where it has been used at city level, city councils or boards like this. anyway. thank you. steve will be up here. that was three minutes.3 minutes. >> a question for you. during the pro curing of the land entitlements -- we reduced it from 15 units. then it was reduced to 12 units, that's right. we reduced it in order to comply with the set backs

and this type of thing. >> during the planning entitlement the housing accountability act was not brought up. >> no, this is the first time before this board. >> i have a related question. we heard at the last hearing that it was not feasible to conduct the small floors. >> steve is prepared to answer those questions in detail. you would basically be making an sro and one of the objection is that the properties are too dense and too small. that's what they are saying the whole time. if the issue is to just make it harder to build and also make it in feasible from an economic point because we would have to go back and

start over with the planning process, with the drafting and the design. i will have steve come up. >> mr. pacheco, is there closed captioning possible. >> wait a second. i don't know if they are getting it on or not. steve, the architect for the project. i might want to limit my comments to two architectural issues and how

they relate to this condition to limit their envelope and therefore reduce the size of the building. i'm not a lawyer but in my reading of all the briefs and the arguments brought forward, it's clear to me that there are very many unsettled issues a lot of them do relate to design. there is question of whether the height is a density control or not. the planning code says there is a density control for height and the argument for reducing the control. the question of whether the retail and commercial space on the ground floor does make the building comply with the statute would have to be settled in the court's because the local jurisdiction has a different jurisdiction than the mixed use than the state. whether it complies to code prior to your condition or after is also open to debate. whether the project becomes

unfeasible after this design of building by yanking the floor off is up to the permit holder to determine whether it's feasible or not. to determine the details i have drafted a possible scenario that in my mind i would not want to be the architect but the building is very small unlivable and would yield over price unlivable units because the small units yield a higher square feet produce. it would be unlivable in my opinion. if the project didn't have a component it would be a different legal component to determine whether this applied or not. really i want to actually point out some

building related and finding related visual the board did not see. this is a 7 story building on lexington on the historic district. it is a district of 2-3 buildings as the findings indicate also a building with corner buildings specifically these two that are sometimes in this case they are very high 4 story buildings that is over 45 feet and a 5 story there. on hill street itself, the block that we are talking about. the image on the top is the 5 story plus height of the building on guerrero and down at the bottom is the

non-conforming 2-3 story building that this project is closest too. lastly i just want to show in context because this was not even shown. the board did not even consider these kinds of things that the historic preservation heard at two hearings and the planning commission heard and unanimously supported, the project sits pretty much right in at valencia street. it's extreme the condition to take off the top floor to help hill street. this is a view from hill street looking down. a very tree lined street. this is building rendered in context in two different modes. this is the last design. it sticks out over the trees like that and here is another

version where it would diminish the top floor. there are many different options as to the measure of the top floor. >> i would like to go back to your statement that the pipe control's density. you and i both understand the eastern neighborhoods zoning quite well. is it more accurate to say that the height controls maximum area. the density depends on the mix. >> why this question is not simple is that is true, but what is also true is that height is not the only density control. this building height, the two bedroom minimum requirement that 40 percent of the units have to have legal

two bedrooms and the rear yard requirement. there is also an open space requirement. by reducing the top floor, for example, the units get squished down very small and then you lose, i would have to take more out to gain more open space, for example. so separate from the rear yard there is the limitation of providing usable open space per each auto. i had to do it in a design of this building to reduce the building size to accommodate the open space requirement. >> understood. thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening and congratulations president lazarus and vice-president hurtado in your elevation of positions this evening. i look

forward to working with you and definitely thank president hwang. this has been before the historic preservation commission and planning commission and board of supervisors and planning department has found the project to be code compliant as well as consistent with the general plan and the mission area plan. and with that i'm available to answer any questions. if you would like to have further discussion about the density controls and i would agree with the architect that the variety of issues that affected in this case the height, the open space, exposure is another requirement, the rear yard, there is also a limitation on the ground floor uses in the valencia entity you can only have retail commercial on the ground floor facing valencia so you couldn't have retail uses on the planning code and that is resulting in the

buildable envelope. >> perhaps something else. i have two questions for you: one is the -- in the housing accountability act it talks about neighborhood serving. how would you define that? >> the permit noted and e-mailed me and i responded that the planning code does not contain an identical definition. we have legislators who crafted there through state law and i would interpret that term to include uses such as a restaurant and i think one of the appellants had noted that store and questioning whether or not we

would include a store as a restaurant. it doesn't define stoefrment it would be clear to have clarity at the state level. my interpretation is that a restaurant could be included as a neighborhood serving. >> last question is has anybody brought up the housing act? >> to my recollection, no. >> in 30 years? >> surprisingly yeah. the city attorneys office cannot recall those legal arguments being made. i know the department and the director had been briefed on the housing accountability act about 10 years ago. but this is not something that has come up. i don't know if it's because of a lot of the other project come before the conditional

use operations for projects whereas this is something that does comply with the planning code. a lot of the larger projects are otherwise discretionary acts. >> i would like to ask you a question. one of the so-called conditions put on at the time the commission approved the project is no. 6, encourage refinement and building mass along hill street and encouraged the sponsor to work with that and maintain the dwelling in the proposed project. would you care to elaborate on that. >> not in my favorite condition. mr. tieg expressed to you at a previous hearing. certainly as we have a hearing here or at the planning commission, it's always best for staff to have explicit direction wherever possible

about the goal of the board or commission and what they would like to see happen. i think what we have taken from their action here is that there could be further modifications, probably maybe to exterior materials, some slight set backs but of primary concern it was number of dwelling units be retained and not reduce. so i in everyone's retro expect it's not the best condition but we worked with it as best we could. >> do you know how we might meet this vague condition? >> certainly it would be up to this board to consider those as part of this process as well. to make changes if the top story were retained to have additional set backs at

the rear of the building. that is definitely an option and one i would assume would not depending on how much would need to be cut back would not result in the reduction of dwelling units. it has been noted under the planning code if you have more than 5 dwelling units you need to provide a mix of dwelling units. in this case they saw the to provide two bedrooms and they are providing more two bedrooms than are required under the code so they could reduce the size of some of the units on the top floor and still be code compliant with terms of unit mix. it's dependent on how much of a setback would be proposed. >> thank you. mr. duffy,

anything? the matter is submitted. >> public comment? can i see a show of hands of people that would like to speak on this item. if you can lineup on the far wall. if you haven't filled out a speaker card, that would help us in the preparation of minutes. the president lazarus you indicated the number of minutes you would like? two 2 minutes and the basis for that is the size of the crowd and what is before the board this evening? >> yes. >> okay. you have 2 minutes. >> i'm cho a. i'm a neighbor. i want to let you know that there are a lot of us who live in the valencia corridor who really do feel like projects

like this are necessary. i absolutely love the marsh. i think they are a great institution and they serve the area so well and that's why you have so many people here from the marsh. i feel the developer has done a really great job of lifting up to help with the sound issue. the part where the developer hasn't -- the part that concern me greatly is the affordable housing question here. we could not afford to lose more housing in san francisco and it's still very hard to build housing that i really and treat you all to look very carefully to look at any decision that causes us to lose an entire floor. the street is full. i live right besides many buildings that are taller than what is being proposed very close to that development. i do not think

it changes the liberty hill. in fact making the city more livable is a way to protect what the city already has rather than make the city less livable. i urge you to please continue this billion as it's designed at the height it's designed with the affordable housing it contains. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good evening, tim coalen on the san francisco association. your decision is one that is noted. this took the city in the exactly the opposite direction of where it should be going in having modest goals as to what our future is. taking the floor of, it

did take off two permanently affordable housing units in a city that needs more. they introduced the housing accountability act and found language for it that says that legislature finds and declares all the fouling. -- fomg. -- following. the lack of housing that threatens california. california has become the most expensive in the nation. the excessive cost of the housing supplies is caused by the activity and policies of many local government that limit the housing and require that high fees be paid by producers of housing. amongst the consequence are discrimination among those in households and imbalances in jobs and

reduced mobility, urban small and excessive community and air quality deterioration. we don't under. we would say you are not allowed to say something is code compliant to move our city in a direction toward environmental sustainablity. it really is the right thing to do for the city that so plainly is in front of us. >> good evening. i'm the director of the marsh's youth program of the marsh theatre. i want to comment. thank you for the passage of conditions that you did pass at your last meeting . i want to comment on a couple of those conditions. one is the construction hour that limited the construction

until 4:00 on weekend. it's a great program supported by the sf yf. we have classes every single day and saturdays as well. we also have 6 weeks of summer programming and we are a very busy program and we do ask you to maintain those construction hours. it would be difficult to conduct classes with a lot of construction. the other condition i want to support is the condition about the new tenant signing an affidavit saying they understand they are living next to the marsh. i say this because i'm on the board of waliden school in california. when the neighbor knew it was a school, he immediately began to counter the natural noise of the school and the board of the school had to spend a lot of

time negotiating with the neighbor to just be what it was what it was the school. i feel this will be the same situation at the marsh. i really want to support that condition along with the hours. finally i want to question the whole notion of the two affordable units. to my understanding these are not units that will serve the clientele of the marsh. i think that needs to be looked at. thank you very much. >> commissioners, those who are here to speak, i want to remind you that individuals who are employees of the marsh can give public comments but cannot have their comments used as evidentiary information. >> good evening, i'm a neighbor of the marsh. i live

3 blocks away and attend many of the performances. this is the third hearing i have attended and each time i'm in favor of the findings. regarding particularly conditions g and h is likely intention to mislead them to mr. -- miss inform them. does he plan to work his crew 11 hours a day and does he plan to pay they are for more than 40 hours a week. what has been made evident is that insist ins on active construction is a demonstration of complete disregard for educational

artistic programs at the marsh and indifference to benefit that the marsh provides the community uses for the public at large. that is not worthy of your respect. i beg of you to adopt and enforce all of these conditions. >> good evening i'm abet. i'm happy to keep showing up every month, but there you have it. i do think these conditions are reasonable where i'm considering buying a property i would want to know a theatre is next door. it shouldn't be difficult. sign the paper saying you heard this. there is lots of papers buying a property and this is not

something saying it is too difficult. in regards to construction hours it's also reasonable to work with neighborhood when you are moving into a neighborhood and to have construction that threatens the marsh. it is unnecessary. i ask you to keep the findings that you agreed upon last december. >> i'm peter heinicke. there is a separate procedure for this. this is a continuation of a continuation of a hearing that is on the findings. in my findings it's accurate what was decided and indeed no one was really contested. all the

developers tried to do is rehear the issue and that is not appropriate. the findings are accurate. is it within your power to make the findings. it clearly is. you are the board of appeals. you are not the board of rear -- rubber stamping. you are here to look at the design review accrue it i can't -- criteria, while it maybe zoning compliant it is not compliant with numerous design review criteria that are an essential part of the san francisco planning code and process and always has been. finally, there is the technical legal question of whether this thing is covered by the affordable housing

act. this is especially a general store. it a restaurant. not a store. if the legislatures wanted to write in restaurant, they easily could have. further more this is not a neighborhood serving. does anybody believe that a brand new restaurant with 15 feet ceilings on valencia stroo it is going to be focused on neighbors or people coming into neighborhood. the project does not deserve the protection of the haa. >> my name is margaret gomez, a neighbor of marsh and 5 blocks away from this condominium where it would built. i'm in favor of the

conditions decided in december and i'm here to ask you to please keep to that. it was an amazing well thought out decision of course. i'm biased. i'm not an employee of the marsh. i haven't gotten paid yet. i wanted to speak to you about the process. it's called love birds. i go to the theatre just at 6:00 when the marsh youth theatre is leaving. if you can see the youth in these programs and you see the future and these are people who are going to be in business, people in theatre. whatever they do, the marsh creates an incredible environment for them and it's really important that we stick to the hours for them otherwise there won't be a place for these kids to work and learn what they are doing and have an impact as a city.

we are talking about affordable living and the city being livable, but without places like the marsh which we have been losing right and left, the city is not livable and when we talk about housing, we are talking about housing for working people because i understand the two, he didn't want to do the low income units. this is luxury. i hope you stick to what it's. if not, i will come back. i know we are on public access tv and i know that adds on 20 pounds. >> yes it does. i'm gene gore. this is my fourth time here

and i also agree with all of the stipulations that you also so graciously and correctly passed unanimously and i don't understand why the opposition, the developers keep coming back and back and back. and also i'm very much in favor of having the construction down. i performed at the marsh. i know that i can't imagine performing with construction noises in the background and how very vital and important it is to let people know exactly whenever they are going to be living next to an active wonderful marvelous

theatre. thank you. >> good evening, my name is clarence isaac. i have lived in san francisco for 30 years now. i have attended the marsh since it's been in san francisco. to me it's an extraordinarily great place. to me it was astonishing and belittle i -- brilliant on your part to come up with what is best for the community. the developer i'm sure has a lot of money in this and he has a vested interest. at the same tone he needs to understand the environment he's moving into