27-foot curved. can you explain why your building is not doing that? >> we have both cars and service trucks entering his curveb cut,o that is why it is as wide as it needs to be. >> could you explain what is the difference? >> the code allows the two avenues. you could have two separate entrances. now i believe parking is 25 feet. >> you are saying the higher cur needs to be -- the aggregate curb cut needs to be 31 feet.

>> you can have a separate opening or two separate corbels, so an aggregate is essentially the same as if they had two separate entrances. it exceeds the technical capt. of the opening. >> could you explain that you have done everything to minimize the curb cut? >> yes, at this point the reason is because we have the route close to the bench -- close to the edge.

we have our goal to make this as narrow as it could possibly be. >> i appreciate that response, and i know there are difficulties to get a turning lane into the sidewalk. youthe letter from mr. christopr pedersen said just something about how the parking is organized. is that taken into consideration? >> i guess the answer is no. i know there was some commoent.

>> the letter speaks to imposing requirements. it is pursuant to implementation. is the something if you have read or are aware of? and if the answer is i have not. i would be interested to see you consider the. we can i ask him to reconsider it. >> i am happy to reconsider it. >> you made a motion. does that include the items?

>> i would like to split off cequa findings. >> i am kind of concerned about the set back issue, and i am very familiar with the open space plaza. it is very shaded superior -- very shaded. i am concerned about the impact it would have. it is very rare, and until the park was filled, that is the open space people have to be

outside government so i am disappointed there is a way to achieve a little more on those spaces heron -- spaces. i do not want to lose about around the corner. it does not sound like there is support for the, and i completely understand the complication. i would love to hear what commissioners think on the topic. it is often very shaded because of the tall buildings.

>> i like the well did -- a welcoming nature of the ground floor ergo, which reminds me of a one-on-one california and one of one -- 101 california, because it is unlike many buildings where they are flat against the sidewalk. it appears to be a 21st century cornice, and witches and not on the top and will break up the building and hopefully be eliminated as you approach the city. i do have some questions.

i think everyone realizes we need a curb cut. retail at second floor is a good idea. other areas have multiple floor areas that make it very attractive. maybe you can answer some questions. everything is compliant on the lower part. it goes to 160 feet, and i believe it goes to the upper floors from 15,000 as opposed to 12,000.

am i reading that correctly? >> correct. >> on the other part, the tower separation -- many parts are at 14 feet. 15 feet would be compliant. however, abortion is at 6.5 -- a portion is of 6.5. >> the entire set back is up six and a half feet, but i would like to point out of the existing property is and if this thing and walk away -- is a walk away you would see, so without the property line visible it would be about 45 feet.

the mechanical ventilation that occupies about 1/3 of the wall would intrude from the easterly property line. >> where is the 45-foot separation? most of it at the expense of the existing power bowman -- existing tower? >> i would be at the north. >> it is mostly because the adjacent building is set for other black, -- said further back, and the final issue was the shattering issue. -- shadow issue. since this is only at the upper part of the tower, and since it is a small building, i seem to

read in your report there would not be a significant change in shadowing for a new building over six floors. am i correct? >> for the building or other sorts? >> for the adjacent property. >> it would be a dynamic and shifting situation. it would be heavily shadowed. there would be sunlight and various parts of a curator -- various parts.

they do not necessarily benefit from a lot of sunlight. >> they are usually on the fringes. >> high noon is the most opportune time for sun life. -- sunlight to. >> there was an asking for a continuance. i do not know based upon what was heard now if we can make any changes, but i would certainly, if the project goes forward, i would ask no property sponsor continue to work on. i do not know if we need to continue it for about to happen.

even though we are not talking about this, earlier we talked to a representative looking for a new site. we need a broader floor plates for the type of enterprise and we have today. that is what we hear a lot. if you have to increase the staff size you have not less utilization in the lower areas. you have a constrained site. if there is a way to do minor alterations that would be consistent it would not need to

come back to us. i believe is 10%. >> i think it is a good design considering the footprint. . the businesses are looking for these. this is someone reflective of fthe transbay.

i would be very supportive of buildings but closed off the space. the entire area needs that kind of openness. i appreciate the fact the patio's on the ground floor may have less sunlight. they believed were the years they will take care of creating a park with some light in it appeared -- in it.

i notice you have three designated vehicles. it had nothing to do with approvals, and that is really insufficient. i would urge you to -- you have got enough time to work on a diet -- that so it can be implemented in the future.

>> did you have comments? comissioner sugaya: no. >> if there is the way the project sponsor could continue to look at the existing space, the other space could be protected, and that would be my preference. it is regrettable these conversation did not happen sooner. >> i will be brief. i appreciate the program you have in mind for the arts usage, collaboration with a local college, and i look forward to seeing that once it is in place. i do want to comment on the letter we received from mr.

peterson. the last paragraph is something i would like you to review. it is not something i think would prevent me from supporting the project, but they mentioned parking regulation prohibits practices such as long-term leases, and that is something to keep in mind, electric cars and this kind of thing, so at one. we have a discussion about what it means for transit parking requirements and some congest june pricing -- congestion pricing, so i hope we can talk

about this item. comissioner sugaya: there is a comment made with respect to advertising. can they use those animated things for advertising? >> they cannot use that for general advertising. they could conceivably use it for businesses, but it will primarily be used for art. the planning code already contains provisions that could disturb voluntary parking. i think those concerns are addressed.

they would approve some modifications, and it would come back to the commission. >> the motion on the floor is the request to take the entitlement separately, so on the motion for approval for the quality arct. [calling folvotes] the motion passed, six-one, with commissioner sugaya voting against.

on approval, commissioner antonini? [calling votes] thank you, commissioners are reagan >> we closed the public hearing on the variants and would note that the requirement is a 27-foot maximum, but they could provide two individual ones, but that could be 22 feet for the loading. it would justify granting the variants. the decision is not final until the letter is issued.

we will mail you a copy. it has an appeal window of 10 days to the of board of appeals. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now on your agenda item, and it is for the fiscal year budget and development and proposed approval of the budget for submission to the mayor's office. this is an action item. >> today we have the budget for our action, and i would say two words. last week we presented the proposed new budget. there is essentially no change

for the current year, and we will get back tune about future funding for two large region back to you about future funding for two large projects that are not currently funded, but i will ask you to quickly go over the high life -- highlights. >> last week represented the work plan for the various sections that included the work program. there was some funding in last year's and budget through grants

they were able to secure, so that is available through the planning and administrative code and application increases. the proposed budget does not contain increases for america's cup and the work required under the health care master plan, so are there any questions? i am able to answer them. >> i will open it up to public comment on the budget. seeing none, public comment is

close. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> on the motion for approval of the balanced budget -- [calling votes] thank you, commissioners. the motion passes. you have a general public, -- general public comments. >> is there any general public comment? general public comment is closed, and this meeting is

adjourned, i believe. >> ec's. --it is. we will actually get the meeting at a quarter until for, and we will need to go out and take a short break before we come to that item, so we will be back here. >> thank you.