reasons. the first is that if you look at the way it's designed from the rendering in the front of the thing, it blends very well from the block just from the facial aspect. but if you look at adjacent properties you will see that there is an area of a fifth floor, partial fifth floor on the jennifer solomon property that's to the uphillside and it's essentially up the sight as you can see the picture with the rendering, it actually does step down a little from there. and it does step down from the front edge of her upper floor to allow views out of her windows from what i can tell there. and that seems to be front me and also there is a smaller structure on the -- the house that's to the down hillside.

i think this is property. i think they've gone along way particularly to address the concerns of the neighbors on clay street which are the most impacted because the impaction on the adjacent neighbors are mostly view issues where as there actually -- can be some -- could be some shadow issues on the clay street side. although they have brought that structure in a bit to minimize a bit as was pointed out by the project sponsor and his shadow study show the impact which i don't feel is significant enough not to approve the project. so i think it's well done and i'm in favor of it. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, i'd like to first thank project sponsor for making some changes. however based on my previous comments, i think that has it gone far enough? as i commented before, i think that -- i don't mind the

addition of the fifth floor. i think it's too big, however. and if you compare council member tatiana kostanian: the penthouses that are on the adjacent properties, if you took about half of it off then it would be comparable and it would be within the neighborhood character. just looking at the plan -- i do have one question before going on though, in the presentation with by project sponsor they mentioned that tell vaytor was removed yet, we have elevators showing on these plans. >> i can -- i can answer that. our effort really concentrated -- we were focusing on the upper floors. i'm sorry the elevator still shows on the few lower floor drawings but that's just a drafting error. in fact, it states inside that the elevator's gone. >> what are you going to put that space? >> we're going to relay the kitchen and the bathroom. >> all right. thank you.

i think i was more comfortable if the upper floor were reduced by removing the area that's devoted to the dining and kitchen and given that you can reconfigure the floor plan between the two floors to see what you can get. i think you can still retain two bedrooms out of the three and have a fairly comfortable living unit there. so that would be my -- i'll make a motion to take d.r., approve the project -- >> it's conditional use. >> so you approved the c.u. with the upper floor being the size of what's being shown as the current living area. >> second. commissioner antonini. >> ok. i was going to ask mr. crawford for a comparison of the relative size, if you vu that of the the fifth floor structure that's to the up hillside as to the proposed

fifth floor of this project. >> i don't have the size of the neighbors. >> not that it makes that much difference. i guess the only reason i would be opposed to the motion is that if there were a demonstrateable impact and although this is not a d.r. hearing, i realize but we still have to use the same concepts. what are we trying to make other than to constrict the size of their dwelling unit? i don't see any impacts that have been demonstrated. i think it's appropriate as it was designed in the latest rendition the project sponsor did. >> i'd argue that it's a neighborhood character issue and if you look at 1.1 of the architect's presentation, the penthouses on either side are shown the penthouses that are shown as larger on lots that are are one away from the two

adjacent properties, i believe are bigger because they actually are on quite larger buildings and have a lot more units in them. so if you take what's shaded on the adjacent properties, i think they're approximately equivalent to what the living room area is proposed to this particular project. project sponsor, could i ask you a question? in regards to the suggestion by commissioner sugaya, do you have any feelings about that? >> thank you for asking that question, commissioner antonini. there are conflicting things here. without putting words in people's mouths, i think the -- ms. solomon's objection is the front porch of the edition. and the other is the entirety of the edition and the clay street folks are of course

objecting to the back. i'm not sure if removing the back parts of the edition is going to resolve the objection. the other thing i have to say is in truth -- you must look at the rendering and see from street -- from the street, it is entirely within character and from above it is entirely within character. and i have a rendering of the finished product here for me to look at. i'm closer here if you wish. >> could i see that if you want to put the latest rendering up. let's see. there it is. that would be great to see because i think you can get a better idea. i'm not so sure. i guess the character of the neighborhood, i mean, as seen from pleasant street, obviously, you do not see these upper, these fifth floors. if you're high enough to look down on them, you will see them. but there are a series of areas that have fifth floors along that street. and i don't know that this

would make any difference on the character of the neighborhood. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, i'll just responding somewhat. my position -- i don't have any other questions here for the architect. it's not based on people's views. i really don't care if the neighbor's views get blocked or not. and the positioning of the space doesn't have to be, you know, where the living room is currently. i'm just saying space. an equivalent number of square footage and the height can be placed wherever the architect feels that it would work best and whether that's towards the front with the balcony or toward the rear or whatever, that doesn't matter to me either. so i'm just saying that at the fifth floor, we have something that's about the equivalent in size, height and whatever is the current living room and

that that space can be placed wherever they want on that elevation. >> do we have motion -- should i call the question? oh, commissioner antonini. >> just in looking at the plans here and i guess what i'm hearing from commissioner sugaya is to take off what's marked as the living room. >> no, i'm saying take off the back. >> the equivalent of what would be the -- >> marked dining room here. >> yeah, dining and the kitchen. >> it's part of the kitchen. >> so if you draw a line from the light well or the pantry across horizontally, looks like kind of -- half of what -- half the size. >> approximately. >> i'm in agreement with staff who is supportive of the project. >> right. >> could i ask for some clarification, commissioner?

>> you would run a line straight across from the back of the light well and exclude that area and then that's the area you're talking about? >> yes. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioners the motion on the floor is for approval as modified with the adjustment that commissioner sugaya has modified. is that the same as the upper floor -- to be the size of the current living area? ok. with that reduction that you've outlined to staff? >> right. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commission 234er gordon? >> aye. >> commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> aye.

and motion passed on a 5-1 vote with commissioner antonini voting. thank you, commissioners. you are now on item number 16. >> good afternoon, president olague and commissioners. this is an annual office allocation project to eliminate a condition of approval requiring that ground floor assembly space and upper floor office space be leased to a nonprofit organization at below market rate. the commitment of the space to a nonprofit was made voluntarily by the sponsor at the time. the space was intended to be offices for spur which has since constructed offices at an alternative location. the project is within the 500 s

districts. the original project is for the construction of a 33-story building with 550,000 square feet of office space, 4,000 square feet of assembly space. the revised project changed -- oh, i'm sorry -- the building has been cruct and occupied and continues to comply with the f. ampt r. and the other applicable planning code requirements. the property owner has been seeking nonprofit tenants since 2008. and has not found an organizations that are available within a five-block radius of the sight. the project will not displace a nonprofit organization and the nonprofit space was voluntarily reserved, reck mensds the modification -- recommends modification.

i'm available for questions. >> thank you, project sponsor. >> commissioner, andrew genius for the properties. i'm not going to belabor the points. the material is very clear. we've enjoyed working with them on this. it's very civil. it was specifically designed for spur at a time we thought they were going to go into that building. the spurs are in their wonderful knew home at 565 mission. we've been working very hard and it's time to release this space. with the trance way terminal going on, with the wonderful plaza, a good retail use, likely a food use frankly. at this space, it's going to be a great edition no the plaza, a great edition. otherwise this space is going to sit vacant. i don't think there's not too

much for it. thank you very much. >> i'd like to open it up for public comment. >> good evening, commissioner, gabriel metcalfe, executive director for spur. i'm here to support the project applicant. it didn't work out to be in the building. we're very happy. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore? commisioner moore: should they be as successful taking both spaces, i don't see any reason not to approve. so move to approve. >> commissioner antonini? >> i was going to speak to it. there is a retail in that area and that would help a lot. >> there's a motion on the floor for approval on that?

>> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. it has been approved unanimously. you are on item 17 a and b. there's been a request from the supervisors to continue this item for three weeks. >> so we'll hear the continuance at this time. >> any speakers in support of the continuance? whoever would like to speak either for or against. >> good evening, commissioners. steve on behalf of the project sponsor. at noon today we are agreeable to a two to three week continuance at the request of the supervisor. i understand your calendar is busy. >> july 7th -- >> i would like to rearrange the schedule for a two-week

continuance. >> july 7 is the next date that we can actually hear it. july 7 would with the next day that we can hear it. >> we would request a two to three week continuance. >> it's not even up to us, really. our calendar is just completely -- >> closed. >> it's closed. it's really. i mean, on june 9, we're hearing it's just outrageous. i'm looking at the advanced calendar now and truthfully all the hearings are closed. -- until july 7. that's the soonest we can hear this item. >> i would like to point out that this matter was continued for 10 weeks in march. the association had plenty of time to bring forward their proposal. it happened this week. so it's very upsetting to the project sponsor to have a 10-week continuance and then

another month continuance when this project's been ready to go. >> we'll be voting whether or not to even continue it. but if we do continue it, it will be to july 7 because that's the first open date we have on the calendar. is there any additional public comment? >> i'm the project sponsor and i would oppose a continuance if it's going to be for that date. >> ok. >> is there any additional public comment related to this continuance? related to the continuance? continuance only. we're just speaking to the continuance to this item at this time. >> my name is robert frankel, i'm with rushing hill neighbors. we would be for the continuance due to the fact that we sent everybody home at 12:00. we sent out e-mails and did facebook changes to our sight. so, you know, from here from

the beginning that they were requesting a continuance -- yeah, would we be in favor of appear continuance with one step lation. if you speak about the project if you would give us a better understanding of how we could continue, you know, to come together with the developer -- >> is there any additional comments related to the continuance of this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: what is the specific request from the supervisor's office? >> i want to speak that. commissioner sugaya: because we don't have a representative from the supervisor? >> i will just say that, you know, kathrin the supervisor, she's often contacted us that he wanted the project continued because the neighbors had an idea about a transit pub. so this is the time for you to speak about the continuance.

we're continuing it only for that purpose. if we're not going to think about that, then there's no reason to continue this item. that was the purpose of the continuance as was expressed by supervisor's khu's staff. [inaudible] >> well, we're just speaking to the won't -- continuance. i made that clear. he spoke in favor and he spoke against it. we closed the public hearing on the discussion of the continuance. we heard comments from the both sides. >> matter in front of us is whether we should continue. do you think there's anything valuable that's going to happen between now and july -- the supervisor seemed to indicate that there was some other alternative tooze why he wanted to continues. >> excuse me, i just direct it to commissioner. >> and this came when? >> yesterday. yesterday.

yesterday. >> i mean, personally it's a little frustrating when something's been noticed on the calendar for quite some time and in the 11 th hour someone contacts you about the idea of doing something. i'm supportive because of the project sponsor agreed to it. but they wouldn't agree for it to be in july but there's no way we could hear it before -- >> if any of you want to look at the calendar, any of the commissioners -- i mean. i just don't see how we could fit it in before july 7th, i don't. >> it's a question about whether or not we think continuing will change the conversations. are >> that's not for us to make the call. the supervisored asked then i don't think we can question it. it would have been niced if there would have been somebody representing the opinion but i don't think it's up to us to second guess what the substance of the supervised discussion with his district is. >> commissioner antonini?

>> well, i will be supportive because the supervisor has asked. although i can remember instances when supervisors have asked for continue -- continuances and we didn't grant them. there are some advantages to try to work out some of the issues still remain. one of the opportunities might be if there are issues between any of the neighbors and the project sponsors in regards to the actual form of the project itself that might be resolveable during that time. that might be a good opportunity to do that. i'm not saying there are things that need to be clanged with the project in regards to its position of its upper element in particular. this is an opportunity to work on that in addition to the thoughts that the supervisor

wants to explore about whether or not there's value in keeping these garages this one in particular and maybe city wide as parking structures and areas that are compromised and don't have enough parking. that's a decision we're going to have to make in regards to this one and i think the project sponsored moved a long way towards acome dating some of the -- accommodating some of the neighborhood needs. these are things that can be done, probably. >> commissioner miguel? >> i think to continue this item, i will probably vote to do so because of the commissioner, a supervisor's request. the information that i received from his office yesterday with the request seemed very little to do with the project. it seemed more to do with a citywide concept. i am not going to discuss that

now because i have some very definite feelings about that, which in my mind would take that concept somewhere between five and 10 years into the future. and i can detail that one. but in the interim i will support it. commissioner alan: -- commissioner o laly: commissioner more? >> we have five thursdays in june or can we do a special meeting? or do we not do that for a specific project. i'm posing a question rather than saying that's what we need to do. >> just a couple of things about that.

if you want a special hearing you probably want to hear more projects. i'm scheduled to take some time thauf week. we base our calendars on your calendars. >> so june 30th would be the only time -- date in june if you look at the event calendar, we all have copies, you can see that the calendars are not light in june. >> does that mean we're also going to extend the meeting times like starting at -- starting even earlier than 12:00? >> like june 9th we have a se qua meeting and then we have a regular meeting. and then june we have items set for specific times. >> i understand. >> so we're a little concerned with even the way the calendar

looks even. i mean the 16th could -- well, we don't want to -- we have moved a lot of smaller items, d.r.c.'s around. so a lot of project sponsors have been waiting to be heard. i don't want to inconvenience projects either because a lot of individual projects have been pretty patient with us given our, you know, very -- our calendar that's involved a lot of really lengthy projects like partmore said and all of these have forced a lot of projects to be moved off. the 16th might be one where one might consider adding it. i think that's about the only day in june -- >> only if we start it earlier. >> did you want to do that? >> the other suggestion, there are a couple of items on the

16th that are staff items that we could conceivably -- >> that would work. >> that we could conceivably put off. >> so june 16th. june 16th would be it. ok. >> do we have a motion for that? >> is there a motion? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i'd like to agree with commissioner miguel. i think i know what the overall issue -- well, the city policy issue and etc. is with respect to that has triggered. and i'd have to agree that it's going to take a lot of vetting and so -- but i -- at the same timely support the continuance out of deference to the supervisor. commissioner fung? >> thank you. i just wanted to point out that again, i think i know what maybe the ideas is. i will say the project sponsor in my opinion has made some

pretty significant changes to the project to try to accommodate the nubs. it's a little bit krgeso concerns at this hour that there are still difference ises of opinion within the neighborhood. but i'm supportive to hear it. i want to make a mention because we had another project not to long ago i was not supportive of continuing. you were suddenly changing the rule on a particular type of use midstream where the project head sponsor had jumped through all the hoops we asked him to do, paid all the fees and at the last moment changed. so if we're going to study a larger citywide kind of program, i'd say that, you know, we get through the projects that are being proposed right now and you know, if you want to stop it tomorrow, that's fine but don't stop it yesterday. i'm not sure -- you know, if we want to put a moratorium and do a study then do it tomorrow but

not today. >> commissioner antonini? >> i agree with commissioner fung entirely. it's sort of those grandfathered or pipeline project, you know, that this is something that commissioner miguel is going to take a long time to vet out and study. so we have to continue where we've already spent a lot of time and money on this project and consider this not necessarily looking through the prism of whatever may come from this study. >> yeah, because there's overwhelming support from the commission. in the past there always hasn't been when the supervisor requested a continuance. i never received one either. and the commission didn't either. but since the majority of the commission is going in that direction, then i'm willing to support it. june 16th. >> commissioners, i just want to be very careful because you

made a very strong point in the recent past about your calendars an your hearing days and the impact of going -- having long hearings and going late into the night. it's very important that if you continue this item to the 16, that items come off that calendar. >> well, -- i think because i was studying -- i was sort of reviewing. there were a couple of informational items. >> i think that will accommodate what you're trying to do hear. i just want to be on record that i'm reminding you of your desire to have your hearings more managed. >> and it's us making that decision. >>s that you making that decision. and i thank you for that. yep. i agree. >> so with that commissioners, the motion on the floor is to

continue this item without hearing through june 16. sit june 16 -- is it june 16? >> commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. are -- commission olague? >> this motion will continue on june 16. commissioners, you are now on item 18, a, b, and c. case number 2009.0685 b and 2010.05.77 dd. all from 309, 311 eureka street. >> good evening, commissioners. sofey heyward, planning staff. the request before you is a request for discretionary review for the demolition of the two-story,