anybody. he got hood winked to meet with us 2 days ago because the supervisor made him meet with us. he is not liaison during construction. i thought that was clear during the language and the developer would be the back up. i think i need to add some language to the construction relations officer such as a foreman who will be present on-site. it can't be the developer because he will never meet with anybody. the remaining conditions is sue hesser, this is so ironic sue hesser spoke to me and said i need these conditions and people said we need these conditions. i would say sue, don't worry so much. and now here i am saying, she was right. we need these conditions. we need a condition

that requires the purchasers the lessees of these spaces that don't have lawful use of those sites. i think that closes everything. please come to the marsh. it is such a great resource. my daughter has been involved for the last decade at the marsh. i wouldn't send her anywhere else. thank you. >> miss gallagher, i have several questions. how would you characterize the acoustical capacity of the marsh's building? >> i'm sorry, i didn't get that? >> how would you characterize the building that the marsh is in in terms of it's ability to

lock sounds from the adjacent properties? >> it's in pretty sad shape. we wish of were better. this is a non-profit organization. it puts just about every cent it has into providing these sliding scales and free services to the community. we need a lot of money. >> one of the comments made by the permit holder was that this used to be a nightclub? it was forced to have provided a number of different acoustical solutions to reduce it's nuisance value? >> i think stephanie can speak to that. >> i don't know too much about that. i think the acoustical

done by my office is some corkboard. that's about the extent of it. >> have you done acoustical analysis on your building? >> no. >> this list that you have, is this list combining the other appeals issues or is it just your issues? >> we have worked cooperatively with the liberty hill people. they have let us take the lead on the sound conditions. there is nothing on the sound conditions that ask us for. does this meet what they would like to see? no. i don't believe it conflicts with anything that they would like.

>> okay. their list of issues is totally separate from yours. >> i wouldn't say that. they said the marsh wants this and they want others and we sat down to make sure that doesn't happen. i don't see any item that they have talked about and we've talked about in any confliction of any whatsoever. >> your only meeting with the developer in the last few days. >> the developer did come out to the site one time during this process and it resulted of his filing the complaint about the marsh's draining situation. >> this came out on the meeting on monday?

>> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the appellant now in rebuttal. >> thank you commissioners, steve williamson behalf of the other appellant alicia gamez. they skipped the indemnitial review. i gave it to the zoning administrator. both the permits were filed and the applications were filed in 2010. they were allowed to skip that to get preferential treatment on that. look at the numbers in front of you. planning commission took this very seriously. they imposed six conditions. the conditions were ignored. the

community liaison was support to be done before the permit issue. the permit issue, the community liaison was appointed from september 19th after the hearing here and i got a complaint. i got a letter saying i'm appointing myself. and nothing was done. the second condition, the liaison and the staff was supposed to work to step down this project on hill street. that's what it says. it was ignored. now, he was right. the planning commission could have imposed some very concrete form of step down. you can correct that mistake. you can do that today. you can impose that step down. since the planning commission commission said this building out to be step down. don't let these conditions fall by the way side. that's wrong. this is the step down. reduce

the 50 feet to the historic district. this is the second condition that the planning commission -- i hope you weren't convincing by the compatibility argument. the building is 100 percent maxed out. we cut it back and we did that and that. it came forward first and it violated the planning code and any other sort of things. this is maximum envelope. don't forget that. second, the developers graphic proves incompatibility. what it tells you is the prevailing

street block pattern. with one exception, none of the buildings pointing to can be seen from the site. there is hundreds of feet away. the code says look at the building. that's what the code says to look at the compatibility. this is not compatible. you can't be two or three 3 stories taller than any single adjacent building and call yourself compatible. if that's the case, the word has no meaning. here is the graphic, the view. this

is the plan. is that compatible. no. absolutely not. anyone that says that is lying. so, as john barbie said, the neighbors feel that they were fooled by the eastern neighborhood plan. there are lots of promises in there about protecting historic resources and protecting existing neighborhoods. i outlined those plans on page 8 and nine. there is a specific zoning policy that says among streets analysis there is low with

smaller spaces. you don't get smaller with hill street. hill street is smaller. it's wrong to have that kind of building. don't forget that the marsh also is a historic resource. it's recognized by the state of california as a historic resource to be protected. this separates the historic marsh building and the other historic buildings they promised that they would not accept it. as mary said make this part of the nsr. take that brave step. i

reached out to find out if that could be done. there has been no response. but we would like you to do that. if they want to fight about it later, then let them do that. they promise that, make it enforceable and make it a condition. thank you very much. >> the step down on the graphic, would that be for the client? >> yes. >> i'm trying to understand the design and the scale piece. okay. >> i think we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. thank you commissioners. i will keep this brief. i know we have heard a lot this evening and you have other items on the

calendar. first of course the project sponsor respects the mark in the institution in the surrounding neighbors and has no interest in hurting the neighborhood. we would like to reiterate the sponsor has worked in good faith to address the neighbors and already agreed to a broad range of activities to prevent noise impacts to the marsh theatre and reduce any impacts on the what could be done under the code and construction liasons there when the work begins. there is no construction on-site. there is no reason for construction outreach. outreach has been part of the appeals launched on the property.

mandatory disclosures and will have sound traffic, other impacts associated with entertainment uses in the city with multiple unit are aware of the neighborhood in the existing conditions. they required with the marsh to avoid construction. agreeing to cc and r's specifically to increase the sound structures which we heard about earlier. as is this project is designed to prevent noise impact to the marsh and protected as an institution and we feel it's quite effective. second, i want to stress again the project here is 100 percent code compliant. it is really

proposed a smart development containing new development consistent with other city plans. third, intelligent minds can agree this is a tragic style that is without creating a false cents of structure which is one of the interior standards for the historic buildings although it doesn't contain a historic building. the project has been designed and reviewed by the planning department, the planning commission and the historic preservation commission. where they are going to ask that you deny this appeal, but we are available to answer any questions that you have. >> what is the, how many units would you lose to do a step down

? >> we estimate around four. this is a complicated design question for something on the spot like that. >> why would it be on the spot? is this the first time you heard it? >> the neighbors presented this idea to me 2 days ago. first it was chopping up two floors, 4 units, large ones. this latest proposal to make a 50-foot building now would eliminate a whole floor because the sealing -- ceiling was 6 and not acceptable. chopping it back in

the rear, i would like to come forward as witness to the planning commission hearing to say this was a difficult point for the commission to bring forward and would not make a hard cut to the building which was a very conscious that this was a very small project. this was not a large expensive view on the scale. cutting on one chunk to basically up an appease the neighbors. they did specifically put in that condition to be mindful of not reducing units for that reason. what happened during that, after the hearing and when it was approved. we went back and

worked out and took a whole bank fof bays out of the project design which came up to the rear and changed materials in the rear to create a lighter top, darker bottom which helps lighten the mass this and affect the mass transition. >> i have a question for him before he sits down. and i have a question for you. at this point the documentation has not been done. you are applying for a site permit. >> correct. we have them under way. >> to what the level of sound installation would you design the party wall between your property and the marsh. >> it's actually mentioned by the acoustic engineer. >> to what level.

>> this would be the highest level to sound transition to 45 -- the acoustic engineer could speak to that. >> i'm accept 45. the issue here is as you indicated the planning commission had some generalized comments. if we are going to deal with anything here, i want to hear some specification. at what level would you design the level of sound. >> right now if we take a look at the 8-inch wall plus the stairwell, quick estimation is that we are probably well above

70 stc. it's a very high level of sound at the marsh. >> except at the elevator. >> meaning that if there were noise in the elevators? >> yeah. the elevators are typically designed to 1 hour fire rating. >> yeah but 1 hour. i don't want to debate the technical aspects. we'll decide. >> counselor, i have some further questions for you. how do you in legalese define legislation in force at the time? >> it's, that's a good question. i would say this is

language written by the appellant. i would assume that's language at the time certificate of occupancy is issued. if there is legislation at the time that would exist that would carry out the two actions, the conditions of approval then it would apply to the project. >> did these two conditions apply at this time? >> no. we spoke with mta as well a couple weeks ago and the issue is raised with regard to residential parking and were told that they didn't have a means of enforcing it. >> i have another question for you but i can't remember right now. anybody else? >> on no. 6 to commissioner fung's questions. what about

enforcement? >> as i understand we can use the planning department as well the way in which bmr units is based on the lottery system and the rules of that lottery system are set by code and the housing and procedures manual i believe that would have to be altered. >> it's been asked that you will have on-site affordable units.

>> good evening madam president, members of the board, thank you for having us back. your question? >> i'm asking the question relates to the affordable units on-site that has been raised by the appellants as a concern that the affordable units will not be on-site? >> the way it set up now. the nsr is recorded and our intention is to build them on-site, there is a possibility according to law that is discussed here that they could

be bought out at some point, but that's not our intention right now. is there a guarantee that they won't be bought out? no. my intention is to build the units and * they have been approved. >> okay. thank you. >> anything further? >> there were some comments about structures and resources. as you know that issue is covered in ceqa and has been thoroughly vetted in the planning commission and board

of supervisors and there was a significant impact on the historic district and any historic resources nearby. just to be clear the marsh building was a state designated resource. i'm not sure about the source of that. the documentation i have available to me does not indicate that it's recognized as a historic resource on the national register. also just additionally just from additional perspective as was mentioned one property on hill between the subject property where the historic district begins that property is 50 feet wide. the actual 5 story portion of the proposed building is approximately 71 feet away from where the historic district is where that

side of the street begins. also, again just relevant to that street and there was some discussion about small streets and certain protections that does have a right of way from 40 feet or less. that is the benchmark for what is a small street from the code and in those situations there are specific requirements for light angle where there were no lights into those alleys, hill street, the right of way is 50 feet. even though it's a two lane it's a very small street that serves very basic street. valencia street is 90 feet to give you a relation to how the

building related. regarding the community liaison again, i don't want to touch on this too much because, but again, the purpose of the community liaison in our standard condition and this condition is not to actively engaged in the community in any on going basis about their issues. it designed for a contact for the broad check for the people that have concerns, that is the person they contact and there is the point of coordination to deal with those issues as has been said. it seems like it's possible that the community liaison was established or determined after the issue ance are the permit. however there were still doubts. i want to clarify the role in terms of their being a passive role as an active role in terms of the community engagement. and lastly, regarding affordable

housing, it is true that when we draft motions for projects, how a project is satisfying affordable homes, the planning commission cannot require a sponsor to meet his affordable housing obligation through one specific criteria. they are available to take advantage of any criteria available to them under the haw -- law and the commission is aware of that under approval. there is reference on how the the proposals is to that. also mentioned the currently the lottery system to affordable

units there is a priority system and they are multiple things that go in that. there is legislation at the board of supervisors this week about allowing tenants who have been in the ls act. however the lottery has discouraged the city from using any kind of geographic metrics because it opens up to the legal challenges and any specific or certain classes of people that cannot be exclude or included. that's why the city attorney said we can't give specific treatment to affordable houses because it creates a pretty serious legal issue there. obviously, that's a pretty good issue. i'm available for questions about anything else including the affordable

housing issue. >> there was a problem with the property starting at 16-unit and that never would have been approved. can you comment on that >> i have not seen anything for that design. if they can fit 16 units in this, then yes it could have been permitted. if that required variances, i can't say for sure that would not have justified and obtained those variances. it is new construction on a usable lot. if it requires some type of hardship. i can say it may not have been highly likely they get a lot of variances on that. if that project would have been approved or if that project would have or not been awarded. >> just to biggy pack on that,

if you can say about this a little bit. because the zoning changes the density calculation which used to be based upon a square footage of the site divided by the factors of how many units are allowed there. this one you are allowed as many units as you want with the height limit but some have to be larger units? >> the theory behind is and it not the two districts. it's all the districts across the city. it's beyond just eastern neighborhoods. essentially you are correct, before and other parts of the city based on the per square footage basis so 100 units per 800 square feet per property. in these districts there is no