saving the neighbors one big window, stepping its down, there is 3 feet they want us to stick back, which is not the acceptable to us, but we would like a 33-foot structure to match the height next door, and i think if we do that, we are there. >> are you going to go 33 on that motion? >> that is all right. comissioner moore: i wanted to reflect on what you said. it concerned me there was an expression of distrust in the

department. we are a revolving door. some of us make it to eight years, but some of its has a common vision with the public trust, and while they often do not agree with mr. williams, i think it is well-taken, and i have heard from quite a few people who have reasonable efforts to really get across the message. i think it should instill a certain amount of trust in you. i am a little surprised that the

department really changed its basic position on it. i do not believe this particular building is an exceptionally good building. it is rather bulky, and it is quite civilized but clear. i want to express my hope that should we come to a situation like this again there will be a little bit more interaction between the commission or educating the public that opinions have changed and the reasons why. it was basically the department supporting something different from what was approved. >> when the department's respectfully disagree, i believe this is very consistent and not take a deal, and we have a disagreement of the design of

this particular building. >> i guess we have a motion. >> i guess the only question, and this is more to the neighbors. there was something almost close to being negotiated, and what it makes sense to continue is that you would get what was discussed before or with the approach that we have come up with here is a better approach, and i am not clear on that. i am not clear if it is more mutually of beneficial or if you were there at the same place versus the decision we are making here, and if he does not give me some insight into that, maybe the architect can give me some insight. obviously, we could continue,

and if you could come together, we would not have to see this at all. >> that would be preferable. >> i would rather not have us make the decision, because it is more arbitrary. >> i agree. >> i guess what we are asking is we have given some direction. it sounds like you are getting close to some kind of an agreement, and if we give you until august 12, we could schedule that for the next hearing date. perhaps we will not see it again.

>> i represent the party across the street. we got together as a neighborhood to try to resolve the matter. it was a difficult task getting 30 neighbors together and to come up with a proposal to the sponsor. it took almost 10 days to respond, and if it seems the sponsor was giving us a response in a timely manner and actually rejected us. >> that is not the question.

if you do not want to do it, we're going to carry on the motion. >> we have a 12-foot alley. >> what was important to the neighbors is if it was allowed for the project instead of a fourth story, it should be at the height of two stories. the two stories to be sent back 3 feet so the rear yard of the subject property would actually be on the alley in an enlarged sidewalk, so it has a wall of buildings, but as you move down, the wall opens up as you

go forward. it is a bigger set back and we were looking for. it is important to the design. >> we have other projects to hear. >> here is the thing. that is one particular design you and the neighbors have come up with. the project sponsor may not agree with that specific thing in front of you, so there is still going to be some consideration. are they willing to enter into that at this point, >> we are interested in anything that would make a fourth story.

>> i think given the circumstances you should take control of the situation you're a dead i thought i was here to read-emphasize -- take control of the situation. i thought i was here to reemphasize. we did come close to reaching an agreement. we want to go back to the existing retaining wall and go back 33 feet. >> that seems to be where we are headed. whatever design, we will be seeing it again. >> is it possible since we are really close, the width of the podium we are arguing about, do we need to come back?

if we reach an agreement? i'd just wanted to ask if it could be handled through staff. >> if it is filed, it has to come back. >> it does not have to come back. >> we have a final motion. we will repeat the motion. there is not a motion for continuance currently. we will not be calling it back up. we heard from both parties to make a decision today and whatever. that is what i heard i am sorry. it is going on forever.

>> i think we should clarify the motion >> let's clarify the motion. >> the motion is the building should be no higher than 33 feet with -- the commission does not grant it. with the recommendation that it would be possible to gain some additional square footage for the building. >> i agree with that being the only parameter. if project sponsor feels fit into 33 feet and four floors, that is up to them. it is probably not possible. it is little -- >> i think it is unfortunate it is going away.

i am supportive of the motion completely, and if you look at some of them, it is easier to understand why people are so concerned about these issues, because we saw a lot of areas go from blue-collar working middle- class neighborhoods to neighborhoods that were impossible for the average san franciscan to afford. >> it does not exceed 33 feet in

height. it does not mention floor. we recommend the possibilities of a variance to allow some additional square footage to the building. on that motion? [calling votes] thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. >> commissioners, you are now on item number 16. >> figuring is still going, so if you could live quietly -- we've quietly, we would

appreciate that. -- if you could leave quietly, we would appreciate that. >> it appears to have fallen off. >> i saw something dropped. >> we are at no. 16, and then we will go to the project.

>> we are on 16? we are on 16.

>> that is fine with me. >> i guess we are ready to begin item number 16. we are ready. >> good evening. this is a request for a mandatory discretion are reviewed to develop medical can of those facilities between

first and second streets. they will not allow smoking on site, and they will not alter the exterior of the building. it is not within 1,000 feet of any school. a concern did arise that a youth leadership center is near, but the zoning determine that is not the case. it is located in one of the few areas where they can meet the requirements. the sponsor has been meeting with concerned neighbors and has agreed to conditions the commission may wish to include. those include no campus smoking -- cannibus smoking. the project sponsor would appoint a community liaison.

the department has received three letters in opposition to the project and recommend you approve the project with conditions as the use compliance to all requirements of the planning code. i have a copier of it. -- a copy of it. >> projects sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself and explain why i am the appropriate person for this project your your i believe

everything it is on the table, and august 11, 2000, i was paralyzed. i had to spend three months in a wheelchair and a year in rehabilitation, and going through traditional medicine, i know it is an impact on my body and my general mental and physical condition. a few years after, i found medical canibus and it has made me a much happier person theory your i am an adaptive -- a much happier person. i am an adaptive person, and i

would like to encourage others to compete in extreme sports they thought they would not be able to do. i have worked with adaptive sports west for construction, and north star has agreed to give us space on the mountain. this is funded by the project. i am proud of everything we have done so far. i'll leave it up to you to be the judge. >> thank you curator -- thank you. >> good evening, ladies and

gentleman. it turns out it is not quite as important. >> we were year the other night. >> until 3:00 in the morning. >> my name is maciel. -- matthew. i had been working for the project sponsor to make sure the program complies with state laws, which require collectives, no profit during give what we are doing is setting up social service that will use can ibus as a basis for finding. as you can see, it has not

stopped him. the goal is to make sure we provide medical canibus in a format acceptable to the community. i was very involved in negotiations with the neighbors, and we did everything we could to make sure we are going to be operating with the principles that fit into the character. i sing the type of programs they are considering are very unique. i have hundreds of clients in california and colorado.

i would say this is a high- quality product, and i would urge the commission to approve it, and i think you will be very pleased with the results. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i move to approve the project with condition. >> second. >> we got a couple of letters to speak against this obligation. apparently, the zoning administrator considered not only the use leadership institute -- youth leadership institute also preschool as being community centers, which would be a community clubhouses,

which would be the same as elementary schools. i am not clear on that. maybe you can tell me about that. >> the zoning administrator said they were not community clubhouse owners. they do have a meeting room they meet at occasionally, but they do not do programs out of the debt facility, and the other two facilities are the child care centers. they are not schools or community clubhouses. >> child care centers do not count. >> they were not given the consideration. they were not what the board of supervisors chose to put on the list. >> i guess kids behave

differently if they are in child care than if they are in school. >> the motion is to take discretionary conditions. [calling votes] comissioner antonini: no. >> that motion passes. you are now on item 123 done -- on item 12. 12b is a request for the granting of variances curio -- of variances. comissioner sugaya: before you get started, i need to ask the commission to recuse.

my firm is still under contract on 150 otis. it is a different property, but it is the same client. >> ok. [calling votes] >> commissioner sugaya is recused. the acting zoning administrator will consider the request. >> commissioners, planning department staff, before we get to item 12, there are a few things i would like to give to you. the comments time for this

project ended on july 28. -- on july 20. there was a letter of appeal. there appellants -- the appellants have rescinded that appeal, and i have the letter here along with the original appeal letter. the final-declaration was signed on july 22, 2010, and i have copies of fact sheet -- of the sheet, and since the declaration was prepared, the project has changed, and instead of 61 units, it would have 75, and

there is a change in three- bedroom units. it is going down to five, and the 1-bedroom units -- eight were analyzed, and 36 were opposed. the only change that would be made is the unit count. everything else would remain. i had a note for you on that change, stating there would be four vehicles instead of 54, but none of the impact would change and the mitigation efforts would apply to the project.

kevin is here to present items 12 a and 12 feet if you do not have any questions. --b and 12 if you do not have any questions. >> the parking demand is lower now othan it was very dead >> -- then it was. maybe i reinterpreted what you just said. >> with the revised project, there were 54. >> the demand would still be the same. it might be higher now it seems to me.

>> she is talking about traffic, not parking. >> although i am saying if there was a change to traffic, there would be a change to unmet demand, not that it is going to make too much difference. >> parking-related demand would remain the same with the revised project. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. the request before you is for conditional use development on a site that was formerly developed on the embarcadero freeway. the project proposes to demolish an existing parking lot and construct a new eight-story building containing 75 portable

dwelling units a