the commercial parking and originally proposed four and only now proposing two and added those two car share spaces although none are required. i also want to mention a word about the outreach and there are no requirements but we feel it's appropriate and something we want to do and ought to do. what we have is we have two general neighborhood meetings. one in early 2009 and one in late last year. we sent notices to people within 300-foot radius of the project site and if you look at the package that i submitted, exhibit a. has copies of the invitations we sent as well as a sign-in sheet of people who came to the meetings. we presented the project and you have their support letter in the exhibit. and we also presented the project to the hill neighborhood association and their support leter is exhibit c and they state in part that "it is the view of the supporting members that this project has been designed and developed with

mindfulness to work with the community and the surrounding buildings." and further, that it is the our hope that the planning commission will approve the project on may 26, 2011. so the last item i want to mention in terms of neighborhood outreach and support in exhibit d, there are over 30 letters with support from some of the neighbors that includes the residents as well as businesses. it is hard to get people to come to the hearings especially when they don't have any objections or are supportive of the project, but i hope you consider the outreach that we have done as well as the letters in our file. so one quick word about other commissions, we have obviously been to the rec and park commission as we already discussed, but we did also present the project to the hbc late last year. they overall was supportive of the design and a couple of things they liked about the project was the setback on the top floor, and they also liked

the appearance of breaking the building down into a couple of smaller sections or smaller buildings, but i'm going to hand it over to the architect who will go over the design in detail. >> thank you. herman morris. good afternoon. let's see. 18 units in four stories above the commercial, ground floor park i parking and this this is the ground floor. we have commercial units and we're currently committed to push with pg&e to get the

transformers down in the garage. one of the units has a redenial entry in the back and the driveway is far away from any intersection as possible. two flat and the second large open space and the rear yard in that area. we also have private decks on the roof deck of the building. so the neighborhood is sort of mixed in character and victo victoryia victoryians, and 1940 and pre-and post earthquake buildings but there is a predominance of 38 to 40 foot height on both sides of the structure. at the corner we have three buildings ranging from two to four stories over commercial. this is to the south. and to the west and kitty corner

to us. the street experience, pedestrian experience is wonderful. there are generally small tenants and tall first floors and transom windows above 9 feet and bookstores, galleries, mixed use materials and surfaces and toil and very vibrant and interesting street front and i proposed the contemporary high building material that takes cues from the surrounding neighborhood and is the materials and color and we want to have a strong building that will anchor the next corner. and the base shafts and capital and the base is the store front

and stone base and the shaft being three levels of residential apartments and screens. and the capital penthouse which is set back five feet on 20th street -- and six feet on valenc valenciaene and we add to that a bench that can respond to the existing heighth access of the neighboring buildings and setting back on the corner to give them more relief. as you can imagine, it is a little bit weird breaking the building into smaller modules that respond to the 25-foot loft character in the neighborhood. the corner is strong at union and bay and particularly where there is parking off the edge. this is the valencia street view.

the screens around here and strong recesses at the commercial industry under this column and at the corner. the ground floor experience as do the other ones and large amounts of glazing and high transparency and using the transom win dose and tenants can individualize these areas and plantings and signs and recessing the glass so there be k be something and a mosaic that

you can see over here. and those are the resin panels and bring in some color and the neighborhood that does well with color finnish aluminum and metal and fine corrugated metal with the panel between them and the tow er with the corner element and medical louvers and sun shades. and the penthouse.

the limestone base and the colors of the siding. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer. president olague: i guess we will hear from the public at this time. we have one speaker card. is there any additional public comment?

and i want to show the staff with the recommendation and this is the staff director at rec park and the way he excuses the shadow is according to project sponsor to eliminate shadow impacts would result in significant changes that are not viable according to project sponsor because they would have to be reduced two units. that is not the standard in prop k which says if you are under 40 feet you are looked at with different eyes than at 54 feet and the two units on the top floor and the value judgment is not appropriate for this commissioner either and it affected and colored the report

from rec park that says no problem. we're listening to the project sponsor and the project sponsor says we're going to lose units if we comply with prop k and don't cast any shadows. that went straight through the entire process and that determination was made in 2007. no one has deviated from it at all and someone in planning had it. i don't know if it affected any of their analysis to do trade-offs of this nature by prop k. and this project is really old. the first review the department had of it was in july of 2004 and that is seven years ago. this is a pipeline project that need an extension because it ended january 19 of this year and there were two years of

activity. there are staff memos saying the file is being closed because you haven't paid the bills and scurried around and came in and paid the money and reactivated it. and it is hard to understand how this needed an expansion and that is from your own question and the question that pacific northwest why do you allow a building that goes to 53'4" according to the drawings to the top of the pirapet when you could reduce the height and not cast any shadows on the park across the street. there are some setbacks but no one looked at this as the start for saying it needs to comply with prop k and it was like

saying no problem. thank you. >> this is precisely the top of project we need and we have underground parking and car share and we have a full ground floor commercial and entreeway on 20th street and we don't have a curb cut and the 14 foot ceiling which is precisely what we have been talking about for the last nine years. the general height is 52 feet and combatable with the building around this air -- and completely compatible and shadow analysis was conducted and two hours in the morning and absolutely inconsequential and am extremely proud to be associated with tony morris and

he has done a tremendous job and the building compatible with the surroundings and let me tell you about toby morris and before he takes on a prompt like this, he absolutely involves the neighborhoodhood. and he communicates with anyone and everyone that is willing to talk to. we are extremely proud he has come out with a wonderful design and the perfect fit for this area. please approve it. >> i live in the liberty hill district and use valencia on a daily basis. the project sponsor did outreach to the neighborhood association and they presented the project at a general meetings. people were fairly impressed

with the outreach and the presentation. the scale of project of an architect and i can speak about scale. and i think it is in keeping with the surroundings and i think that is a good match. and they provide detail and i think it was well thought out. and adequate parking and the units have good quality and we felt that it was a good xachl. i am not speaking for myself, but i -- i am speaking for myself and i know that liberty hill supports it and the consensus was that the project provides an example for what liberty hill neighborhood association and neighbors in general rant to see in the neighborhood to use this as a measuring stick of other projects as well. and this project seems to address a lot of the concerns and issueses and would be a good fit and good addition to the

neighborhood. thank you very much. >> my name is john murray. i am local resident in very close proximity to this project and i am 100.06% for this project. and this is the shadow thing and to me it seems a bit ridiculous. san francisco is a beautiful city, a world class city and i enjoy it and am very much looking forward to this project to help beautify the neighborhood and help the neighborhood flourish and have some new neighbors and excited about going to have some new businesses and the new residents and the new businesses will support the local economy. and i think that the project is

beautiful and as someone in direct proximity, i am in full support of the project. and i hope we get more projects like this in the area to help make our city better and more beautiful. and to help our neighborhood grow and be that much more wonderful and we continue being world class city. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i am supportive of the project and as was mentioned, there's lots of support with the 30 letters from liberty hill and also in terms of the issue with the shadow, we have already d discussed that all things considered, it is still below the .1% annual increase in what would be the allowable amount at

.06 and as far as the height is concerned, i think at 52 and a quarter feet they are a little higher than the original project which was probably 50 feet or below but part of it is crafting into the eastern neighborhoods which requires or asks for a higher ground floor which is appropriate. it looks a lot better and just as they have had to reduce their parking level in keeping with the valencia n.c.t. so it creates the grouped floor height. again, no significant no change in the shadow issue, but it was why it's a little bit higher than it originally was. and it is a great project in that there are 18 three-bedroom units changing from 1100 to 1700 square feet and this is really housing that could be appropriate for families. it is big enough, enough bedrooms, there is parking for most of them. and they're townhouses -- not

all townhouses but a number are townhouses which is a really good situation for a family to have the children at a different level and that is a very good plan. and design wise, i like it. although it's contemporary and i did talk to project sponsor and the architect and a little bit about the possibility of having a little bit less glazing and there are elements where you put a wainscoting or a lower area that could be made a little bit more definite and perhaps at the top ends of the building to make it fit in if the windows, although they are not that way, but give that apeerps and get plenty of flight there. and the same with the cornice and there is an toeft similar the late cornice line of the other buildings by having the break at the height of the adjacent buildings and tie it into the corner sand really well

done. olague r commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: just one more brief comment on the shadow. basically ms. hester is correct that the project, however fantastic it should be, is the consideration. it is whether or not there is a significant adverse impact. there isn't. that is the standard i look at. that is the first standard and i will move adoption of the motion and our packets findings that the net new shadow from the project is not adverse. >> second. olague r commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i just wanted to comment on the building it and i think it does a lot of skillful things from diven shating the building to

the -- of differentiating the streets and being in the vernacular and it's a larger building and still breaks the building down into the different building expressions and very much like stepping down and transitions to the lower buildings and i do not have any suggested modifications to the contrary and would like to differ from commissioner antonini's observations that this building in it has the design which speaks to a complete thinking it through and i don't think any xhept we make by tweaking it here and there would make it a better building as it stands as it is. i am in support of it. as it is proposed. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i would like to acknowledge the leter from liberty hill neighborhood

association and intreing they gave their full support knowing they had raised some vigorous opposition to another building in the neighborhood that we had. us which wasn't too much taller than this one i don't think but maybe the context was a little bit different. >> no parking or something. >> i think the street was narrower. just like to acknowledge that. president olague: i wanted to ask how 315 was being adhered to. it is not going to be on site? >> the sponsor has the in lieu fee. olag president olague: there is some issues i have with this project and providing three-bedroom units and asking for .75 parking which is a relief, i like that it's providing extra bicycle

spaces and al the car share and there are some good things. i don't think these types of units are going to be affordable to your average family. that is what i am concerned about actually. i know that can't be or isn't necessarily the basis for not supporting this type of a project, but i do believe they will be out of the range of your average san franciscoian who is a nurse or teacher or middle class families looking to buy in decent neighborhoods. yo i don't think these are going to be afford to believe them. at some point i would like to hear back from staff and request to actually -- i might not even be here by the time you go on the market, but i think a lot of these units, they end up selling for close to $1 million per unit and that is not affordable family housing. and that is not the type of housing that we need to see more november this city i don't think. based on what i am hearing from the housing element and based on

what i pear from abag reports and all the other studies i am constantly hearing presented to us here, i am not sure how some of the projects we're being asked to approve meet any of the standards around affordability and meeting the needs of families and keeping families here in san francisco. at some point, you know, it would be interesting to note who are moving into these units of three-bedroom housing in the mission. a lot of the new projects that we're approving here, projects that have been aproved over the past five years, i would like to know if there is a way the know who is living in two and three-bedroom units that we are allegedly making available in order to fill the void for family housing in the city. when i hear people say things like this is the type of housing we need more of, i am not

convinced that it is, especially not given the price point of most of the housing we are seeing on the market. at the end of the day, it is 55 feet and that is what we approved here and i think it's too tall and there is another project at 16th and valencia which is way massive and out of kale for what is appropriate for that time of a street and all things sate, this does ultimately conform with what it's being asked to do. but in the future i would like to see more analysis around ultimately who is living in these types of units that we are approving here.

i'm going to ask staff to discuss that with staff more. because i don't think we're meeting the needs of working families in san francisco. i just don't. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i appreciate that you are raising the question that is as not as much a discussion against the project, but this project raises questions and i like to add to that list of questions that the square feet is extremely small type of unit even for two people and i think mr. morris knows that very well. i live in one. for two adults it is extremely difficult. and you can be as neat and orderly as you are and it is really living in a shoe horn situation. and if we are talking about family housing, we need to raise our own awareness of what it means to live at 1,100 feet with two people and that is not

anything which would hinder us from approving this project but is a realistic discussion. and the next thing that i would like to discuss is that the federal government is not supporting landing on homes anymore which exceed the national average and i see mr. coleman nod and which banks will be lending and lending institutions will support lending on homes and that is not against this project but speaks to the reality of living in san francisco. i am only kind of supporting a more in-depth discussion and helping us clarify that and will address the larger issue of building housing, market rate, as well as affordable housing in

san francisco. i would like to continue to discussion and have the department more informed about where this is going. >> commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i am for this project and i think it's a good project but want to piggyback what would be interesting in the hearing is two things and that would be useful to know and a lot of parts in the u.s. with single-family homes, the average home size is 1600 square feet and we are not talking about huge places and think even though they have a different column, the average house size in the u.s. is not as big as we think unless you go to the megamcmansion areas. we will probably be surprised to know what the square footage is

and to see that data from san francisco to the extent that is possible with the average size of a unit in jeaned where that falls in and you can have a great discussion and there are families who live in hotels and individual who is live in very large places by themselves. there is a gamut and different people find livability different based upon the way they treat space or use space. so i think it's a challenge. and also in that hearing it is helpful to understand how to create incentives for inclusionary housing and if we had some independent analysis and cost per unit of that and useful to know and difficult for

developers to subsidize the units and the buildings and the maintenance of the buildings and if we're going to have the conversation, we need to look at the broad er picture to have al the facts on the table and figure out how we would craft incentives to ep courage people to do on site housing without all that kind of information we are stuck in this conundrum of approving projects that are great projects but not necessarily reaching the people we need them to reach. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i think that is the perennial issue in the city and has been for a long time. this is extremely difficult for any dreveloper to build somethig and fulfill the kind of goals we all want to have fulfilled for