pattern rather than pretending they are rumbling through the open countryside. having said that, i think this is one of the more mature responses we could see so quickly after working on the eastern neighborhood and having tracked this project relative to ownership and reparcelization. these are the challenges supervisor maxwell imposed. i am not concerned that seventh straight -- street would create a bad precedent. i'm encouraged by comments made by mr. -- seventh street is single loaded. if you have an elevated freeway, there is no such thing as having an active street on the other

side to respond to. the weaving in and out of tracking the corner was -- [unintelligible] having 100 feet of a garage. i think for me that is a responsible and good idea. this is rarely a bikeway. 100 feet of a garage with people honking on seventh on the bike, there will not see it. it is like a green screen. that is how you perceive the nahyan active use. the building does some amazing things. i am looking at responsible models and i will pause for identification, this is one of them. the height is not an exception. the heights was premeditated in how we looked out what was necessary to rezone the eastern

neighborhood. with -- with a responsible attitude toward protecting pdr. this is as close as we could get. i appreciate the summary on the institutional proximity. the other institutions which are close by khomeni active users with large numbers of employees, we are moving in the right direction. i like the architectural response. this fresh and thought- provoking. i like the reflection on the color scheme. and this is another difference story. i think it is a strong project and that is -- it has my support. >> commissioner antonini: i think this is a good project and i have a few concerns and i brought them up with the project sponsor. the first one is as was

presented. the affordable units will be done on site and that is great. it will be proposed, mentioned as a rental project although i am sure it will be -- as projects are. you have had some opinions because of the fact that density bonus as part of the eastern neighborhoods is the ability to avoid problems with costa hawkins or palmer considerations. it works the you ran it through and got opinions and you feel confident it is okay and you have a backup plan if for some reason is not in regards to that. those details can be worked out. i hope it does work out and you're able to do the 20% on site. there was a concern about height. it sounds like when we did eastern neighborhoods, and any revisions the supervisors might have done, the highest was

decided at a certain height. 68 feet is compliant and there was a question, maybe someone answer me about the additional structures that will be above. there was a concern raised it will be 84 feet. is that accurate or not accurate? is it allowed that your official height is 68 but the additional height is things that are allowed as normal on roof type structures. >> the height limit is 68 feet and the building roof is at 68. under the planning code, there is rooftop provisions that are exempt in all districts. including parapets, you have to have them by code. they are analog exception. there is a small love -- amount of rooftop features that are also required.

stairs to the roof and elevators, and penthouses. mechanical rooms. they are very small percentages of the route space. you are allowed up to 20%. we are below 20% of the roof space. the only thing that goes up to 16 feet is the elevator penthouses. commissioner antonini: let's try to keep the design so the more we can ask these elements, the better. if you are high enough looking down you will see them but someone at the same height or from a distance away on ground level, the more we can ask these, the better. whatever you are allowed to do with parapets is welcome. comments were made upon the unit

sizes and they talked about 700 square feet as being an average. i assume there is a distribution here. i do not know that there are a three-bedroom units. it would be nice if we did have distribution to allow for units that would accommodate people with children that needed more bedrooms and if that can be worked out as part of the plan. i think if it is done in the right way, it can be done without new approval but to redistribute york unit makes more to try to accommodate -- your unit to try to accommodate that. there was a question about parking also. the neighbors make a good case about it being somewhat underparked. that is the best we will do. especially on potrero hill.

there is a lot of parking at mission bay that i am aware of and hopefully, there will be other structures that will be built to allow some of the employees to park and not have to look for street parking in the vicinity. another thing that was brought up was the transit on 16th street. that is critical. that is a major corridor between caltrain and light rail and bart on 16th and mission. that is unnatural for other robust transit that brings people right along there. they have every reason to believe that people coming in on part are using -- the might want to make that shortcut to get to the mission bay area. to go further along and having to take the light rail in the other direction, even though we will get the central subway in the future. that has to be studied.

architecturally, a good job. i know you are working on the -- with the neighborhood on the palette. the windows, it is a little bit of an unusual window pattern and somewhat random. i know there is a reason but generally windows are more symmetrical. i do not know, i am not trying to make this and to a more traditional building. in the context of contemporary architecture, where we can not so much on the flatiron building but on the other, if we can do something with the windows, some sort of not necessarily moldings, but something to set them off a little. instead of being holes in the side of the building. it would add to the richness of the building and mr. baker can do some things on that to try to

make it a little dressier and make it more welcoming. and that is basically the thing. the three things talking architecturally, it is hard because you have three areas. mission bay, showplace square, a quasi-pdr area and you have potrero hill. somewhat small housing units. it is important that the architecture come out right and we're not -- we have had many hearings on this. that part that faces toward potrero hill, we can make it more respectful to that which would be good. i know some efforts have been made in doing this. those are my main feelings. it is a good project. i would hope that you can continue to work with neighbors, particularly those who spoke about the concerns about the

project and its impact to them. the potrero hill side. >> commissioner sugaya: i am in support of the project. i am disappointed we do not have 3-bedroom units. i do not know if we can make that a condition or not. i think there needs to be some serious consideration given to changing the types of units that are in this development. tthe height is fine, the scale is fine, the book is fine. i think the name of the planner is jan -- i was reading something about him. his term is creative density. were responsive -- responsible density. -- or responsible but density. the height he was referring to

was six or eight stories. it is definitely not high rises. i think if you look at different patterns around the city, especially in the tenderloin, you find buildings upwards of 10 stories where you have an extreme amount of density without going to high-rise construction and that is one of the reasons i kind of like this project. i like the open spaces. and now that we have the daggett street right-of-way cleared up and the city will retain ownership, so that is a good thing. overall, i like the project a lot, except for the unit makes. >> president olague: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i would like to remind ourselves that recently we had a

reproportioning of units with three-bedroom units coming back saying the market was not going that way. in the end, i am saying i know anything, the developer will be tuned to what the market will require. and so i think many of these larger projects retain a certain degree of interpretation and flexibility within their entitlement to respond to the market. if 90% of people want three- bedrooms, he will not have -- build studio apartments. i will pass the question on to anybody but that would be my thought. we have had this discussion here recently. with respect to re-entitling

buildings. >> i agree. the reality is we have tried to rent three-bedroom units and they are difficult. their rented by folks that are -- they are rented by it folks that are three roommates as opposed to families which does not serve the purpose. >> commissioner moore: the reason why pushed the button was a different reason. if architect baker could respond. we very recently i am projects which were more adjoining rincon corridor were made aware of the fact that buildings in proximity to freeways had to be more

cognizant of air pollution, and particulate matter. in what way are you responding to that or where it? >> -- aware of it? >> we are mechanically ventilating and filtering the air. by the freeway, all those units have mechanically ventilated air. >> commissioner moore: they are responding to it. thank you. we have difficult -- a difficult double motion. we have an appeal on ceqa. >> it is not an appeal. it is the adoption of the ceqa. >they were called up

together. >> commissioner moore: i would make a motion for part and and . >> second. >> if i could respond to the comments about the transit and the heights exceptions. there is a 20% exception. there is a -- about the transit on 16th street. it is envisioned as a brt so that should address the transit concerns. the 22, you cannot get the 20 to two blocks away. it sure what. >> president olague: commissioner sugaya?

>> commissioner sugaya: just to follow up on that. for any purpose? >> basically for any purses than -- purpose that is listed in the code for mechanical equipment, skylights, whenever an exception. 20% total. -- what ever it exception. 20% total. -- whenever exceptiatever excep. >> commissioner sugaya: it calls for various unit mixes -- i think that is the perspective i am coming from. i realize the and lasalso becaue of the drive to provide affordable housing, there are requirements. if this was market driven, we

would not have affordable housing at all. i think the public policy aspect of it has to take some precedent. >> president olague: i wanted to mention, this has been a long time coming. i remember meeting about this during the eastern neighborhoods discussion, talking about daggett triangle. the issue was the pdr usage. something that supervisor maxwell had a lot of concerns about. that was something that was taken up at the board. ultimately, i think it is a good decision and it will work out to the benefit of the city. just given where a lot of the conversation around that was going. lately it seems to be revitalization, as far as the industry is concerned. it is probably good that she was so insistent although initially,

i did not understand -- did not necessarily agree with that. i really like the architecture, i like the flatiron building. all the open space. this has been vetted forever, for a long time, six years or more. i am ready to see this move ahead. sometimes i think the architecture, i do not have much to say to an architect usually about their idea or design. i think it is something that sometimes an architect, mr. baker left to his own devices. i do not have a lot to add to that usually. it is important that staff continued to engage but even then, sometimes i think that we have limited input in that sense. most of the staff for planners. i think it helps to have those

dialogues with the neighborhood and the staff to get to a place where everyone feels more comfortable. it is always an ongoing thing. how do you balance of the vision of the architect with the neighbors and the staff? i am happy to support this. i think he raises a good question that is a policy issue regarding the application of 329. maybe, i do not necessarily agree with -- i am comfortable with the exception and how it was granted. his issue has to do with the criteria and the application of 329. how is staff thinking about it and how the staff apply it? this is a conversation we need to have. i have seen it come up on other projects that never made it to this commission. so, something to think about that already is in the future as

an issue of policy discussion. commissioner? commissioner antonini: a couple of questions on design and transit. we have seen it work with architects and project sponsors on a number of projects recently and come out with a far proved result at the end. this is close to being where it has to be. a lot of work has gone into it. we need to be as cognizant of a large project as we are as these smaller -- as a smaller project. there is a reaction to how the thing appears and is very visible. the 280 off ramp is there so people will see it from a long distance away. on the transit issue, i think, i appreciate the fact that 16th straight is planned. as we move forward on this whole

thing, we have to make sure that anything that is approved works in conjunction with an transit and transit be as seamless as possible. if we want people to ride public transit, it has to be seamless. nobody wants to get out in the rain carrying a bunch of care and catch the bus after they have gotten off bart or an existing light rail. they have to figure out a way that where they can move quickly and safely and conveniently. it will cost a little more. maybe it will take later but longer to do. you will see an increased ridership and people using it. unless they are forced to use it because they do not have an alternative. it is important we design it the right way. >> commissioner sugaya: could

you clarify one point? on 820, you have the hubble and 16th straight labeled as public open space. you have it labeled as community garden. it is the triangular shaped area. >> it is a community garden that will be open to the public. >> commissioner sugaya: thank you. >> on that motion, to adopt equal findings and approved with conditions. commissioner antonini. so moved. those motions pass unanimously

5-0. >> president olague: >> theman planning commission regular hearing for july 28. please turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. we are on items 19 a, b, and c for 2009.068 3-d, 2009.0685 d and case number 2010.0577 dd at 309 through 311 eureka street. mandatory discretionary reviews and a publicly filed discretionary review. on may 19, 2011. following public testimony, the commission continued the matter until july 28, 2011. the public hearing does remain open. >> good evening president olague, members of the

commission. the item before you is a mandatory discretion review as well as a discretionary review application. it's on the east side of eureka street between 21st street. this was before you on may 19, 2011. i want to summarize a little bit about the project. the proposed project is to demolish the two-family home and construct a new one. the lower unit would have three bedrooms, the upper unit will also have three bedrooms. concerned expressed in the publicly filed d.r.'s were impacts to light air and privacy at the rear and then gorge howser who lives to the south of the subject property also brought up issues of compatibility concerns regarding the demolition of the potentially historic structure and impacts to the street to the north. concerns raised by

commissioners at the may 19 hearing varied, but to summarize, there were concerns brought up about the compatibility with the street face as originally proposed. i'm going to put up an image of the building as it was originally proposed. as well, commissioners expressed some concern regarding impacts to light and air specifically to the neighbors to the north on 20th street. at the hearing, three recommendations were made by the commission and this is a generalization, there was quite a bit of discussion at the may 19 hearing. to generalize, the commissioners suggested that the sponsor consider reducing the overall height of the proposed structure. i'll put up an image of the structure as revised. commissioners suggested that the project sponsor consider

reducing the height, revising the street elevation including the roof form to make the building more compatible with the surrounding area and then finally, the commission suggested that the project sponsor consider reductions at the rear including rescalp thing at the hearing to lessen impacts to the neighbors primarily to the north. they have considered to revise the project and worked with the architect. the overall height of the building has been reduced by 14 inches. the depth of the proposed new structure has been reduced to each level at the rear. as you can see of the image on the screen, the front elevation including the roof form has been revised after taking a look at the neighborhood for a second time. or a third or fourth time. the department's recommendation remains that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project. that concludes my summary, but i'm here to answer questions. president olague: let's here from the d.r. questioner and we are going to -- the d.r.

requester gets five minutes and then all preceding seekers will be limited to two minutes because we have heard this project before. >> yes, good afternoon, commissioners. could i have the slide? president olague: yes. >> george howser. at the last hearing, we left with the hope that we were going to kind of turn the corner with the project sponsor and enter into a more collaborative design phase and i have to tell you that did not happen. the sponsor basically retrenched, they made a few changes, modifications to the project, very minor in scope and basically handed them to us as a kind of take it or leave it proposition. we were very disappointed when we saw that coming. we decided the best use of our time was to developed some alternative schemes. we presented them to the sponsor. we met with them to discuss them. they rejected them.

there was very little discussion of the merits of those schemes and about the only comment we got was, well, they were done by you. we are not interested in them. i want to show you a number of slides here, kind of comparing the various schemes, the schemes that they're presenting to you and the schemes that we're proposing as an alternate. this is an elevational slide that shows the scheme that they presented at the last hearing. the orange line is what they're proposing now. they dropped the height a foot at the top portion and they pushed it back a little bit in the back. they added some opaque guard rails which effectively increased the height in the back over each of the decks and added the front roof in the front, but all it does is add additional volume. there is no additional useable space associated with that. this is the scheme we presented last time. the orange line is what we're presenting now. we're proceed posing a roof

over the main part of the house as a gesture and we added volume in the rear. this is a view from eureka street. the view you saw earlier is misleading because it doesn't present the oblique view and demonstrate that this roof in the front is really just tacked on and then behind it, there is still this very large layered building, which is the part that we find most objectionable. it's the part that is really causing the shadowing on the northern properties in the mid block open space. you can see it better from here. the project sponsor scheme son the left. the cut away roof in the front with the large mass behind it the orange line is a reference line. our scheme is on the middle right. we actually developed two schemes. it has a hipped roof, a