and candid that's not the most unusual but noefrls nonetheless it is supposed to happen and on the conditions of the lot to move forward option one is to sort of propose a new variance have that reauthorized to close out the permit that requires additional novs we delay this project option two to go back and take back the variance and restore it after the discusses is with the zoning administrator we could move forward today >> i'm asking the city attorney whether or not that's legal. >> commissioner president wu kate and the city attorney's office if i understand what was explained to you the original variance may not have been final

because there's no final certificate of occupancy it's no a recession of the variance just as to those variance never outdoor so the construction on the congressional is to ply with the existing code without the need for a variance so the commission could act on that today. >> so you don't have to resend. >> the variance is almost as if it expired to the project before you didn't require any action on that variance and this requires us to restore it without a variance condition. >> i have a question for the city attorney there was a permit take out for a permit 83 and it

expired this was the sequence of events a that's what was written and expresses in a number of documents i've received. i'd like to ask the city attorney who is spoerl having all the responses this is what we were told >> there was a condition of necessary repair in the late 50s i'm sorry late 90s that the permit was taken out and the work not done with the time the work was valid and the work happened without the permit being active anymore that's my understanding. >> commissioner moore kate stacey from the city attorney's office i don't know the provocation this is not my understanding based on what happened but i could look at the

documents. >> mr. ruben would know 33 he was obviously representing this project are you familiar with what i'm asking. and i mean, if i can help clarify >> this is a question that the representative of the project will be better able to address. >> as i understand one of the representatives of the telegraph hill dwellers approached scott sanchez at the planning department we were advised by liz we communicated amongst ourselves and communicated with liz approach which is to effectively abandon any benefit of the variance and return the cottage before the variance was issued and scott agreed that would not require any action so we thought we were done we had a

condition of approve it only reduce the use of the cottage so be it. >> mr. rubbing benefit i'm not trying to trap you but we're sitting in a crossfire of this happened and perhaps it happened we're here to make a decision just look at the facts and say what happened so we can understand it. >> the zoning motivate has returned to the room and perhaps can talk about the decisions that have been made as a result of that review. >> thank you so i did speak with interested members of the public where the issues was raised regarding did variance from the 1990s that contained a condition of approval to be issued within the 3 years that was 1995 so the operator was

issued in the appropriate may i have a minute so when the work was done it appeared that work was done between 1997 and today so the building was expanded as part of the variance and so in my opinion at the time since it permit expired it was unclear that work ways not done but perhaps work was done but a final not issued so the permit was issued during that time so maybe new information about when the work was done and if it's simply a final inspectors that may be permitted under the variance but as a worse case

scenario in terms of what has done if the permit was not done properly then the condition to restore the footprint of the building has been restored. >> just to clarify there isn't clarity on when the work was done we know when the permit was issued we don't know over the over the course of the time the approach to revert it to the previous condition satisfies the conditions and the project sponsor is willing. >> commissioner hillis. >> ms. moore took over. in terms of the other issues that have been raised with respect to perhaps having a more

complete environmental analysis we don't have that in front of the of us in this case, i would think that went through the environmental and environmental considered the need for excavation in the amount of debris that coups coyotes based on those current plans; is that right >> the environmental document that was issued was a categorical exemption but it's true that all of the potential environmental issues were analyzed the ero was comfortable so the categorical exemption is not before you but an appeal after the action of the commission today. >> do you know if they take into account the geotechnical requirements and declared it to

be. >> there was a geotechnical report submitted as part of the environmental review but i wasn't aware of that but the typical course you have action for the regarding of the issues. >> as part of the geotechnical report today know if they predicted the amount of debris. >> i don't know that. >> and do you know at which degree this could cause comba some impact. >> i talked about the traffic southerners and again she was comfortable with the traffic review that was done. >> i'm referring to truck traffic during the time the excavation is take place. >> we did that and and did they

take into account take into consideration not the views from the pioneer park but views of pioneer park and telegraph hill from other parts of city. >> as part of the environmental review is that your question off the top of my head i don't know the answer although aesthetics are not part of sequa based on the law but not sure because i wasn't the planner and again, the e.r. o is comfortable with the document. >> i have concerns about the project i'm not opposed to the development own the site that's been said by everybody that testified i'm concerned about the massing and the height and concerned that there were demonstrate opportunity design opportunities that were done beforehand that showed

relatively more sympathetic project including the lower he's and large gaps between the buildings so there are possibilities of an alternative project which i would like to see. and in addition to having. those are project love the roofline we've had a lot of discussion on stair penalty houses on buildings not single-family but it triggered the thought stair penalty houses on condo or apartment buildings that service the top units as much as three or four that have accessing access to the roof-decks therefore we have mechanic penalty houses and elevator penthouse but four

additional penalty hours penetrating above the roofline that caused a thought this is similar to that situation. and i'm not as concerned about the parking issue i think the way the parking is handled through the elevator system and having the cars essentially being able to be turned around is okay. it's the massing type of and scale of the building i might add the view issue is from a public space because pioneer park is right across the street if you come down the stairway and turn around there's definitely a view impact with this particular project it can be compromised with a different design >> commissioner hillis. i have a couple of questions for

the project sponsor. on the height issue we were shown this diagram and this is the project of the height and it creeping up to the height predicament could you explain >> let me interest the project sponsor. >> good evening we had several meetings with t hd which started with me meeting with erick and aaron asked me to come up with six or seven varngdz at any given point throughout our discussions with t hd and neighbors they were all different there was also a

multiple different options we were discussing in getting their support the current mass and health was also one the options. the option has chosen to take the smallest of the six or seven option to try to attempt to show a perception we've gown progressively bigger but that's also been a option and are those options your choosing the option you can't get probably larger than the option it maximizes out the height >> we were considering a number of different options specifically and only if we could reach an agreement of

support with them i say them t hd we've heard multiple multiple different reasoning for opposition specifically related to the parking issue. we were very, very clear from our first meeting we were not going to do this without parking and only a compromise with full support it was very, very clear after meeting with them over 6 meeting or a aaron and a number of the t hd members that no compromise was possibly therefore i decided to venture out my neighborhood outreach to all existing neighborhoods not only the members of the t hd and poke to a lot of people >> just to follow up on

commissioner sugaya it's hard to quit get at there are stair penalty houses to the roof as well as exterior kind of railings around there. >> i'll let. >> - >> sure. >> there are stair rails phasing telegraph hill boulevard and their 8 feet high. >> that's meant to be used as an outdoor. >> there's roof-decks a combination of roof-decks and areas for photograph panes. >> and there's railing around the roof-deck. >> how about elevator there's no elevator duplicate interior penalty houses. >> we didn't take the elevator penalty how did to the roof. >> it's only the staircase

going up to the roof-deck from the front roofline. >> ; is that correct. >> i would definitely be supportive we've seen those in the past there's no railing it's not clear if this railing is set back from the front or on the property line and both the front and back but you've got adequate decks and patios on the back part of this i've looked at that, too on the height i like the design out of sent the height in keeping with the scale as you go up telegraph hill perhaps not consistent with the cottage below so i like those two to increase the space between the first unit and the cottage below.

to commissioner sugaya's point i don't know where reducing this to a point you've had f it in diversity proposing proposals there's certainly going to be a building as you walk up the stairs there's not one now but any building will block it if you go to the stairs of the park it's pretty much the staircase you'll be blocked. the parking i mean you've done a great job with the parking the fact the cars are going into the front my question on parking is it are worthy think it works certainly a lot of people

walking up and down the stairs by potentially only three or four cars but from an economic standpoint you're building a career elevators is it worth to have a significant amount of structure primarily for 4 cars >> i think the best way we had a project with similar purchase to house cars so it seems like it is something that's done in the city it makes it work out it we eye cable so we're seeing that a details a lot. >> this is a dbi issue can you give us an overview how it will work your primary assess it

between the top of steps and property line. >> i can give you an overview. i did consultant is plant construction about this project and done quite a bit of work and associated with highly complex the union square project with the full thrust component midsummer and it's got a degree of difficulty but not by any means insewer mother-in-law i'll give you the highlights traffic control is critical and deliveries and other truck traffic at the site will have to happen in the morning hours and full-time plastic bag management of the sidewalk because of the fill more steps that's their primary concern and suggested i

thought an interesting and technical will proposal to build the main floor at the telegraph hill before excavating that gives a phasing area and the third would be up. i've seen the plant uses on the drive and confident they can do it >> particularly the gap shifting down the steps how large is that again, the gap between the first and second unit. >> this is a sent that belongs to the western prompted and it's 3 feet. >> okay. and then the set back on the parking so the parking garage door is set back. >> i believe it's 5 feet. >> okay. and is that mirrored

by entry set back so the entry is not - and itself entry is further set back from the east to the west. >> so cars won't be blocked by the industry set back. >> no. >> commissioner moore. and i'd like to start with a couple of questions and for introduction i'd like to say that the site is buildable but the question is how i'd like to put the discussion we have two this is not just the dr but two uses that is rather unusually unusual and in 3 zoning and condition number two asked for the additional one partially and the code only allows for 3 there

were refurnishing of the cottage itself doesn't allow for an extra space we're dropping in density so the board has proposed per acre about a block away we're up to two hundred and 37 tweldwelling units in the to city attorney or the zoning administrator the question of the completeness of the cu applications in front of us today. i would have expected there was a a full disclosure on the projects that excludes the ambulances for its reuse it used to be two units in the past and i would have liked to see a

schematic plan seeing the full use of four units contributes towards providing housing of some sort of even if it's affordable or midrange but no discussion about that whatsoever there's been a last minute correction on the site plan the site show it in one direction in the render plans by architect it slipped over slightly over the property line it could be a mistake, however, i would have expected since our other explanation are well proposed that you could explain to us in essential the fourth unit with respect to the full residential

units. so my question is that a lack of disclosure has it been done before how could that be potentially the building is an old building it shows dry rot i'm only asking could that ultimately lead to some kind of demolition last night with whoeg whole other procedural difficulty we don't have the ability to deal with. >> first, the excision can request whatever information so what you've been provided, of course, the full plans to the project and the plans showing the online of the building on the rear it's mentioned in the application and review modifications to the building and the question the elevator of

the expansion was called into question and the vetting needs to be resolved but worse case scenario they'll simply reverting to the previous variance decision in the mid 90s that's what is before you there's two conditional uses one for the density how many units should be on the lot and, of course, part of that you'll are considering the envelope, etc. but it's not a question of variances really which is the issue for the building at the rear so in order to bring the building into compliance in order to match what was there previous or they seek a variance or again, we may find more history that in fact the building permit massachusetts has been effected and if they got the permit and accident

everything there's a strong agreement to the rights of permit under which the work was performed so perhaps work or more work that was unfortunately bracket to us in the last week and overall it's a rear yard issue i'll be looking at 24 in terms of whether or not an permit needs to be gotten that's a bit of an open question that's a rear yard question and we need a variance for that work so that's the issue there otherwise the application is complete. >> the application is pretty for me, i personally would have liked to seen a schematic regarding the interior use it being a foyer unit and this commission is concerned we have a high i unit on one end that's

in a smaller space has the liveabili liveabili liveability rooeblz what was in there before i would feel more comfortable but the second question i've said is this the past i wish that in the city the department would have a stronger relationship with sfmta and dpw and to have gone through the technical issues that strongly drifted through a number of the community candle stick point of the workability of the stop signs and the curb cut and the modifications of no landers at the top of the steps that's an issue of the safety jew just like in a home the stairs

occupied for the entertainment landing as we walk from the city you'll automatically expect this to rest and take a break and not expect to stand and it's an important issue i'd like for the department to discuss it and in addition the more detailed conversation with rec and park on the operations both on the pioneer park and the memorial steps to pioneer park coit tower and concessions i would lee have liked to hear about this is a complicated project we all know in flat and other levels of the city when large buildings are done they interrupt what else in going on and this location will

need to operate without interruption during the construction although the architect described a minute ago this was a way of building the fourth floor to use that. i'd like to talk about the cu for a moment and agree with what my fellow commissioners said about massing height. particularly when it comes to the meaning of a conditional use. this is not a dr we're modifying a project is an issue but the project by itself has to rise to the level of being necessary and desirable and has to do that two times. in the definition of necessary and desirable it has to meet the mark of outstanding design and merit of the broad definition of the merit of public interest. i want to spend a moment talking

about where unfortunately, we feel the project has shortcomings while to the public interest portion of the project. again, i believe the site can be built on and the site produce good architecture but the project needs to meet a number of thresholds and challenges it currently doesn't one of the shortcomings is the fact it ignores the public values associated with the most i come back size and conditions on top of the steps clubbing the public realm itself. the site because of when it was built and how developed over the many times of