- it could create a very difficult situation. i don't think i should really caapprove the project with conditions like that. i am not disrespecting in. commissioner antonini: i believe they have that latitude with the design. >> there isa