sensitivity, nature of the neighborhood. we have to remember to look at all the other chapters and not just transit quarter piece. so i feel that 4 stories and truly afford able units is what best fits this neighborhood. what i mean by truly affordable units is that immigrant families can purchase or rent or any other low income folks in the neighborhood. we have seen a lot of affordable inclusionary units that are not affordable to people in the neighborhood. there is restaurants that have come into the mission are not here anymore. they are investors and not traditional mom and pops. most of the neighborhood can't afford to eat there. i hope you can uphold your decision made in

december. thank you. >> first i want to confirm some e-mail that i maybe able to speak although it's not evidence. >> that's correct. ms. gamez is in the matter as a member to speak with respect to the public. her testimony should not be given any evidentiary weight. thank you. i speak again to ask you to uphold your decision reached in decision and speak to some of the statements that have been made in the press and here tonight that indicate that holding this fitting this

built would sign the death trap in san francisco and i would ask you to walk castro and valencia street to show there is building after building in construction. it's not as though they are projects that are constantly given insurmountable road blocks. when you arrive at this location a portion of the eastern neighborhoods plan that invite you to apply consideration of the characteristics and the surroundings is an appropriate politics application here. the marsh is a valuable resource in a historic district. the decision you made in december is a brave one. the amount of attention it has gotten since then has been surprising special fully context with reality where there is so much construction

happening and still we have an affordability crisis. i hope today we expect to have a floor building with 10-12 units with on-site affordable housing because we do need to retain economic diversity cultural diversity and art particular cohesion and neighborhood characteristics. thank you. >> hi. my name is mike mayor. i'm treasure of the liberty hill association and want to make a statement about affordable housing. lha supports affordable housing in the neighborhood. we made a

public statement stating this includes on-site affordable housing and mission district development. ha does not support mission displacement of residents. along with everybody else thank you for all that you have done until now. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, the matter is yourself. >> question for mr. sanchez? would you explain a little bit about the lack of applicability regarding the design guidelines and i guess instead there was an urban design advisory team with you? >> yes, the residential design guidelines are accompanied you need planning code section 311 and flied zoning districts that are hr, rm or rto and

not applicable to commercial districts. separately we use the urban design element as the general plan and the urban design team referenced to the project and they consist of department staff and they provide comments on the project and we forward those to the project sponsor. that's the review. >> would some of the comments i was referencing earlier come from that review potentially? >> our review of the design was quite lengthy. the process they had gone through the hpc and to appeal the environmental review back in 2010. so i think the planning commission commission didn't hear this until 2012 and there was some time there in between where we were working with the project sponsor and the architects to get a design the department could support.

>> thank you. >> i would like to make one observation and if you disagree with me of course jump in. it seems to me that the issue we are really focused on is letter an in our determinations which has to do with the 5th story. the first determination as drafted. is it fair to say that we are all comfortable with the rest of the determinations that were in there which i think largely had to do with the marsh? >> i think so, yes. >> yeah. i feel compelled to

make a statement. this particular case has been extremely difficult and during the course of it i found myself doing what i didn't wish to and found upon myself in general that when you look at a particular project and gauge it in terms of what is appropriate, there are quite a few factors that go into that. i found that i got stuck into one and that side predominantly the physical context of the situation. after giving it a lot of thought, i need to change my position and do two things: i would recommend to my fellow commissioners that we do two

things to the findings. one is to add to additional findings and modify one. the finding is that we add the ground floor commercial space needs to be neighborhood serving. the modification to finding a although i believe my comments made in the previous hearing i still feel they were relevant they are not total in terms of my decision making process should have been. so i would

say if i was to look at an issue that was brought up in the planning commission findings that related to the ability of the building design to settle into it's immediate neighborhood, i believe that what they were thinking of and i'm now leaning toward is that it's now some type of setback to the building. therefore i would probably ask my fellow commissioners to consider whether they would be in support of modifying condition a as i stated and the adding of an additional finding on neighborhoods being used and the balance of conditions and findings be maintained. >> i mean, i'm prepared to

support that position. you know, i do also feel compelled to make a statement about the deliberations here and i think the very careful consideration that this commission has taken about a variety of competing issues here and we've heard a lot from a lot of community members and i can guarantee that this commission takes very seriously all of these issues, the marsh's concerns, the affordable housing concerns, the gentrification that's npg our city, the character of the neighborhood, the aesthetics, all of those things i have personally struggled with because they are complicated issues and everybody in the city is really struggling with. for

me and what i do feel is that we are constrained by what our authority is. in my opinion, i have read all the cases, we did continue to hear whether we have the authority to impose finding a under the housing accountability act and i have read all the cases and i have to say they are no the that instructive or enlightening and not exactly on point. what i do feel is that if we do go in that direction and we maybe wrong. it maybe that the act doesn't apply, but in my reading, i think we are constrained by it to a certain extent and if we are wrong the court's will let us know that we are. but at this point my opinion is that

we are constrained by the law in this regard and we could not impose condition a. i would be supportive of commissioner fung's modification to the findings based on that and not based on any lack of concern for any of the other issues we've heard about from the community and i really do commend the community for remaining invested in this project because it is i think it's microcosm of a lot of other projects that are going up in our city and that's why i love san francisco because citizens like all of you are here and care about these issues and that's why we serve on this commission because we care about these issues as well. >> i'm prepared to support commissioner fung's idea of looking into a setback. i just want to make sure that the

affordable housing aspect stays as a certain number. the other concern i would have is that we would get some, since there is two separate definition in regarding the commercial aspect of the property that maybe we can get some further definition from the state in regards to the word store and what would be community service and commissioner fung suggested and how we would suggest or implement that into findings. i totally agree with the statement that our vice-president made and those are mine as well. some days you are here and you don't like what you are doing but you have to do what you have to do. i really appreciate the fact that all of folks have come out so many times so determined and again, this is just, all the other findings

are going to remain the same. we are just talking about a at this point. >> i guess i would just add that it has been quite a process and i felt that the issues were somewhat separable and i think we did address the protections for the marsh and i don't think those will ever really been in doubt and i think a little bit like you commissioner fung was a bit up comfortable with what we attempted to do which for me really i thought the design was not compatible with the neighborhood. it seems like an approach but we were taken back by the affordable units and that was not an intent to eradicate though the. it's ironic to try to get to a building that fits you are going to limit the affordable component which i don't want

to do. so on all those basis, i too would be prepared to support your alternative findings and your additional finding. >> just to be perfectly clear, we never touched upon the density. i'm not changing the density with any of my recommendations at this point. >> commissioners if you are interested in moving forward with a proposal we would just need more specificity for both of those things for what the ground floor commercial space what limitations or parameters to put on there or what definitions to use for neighborhood serving use and that is on issues of debate and in terms of a setback there would need to be something very specific which i think is probably a bit of

a challenge at this point tonight because you have not seen any plans to give you the opportunity to articulate what that setback would look like. >> well then i have a question for the architect. at the first hearing you indicated that you had produced a design that had a setback solution. i would like to see it. >> okay. i don't have it with me. >> no i meant that we are not going to finalize everything tonight. >> that relates to an earlier question that you asked the project sponsor. can i answer that now? that version was the building that required a variance step into yard to get the variance or to initiate requiring the variance and

then stepped back. >> i see. >> it involved the variance. >> it wasn't just stepping back from the rear yard line. >> the regard is that it's not a very nice rear yard. it is surrounded by walls and that was not good. >> okay. thank you. >> maybe we will finalize it tonight. might i try a motion? >> certainly. >> i'm going to move to adopt the findings and conditions with two changes. i would add condition l which is that the

ground floor commercial space being neighborhood serving uses as defined by the san francisco planning code. i would modify condition a as follows: the original entitlement as authorized by the planning commission in terms of density will be maintained. our feeling is that the residential design guidelines have not been conformed to with this

particular design. have not been conformed to. and therefore i'm imposing a setback at the front and rear of the 5th floor to a depth of 10-12 feet depending on the final architectural solution. >> can you repeat the last part. >> imposing a setback of 10-12 feet with a range that depends upon the structure of the final design. >> and where is this setback made? >> front and back. >> front and back. you want them both pulled in? >> yes. >> on the 5th floor.

depending upon the structure of the final design, is that what you said? >> yes. >> what does that mean m terms of who gets to decide what it is? >> it means where they have a structural wall, it may vary that dimension a little bit. >> it would be up to the project sponsor to decide? >> i think that's okay. >> only concern i have about the second element is what i believe i heard earlier from the zoning administrator that the residential guidelines do not apply in this zoning district. but there are other elements in the findings as currently drafted that talk about non-conformity with some of the mission area plan policy. >> you may delete that line.

>> okay. i think that's already covered in the findings. >> is that clear, madam director? >> yes. and i would just like to ask that you add, there are a few places in this draft of the draft findings where additional language would need to be revised to address the change that you are proposing as far as the structural. >> do you think we need to see a final draft? >> no, i think they are very very minor changes. they are two places where the 5th floor would reference and those would need to come out with a reference to a setback instead. >> then i would depend on you and the city attorney to create a final draft that would be issued. >> is that a motion?

>> that's my motion. >> any further discussion? >> no. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez. i believe at the previous hearing one at the mark proposed a language section h instruction that the affidavit should be signed prior to a purchase or lease and i was wondering if the board was considering that language change to ensure the affidavit for anyone who moves into the building would be done prior to them buying or leasing? >> i would support that. >> i would support that as well. >> there is two places where that comes in section 8 and notice of special restrictions. >> thank you for reminding us of that. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> i would accept that

amendment. >> mr. pacheco, how do you feel about this motion, are you ready? city clerk: let's see here so the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold the permit, adopt the findings, with provisions as stated and with the two further conditions that the ground floor commercial space be permitted to neighborhood use by the san francisco planning code that the original entitlement as to density be maintained and with a 5th floor setback at the front and back of 10-12 feet depending on the final architectural plan. >> yes. >> okay. on that motion to

uphold this permit -- >> did we forget the last piece. >> he said as indicated to the one mr. sanchez referred to. >> on that motion to uphold this permit with these revised find gsz and additional conditions. commissioner hwang is absent. vice-president hurtado, lazarus, commissioner honda. this permit is upheld with revised findings with additional conditions. >> thank you. a >>we are back to the february 26, 2014. item no. 8 is rescheduled. we are on item

no. 9. item 9: 99 appeal no. 14-008 ty bash, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1100 ashbury street. protesting the issuance on december 31, 2013, to michelle meyer, alteration permit replace windows; work done in 2000; found out permit not issued at time; rectifying situation; in response to notice of violation #2013428411. application no. 2013/12/31/5419. for hearing todayrescheduled. we are on item no. 9. sf 91234 this is on for hearing tonight and we'll start with the appellant mr. bash. you have seven minutes.7 minutes.a good evening commissioners, my name is tie bash and i'm the individual pealing the window replacement i believe in error to respondent. as a 19-year

resident of the city of san francisco. i have met the planning commission department. these are windows installed at ash bury meeting the standards. i don't believe they do. i met with the preservationist counter that permits that city does not allow windows that were originally wood and #, a window replacement permit for a building of this age and one classified as potentially historic resource should have been reviewed by preservationist, again it was not. in her brief, respondent on behalf of ms. myers claims that no where in the window

replacement document explains windows. i would like to refer your attention to page 3, section 4. where it states replacement windows should match the historic windows in size, dmraezing, operation and material, finish exterior profile and arrangement. section 4d further clarifies where visible from the street aluminum or vinyl windows cannot be approved for replacement windows that were originally wood -- windows. the respondent claims the character of the immediate vicinity of the issue. the vinyl windows prevail in the

immediate vicinity she claims. again this argument is indirect contradiction to the standard setforth for window replacement document. exhibit 3 page nine where the following question is asked. many of the building in my neighborhood already have vinyl wnd owes or aluminum or fiberglass windows, why can't i have similar windows approved in my building. the question answers the following. the primary character of the citywide the department acknowledges that windows maybe in consistent with the original design and intent of older structures. in addition it is i ampossible that the windows have been done without a permit or contrary to the scope of work out lined in the building permit. page 13 of the window replacement document also

mentions a criteria for window replacement permit. a building permit is required for all windows replacement. failure to obtain a window replacement permit. >> we can't see what you are reading from. >> it's a different page. it's all in the exhibits. >> what exhibit? >> exhibit 3, page 9. to this the respondent claims that ms. myers is not a building or planning professional but rather a mother whose windows needed to be replaced an she did not know she needed a

permit for windows to be replaced. unfortunately i agree with respondent ms. myers feels that many home improvements do not require a permit. further the reality that ms. myers is a homeowner in several homes in the area and building as several experts wrote this brief at her finger tips. finally according to ceqa categorical exemption form. this is page 3. the project planner checked the box for window replacement meets the department for window replacement standards. if it is determined the replacement window do not