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 density control, however there is a dwelling unit requirement. 20 percent has to be two bedrooms and 30 percent three bedrooms. it's not filling five or 6 stories full of studios. we want to make sure there is a diverse

housing in the city. and you have the other physical control, the rear yard and open space requirements and exposure. all of these requirements create a patch work that create what is considered a correct density for that site. so the dwelling is the biggest one but the control is together that limit the envelope as well. >> someone mentioned earlier are they at their maximum build. >> it looks like they are at their maximum. the height limit is 55 feet. the only caveat to that is what i mentioned earlier is if they chose the height from hill street is they would have the option to do it, what they measure from, technically it could physically be higher. it wouldn't be an

additional story which is an important distinction because a lot of the conversation we have talks about stories and height. they are not as was mentioned the stories in this building aren't necessarily represented in these industries. -- stories. a 2 story or 3 story building is taller than a 2 story building. >> if they have a 17 building earlier it would be above what they can currently build? >> correct. you would have to make it in someway. they have more of what is required. there

was a mandatory inter departmental review. the question is 2010. the purpose is not to collect a fee. it's to make sure that dbi is on the process to make sure that issues are especially seismic safety are addressed for a project.

>> it's the preapplication process and we have our own process. and we have to allow that. >> i have a question for miss wise man. you were requesting a change to 4:00 p.m.. >> we use classes everyday monday through friday to 4:00 p.m.. from 10-4. mostly that's the schedule. >> mr. duffy, any rebuttal? okay. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have one more question for miss gallagher. in your original brief you had a lot of

sound remediation efforts to be done by the developer on your building. commissioners fung, i started helping the marsh after that brief had been filed and i have advised marsh that it's not within the purview of board to be regulating on the side. i have made them aware of many contributions and would hope that might have happened here outside of this purview but it didn't. >> all right. thank you.

>> i'm interested in finding a way to reduce impacts in recognition of these conditions on the permits. i don't know if we want to have a discussion on it. >> we can. i would like to bring up one thing before we start. people are talking about the step solution as possibly, bear in mind that that may not always work. the reason is this. right now, their configuration has the two steps back on the elevator against the wall that is next to the marsh. i have some agreement with that although i disagree the elevator shaft is providing that as necessary. the level is much less than the occupied space. if you step in the

middle, how do you exit out? how do you access the elevator. it doesn't quite work. >> i have to say with the design and the scale with the step down i don't think we are in a position to determine that without more information, i think that's also given all the factors that go in the plan. this is a direction permit to design. >> this is what happens when you don't have communication. now we are here. >> 2 days ago if it's the first time it was proposed i would suggest having further discussion on that piece. and i don't think this is going to be

the last time we are going to see this at all times. i think we are going to see this every step of the project if communication and coordination and engagement with the community doesn't happen . >> what are you suggesting? >> well, i'm suggesting for purposes of the types of conditions that are clearly agreed to, we put it on the permit. as to those there are some areas where the proposed language has been rejected. some of that is i'm not sure if we can address and some of it i think we can, i would like to just go through them. the first four we her from the department. >> before you do that, perhaps we have a difference of opinion and might see what the course of action is. i also feel where

i agree that the appellant does not belong in that area. i have spent a lot of time in valencia and a lot of time in the mission. it's a bad design of scale and the project does not work. to what it looks like on the hill perspective. that's my view. the design is part of the permit. i would state it my

position slightly differently in the following way. i think that in breaking it down between the various appeals and also concerns that are here, the ones that i came to conclusion earlier i'm going through first. that is the appeal on the basis of the size of the building, the design of the building. having spent my tenure at planning that came up with the a liberty hill historic district, i was quite familiar with that area having walked every street of it. there are significant buildings in liberty hill and non-cyclic buildings in liberty hill. not

every building there is worthy of being kept. the issue of the design, i have no issues with that. i have no intention to mandate a design. that has to go it's own course based on the creative nature of the architect or what the developer wants. the scale of the project however, i do have serious concerns about that. i don't think that this building scale wise fits within this area. and i'm not prepared to design it for them. i am prepared to say that i would cut a floor off. the issue dealing with the marsh however is much more complicated. historically here i have always indicated to either permit holder or appellants that they have to

keep the noise and sound and control it with their own buildings. here we are being asked to do something to an adjacent building and i'm sympathetic to the program, however i'm having some difficulty how to how far do i go with this. i would say i would accept the following as a technical solution. i think it benefits both sides because neither wants tools -- to have a solution. i would say they reach a level of tda. and i would say probably some type of a reduction to the roof deck through the use of either a

planter or something along that wall so aggregation of people and noise is not extended across. i recognize that the existing building also probably they would be start to thinking about their own building. the level of corridor is quite extensive. i would be leaning towards those points. >> what about the protective language in regard to the cc and r's to prevent future litigation and nuisance lawsuits? >> that's the language.

>> that is stepping on someone else's rights. it's just disclosure. it has the tail end. do you think we should have make some suggestions and have them sit down or? >> i think they have some agreement to that language. if they have that agreement to language, then i will accept. i have a question for the city attorney. in regards to the parking can we condition the permitted parking.

>> i don't know if one of the lawyers knows the answer, we have shaking heads. anyone? >> i not a lawyer, thank goodness. i looked at the parking code and if you live in the area, you can ply -- apply. >> an individual? >> the way that i read it didn't give the mpa the authority and new legislation is required and

why it's attached to the new legislation. >> having not had my own, and during the time in the city, i have did that myself. we can all interpret the code and get a parking. but the question from the vice president is getting them in advance. >> i heard that too, i don't think that can happen. how can you do that? >> let's hear from the lawyer from the project sponsor. >> absolutely not. >> no. >> there is no means from the eta. i didn't ask for the developer but for the resident of that unit that has a vehicle, and no indication and no seeking of permission ahead of time. >> okay, i didn't know how that worked either. we have expressed our opinions. does anyone else before we go through specific proposals like to comment? >> i am generally in concurrence

with the comments made. >> okay. >> i think this needs to be a change. >> okay, you want to move forward? >> i mean i would like to see some type of language. and i agree with frank, that making conditions to neighboring properties is difficult. but having been through 95, 96, and 97 with a loss, and understanding. and we had a case not that long ago that required the baseline off of it. so it would be a shame, and look all the folks this has been an enjoyable evening and we are compassionate about the marsh and i don't want them to be tied down that they are barely able

for their property and to see that taken away. >> it seems to me that is requested and agreed to. the first i heard -- unless i heard wrong. anything on the left side of the proposed conditions of approval presented by the appellant for the marsh. the first three were agreed to by the project sponsor. so those can be put on to the permit. i am assuming both permits, or which permit would that be? >> it would be both, and the demolition would involve some construction activity. >> and number four, is what commissioner honda is suggesting, and my proposal is for the marsh and put that in

the permit. that that we have a proposal and will necessary and done over the course of the years. i have no problem following what is precedential. say this is my motion. >> before you move off of no. 4? >> yeah. >> just to be clear, you are talking about proposals in materials? is that what you are suggesting? >> this is where i have challenges, is specific language here. i don't think i have a full picture, we haven't seen an entire disclosure. and i may have move for more materials, it needs to be precise, this is going on a permit. >> this has to be continued for detailed findings. >> yeah, it does need to be --

nice look, cynthia, nice. anyway, so let's just do this in concept then. concept form. we will need to have this not heard again but go through this with some additional information to this board. at another date. so that's my view on number four. in concept i would agree with what is proposed by the marsh, no. 5. i am assuming that is not an issue for the project sponsor, there is no objection to no. 5? >> i don't think we can change no. 6, that is subject to the mayor's housing. and now the priority is to displace san francisco, i don't think they are district orie oriented. >> to the language of number 6 allowed by legislation, if not allowed by legislation, then not

allowed. >> then it's meaningless. i would say don't put it in. it's not saying anything to say -- >> okay. fine. no, no, that's fine. i appreciate the point. how about no. 7? >> i think there is a compromise, i think that's pretty limiting on the developer, and times to build during the day time. >> i am looking at 7. >> sorry. >> were you talking about 6? >> nope. >> 8. >> unnumbered. >> yeah. >> construction shall be limited, is that too limiting to the developer? >> well, the noise level will go on if they shorten the time. it will go on for a longer period of time. right. so it's tough to get your workers there and everybody there. i think there is a compromise, they compromised initially already but maybe another one we

can move a notch. >> i don't think it was a compromise, it was imposed. >> it was imposed? >> yeah, that was imposed. we can impose here. given there is children trying to -- i mean this doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. it's not saying that work needs to stop, it's saying external work needs to stop. if the contractor is doing a good job planning, they can plan to do interior work for the two hours of time that they are restricted to do so. >> certainly would prolong a demolition. >> but demo doesn't take that lo long. >> we are talking about stucco and roofing and that means that at 4 o'clock everyone puts their tools down. and maybe not enough interior work because construction is done in phases right. >> not being a contractor i don't know, but that's where i

am, if the other commissioners don't feel that way. >> i am in favor of the way it is. >> the proposed language? >> yeap. especially because of the classes happening. >> right, and it's there, the existing entity. >> can we go back to the parking though? >> yes, please. >> i don't think we -- i am sympathetic to parking issues. but i think this is overreaching a bit. i wouldn't be in favor of adopting no. 7. >> no. 7 suffers the same problem as 6. they go hand in hand, 6 and 7 is not something we can condition on the permit. all equipment chosen for the job should be the quietest equipment

available by independent sound consultant. >> that is very vague. >> yes. >> it is very vague. and it's also -- yeah, a little over reaching. the next one i found to be, while i understand the concern about barring entertainment uses and etc. i have a hard time that there is going to be another process in place. we heard from mr. teague that there will be another process and opportunity to that issue as to the use. that would take place in the commercial portion of the property. so i would be disinclined to put that on the permit. >> i think just the legislation in the neighborhood is going to stop that from happening anyway. since it's close proximity to a school, they would not be entitle to a 48 license.

>> if that is a restaurant, that is different issue, and noprescribnot prescribed to that. >> that's where i am on that. >> what about what commissioner fung brought up chopping the top. >> yeah, i liked that too. >> commissioner fung raised two additional points about the requirements for the party wall and also the roof deck. i don't know if we want to -- >> we are kind of having more of a discussion than motion. >> i thought the roof deck of removed. i swear i heard that earlier that was a part of the condition earlier. no roof deck. >> no, we are talking about the roof deck at the second floor: the drawings do not show a roof deck on the top of the building. their concern is with the roof

deck on the second floor. >> okay. >> not on top of the building. >> okay. okay. i like the -- i mean i think we are mainly having a discussion to inform the parties here where our thinking is. and i think it would behoove the parties in the time that we continue this. and i think we need to continue it in order to make a clear motion. on these specific conditions. >> if you would like to adopt findings that is totally great. i would want as much direction as possible as to what those findings need to contain. that's why i am asking for more specificity. >> we have a conceptual motion, i am considering what we are

talking about today. >> a motion of intent. >> you can also have a motion, done in the past, the main item you would vote on. to hold the permit and limit the fifth floor and limit general with findings and conditions at a later time. that way it closes the hearing and we go to an adoption of findings. >> and we can ask for proposed findings on items that we are not clear. >> right but on major items if you are removing a fifth floor, you state so, on the major issues you state so and we could have a motion and close the hearing and go to adoption of findings. >> i am prepared to do that if my fellow commissioners are ready to go forward with that. okay, i will make that motion. starting, why don't we start

with the big one. loop off that top floor, i don't mean to make light of it. it's a big decision. i think the scale, i think we are in consensus that the scale of this property -- project is too large for that location. and for that reason, i think my motion would include a removal of the top floor. the suggestion by commissioner fung of the party wall i would to add to this motion, you can articulate again or if you have it. >> i would like it articulated. >> that the property line separating 1050 velencia from

the marsh to have 5.0 acoustical value. >> that is slightly less than what is required for commercial. >> no, slightly more than what is required for residential. >> significant. >> okay. >> what was on the roof, on the second floor deck? >> the second point was to create a planter as a buffer on the side of the second floor roof deck. adjacent to the marsh. >> okay. >> and then in respect with the conditions. >> mr. teague, you don't like that? please come forward. >> i actually, it's for the previous condition. i