it's a great san francisco neighborhood but that the architects have again, a good job in making it look like it was built around today, the masking works so i think the design works. i think the retail is great to have on the ground floor and kind of a similar in design for the retail at the cornea of sutter as you know east. if there's anywhere in the city we should be getting rid of parking it's here. there's amenities and transit and options so again project >> commissioner sugaya. >> just a detailed comment i know you have a conflict between

our floor plan. the floor plan on whatever sheet it is it's where the floor plans are it shows floors it through 5 with a floor plan that doesn't have the little correspond cut outs open the 6th floor does the 6th floor have a setback on the one hand but your elevations slowed it >> you've got me. >> so the elevations are correct in the floor plan. >> we should have been more specific about the location. >> generally i don't have a problem with the height or soiling but lower knob hill district especially here and i

don't do did hand gesture this is a solid bunch of buildings this is good pious i didn't for me. i don't have a design direction it is it's not a matter of solid deavoid staff needs to work with the developer and architect on the facade design interest if you look at the buildings they have a solid corn in his line. i i know that the extension of the trees list or element is trying to emulate that perhaps it will look different than the elevation but it could stand to use some solidity it's hard to

describe in the context of both sides of the street the other buildings have and they're not all different the one to the west doesn't have the same abusing further to the east. the one to the west has streamline strong vertical elements whereas the other ones are defined by the base. you've generally done that but something in the quiet right. i would want the staff to work a little bit more with the sponsor on the facade design. perhaps someone can better

articulate that than me >> commissioner moore. >> i think the building benefits from the fact the site is small. i think it would be more apparent it doesn't emulate the playoffness. and when you look at the elevation when you see the pictures next to each other is a rippling of buildings together. having said that, i think the building is fine. i think i would probably have excepted for definition on the facade. it's not a deal breaker i want to see a slightly more definition on the ground floor. when you come to john's street it has a better facade very high

i prefer you bring it into the pedestrian eye level scale of what the other buildings are doing. your eye kind of sees it a little bit more on the facade. i have a question for many kevin. in a dense neighborhood where people rely on - i would have liked to see a gesture here did he do you see the person in court here today i want to ask about the car share spaces

nearby in order to replicate that community benefit because it is one. i know many, many people i live a few blocks up the hill people come her and they're all gone. so this is think ideal location >> commissioner our comments are well-taken. i think this is a problem not only isolated i think this would be a great location for that a car share pod but it happens to be a sort of lone area. there are a number of garages in the immediate area north and west on las vegas worth street.

there's large garages that provide a car share company to locate a pod to lease the spaces in the areas and presumably serve the population of their customers. so i do understand the concern but it wouldn't appear there are alternatives it might be more secure there are tenant garages better options for car share companies. it's an important issue and we'll be cognizant of >> thank you for saying that does this building fall under the provision of having to provide bicycle status. >> yes. there are new requirements class one bicycle space per unit and a total of two class 2 spaces.

they will put two out at the sidewalk and one into the inner vestibular >> i don't see a plan but i hope there's a provision that indeed addresses the code or goes beyond it because those areas are the ones we find a lot of possibilities. >> yeah. and i apologize the plans were sent in your packet didn't include that provision but we've made that a condition of approval we would he have updates and we will be providing those spaces. in terms of when you're asking about the satisfactory solution were you talking about the class 2 >> you don't think i don't have

that. >> the intent of the class 2 spaces is to provide parking for visitors and those will be used for adversities for retail use and situated into the vestibular that could be for guests. >> are we gaining a parking space because this is not a parking lot anywhere enough room to add parking spaces on the roof. >> i would presume so that's the solution. >> thank you for talking about that other than the ground floor relocating i'm comfortable with this. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i think i get the point but one of the issues that's a

narrow lot and the bigger ones are on bigger lots there's not a lot you can do with the design. so, i mean i hear you but for this narrow lot i think it works >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm going to move to approve with the recommendations that the project sponsor continue to work with staff open design and a few of the elements i've heard and address the retail levels in keeping with the commissioner moore said and perhaps make a kind of wayne's coding area like the garage area to give the building a little bit more bulk to save saufr what

commissioner sugaya talked about and a at the top i notice you have a lot of lines that are horizontal but it's a unstuck could it might not hurt to have some vertical distributions to give a it a look at unstuck could. those are thoughts of and i'll welcome comments from other commissions >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. to staff do we have a light rail issue there is one to the east it's a little indent and you are correct we raised

this when the building was taller. your typical practice is to try to get a republic indicating light well or something equivalent in this particular case given the location of that light well on the adjacent property right in the location of where the core will be there's a lot of competition for space. argued correctly it would be extremely hard to do a light well, because of the small lot and the location of the core. but there is the slight light well, that's incorporated into the project and the height of the project being reduced supervisor scott weiner should help so relevant we don't think

it will not respect the quality of the light well and it's rather deep in itself so >> i would almost say almost unconventional. >> following up on the bicycle question the bike question are they because the one we show shows 10 spades. >> actually, i building we have an updated drawing we can show you. >> just quickly if you have it. >> okay. if i could just get the overhead. so this is zoomed in for clarity but toward the rear of the first floor.

the bike parking for residents. and then you've got class two space right inside the vestibular and the proposed two additional spaces on the sidewalk. we're make sure those are incorporated that the companies notice. >> i'll second the motion to approve with conditions. >> commissioner moore. >> i ask it be more simplified. if we capitalize the comment and staff continues to work with the encouragement from for the elements you can not use a motion to correct the building. i talked about the mull i don't

think so on the ground floor those had been encouragement and a issues that the department works but i don't think you should extend that to 0 the architects >> thank you. >> i refine my motion to work with staff and take into consideration the comments. >> and commissioner antonini that's a condition of approval not a recommendation? >> yeah. a recommendation not a condition of approval. >> yeah. >> if that's okay with the commissioners. >> there's a motion and a second commissioners to approve the project with conditions that they continue to work with the staff. commissioners.

commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner sugaya and president fong. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. commissioners that will place you under ourout. >> and when speaking before the planning commission please state your name for the record. if you care to. this is for 16 a and b for case numbers 14.3 and d at the grant ton street and the zoning administrator will considering a

question for variances >> good afternoon. i'm glep with the staff. that is proemg many construction for a had story family residence and a 40 height district the property is in the hate ashbury neighborhood known as coal valley. the project proposes a demolition of the family residence and for the planning code it has a demolition report and we've concluded that the possible is indeed urban censoring sound and the project is for a mandatory discretionary hearing but this is a publicly

filed report. and the dr requesters include the promise size in relation to the lot and the proposed building to the neighborhood character and the adverse effects to the open space request. we've received opposition if the neighborhood and in conflict 7 letters of sport have been provided including one letter from the property to the east of the subject valley. the coal valley association has concerns for the elimination of the fourth floor altogether, however, they have not voiced their support in opposition to

the subject. staffs review in light of the dr concerns it has not riensz to the point of the request. the building is not disrupt to the neighborhood and it is next to the building styles. in addition to the proposed massing and setbacks it visiblely breaks up the building facade. thus, the project does to the contribute after all to the open space and that would not effect the light access to the block. the staff recommends they not take the discretionary review and approve the project >> the dr requester, please.

>> good afternoon. i'm a california architect and speaking on the on behalf of the neighborhood group that is opposing the project. i will, you know, i'm in an awkward position i have respect for the architect i have a great passion for the pattern this is about invoicing the point of view of the neighbors in relation to the project at hand. i will show some images for support but the primary thing i

want to appointee start is we believe in the policy and rights just like the neighbor sorry the applicant has the right to develop the land and the neighbors have the right to express their opinion and having a discretionary review. a recent history with this particular situation there's a lot of anonymity between the parties so i'm coming her in the fashion expressing the neighbors point of view. so i'm showing now let's see how can i show some images? >> you just place it face up. >> i want to show some historic images from san francisco two from the u.s. camera that was on

a magazine that shows san francisco with a top graph with a skyline you can read the magdz that was taken in 1928. this is another images this shows a similar character to the continuity of the landscape as part of an expedition of the city images and the one that's very well known is alamo's square where the roof images and street alliances. the contention of the neighbors is that currently, the fourth floor essentially causes a

consist conflict of the image of the city it's been provided as part of the passage. the variance is necessary to deputy but, however, part of that concern is this incidental of the consolute will be disrupt and there's some inconsistents the way the alignments the heights have been measured because san francisco are the central line of - the center line of the site because the reference point of all the lots on the side and left.

when you measure things like that essentially the 230 to house has the same height but in fact, there's a 6.5 foot difference in height. it's the position of the neighboring neighbors this can be developed and should be developed there will be an increase in property value and it's the contention of the height so possible removal of the 16th figure out floor. reviewing many of the argument this is an image of how the neighborhood perceives >> yes. >> will perceive the new development those are new images of what's around the neighborhood. and this should be the sense of the scale.

it's assumed at some point the corner lot will be developed maybe much later in the thing. so it's hope our concerns to preserve the neighborhood >> now calling speakers no support of the dr. >> good afternoon members of the committee. i'm not here in support of the dr but in opposition of the variance that's on the same calendar. i must emphasize this is not fully compliant and not meeting the setback requirements to code. i don't building this meets the

codes that are to be able to meet the variance or the second priority general plan policy hadn't been met. acquit frankly we have a substandard lot trying to be used as a large size dwelling now the subdivisions would be created and put on a condition you can only blt build a certain amount of the construction the subdivision was between 1935 and amended in 1946 doesn't have that condition but has a small house and being proposed to add two floors in a rear yard that's

quite detrimental to the prosperity owns at the south and the property owner expecting to use a small lot for a small house there's no equity and it's a hardship and it will have the detrimental effect to the south property owner from sky explore of that rear yard of that entire property and doesn't meet the standards and purpose of the planning code or the general plan. i do think a variance should be granted only the size of the

building should be granted >> other speakers no support of dr. i have another card karen. >> thank you members of the committee i appreciate the time to be here peri live around the cornea from the project and speaking on behalf of neighbors we're not going to bring everybody but but if you're a neighbor that opposes the project please raise your hand. we understand the applicant should build a home on the lot and have worked with the design team. they've worked on the entry and adjusted the plan but we're

concerned they've failed to remove the fourth floor and the height and mask of the building is our concern. i have a timeline to meet with the neighbor in your packet and but it's been a tough process the applicant said it took 9 months to learn about the height concern but it was from the beginning. we're faced with a thirty day deadline and we repeatedly tried to get in touch with the developer and again without success on february 13th we heard the applicant was interested in meeting with us but haven't heard anything.

you have in your packet a petition and if i could get this thing turned on. this is a map of the neighborhood showing the locations where the petitions have come from. you can see here is the project site and the adjacent neighbor is the mined the applicant has an interest in the property across the street and in red is the scope of the neighborhood concerns. again we are not opposed to the applicant demolishing the existing home and building a home that's significantly taller but we opposed o opposite the fact they're going