phil chen. i am the chair of the committee for better parks and recreation in china town. the committee was started in 1968. it was started to combat plans of a developer to build a garage on this side of the chinese playground. by organizing the community we were able to stop the garage. today i'm happy to report to you that while mandarin towers still does not have dedicated parking, the playground is thriving. in 1982 we became the catalyst for the sunlight ordinance, the law that prohibits shadowing of parks in open space. it requires the provision of mitigation when

shadowing does occur. more recently we have played a role in why you park on the edge of china town as well as the first renovation of fort smith square. the committee is a strong supporter of transit first policy. we recognize the subway is a very key part of the city's transit element. we have followed the project closely and feel a conditional use permit should be granted. we urge you to grant that conditional use. we believe that the station house and the facade are well-designed and that it fits well within the

community. we also believe that the station has the potential to be a true community hub and that the project must proceed. however, we do not feel this is the end of the planning process. we encourage you to encourage the mta to continue that dialogue with the community to ensure that on that site we will truly have a community and a true community asset, thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. alan liu. i'm a san francisco resident and community member on china town's

transportation research project, known as china town trip. it is a grassroots organization of community stakeholders committed to improving transit service and safety in china town through planning, research, education and advocacy. the organization has been involved in a community for over 30 years and has pushed for many efforts from the promotion of pedestrian visibility to larger projects such as the scramble system. we know the stockton corridor is one of the most populous and dense streets in the city. i think improving this conditional use for this is another step towards accommodating for people who visit and live in china town. on behalf of china town trip, we are happy to see this project move forward and would like to extend

china town's trip knowledge and experience to the community to he will the city with the commensurate planning process to determine the opportunities that the community residents and visitors are looking for as this project comes into fruition. so thank you for your time and your committed service. >> thank you. [ speaking foreign language ] >> good afternoon, nguyen ho. i, my wife and children live in an apartment on

north beach. we don't own a car, dependent on public transit and strong supporter of the subway. [ speaking foreign language ] i'm president of community tenant association, the largest tenant based organization in the city. our 1,000 members are all low-income, multilingual seniors and depend on public transit. we only have one member who owns a car and drives a car.

[ speaking foreign language * >> we approve conditional use for this. it is a great location surrounded by doctor's office, child care, doctors, family association, which are located within one block radius of the china town station. further more the station design focus on serving the public, including senior, family and children. we look forward to the next step of creating a vision and creating help for the community. [ speaking foreign language ]

>> this public transit is important to our community. the community association and grassroots will continue to fight for the subway until the station opens in china town, thank you. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think this is a good project. part of a system that is necessary and beneficial in a city of 49 square miles, it is unfortunate we don't

already have more subways and more ability for people to travel quickly from one part of the city to the other. the fact we are beginning this process with the central subway is a good one. benefit from the ease which you can come from west portal and get downtown. now we are working on something where we will provide that same ease for people from the north part of the city to get to the south part of the city. so i think it is very good in the station. the station is coming along well. as i understand, will continue to work on design and make sure that it is a contextual within the area and all the interior spaces seem to be well-planned and open and welcoming. i understand there are areas around the station that could be used for supplemental commercial use, which will be

beneficial. i'm in favor and want to see what the others have to say. >> commissioner borden? >> i'm very supportive of this project. look forward to the way it will link up, you know, people coming from -- even the fact that moscone center will have a stop will be critical, in addition to the fact you can get to china town. for a lot of tourists that circle beltway basically of union square, moscone center, china town, there will be a real way to get around. it will improve traffic congestion, circulation as well as the 30 bus line, which is always a very congested bus line in that neighborhood. i think that the design of the center looks very interesting. obviously we lament losing this. looks like it will be a great station. i look forward to the bigger process around the transit oriented development. that is something we are looking forward to, the replacement units, seeing

what we can build. obviously we would have loved to have had that as part of this project. understand that wasn't possible. look forward to seeing next step. i think we are taking the right approach and moving forward. looking for creating more process around how we develop the right project that will support this station and help it be successful. i'm very supportive. commissioner moore. >> there is no doubt that this commission has and continues to support the corridor development. i would like to cast the questions i asked a little bit broader. i am a little concerned about the piecemealing and fragmentation of process. when the eir was approved in february i think it was, there were clear instructions the description of station design, part of how the eir went, was not at all

conclusive to what is intended, what is in front of us today has not added anymore detail but i clearly understand what is applied. i have had lengthy discussions with ms. wadi who herself doesn't have answers which haven't been created. what we are approving is really not much more than the head house with the implied understanding that there will be potentially the building, a three-dimensional object part of the review. and one part a station entrance and one in part of t.o.d. that may or may not materialize. this implies transitory is an indication of use of site that is implied in the word that. is what the practice does. i do think that should be part of disclosure * by which this commission structures approval. i ask these questions.

there is no programmatic outline of potential uses, or idea about what this building might contain, how tall, what architectural expressions it would require. we are in an emerging historical district. the state itself requires basically, ignoring the fact a building over 50 feet in width requires more modulation on the facade than this particular approved hardwood fascia is putting in front of us today. i'm asking again and repeating my question. the piecemealing and fragmentation of process, or art piece, the main feature of the building is approved before we have created conditional approval to approve the structure which holds this. for me it a confusing

sequence of steps. i'm bewildered that there is quite a bit of uncertainty and unanswered questions. i'm not even talking about those from a number of people in the community which talk about historic preservation and process related to eir and ceqa. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm supportive of the conditional use approval. i'm heartened to see there will be a process to see the transit oriented development and process to the elevator and escalator kind of going down and taking space on stockton, if that could be shifted and capture more of that space. development in that space would be great. i understand. i see your point. i can distinguish between these two projects. i'm comfortable moving forward with the head house, knowing that design of a separate project, the

transit oriented development will move forward. they will be integrated at some time but two separate projects. i mean, i commend the process and, you know, would approve the conditional use authorization. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you, commissioner hillis that you are at least acknowledging questions i'm raising. basically i'm not getting any traction with my questions, nor with my concerns. the only thing i would like to ask that the design or the potential building of the t.o.d. comes back to this commission not just as a project which we get or poured on, but i think this particular building should be reviewed for appropriate fit, et cetera, because we are the neutral body where if you have a

misunderstanding there is a larger city family. and as you can fully understand what i view and what design considerations are going into a potential t.o.d., including the open spaces. there are indeed a number of good open spaces. i'm in strong support for the right open space and right mix surrounding china town, but i do think this is the correct form for that to be decided and supported. >> commissioner hillis. >> sure. i was going to add one note on that. after reviewing the code quite a bit i think it is very unlikely any project could come forward without required to come back based on simple planning code requirements, but i think we could make that a

requirement of the t.o.d., that they come back for required approval. regardless of that, it looks likely anyhow. >> if i can talk with you for a second, ms. wadi. the letter from ms. jennifer matts makes it very clear of what she sees the process. my reaction is based on her letter. she works for the mayor's office of economic and workforce development, which clearly speaks to how she will envision the process. i assume she would know what is required or not. she makes it sounds as if it is basically a neighborhood consensus, that is it, we will come back and record to you. that is the way that is written. if you wouldn't mind to explain that further. >> sure. i think -- unless there is a letter that i'm not aware of, you are talking about a memo from me dated august 20th. >> it is under her signature so might be from you. >> well, she is on the letterhead.

i sent the letter. i see the confusion. >> i didn't read your signature. it is very possible that -- >> just to clarify, all we are doing is facilitating a conversation the community wants to have with technical experts to look at the possibility of these things happening. i don't think -- it is clear we don't know if an open space or next-door t.o.d. is possible. we want them to be possible, there is a very good chance. especially the economicks of developing next door are going to be difficult. nta will have to make a decision. this is not a cash cow for mta. * mta will not see much revenue from this so there are decisions to be made. i would from the preliminary look we have done, this is pretty speculative. all we have done is agreed to look at it. i want to make that clear. if my memos made it sound different i apologize. we don't know until we have

gone through this process. >> as long as there is an assurance in conditions that it indeed will come back fit turns into a substantive project, then i will be fine. i will support where we are. >> it sounds like, if i could, there will be two steps. there will be a step at which we will report back on the results of the sheret with the community and a second in the future where the project * will come forward for actual approvals. there is no reason why the commission couldn't add a commission on the conditional use that whatever project is proposed comes back to this commission for final approval before it moves forward. that would be my recommendation at this point. commissioner moore. >> i'm assuming planning staff will participate in the community meetings in order to direct and prevent potential disasters, thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> i move to approve with conditions and the understanding we will see the results of the process

are. >> second. >> just to be clear i think what commissioner moore is asking the actually project come back. >> absolutely. assuming there is a project, we would want to see the project. that is part of mine. >> the project will be part of the standard approval process as a project, particularly given this is a historically emerging district. >> commissioners, the motion before you is for approval with condition that the project will come back before this commission for approval. on that motion commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> thank you, that passes unanimously. * commissioners you are on item number 14.

case number 2012, 04847d, toledo way, a disconservation near review. >> good afternoon, president fong and members. glen caberes. * the project is on toledo way. the request is the permit application for subject property, proposing large existing partial floor of existing four-floor, two-story building. the owner owns this east of the project site. the concerns include reduced privacy, light and air access to their property. this project has been reviewed by the residential design team with the residential guidelines. at this time this does not create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. specifically the project has matching light shared

with requester's building and alteration the proposed fourth floor provide appropriate setbacks from the front and back to minimize the bulk and visibility of the fourth floor. at this time staff recommends the commission take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i would be happy by to answer questions. >> thank you. >> project funds, sir? >> requests. >> dr request, sir. >> thank you, president fong and commissioners. thank you for hearing us. i'm mark davincinsi, mother elaine, sister karen and her husband, gary. our family has lived at 2426 toledo way for generations. up until five years ago our family members have occupied that building. the death of my aunt, that was no longer the case. we have been fortunate enough to rent it out.

we are here because the expansion that's being proposed next door we believe does not follow design guidelines. we have a compromised proposal we have presented. we will show you. in addition the people that are currently living there wish to have been here but because of work and because of child care issues they could not make it but we have letters. one tenant moved out. we have a letter saying one of the reasons she moved out was because of the proposed expansion. i want to show you our compromised proposal. this work? >> yes. >> thank you. we asked an architect to draft a compromise we believe will be within the

design requirements and guidelines. our design attempts to maintain the privacy of the residents that live there. it attempts to keep air flow and light as it is today. yet still enables our neighbor to expand onto the fourth floor. the roof deck setbacks we believe are within guidelines. currently the proposal is build up to the property line and up to the light well. we would like that set back. the railings in this proposalal are solid walls. we think those should be railings that are open for air and light. we also do reduce master bedroom and study. the rooms are very sizable at 14 by 15 and a half feet. we also ask that a skylight

be put in steady of a window that would look directly down into kitchen, dining room, kitchenette areas. we have showed this compromise both to the property owner as well as to the planning department but neither one has been willing to discuss it with us. we believe the planning department has been incorrectly led to believe there is, in fact, an existing fourth floor that is habitable space. the space right now is really not habitable. it is very small. the first aerial view i'm providing distorts the actually size. if you actually look at where it is in the next photo the red area shows the line, then your packet i believe it was photo three from the rearview shows you how all this was.

because we have lived there, had people living there personally, the creators was never designed for inhabitable space, from our opinion. we believe the new design could easily be converted into another unit, which we believe is not allowed under the currently zoning requirement maximum. going to the guidelines they state to articulate the building, maximum impact on the light and privacy to following propertis the following modifications can -- it can impact light on the property. * and the recommendations provide setbacks on the upper floors. right now there are no setbacks other than the front, rear. the side is really important. if you look at the current structure it is actually

set back. we would like the new one to be set back as well. it also asks that we -- guidelines say shared light wells, provide more light to both properties. this plan would reduce the light tremendously to the light well and incorporate open railing is a design requirement. now the plan calls for a wall. on privacy, again, the design requirements states that developed window configurations that break the line of sight between house in plan calls for new windows in the light well that do reduce our privacy. one is substantially larger than is currently there. thinking about the building's scale and its

form, the guidelines says the design of scale should be compatible with height and depth of the surrounding building . this new expansion will not be compatible with the current surrounding building. it will be substantially larger no. other home on toledo way will have anything of this comparable size. the sundecks will be the largest in the area. and introduce the potential for -- >> time is up but you can have speakers in support of the d.r., three minutes each. >> thank you. >> calling for speakers in support of the d.r. request, sir. >> patricia voy, merchant. our association wasn't even notified of this issue. second of all, when a compromised proposal was on the table it should be worked on.

this reeks of 273537 baker no. reply. no one inch. i'm going to get what i want. this bothers me. you are going to be neighbors, et cetera. it doesn't follow design guideline from what i have seen. i only found out about this three days ago. i fully believe the fact that they should have tried to compromise the developers. and they didn't. my suggestion is to the one side wants it moved back seven feet, the other side moves it back none. why don't you move it back three and a half or four. see if you can come up with a compromise for them because the developer doesn't want to compromise at all. i thank all sides. i want to mention this. just so you know, this closing up of light wells and going wall-to-wall with

not the proper fire codes, this mouse must be sprinkles from one end to the other. for 30 years i have heard fire people tell me without those light wells at times there is a high safety issue for the neighbors. this is something you are going to have to address with the fire department in the future, because i'm seeing it happening all over. my -- you have seen my offer for compromise. thank you. >> are there additional speakers in support of the d.r. request, sir? seeing none, project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, dimitri zamski, owner of 3820 toledo way. my architect won't be