project like 400 paul or 200 paul are more at the core of the fabric of the internet. and where, this storage and the processing, and the peering and the transmission of data content occurs. and you are passing traffic, between content providers, and search engines, and eye ball networks like comcast and at&t and they both provide the same function, we are providing the space and the power and the enter connection capabilities just like 200 paul, it is pretty much 100 percent committed at this point. >> and who is the operator because i know that it is digital realty. >> digital realty and we are limited partnerwise them. in 200 paul, and all of their properties, but, they are not involved in this, facility. we are the developer, and we will lease space, in what is called powered shell space, to

a large operator, and maybe someone like equinex or savis or century link and it is a larger number today who will come in and operate what is called the meet me room or the peering site and then, the location and the environments throughout the building. >> sounds great and it i think that you also have access to the rail line there if you need it for construction purposes? >> you know, the irony is that we thought that the rail would be very attractive for 200 paul, and nowhere, none of the tele coms came in off of that because that is their long haul networks in the rail line, and they don't want to interrupt that fiber, to pull in to a building, for even if they are establishing their hub switch there and they do it from their gateway, and or the switch facility that is serving a metro area. and they bring it into there and then, they do a loop. and we are on the bottom end,

200 paul, paul avenue is at the southern end of the san francisco metro fiber loop. that provides all of these capacities that i showed you on that map. >> thank you for the information. >> appreciate it. >> so i am going to move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you very much. i think that this is a good project not only physically for the use of the pdr space in the neighborhood and also for the networks that we are trying to support. and i just have a few questions, and we will see if the answers to this might be augment commissioner antonini motion and the first one is, sorry, it is about the underground utility. and i know that in some of the materials provided by the project sponsor i am not sure if this was a commentary or an actual assessment of something

that might happen. but there was a comment made in one of the documents that the underground utility could replace, and overhead wiring, and as i was wondering if that is something that was going to happen or just in the documentation. >> pg&e was going to run more north. and we are really the first need, to kick that project off for them. and so they are going to put in the circuit to service our building one at a time as we need them. but that is a nexus for them to provide more power and in which case they can shut down the overhead because there has been problems with people driving and hitting the poles and so the neighbor had to run on generators for three days.

and so it really is a issue of funding for them and i have been there. and north ward to martin is i think is their plan. >> and this might not be a pg&e question, and are these utilities going to service, 200 paul street, or is that part of the future, maybe they will expand. >> no, they are fed from two on the east side and ours is going to come from the west side and it will not be connected. >> okay. >> and i did see it in the document and there was an improvement measure to reduce the greenhouse gas emission and part of being able to do that, required or the project sponsor agreed to, show the ero, periodically, what measures they have taken that resulted

in a reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions. >> and i might suggest that instead, that we might strengthen that a little bit and say ta we also want to look at, that for that periodic report, and i think that it is annual, and disclose any reviews or plans that you have for the potential measures to decrease the emissions for example, if you are looking at, or the use of the improved efficiency. and including as part of the report and rather than just saying, that we did some stuff that decreased the greenhouse gas emissions and look at it being forward looking. >> and would it be amenable? >> definitely. >> okay, so that was not, and that was, that is not, it is an improvement measure, and so it did not show up in the motion but i would like to see that be

a piece. one of the highest dreams would be to have a tenant, and the lower greenhouse gass that will participate with us and look at alternative sources and as a lesser of space inside of a building for rent, and it is difficult, because we don't want to get, we don't want to run the costs to be uncompetitive because we have the competitors in the industry and we are very like. and very much like to participate in that, and i think that it is good for the city and the environment of course and for business. >> i agree, and i saw the analysis of using the fuel cells and so i definitely understand that you guys did the work along that and honestly, this is something that i feel like it will be incremental and that is why i said let's do a look ahead of what you are looking at as time goes by to increase the efficiency of your space. the last couple of things, and

this one is so minor, i hate myself for saying th. >> you said that there were a couple of trees that could capture the particulate matter, that an arboris suggested but only one of them made it into the list in the plant list and the design package and so if you could, the liberty tree is in there but the other one is not. >> colombia. >> so you could just. >> nicer trees but i think that we will mix them up >> whatever we approve is what there, and i want to make sure that it is correct. >> and then the last thing on the physical building itself. >> and so this has not come up too much and when you have a data center, 400 paul avenue, you don't need the windows because the computers don't need a view. but you do have just sort of a

blank face that you could do something with and i might suggest that you talk to the arts commission about whether there is an opportunity for a public art, on the outside of the building given that you don't have windows or a lot of other elements that would interfere with the face of the wall. so maybe, another condition of approval could go to talk to the arts commission and see if they have any, i don't know if you would consider that. >> well we have not because it is not visible. >> as john mentioned, the ground there is 25 feet lower than the elevation at paul avenue. >> and some of the rendering in the package shows that you can hardly see 2 and in addition because it is an internet use, and there is very strong security requirements, and protection of the data as we all know from the headlines, there will be a secure perimeter and so it will not be available for the folks to see. >> i am sorry it was a good

idea. >> i knew that it was below grade level but i agree with you and so, we will leave that comment alone and i think that that concludes, the changes that i would have requested. >> i am impressed and it fills a space that was vacant for decades and the people that work there and you said that you are going to be training the future workers and the question that i have are those future workers in construction or workers in the building manning the equipment. >> our intent is to train the folks to start in the low

voltage kabl cabling, it is a loss less than electrician and, this is something that could happen quickly, and there is a greater need for cabling right now and once the installation of the storage and are complete and there is continual need for moving and changing networks. >> so you foresee that training program going on? >> yes. >> great. >> and one of the other comments, and first we, you know, we have been here two weeks but we see the project sponsors trying to max out what they can get and try to get some more benefits of the project to the community and fit it in the community and here you come with something that is fully baked already and that is admirable and since there is no public viewing, and the building can put at&t towers on it. >> we will talk to at&t, i am not sure if she have a vacant... >> just a small joke. >> great. >> thank you.

>> so, is the... >> i think that the staff has a comment. >> i think that jonas was going to and as are we adopting a condition of approval? >> is the maker of the motion. >> i am fine with the condition of the approval and apparently it was send to us apparently this is a 3-year approval period. and so there are two amendments which is one is the amended conditional of approval regarding the validity and the way that i understand the second one is to adop the improvement measures as part of the measures within the draft motion, is that your intent? >> and to, amend the improvement and mitigation to have the greenhouse report include a look ahead. >> within the ise. >> yes. >> including the tree. >> and the tree, i feel like that is a typo. >> and they considered two other types of trees. in the narrative and then they did not make it to the plant

list. >> we can put it in. >> commissioner antonini? >> the project sponsors are fine with the piece that has the three-year period, is that okay? >> right. >> okay. >> thank you. >> so the commissioners there is a motion and a second, to approve with the amendment submitted by staff to include the improvement measures and the mitigation measures and to require an annual report to the ero, of a future efficiencies for reducing greenhouse gases; is that correct? >> yes. >> antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> richards. >> aye. >> and president wu.

please silence your devices and if you care to state your name for the commission, we left off under the discretionary review portion of your agenda. on items 14, aand b for case numbers 2013.0771 dv, please note after on august 7th, the planning commission continued this matter to september eleventh by a vote of 6-0, commissioner wu you were absent, when this item was called and commissioner richards you have not yet joined the commission and so in order for you both to participate, you need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the proceedings and are prepared to participate. >> i am. i am. >> thank you.

>> and yes, i have. >> wonderful, commissioners the dr requestor and the project sponsor have made the presentations for this which you have review and just for the benefit of the public, and the project sponsor, and the dro requestor will get 3 minutes each, and then the public comment will be reopend for two minutes. >> yes. >> for any additional information. >> good evening, president wu and members of the commission, the department staff and the project before you is 1055 ash burry street and just to reiterate for the public and the commissioners today the project proposes a new, construction, of a single family dwelling, 3 stories in height in a vacant lot and at that time and the original hearing on august 7, the commission continued the project after the public testimony to allow for the project sponsor architect to

provide additional dimensions on the plans and those have been provided to the commission and i will be happy to answer any questions at this time. >> thank you. >> dr requestor? >> good afternoon commissioners may i have the overhead projector please? >> thanks so much. >> so, just to summarize, from the august 7th, we had 11 speakers, that took can we see it? or do i need to turn it? >> no it is up. >> i need to move this slightly. >> i am not sure, is there a zooming thing or something? >> can you please stop the clock? >> while i get this? >> thank you. >> and so we have eleven who, who support it, and my position, and which, to oppose,

allowing the variance and to not take the dr, and there was and we also provided to the commission, a 50-plus signatures, and also, opposing the project due to the bulk and scale. >> in terms of extraordinary exceptional, the there is falsification in the plan, and selections and the plan of mr. cabrares collaborates the falsification and for the survey of the june, the information was not disclosed to the department at the time of reviewing the adjacent conditions and we would like to just show you as new and an example of the precedent of where the planning commission, looked and made a decision, and in consideration for a request of denial of any variance, we site, the planning commission 2002, at 1153, conditional use

and, revocation that the applicant provided false information, which he did in this case, and it was exceptional that it includes, the rear yard and the planning has directed, these items, for the planning commission itself. and the planning, has also deferred to the commission, the information which was never responded to by planning regarding a street survey markers and the positioning relative to the plans and it is also extraordinary and exceptional and i didn't mention in the initial hearing n

that is it. >> okay, thank you. >> project sponsor? >> good afternoon, president wu and commissioners, and i am tom tony from the law firm, on behalf of the project sponsor and just to clarify, can our architect have the opportunity

to use two minutes in public comment? or should he use part of mine. >> he should use part of your time. >> okay. >> and then i will be very brief. i don't think, i don't see any extraordinary exceptional circumstances that have been raised and of allegations of falsifications that are unfounded and the planner had no concerns with the project's application and processing. there was a mention of over shadowing of i adjacent properties but the one adjacent property to the north supports the project and the one to the south is the garage. and then it is not impacted by the project and we have made concessions, and a set back of 3 feet, on the side, from the north property, and we had our community meeting, two people showed up, one supported the project, and one was a dr requestor and we made a concession and in that we

shifted the elevator shaft in the rear of the building. and we reduced its depth by over a foot by the dr requestor and he has not identified any impacts to his property and there are none. and in short, i urge you to not take dr, and also, that the variance be granted and the very unique, configuration of this lot, it is steeply down sloping from front to back, and it is not very deep at all. and it averages 51 feet in depth and necessity the minor variance, and i will turn it over to the architect. >> thank you. >> my name is eric and i am with the architects and the projector going on. there we go. >> yes. >> just a couple of points about the property itself. and it is a very small lot, it

is approximately 1340 square feet, and as tom mentioned the average lot depth is 51 feet, ten inches. and relative to the proposed project, the primary rear wall of the new house is set back 15 feet, from the rear property line. and it extends 6 foot 8 inches beyond the property to the north where we have introduced a 3 foot, three inch side yard set back and it extends three feet short of the rear wall of the property, to the south. the floor plate itself is very small and it is approximately 700 square feet of ha bitable space and the narrow end of the depth of the... >> sir your time is up. >> thank you. >> the commission may have questions for you later. >> okay. >> it is open for public comment. >> if there is any public

comment in the audience? >> >> hello, my name is liz brancher and i am also speaking for my immediate nai neighbor and i would like to voice my opposition to the plot, 167, at 1055 ash bury street, and i was extremely saddened to see details of the proposed project. i lived directly opposite the side of the planned building. and i believe that the proposed project will certainly have a significant impact on me personally and on the neighborhood as a whole. i have enjoyed looking at the beautiful mature garden which will now be destroyed and the

new house will be much higher than the buildings on either side and i am not sure how it could be described as having three stories when the plans clearly show five floors plus a roof terrace with a parapit wall and it will cast significant shadows, and in particular, a suspect that this will have a significant and detrimental effect on the solar panels and especially those on the roof of 9395 downy street and i am concerned that the building will appear over dominant and incongruence among the houses of ash bury and downy streets in particular, the roof will appear to be superflorus showing that the plans showing another viewing at the back of the property however it will have the effect of an additional story in blocking out yet more light. this proposed structure at 1055 ash bury is out of proportion to the height of all of the

other houses on the street. and if built as planned, i think that it will look ridiculous. and all of these grounds, are therefore appeal to the commission to move to approve these plans. >> >> if you ever ready to speak you can approve the podium, i will call names from cards. francis ryan, michelle meyers, husit damion, nara sue, >> my name is kirk scott and i will not repeat the arguments i am not a supporter of the dr but i think that the variance needs to be addressed and it particularly troubles me that the variance was not taken up at the beginning of this whole process. and the project sponsor, is argument was that the street angle allowed them to pursue this project without a variance, up until the var last minute, and after the dr had been filed. and when planning staff said

that indeed, a variance would be required, and so, let's take a look at what they are asking for, the variance is extraordinary because they are taking what would be a 22 foot rear yard and subtracting out of that a whole number of items. and they have granted a four-foot easement to the neighborhood in back and so that will be to the neighbor directly behind the project. and he normally has a 15 foot yard with the four foot easement and he has a 19 foot yard and the neighbor, to the northwest, also has a 20 foot yard, and the neighbor to the north has a 20 foot rear yard and all of the neighbors further up the street have 20-plus foot rear yards and the project sponsor wants to propose what was an eight foot rear yard and how do i get to eight feet? well, there is that out of 22,

you are taking four feet, for the easement, and which you can't build on and now it belongs legally over and under and across to a neighbor behind the project sponsor. and so that four feet is gone. and then he is asking for seven feet of enroachment into the rear yard with respect to the neighbor to the north and so that is eleven feet gone and then he is adding three more feet of the rear yard projections for the elevators and decks and other things and so that is three more feet gone and now we are down to eight feet, and i think that he should consider the previous variance in 1990, which was lower in height, and at 26 foot, and 6 inches and it did not go back as far as into the rear yard and at the top floor it was stepped down, and it in order to mitigate the impacts of light and air on the neighbors on clayton. and i think that the project as a whole is perhaps too large, and too massive in scale to fit

into this tiny parcel and i wish that you would consider that variance very carefully. >> thank you. >> >> one last card i didn't call was howard epstien. >> hello, my name is narasi pragata and i live at 1040 ash bury and i already spoke at the august 7th hearing and i don't have any new information to add but i want to reaffirm that the variance should be denied and support the dr requestor dave ryan and the dr should be taken thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> and my name is michelle meyer and i did speak last time, if possible i would like to reiterate what i said last time, thank you very much. >> my opinion is that the

planning commission should refuse the variance and should take the dr, and because the developer knowingly bought a very small lot unsuitable for the scale of his proposed development and in seeking a variance today, the developer is addressing a lot size restriction of his own making and the sellers were very clear in the setting instructions as you can see right here and the listing states that these properties being 1018 clayton and 1055 ash bury are to be sold to one buyer, and historically the property on ash bury was occupied by a garage, and on the developer rejected the suggestions that he complete the purchase, as originally listed and rebuild the garage on ash bury and it is possible that the cost associated with the complex engineering challenges associated with the building in the tiny lot size may exceed the cost of an acquisition and remodel of 1018 clayton and to

retain the garden that exists on the rear lot, in conclusion i ask the planning commission to deny the variance request and take the dr. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> my name is hugh diamond and i live at 1040 ash bury and i was one of the eleven immediate residents that spent over nine hours waiting to speak. i just wanted to state what i had did last time and just show you again, just how much of the scale this proposed development is in relation to everything else on the west side of ash

bury. >> thank you for hearing me again. >> thank you >> next speaker? >> and high, my name is howard and i have owned the property in the coal valley for over 20 years and i didn't speak at the last hearing, and i was really dismayed, by the way that chris was treated, the sponsor by the neighborhood. he is a young guy with a family, and two kids and he is trying to build his dream house on this lot no one is being evicted no one is being asked to move and no one has had their rent raised or relocating all of the people across the street, live in four floor buildings, 40 feet tall at the height level. the property is 70 feet i measured it, from lot line to lot line, there is no way, 30 foot building could cast a shadow and light issues to a four story building 70