that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for further questions. thank you >> thank you project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commission. greg miller for the project sponsor. first of all, i want to thank commissioner borden for her many years of service we owe a tremendous gratitude we're here to ask for an office allocation we've received the final approval for the third floor of the property and we are converting the second floor which your allowed to do in the zoning district because we're over 25 thousand feet we need a 21 allocation we're here to ask for today.

i wanted to make a couple of points extra clear an exciting pdr use this use is going to be rained that space will remain pdr and as we deal with the approvals administratively after today, the floor plan will be clear how the pdr space is located and allocated. and, secondly, there's an existing pdr on the ground floor that's not being affected the ground floor is not changing in nirment and those office uses have sustained we're legalizing them through the 179 process and now the 321 allocation.

that's it for me, i'm valuable for questions we have a representative from allied coke >> opening open this up for public comment. >> so basically one part of this or i'm not sure essentially approve 7 thousand square feet in excess of the 25 thousand under the that we have to take guess action otherwise will they'll continue with offense space? correct and okay. and i don't think the commission will do this but if the motion is denied they still retain the second

floor office use correct? and can they retain the - all the office space minus 7 thousand square feet and correct the third floor is pretty much done so the third floor is set and any reduction in the allocation will likely be pulled from the second story >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> could you give me the summer of space and office and summer of space and pdr. just totals >> the ground floor is entirely pdr. >> i'm looking at square footage i couldn't do the man. commissioner moore the building overall is roughly 55 thousand square feet we're asking for 32

thousands of office allocations >> that will leave 23 okay. i think i like the combination of pdr and office because we're still looking for a prototype where office and pdr can mutually support each other and other facts and circumstances slightly higher rent but looking at the future i'm interested to support this because we've been all along in the earn neighborhoods have prepared i like there's a large component of active pdr on the ground and third floor many types of companies like sf made that are looking for third floor pdr uses this is a great prototype so i'm

in support and move to approve. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm supportive it looks like it's blended well and we're almost a legalization of the zoning administration felt the third floor was taken care of. he know that even firms that are completely pdr like a lumbar yard i verified the recent have an office component they may not say it's office by it involves the office functions of the pdr business there's many uses that are very comparable so i'm in support. >> commissioners there is a we have a motion and a second to approve with conditions commissioner antonini. commissioner borden.

commissioner sugaya. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. for the benefit of the public item 14 for 490 van ness has been continued to august 14th. commissioners that places us on is discretionary review a request for the discretionary review there's a requester for the continuance from the dr you may take i am the matter of continuance at this time >> can we hear first from the dr requester from the request and also from the dr spront. >> i'm frankly here on behalf of the mr. nelson the owner of

the adjacent property on liberty street and the subject property and so the dr requester war filed we were asking to attempt to reach a resolution for the excavation work that is proposed for part of the project to that end there are 20 only two issues. the first is in reviewing >> open the matter think continuance. >> i apologize okay. same background is still useful so the primarily concern has to do with the insurance of lateral support of his property is handled in a way that is protected and to that end we have requested from the project sponsor that temporary shoring plans that happened last friday

over the we said our structural engineer ben had an opportunity to review them and we've been working intellectual to reach an argument on 3r50er789s including peer review and a section scare the twap typical types items and the she or he excavation. we provided the project sponsor with a definite on tuesday they provided us with comments on tuesday our strong preference is reach 9 resolution and evade the intervention we can do that within the next couple of weeks we've reached an agreement on the four main points earlier. naturally there needs to be more back and forth but to recessing resolve this privately >> okay. can i ask the project

sponsor to respond to whether or not you seek a continuance today? >> john duffey project architect for 151 liberty. the project sponsor would like the project to continue we're not interested in a continuance we want the planning commission to review the mroj and approve f it in awe litigant so we're not interested in a continuance today >> okay. thank you. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i would like to hear it today their 5 issues that were brought up not to get into the case but two issues particularly the shoring and excavation issues are generally answered in the purview of dbi

that isn't before use it will have to be worked out if there's a private agreement but in conformity with their standards and one is the tenant displacement not our purview we can discuss the massing and the lights and privacy and the roof-deck which are the 3 items that we can do this today as well as in the future. >> so seeing there's no motion for a continuance why not go ahead and with the item. >> good afternoon, commissioners rick department staff the item is a request for a discretionary review the proposed project will include one dwelling unit to 20 units

and a construction of a new garage and stairwell and a new vertical and horizontal edition that will increase the square footage from 26 hundred to 55 hundred square feet. today, the department has received one phone call from an adjacent neighbor who's expressed opposition and also excavation and tenant relocation and privacy and a roof-deck. since the subject property is located within the 4rish9 hill labored district that will have to have an approval by that commission. on december 12th they granted a motion since the proposal includes the removal of rear yard garden shed the perimeter

variance is no longer applicable and further review is not required it meets the liberty hill landmark good morning, supervisors. it appears to be no exceptional circumstances we're recommending the commission not take discretionary review and approval that that concludes my presentation. thank you. thank you >> thank you dr requester our team has 5 minutes. >> good afternoon on behalf of the dr requester this is in the land hill district our client resides next door in a historically registered victorian home there it is be

excavation to the boundary line up to 18 to 21 feet. to make short work of this frjz hearing we wanted to streamline the objections of the dr down to two from what was previously identified. the first is that a 1988 planning recorded against the project property a notice of special restrictions. that notice was recorded in connection with a permit for the construction ever a shed but the notice was not linked in anyway way to the shed it specifically states that in the effective the envelope of the building is tanned there's needs to be a public hearing. again, no linkage in the notice to the shed even though it was

recorded concurrently with the application for the sheriff's deputy there's not been an variance e.r. an application or a public hearing so that's the first ground the second ground i'm going to turn it over to frank who will speak about the sequa issues that pertain to the project. >> hi. so as i was saying earlier your clients primary concern really is the concern for impacts of the excavation for the supplement. and that raises two issues one under sequa and two sort of the expectation and enjoyed circumstances on the sequa front the project was cleared through a exemption in particular and the certificate of demonstration

talked about the she or he of the inpining foundation and there is no unusual circumstances for the environmental impacts. as we've indicated there's been no agreement between the neighbors on the underpinning and she or he or that joj signage would not result as my colleague indicated our clients home is a i think over one hundred years old and listed on the california register and the excavation is significant between 14 and 20 feet the numbers have shifted in terms of what the project sponsor has represented it's one thousand soil linkages and our position is that we believe that given the scope of excavation the

absent between the neighborhood there's indeed a fair argument it could have environmental impacts. as i previously mentioned we're provided with she or he permits on friday has part of the process our engineer ben concluded that there were certain xhifbts and the engineer had recommended and other adequacy i's in terms of she or he themselves we related those xhments comments to the project sponsor they agreed there are certain things to be incorporated and as i mentioned our really erratically preference so to achieve resolution but if a continuance

is not viable we request that the commissioner consider imposing things the provision for the conditions for example, in preparation of a management plan that could include details about she or he and underpinning if necessary and those plans will be set for approval to be attended by goib i we understand that commissioner antonini point earlier if they handle it at the dbi stage but since the planning commission is the ash for of the building permit we found - >> thank you project sponsor you have 5 minutes. i'm sorry is there any public comment? in supportive of dr.

seeing none, minutes and john duffey i want to clarify a few items rich mentioned the square footage the actual square footage is 59 square foot it's not inhabitableable so moving into the dr comments the removal of the shed was okay'd with the zoning administrator it's an old woolen sheriff's deputy regarding sequa we've gone through everything with an environmental evaluation there was no underpinning the she or he is on our property line it's primarily but defied and purview was provided and the comments

were incorporated into the design per the she or he didn't pan out it's two onerous for the project sponsor so to talk about the project in general. we've been working on it for two years and had an approval from the h pc from the project has it's currently designed. it w it was unanimous. in terms of mitigation and outreach we've attended the community boards meeting and the changes were so significant it entailed redesigning the whole project so subsequentially well, we've been working intellectual with mr. that nelson and the she or he design that's been provided the peer view we've

been allowed and incorporated comments, however, the she or he agreement is not at this time at not worked out. so essentially we've come employed with all mr. nelson's requests. moving forward we ask the continuance request be denied we've been at this for 18 months and also available for mr. nelson. we ask that the commission approve the project that's currently approved and that that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. any public comment on that item? in support of project sponsor seeing none, public comment is closed. dr requester you have a 2 minute

rebuttal >> going back to the principle issue for consideration which deals with the lack of a variance i didn't hear a response from the project sponsor to that point in particular that was a glancing response that dealt with the shed but not indirectly to pinpoint the issue the special notice was recorded against the property and/or the time a shed was added but it added to the property a special restriction that required meantime there was an expansion of the envelope to have a public hearing. aside from the sequa issues we believe that can be dealt with an informal agreement the commission should consider whether or not a variance is

indeed required as in the original document >> thank you project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> as i said we've been on the project for two years gone through all the planning hurdles, if you will, including the environmental. historic review and the co a what direction issued. i i know that rich has presented this material regarding for instance, the sheriff's deputy for the zoning administrator and gotten feedback so and with regard to sequa the environmental evaluation has been done so as far as the project sponsor we've gone through the hoops and are

convinced that the planning department has done their homework on the issue. as far as we're concerned we're in compliance thank you, thank you >> closed the public hearing. >> director ram. >> first of all, it's up to the zoning administrator i want some clarification about what the c a said. >> correct i did review the proposal with the zoning mist and since the variance is tied with the existing shed and their removing the shed no further review is required. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i was going to ask that same question but in terms of the decision can it be appealed to the board of appeals. >> presumably.

it did not require a variance i'll ask the city attorney this but it's a non-decision so is that appealable. that's a variance issue the decision not to require a variance is appealable >> just some background there's currently a variance from the recorder this was associated with a rear yard shed that the current proposal is proposing to remove so he determines the variance is not requiring additional review because their removing the purchase of the original variance. >> commissioners kate from the

city attorney's office if there's a written statement if there's not and no variance the decision here there's nothing that's appealable to the board of appeals. >> i had another question not a question just a comment or observation perhaps excavation work was to egregious that sequa would have to go beyond a negative declaration that, too is not within the pressure view of the commission and would, sir if she wanted to challenge the deck they're a procedure separate. >> correct. they were a class 32 exemption

on the property it will follow the normal process for at can do x >> and i and lastly another comment with respect to the commission being the last words on building permits that's not correct it's the board of appeals that takes the appeals for applications and appeals on those applications so - >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> so if there's a notice of special restriction that deals with, you know, there has to be a public hearing to have a variance granted to for remove of the sheriff's deputy i'm interpreting what i've heard f - we're having a public hearing

not before the zoning administrator but having a public hearing in regards to this issue. >> there's no longer a need for the original variance the shed is not there. >> it's removed. >> yes. there's no need for a code. >> the removal of the shed is not part of the project they've removed it as part of the project. >> that's right and so therefore the notice of special restriction did not apply. >> questions. commissioner moore >> i think looking at the project i don't see anything exceptional or exiled since the requesters house we're looking at the second unit and does it in a code compliment it has the

attention of the preservation and the approval of the historic preservation that leaves us if we haven't seen something i move to approve. >> and not take the dr. >> commissioners there's a motion to take this. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. for the benefit of the public item 16 duncan street continued to july 14th. commissioners general public comment >>

seeing none, public comment is closed. general public comment is closed. meeting >> well, good morning, everyone welcome to the city hall san francisco the people how's house of san francisco. i am so delighted to be joined

by the park commission of the rec and park and as well as phil ginsburg who has the presumption responsibility for the park recreation around san francisco their buses i didn't because the summer has thousands of kids running around and experiencing and playing i want to thank them and welcoming a good friend and someone i like to see in this city the pga tour president ted bishop thank you, very much for being here (clapping) >> i'm just excited, in fact, i'll as excited when former willie brown asked me to build that clubhouse at harding park in the earlier 2000sai