those were answered federal and local. the march sound proof will not be concerns and i'll do the appellant damages they want a rehearing a there's no hearing to reduce the fifth floor of the project and the cost of implementing it will render the project unfeasible and the next is is violates the california accountability act and they've failed to approve the overall city objects the board has asked for the fifth floor stairwells and elevators and including the mechanic sprirnlz this constitutes another sees of 50 thousands and it didn't include

reappraisal or other stems i have examples here if you want to look at them. those added costs coupled with the size negative gaits the required b m r and it started out with two m r and down to 7780 square feet when it came before the board this transplants to two hundred and 66 market rate haurgz housing that was supposed to subsidize below market subsidizing by cutting the square feet of market rate square feet the board has pulled it and we still don't know what the fiscal year of the ground floor are commercial will be but add that

to the cost of the redesign or the arbitrary design you've killed the project and b under the rules of the board the persons of the financial connection to the party and concern members of the liberate hill are bank rolling this appeal and this is violated the board of rules by viewing during the public comment appeal this violates the other act and the board approve the conditions the board indeed their mission so to approve the policies consistent with the overall city and county and in this case that's the production of more housing. we hope the board will help us do that. i'm going to a hand it over to

steve. i have copies if you want them. okay >> excuse me. good evening, commissioners i'm steve the evict for the project. i want to address the new evidence based on the decision to cut back the top floor 10 to 12 in the front and rear. that while sounld an easy did the challenging project and decision has had ramifications throughout the building and triggered a major redesign than i anticipated. this layout here shows the two floors i mean the two remaining

units that will be left on the top but one of my main concern is that - can you make that - sorry. the boards decision is simply that politic and short and does not address the consequent of the result of being an architect to adjust thing so when i get interpretations from the board staff how to interpret this it's a cut-and-dried there's no expectations nothing must project above the roof and cut back ten feet it includes roof fence and guardrails is it going to be an occupied rooms nooeks next to and adjacent floor which

is an attractive nuisance for small business owner climbing out the window so if i can't have a guardrail it's committed a situation how to handle that no direction from the board and a clammed down and shut out future for the design changes. this is my major concern late in the game removes all predictability and leads to the permit holder all owing to the boards decision which is an architecture decision and has ramifications that have liberates that go with that. those are the outrageous things that come up with translating 9 boards decision as an architect but taking responsibility for what i can't make changes

because of the strictness of the decision. i don't think the board had in front of it full evidence that preceded it in approving this project which was unanimously approved by the planning commission with equally large turned out by the march because the liberty hill neighborhood hadn't had a showing the march did not bring up the idea of the top floor or height of the building and the concerns are still the acoustics. in the discretion review full analysis dollars the statement that generally corner buildings should be given more prominence

in terms of height and scale the determination by the board to cut back the front i have sorry here - what that looks like. cut back the front at the corner this prominent corner location created a very hybrid and i don't know ugly building i'm trying to make it look like something i don't believe it does anything. it was not part of what was ever brought up to make modifications to the front and invokes a residential guideline out of compliance really with what the planning code wants more the planning zoned property. i'd like to address also there was not sufficient time to address all the changes that

were made at the discretionary review hearing. there was suggestions that nothing went on after the hearing with the commissions request to make modifications to the mass but that's not true this is the building shown as it was presented to the commission. and this is how it was modified over 6 months after the commission hearing. this is the modification. is my time up. sorry >> thank you, mr. williams. 6 minutes for mr. williams

>> good evening steve williams i understand i have to items to speak to first opposing the request for the rehearing by the project sponsor and in favor of the hearing by about the appellant let me start by opposing. >> no, he of those 6 minutes. >> 3 and 3 as i understand. okay. we're opposing the project sponsors hearing they haven't provided many new evidence they're trying to through a lot of new items out there now we object to the inspections none of those are attached to the briefs and they shouldn't be reviewed by the board under the boards rule. have ironic with the gentleman

saying the reilly's realize have been violated when they show up with the nun of the documents that have been seen by the appellants or neighbors. i'll start they've failed utterly to meet with the boards crystal clear evidence or any evidence of hardship or manifesting evidence the briefing there's no single exhibit attached and no urban sported claims of hardship and feasibility etc. none of those have been substantiated and the unit count is being manipulated period. i did attach exhibits and

evidence if you looked at exhibit 7 you'll see how this plan started out it started out as a 16 unit plan. it went to 12 unit with no reduction in the envelope. they're still manipulating it. you're telling me they can't put two unit on the top floor that's absurd it's almost 2 thousand square feet none of that is before the board they went down from 12 to the other units. it's funny you're hearing the aektsd saying those have not been brought up that's the problem. the neighbors told them the project was way two large they

harder that from the preservation commission they've heard it from the planning commission and they said go back and work with the neighbors and finally this board acted on what everyone had said during the appeals over the months i've tried to work with them and come to american people envelope we can agree on and absolutely refusal. no evidence before you of any of those things and they attacked the condition on the march not listening to the hours and hours of testimony this board has objected i urge you to object to any kind of a rehearing for the project sponsor. i do want to talk about the boards rules in terms of the

appellants request for a rehearing. on december 11th this board heard hours and hours of testimony and closed the hearing. in january we were only supposed to have a hearing on the fbltd to match the deliberations. the board came to its decision and that's how the appellants come port themselves they've applied themselves only to the findings that marched the deliberations. instead the project sponsor enrolling submitted new material on the merits claiming under the housing accountability act that some awful error of law was about to be made and the board feel for that. the project sponsor attorney assisting using that look at exhibit a all right. you're

going that as marketing material the new hammer for developers that happens to be thirty years old and decided 7 cases none of which are applicable here. it's our opinion this is in excess of the jurisdiction and the denial of the public a fair process under the boards rules when the board accepted this new topic that no one had heard of before or discussed before or saw the materials before and in this regard the boards caused the prejudicial abuse and this is contrary to the public's right. this is why we're saying the appellants are entitled to a new hearing you had it right you had

been told reduce the size of the building it doesn't sink in. and here's 13 sections and the missionary plan that supported that. they act as if those plans and policies don't exist they're saying it's code compliant that's a lie it's out of context and didn't fit both the neighborhood which is a part of the rigorous zoning we urge you to deny the request for a rehearing and agree to rehear the appellant >> we'll hear from the marsh. >> i'm mary gallagher for the

march. my daughter is 15 she was in los angeles last weekend for a program like jeopardy so our household has been stoop in latin words this is applicable to this hearing (latin) it means deeds not words. the project sponsor has given us a lot of words in the rehearing request representing the issues. we were responding to all the issues and the sound issues in the brief but i think this has to do with one issue the top floor. the project sponsor didn't feel this meshes well, this will cost him time and money to fix.

not that i recall i'd be sympathetic to an issue but here's the thing the liberate hill neighborhood association harassing has been you're going the project sponsor not for months but years to refine the mass of the buildings to respect the buildings on hill street. the planning commission imposed a condition of approval that encouraged the project sponsor to work with the department staff to a refine the building mass and encourage a step down along third street and finally his written corresponds to the folks how did you refine the massing to the sunshine ordinance to the requester inform the topic that the project sponsor never responded to the question at least not in the administrative record and feinstein no plans or documents

or sketches were ever submitted that looked the step down on hill street they were only changes to the bay windows. so when commissioner fung asked the architect in the last hearing well, can i see some of the drawings you looked for the step down presuming to help you come up with conditions for approval the architect said i only looked at the one for the previous project that's not before you tonight so commissioner fung came up with verbal quantifiable standards for the set back that reflected the small-scale of the building for hill street. so we have a neighborhood group you're going the project sponsor to refine the mass we have the

planning department do the same thing we have the planner asks for accident refinement but the project sponsor never acted. no deeds only word. commissioners the marsh asks you deny the request and uphold our approval on february 24th keeping in mind the latin phrase deeds not words >> ms. gallagher i see a lot of supports of the marsh with the tags are they intending to speak tonight. >> they are commissioner fung. >> i would never mind.

i can ask them to stand and for all those who want to stand and opposite the request for the rehearing on behalf of the marsh theatre we do have a couple of thank you very much. we have a couple of people who have to i believe have to testify tonight is that acceptable >> do what you have to do. >> okay. we've hear from the department. mr. duffey is temporarily out of the room we'll move on to public comment then. i'd like to see a show of hands of how many people want to speak >> two minutes. >> the president has commissioner lazarus said abused of the size of the crowd and i

will ask if people who want to speak line up on the far left side of the room and ms. gomez if you haven't filed out a sequa card will help in the preparation of our minutes and you can give it to the clerk. first people can come up to the mike ms. gomez that's fine >> i think there might be a sign of that this is one too meetings on this issue if i'm known by name (laughter) but i thank you all for having the patience and giving us the opportunity to speak. in defense of the marsh in defense of this historic neighborhood and in defense of

the artists community and the working class community i'm maria gomez i'm the honor of being an actress and an artist this might be the fourth meeting i've been to an this issue of protecting the marshes ability to condition as a performance venue for the performances not amplified. i ask you to respectfully deny the request rehearing from the condominium project. man. and that you uphold the decision that i did make compromising his wishes and the needs of the marsh that you made i guess was february 24th so i ask you to uphold that and deny the request

for rehearing. i heard something unbelievable i perform i, of course, we need the shrines between lines i heard him say that the building is already sound approved. it might have been sound approved in the 90s but never sound approved that a 4 or 5 foot condo was going to be built on both sides it's not sound like approved against that so, please don't insult our intelligence pea when you say your creating housing that would, great if you create that for everyone in san francisco and that's luxury housing i don't know of anyone that could food it >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening,

commissioners. my name is leonard fishing i'm a thirty plus resident in hill street i was impressed with your knocking the height of the building from 5 stories to 4 it's cut in the middle the 5 stories the developer wished and the 3 that the neighborhood preferred. all the subsequent decisions have undermined that no one is happy with the 4 stories and the van ness set back but we have the opportunity to give the project sponsor the 12 stories and not to mention the equipment that needs to run to the roof. the statement that the neighbors have not been involved the fact we're outnumbered by the supports of the marsh is no reason to say there hadn't been

dozens of us attending multiply hearings to draw a nice line between preservation of the san francisco's historic resources and the development of housing for the increased populations envisioned in the city plan. i urge you to reconsider and go back to the desz decision. i think it's the wisest plan for all. thank you >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for giving me a couple couple of moms i'm a fourth-generation san franciscan i live in the neighborhood and have a history with performance art i helped to create two landmarks in san francisco. the most important thing when we created them was communication

and working with the neighbors. at joe sisters we had 10 years without a noise climate the main reason a real desire to hear and communicate with the neighbors. i come up her to speak i look over and see the people involved in this case got up and left the room i urge you, you need to make a decision on a rehearing they're gone. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners i'm brad i'm the executive director of theatre bay area which is a service organization for theater advance we have 3 hundred plus theater and a membership in 25 hundred individual artists and marsh is one of our dues paying members i want to talk about the

importance of the marsh it's one of our leading theatres particularly with solo artists it's essential that its work be continued and the folks are making assertion there are no complaints and we've seen that in the city time and time again. my concern is marsh continue to be operating on van ness street it's been there for decades producing really, really important work. i urge you to deny the hearing. thank you >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> him u i'm jeanne want to say that quickly it's not sound approved and, please deny their request to change you're

wonderful what you have said at the last fourth meeting. which i think was in march thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi i'm kenny i'm the resident the san francisco i'm an artist at the marsh i've seen shows there you've heard from multiple people that during the show the point i want to emphasize i'm a teacher where people pay and come to develop new material many people don't have performance backgrounds they're paying and trusting us to depth material where they're not going to be disrupted by sound outside but dollars a sense of a responsibility to the community where they want to come and develop work we have to

create a safe space where they can trust us to get to a truthfully place inside to we grow artists and i'm going to try to develop other artists. the project sponsor called out the mark on 5 things to poke holes in and the architect talked about the roof they didn't talk about the sound so he's trying to poke hope's holes in the marsh to this their completely you unrelated. thank you for your support >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi i'm alice is member of the liberate hill association this is my third time here. i want to say the liberate hill

association has been around for over thirty years it's through this organization we got a designated historic neighborhood. we take our rockets as being securities of the neighborhood she serial for example, we put in sidewalk gardens along the whole hill street neighborhood both sides. we did that because we want to help the city get the water back into the grounded and take care of our neighborhood. i want to review the pictures one more time. here's one block from the site. do you notice it's all fitting into the historic neighborhood. even the new building that's very tall and you see it stepping down it attempts to a