i appreciate that. with that, the public hearing is closed on this item. this is a difficult decision. this has been many years and the making. i appreciate everyone's patience been here until 11:00 at night and the three-plus years this project has been ongoing. i believe the project sponsor has made some persuasive arguments to justify the variance in the rh-1d zoning district, pointing out it would be 33 feet wide, which is the minimum width required for this district. also noting the pattern of small lots within 1,000 feet, which is typically what we look at when we are looking at what size variances. we're looking at lots within 1,000 feett. hey are 219 lots. 49% are less than 4000 square

feet. i think these are good arguments for or alot size variance. the question is, is this enough to justify this variants for this property? the neighbors have raised many interesting points about the history of the developments here. yesterday i looked at our historic maps, out which have the history of the development of these. i was surprised go back to the 1946 book and find out basically every single lot on this block was 25 by 1000. -- 25 by 100. in 1946, they had all 3 lots that make up this property under separate ownership. in 1952, the building was built. 1953 is what the subdivision

merged the two lots. then in 1965, it shows that had been effectuate it. looking at more recent books, it was 50 feet wide, but the building was an adjacent 25-foot lot. it was further merged in 1978 to the current size. the rh-1d which instituted the requirement was 1961, and i was struck by how overtime, all of thelots -- all of the lots on the block had become conforming. the zoning was working, creating larger lots that were at least 4000 square feet or more. there is still a mix, but it seems the zoning is working. it seems this proposal goes against the historic development of the lot. i will admit that i was actually

persuaded and supportive of the project until this information yesterday. i think it is very important context of the decision. that is not to say there could not be development on this lot, as i just noted, there is a 25- foot lot next door. unfortunately, the owner of that has passed away, but if there is potential for merging lots to create a code conforming a lot, development may be appropriate, but i did not see it as appropriate to subdivide this out into what is being proposed here. with that, i will be inclined to deny the request that variance. that decision is appealable to the board of appeals within 10 days of the letter being issued. we will try to have a letter issued in the coming week. there is the pending discretionary review request that had been filed by several neighbors. we had communicated that if the

variance was denied, we would refund those d.r., and we will talk more after this hearing about how to proceed because the project sponsor has an appeal right. if the project decision is overturned, it would move forward, have to look at how to move best forward. we want to be as fair as possible with all parties. with that, that is my decision and we will be closing this hearing at this time. thank you all very much.

>> before i get started, please turn off your cellphone or any other electronic devices. we have overflow. we will not allow standing in this room. we also cannot allow anyone to block the doors. if for some reason people are coming to speak, we've want you to mine line up in the center ae so it that you are not blocking anyone. in a minute i will call role, but i wanted to make sure everyone is aware the room is crowded, and people want to talk with their friends and neighbors. i am going to ask if you feel the need to do that, that you step outside and conduct those

secondary discussions outside, because they are extremely disruptive. this room, although extremely beautiful, is horrible on a few sticks so it makes it difficult for the commissioners to hear what is going on. with that, roll-call for the planning commission. [calling roll] commissioner moore is absent. >> [calling roll] >> i should mention commissioner moore's absence is also excused. this today it's a little different than usual. the joint commissions are

holding one of public hearing category for every item on the calendar, which includes the certification of the final eir. following the public hearings -- and is following the notes, following the public hearing, the planning commission will consider action on certify the final eir. it will consider action on the establishment of the of cumulative shadow of it. the recreation and park commission will consider making a recommendation to the planning commission regarding the adverse impact, and following the action on these items come of the recreation and park commission will adjourn. the planning commission will remain in session and severally consider action on all other entitlements on his calendar. commissioners, i am going to read all of the items on the

calendar so you know that these of the items you will be speaking on during your time. following the presentation of staff and project sponsors, there is a block of time that has been awarded. after that block of time, the president will start calling the names of the individual speaker. the items before the joint commission today are all items are as follows. item one, case number 20078 washington. i will not call the case numbers anymore because the case number is the same. item one, certification of the final interment will impact report. item tw2a, the adoption of findings under the california and our rental quality act. 2b is considered jointly with

recreation and park commission, the establishment of a cumulative shadow limit for suberin park. 2c, discussion of possible action by the recreation and park commission to recommend to the planning commission that the shuttle from the proposed project at 8 washington street will not have an adverse impact on the part. item 2d, to authorize the allocation of a cumulative shadow of a force to be urban parlimit for sue bierman park. item 2f, consideration of motion making finding of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section one a 1.1.

2g, request for height reclassification to reclassify two portions of the southwestern area of the development site from 84-e height and bulk district to the 92-e height and bulk district in one portion, and the 136-e height and bulk districts in another portion. 2h, our request for a conditional use authorization. it has been pointed out to me that for item 2b, the request to consider jointly with the planning commission, shuttle limits for the park, they are also considering the findings of the california environmental quality act by the recreation and park commission. with those items, -- if there

any comments? >> none. >> with that, we will turn it over to staff. >> good morning. paul mulcher with the planning department staff. i was planning to stand, so i think i will sit down with my presentation. the first item on your agenda is the certification of the final eir for the 8 washington project. this will be an item exclusively for the planning commission. because there are several agenda items to be heard today, and we have a lot of people that want to speak, i will try to be as brief as possible, but i want to make a few general comments to introduce the certification item and particular. i will obviously be available

for questions either now or after for questions. a vote does not buy your vote on any future action on this project. the eir is an informational packet. that information is accurate and objective, and they have come to reasonable and appropriate conclusions that are supported by substantial evidence to the

record. i want to touch very briefly on those three points. with regard to the information that is provided, the final eir consists of the initial study and the responses documents. between those three pieces, the eir has addressed every relevant topic in the guidelines that we need to address with regard to project impact. it includes land use, traffic, air quality shadow, and noise, cultural resources. recreation impact on the visual impact. all of those are addressined in the eir. it also analyzes construction impact operational impact, cumulative impact where they are relevant to the project. we believe it is very complete and the road with regard to the topics it addresses.

in terms of the accuracy of the information, athe eir has been assisted by of very experienced, qualified consultants. we have brought in technical experts with regard to much of the subject matter, transportation, air quality, shadow, wind, " resources to name some of them. the document has been reviewed by the city attorney as well. we believe the information provided is all accurate. in terms of the conclusions reached, the eir finds a few significant impact from the project. some of them regard to air quality primarily due to construction activity, and also because the project would attract residents to a site where there are existing high volumes of traffic. it would be bringing receptiveness to an area where there is already potential for air quality.

it also finds possible future traffic impact at embarcadero and washington. the left turn lanes would be reduced from two down to one. that is not propose, but if that were to occur in the future, this would contribute to an impact of that intersection. they also conclude there are potential sea level rise in tax. there are projections by the year 2100 c level could reach 55 inches. if that were the case, this could be subject to future innovation and of potential significant impact of that were to occur. it does not find or conclude their art any other potential significant impacts from the project. there is a lot of disagreement and controversy about some of the conclusions. as an example, the loss of tennis courts.

construction truck traffic and noise. parking impact. we have heard from many that they believe there are significant impacts we have not identified. for each of those topics we believe fully and accurately disclose the information. we have explained what the threshold is, and we've come to appropriate conclusions. i want to point out that although we did not find significant impacts, that does not mean we found no impact. the project could have impact of our below the threshold of significance. for many of the impacts we described, we found them but less than significant. in terms of the disagreement, there have been a lot of disagreement with conclusions, that does not bmean the eir is not certified.

they are obligated to present information, including the disagreement. as long as we of adequately describe the impact, explained the threshold and came to appropriate conclusions that are backed by a it it's needs and informed you of the disagreements, tthe eir can be certified. people have also raised the issue every circulation. the draft was published last summer. it was distributed to the public for comments. we received comments and responded to them. the call for recirculation means we should not send the entire book out to the public for another round of comment in response. the guidelines are very specific as to what triggers the need for recirculation. if we find it is significant impact on a substantial increase in the severity of an impact, a

feasible alternative or a mitigation measure with less impact of the sponsor declines, or it the draft eir was so fundamentally and that it there could not be meaningful public comment. we believe that none of those thresholds have been reached, that there is not a need to recirculate the document. in addition to the alternatives of the back of the book, the draft described a project of 165 dwelling units, 420 parking spaces, four tennis courts, swimming pools on top of the athletic facility and newly- rated open space. there is also a project variant, which is it to burst -- reduced version of the project. it is 400 parking spaces. no tennis courses.

these are all fully described. i also want to point out we have provided you with a drought certification motion. that motion is a standard motion that describes the process, a key dates involved, the findings of a significant impact. because there are significant impacts found, if you need to adopt this coming you need to consider overriding the qualification. i also would point out the draft motion still reflects this when it was first scheduled. if he were to approve the motion, the only change would be to reflect today's date as the action date. that concludes my presentation, unless you have questions.

if there are no questions, i would then turn it over to kevin to address the next items on the calendar. >> good morning, commissioners. i am with planning staff. i will present an overview of the various entitlement actions before you on the project, as well as specific policy and design issues. the project that is proposed for entitlement differs slightly from the products described by the eir. it proposes 134 dwelling units, which is a reduction from the 145 described in -- described in the report. 20,000 square feet of retail use is, and a new number cool area but no tennis courts. in order for the planning to receive, they would need to certify the eir and adopt findings under the and california and our mental quality act. the planning commission 22 approved conditional use authorization for a building exceeding 50 feet in height,

allow an on accessory parking garage, non-residential uses, allow commercial uses above the ground floor, and to approve a crown unit development was specific modifications from the requirement of the planning code. they would need to adopt the findings of a general plan referral and recommend the improvements to the zoning map and general map reclassified to portions of the southwestern area of the site from the existing 84e, and 136e. the planning commission and recreation and park commission will take several actions related to shadows cast to the park, which i will describe later. in the interest of time, i will not discuss the technical details of the entitlement before you, but i would the answer any specific questions you might have. i would like to highlight several key issues that emerged. the first is the issue of

heighth are across the site. the residential portion would be constructed with into building situated on the southerly portion of the site with frontage along the embarcadero, as well as washington and drum up street. the westerly building on drums street in washington street reaching a height of 12 stories, stepping down to a height of eight stories near the intersection with jackson. the easterly building was primarily six stories, stepping down to five stories near the help of building. i should know all portions of the project are lower than the existing height limit of 84 feet. it continues to descend to the north of the side of the 45 foot club building with the northernmost portion remaining an open space. and this shows the top portion of the project.

the transition and height scope of the project in a manner that a shorter to the bulkhead building along the embarcadero. it preserves the legibility of the progression of taller buildings with than the financial district to the southwest. increase height is also consistent with the recommendation of the northeast embarcadero study published by the planning department in june of 2010. the second issue is that of open space and public pedestrian circulation. the new open space area will be situated between the residential area from the south and health club building in the self. this area would serve as a new visual and visulinkage. the existing drums free walkway, which a line north and south the train tracks in st. and the embarcadero would be really an

escaped and widened. and you open space, also known as pacific park would be subject to the north lily site. it would measure approximately 11,500 square feet it is proposed to include grass seating areas, and children's play areas, as well as seating for an adjacent cafe. these bases would strengthen and expand an existing network of richly-landscape pedestrian connections. the project also includes 255 parking spaces within the garages that would be accessible to the general public in order to restore the health club and other resources on the site and to provide parking and other waterfront uses in the vicinity. several other parking facilities have been recently removed or proposed for future removal. therefore the amount of non- residential is appropriate for

the project. however, in terms of residential parking, a project proposes 134 parking spaces to serve it well unit, and they are requesting a modification to the limitations maximum of 54 residential spaces provided within the district. given the pedestrian-friendly site, that is recommending the residential parking be reduced to correspond to the ratios permitted in the downtown district. therefore, staff recommends the residential parking be limited to no more than 127 spaces. in summary, is that is supportive of the proposed project. -- staff is supportive of the proposed project. the project would restore an active and 5 grant street walk and create new pedestrian connections throughout the site

linking the waterfront to the neighborhoodsstaff recommends tg commission approved actions previously described the site modification to reduce the quantity of parking for the project. staff would like to know other changes that would be adopted by the planning commission. i can make hard copies available on request to members of the public. the first is an additional plan unit development modification being requested. in lieu of providing an additional full-size loading space, the sponsor would provide two spaces for smaller service vehicles with an underground garage. this type of substitution is allowed by the district and other more intense districts in the city. the other changes are additional languages that would clarify and

emphasize the open spaces within the project will be resumed for publicly open space and pedestrian circulation and that jackson, and specifically will be delegated as right of way for these purposes. to conclude my presentation, i will begin my discussion of shadow issues regarding the park, and we sup will complete this discussion. planning code section 295 requires the planning commission in consultation with the recreation and park review any application. unless it is determined the shadow would not be significant or adverse. in 1989, the planning commission and park commission adopted criteria of the implementation and included the adoption of cumulative shadow limits for certain parts in and around the downtown core. sue bierman park did not exist

when these were adopted. following the demolition of the embarcadero freeway, portions of their freeway ride away were acquired and we convicted -- reconfigured. therefore, no formal shuttle criteria have been adopted for the park as it exists today. whereas the park measured approximately 1.3 acres in 1989, it currently measures 1.4 acres. existing buildings in the vicinity cast shadows the remove approximately 40.3% of the available annual sunlight that would be available on the part if no buildings were present in the area. this concludes my portion of the presentation. discussed the impact of the new shadow that results from the project. >> good morning, commissioners. lisa buyer.

the existing shadow on the park is approximately 40.3% of the annual sunlight for the park. the proposed project would cost 435 sq 5 hours of net new shadow. and an increase of about 0.00166 %. the total shadow would increase from 40.33597% to 40.36664% of the proposed project. in 1989 a memo identified qualitative factors in order to assess the significance of such a shadow impacts subject to the sunlight ordinance, which includes time of day, a time of year, the size of the shadow, duration of the shadow, location of the shadow,