welcome and that it is designed that way. i would support language in the motion that allows the department and the developer to continue to work on those designs so that they read as public. commissioner sugaya: in the discussions commissioner more and i had on tuesday we reached an understanding that said they realized because of the comments of the historic preservation commission about by building and are concerned about scale, there was still time to work on that particular aspect of the entire project, because their program is behind the others, so there is more time to concentrate some design effort on the building.

i think we were thinking it was not necessarily the case said it had to be totally changed -- the case and had to be totally change but there could be further exploration on the street and in its relationship to the existing historical structure, so we were not talking about reducing the units of approaching it from a design standpoint, and if there is ample time to do that, we felt it would be an understanding it would be continued design efforts on that particular building. everybody is in favor of this. perhaps i should try to cross the motion of approval with the following, and we understand the 50t bmr units to be on site.

they can come back later with the request to change that. commissioner hill has mentioned entrances, and they should be looked at in terms of a design that indicates this is a publicly accessible space and the people are welcome in that respect, that there be an emphasis on infighting and connection to the street. that would be through the woods hall building, and that would be in addition to the space between woods and the new building, whatever direction is, but we continue to work on the open house design, and people can and conditions -- can add

conditions after that, but i would like to say if the garage entrance is as deep as the one that a exists -- is as steep as the one that exists, that is a nightmare to negotiate at some -- negotiate sometimes. goo[laughter] >> is there a second? >> i will second that. back hopefully you are only seeing it visually, not being a resident who too quickly, and that might be a reason for concern with steep as of the grade -- with steepness of grade. they said they would come back if there were problems, because

we were looking at the report, but it looks like it can be done, and we have plenty of projects that come back to us as obstacles come with unit account -- count and various changes. we do not want to wait another six years. we want to get this done as soon as possible. i want to make sure they look at a landscape architecture to make sure there are welcoming areas, so there are areas for people to rise and not constantly have stairs going up and down and quiet areas for quiet contemplation and enjoying nature. good >> i am supportive of the motion that is on the floor now, and i think this is a great use of this space: and on and now this whole block, and i want to thank the project sponsor for

working with all these groups, and it turns out we end up with seems, -- themes, and today we have a theme of cooperation, either the can of this club, which is a cooperative efforts -- cannabis club, which is a cooperative effort. >> we need to make a motion of intent to approve. >> i want to clarify the second motion we are suggesting an intent to approve with a date for approving the final agreement. >> we will vote on them separately? >> the motion on the floor and now is for approval with

conditions, and correct me if i am wrong, of about 50 -- but it is to be designed so it is obvious to the public it is a public space, that there is a connection to haight street, that they continue to work on the design, and i am not sure if there is anything else they added. they would continue to work on the landscape design to add resting spaces, and she is, etc., throughout the complex. on that motion -- breasting spaces, -- resting spaces, benches, etc. throughout the complex. on that motion -- [calling votes] that is a unanimous vote.

for 15b there needs to be a unanimous motion. bikes i make a motion which intent to approve. -- >> i make a motion with intent to approve. >> second. >> i need to set a date. >> please set a date for final action. by september 20? september 20. >> ok, the motion on the floor and intent to approve the agreement with the final action to take place on september 20. good on that motion -- [calling votes]

thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously also. commissioners, you are now on item number 17 for geary boulevard. put them right there. i will get them. thank you.

>> good afternoon or evening, members of the commission. the case before you is a staff- initiated case for discretionary review as well as a neighbor request for the property located at 4334 geary street.

the proposal involves demolishing a structure and when composing and a new dental office. is still in development at an underutilized block. it is helping to create the street along gary boulevard, and by not including a garage, and it protects the right of way. the staff found the rear of the building is overwhelming and cut costs from the open space. staff require the sponsor reduce the upper two floors by 22 feet. if i can direct your attention to the overhead. we have asked the upper two

floors be cut back to theire. what this would do would help keep the connection between the makes use of building and the open space. this requirement is based on an urban design guidelines found in the commerce and industry development of the general plan. the requirement is based on these provisions. new development should respect open corridors and not impede access of light or error or blocked use of the adjacent buildings. the height and bulk of new developments should be designed to maximize son access to nearby residential space, parks, plazas, and major corridors. goothis project is a demo on

reconstruction, so we are seeking to improve the situation rather than keep it away it is. the existing building measures 22 and a half feet, while the proposed building measures 17 feet, so there is a five-foot difference. the neighbors request is mainly concerned about the blocking of her property line windows and the impact it will have on her building light and air. this is not something we consider when we are doing an application. the project is matching for a depth of 3 feet. the project sponsor will take the project and modify it. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> dr requester.

>> good evening, president, members of the commission. i am steve williams. i am representing the tenants of the building, which is directly adjacent and east of the site. it is a given fact this is an exceptional and extraordinary case with the department having initiated discretionary review and asking to modify the project. we are joining in with the request but asking the commission to take additional steps to protect have the ability of these units next door. who -- to protect habitability of these units next door. when i first started, i noted they were completely inadequate. a far fall -- they fall far below those submitted. i have a copy that was actually

mailed out to the public, if you want to take a look at it. the plans are substandard, not code compliant. the basic features of the project and the existing buildings are presented without any dimensions. good aside elevations -- side elevations do not place windows or light wells in position, no existing site plan as well. when i brought these mistakes to the department's attention last week, the response was those items are not required. however, when the developers were notified of this, they completely change the plan, so if you look at the plant in your packet, you will see there is a comprehensive clouding on every single sheet, meaning changes were made. what was distributed to the public was not what was in front of a commission. i have never seen it where every

page was clouded, and that is what you see in front of you, and this lack of detail, lack of mandate lead to mistakes. we have been told all along that the neighbors building was going to match. however, the neighbors building is not 40 feet. all of the light studies provided are inaccurate. they are showing in matching what they are showing. the number one policy priority is to protect affordable housing. this is the highest priority possible. this is to preserve and enhance the existing stock, and this is

some of the most important stock out there. this violates the proposeolicy. they completely ignore the fact there are 12 units next door. the full analysis makes no mention of it. if they had not filed this, you would not know the units are next door. they failed to mention there are 12 elderly tenants living next door, most of them long term. in the community outreach, which was an agreement signed, that is attached to exhibit 5 to the developers brees. who plans they submitted did not come near to complying to what they agreed to. they just handed us a new

offer, which looks like they are trying to move the project now to what was agreed upon, and without more time to look into that offer and without time to figure out the agreement, we might be closed soo, but we aret there. i submitted a drawing of what i thought was the agreement reached when the parties met at a community meeting, and if you compare that to offer attached as exhibit two and their brief two hours, -- toour ours, you cn see it is very close. gooat this point what i would us

for is a continuance so we can look for a new plan -- what i would ask for is a new continuance so we can look for a new plan. they also wanted radnoto add sqe feet. goothat is what we have with the new dimensions and having been handed an offer. gthank you. >> there is no second dr requester. i have a bunch of cards here. >> being that we are close to an agreement connor yaho, we will m

speak, because we want to keep them down to the issues and reach accommodation. goowe also have a proposal by moving some of those windows into another direction. good >> point of order. you want to call one person. >> just a few people here again we want to reach an accommodation with the project sponsor and an agreement that could terminate this meeting fast. they can speak as well. >> i am going to ask those speakers if you want to line up on this side, they will have three minutes each. calling now, speakers in favor

of the dr. >> whoever is ready. >> mr. donahue has of me to comment on behalf of the project sponsor that we are very close to what we think is an acceptable project to the dr requester, and if we could save the time and presentation, we ask that you expedite this process and come back to it if we are not able to hammer out a

resolution. >> i know, but we have a deal to write your region we have a deal. >> are they asking for -- i know, but we have a deal. >> are they asking for reasons? >> why don't we take a 10 minute recess? >> are you asking for a recess? >> we can do that. 15 minutes. >> i am hoping to come back. >> there is no need for a hearing. >> thank you. >> ok, the planning commission

is back in session. i believe that we recessed to allow the two sides of this case to try to come to an agreement, and i will for the record call a snap back into the record -- call this back into the record. it is item number 17. there is a discretionary review on this case and a neighbor- related discretionary review, and the neighbor and project sponsor were to meet during recess to try to resolve issues and try to come to some sort of an agreement. >> i will call upon the d.r. requester to report back on whether there was an agreement or not.

>> unfortunately, the devil is in the town. i have us and to agree to a continuance so we can hammer out an agreement, because there are a lot of variables floating around, and they are not amenable to that. >> no agreement. gooif we are going to follow the process, the d.r. requester has had a chance to speak. we should now have died. >> i do have cards there. goo[list of names]

>> hello, commissioners. thank you for listening to me. i believe i stand in front of you as a property manager representing the owners who are people who really care about his property. >> can you state your name for the record? >> eva. and the impact it will have on our tenants, regardless of the low rent they are paying. we have a 71-year-old who has been here, and he wants to be here, but he cannot. she is only paying $212, and she has been here 20 years.

another one who has been here more than 45 years, this is their quality of life we are talking about. i have lived in unit 3, and i know what it feels like to live in this room. a common area is a major part of our living space. we traveled to the bathroom and showers. this is space we share, unlike most buildings when we just go through the hallway to leave or enter, so it is crucial that are building light wells, the ability to heat our common hallways is protected, up because most buildings do not have needed facilities in the hallway, and this is helping us -- do not have heated facilities in the hallway, and this allows

us to move through our building without having to bulk up, and it allows for circulation into our bathroom and hallway, because we share a common area. as manager and owners, we understand and care about our tenants comfort, and we hope you feel the same way. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good evening. i have lived in the district about 32 years. i want to reiterate the requirement of 30 parking spaces here. -- the requirement that there be parking spaces here. it is packed with cars. there is no place to park

throughout the day. we are going to be bringing additional cars in or parents driving children to orthodontists. because of the stress they are not going to want to take public transportation. they are going to be uncomfortable anyway. i think you can expect to have about 150 to 200 additional parking spaces during the day. you have that number of patients coming in, and you have the knowledge this is going to have an effect on parking in richmond. it will take away from the shopping center, and i think for this reason, i would like to have ityou reconsider the parkig

space requirement. thank you. >> hi, my name is valencia, and i have lived there for two years. i live in union no. 2. as it is, the hallways have just announced air -- just enough air. it is ok. as this moves forward, it is going to be stuffy. there is going to be no circulation, and it will probably result in an old problem. the fact of his building of dental offices is going to have no parking underground or set up next to it. it does not make sense. it is already backing up down

the street. there is going to be a lot of double parking. nobody takes awhthe bus. they all take cars. i might be ok. i am somewhat of a spring chicken. there are a lot of senior citizens, and i think this will cause problems for health and well-being. there are people who say, let's demolish windows and placed them here. i do not know why people do not seem to care. now this cannot be the only building in san francisco to build this office. do it somewhere else where it makes sense. that is all i have to say. good thank you. >> next speaker please.