7:00 p.m. >> can icon ferry whether or not we need to connect the existing conditions or all now conditions i'm sorry, sir can i get an answer. >> it still exists so our modifying the original. >> we just need to modify the time or any conditions we don't agree with. >> and the question i think for the city attorney is the commission can take a motion or staff since what's in the staff. >> there will be needed a motion of intent to get it and he building the city attorney has another comment. >> commissioner president wu kate stacey i recommend the commission is clear about what conditions in the cu because the

new ccii supercedes the existing one so the commission wants to be clear what conditions it wants to put in the conditional use permit. >> i'm looking at all the conditions and the ones on the front page what the sponsors are aware of it will remain condition 8 expanded times on friday and saturday nights and before recognized holidays we'll get more specific but that would be and on conditions number 9 will remain, 11 and 12, 12 will be slightly modified the entertainment commission review and the only one on 10 instead of saying twice a month prior to 7 no outdoor entertainment after

7:00 p.m. that makes it more clearer for that particular one and the others all stay the same as the conditions of the approval on march 13, 2008 that will be my motion. >> unless you intended approve. >> there shall be no outdoors entertainment except for prior to 7 before. >> there shall be no outdoor entertainment after 7:00 p.m. at any time. >> that's much more clear. >> no change on 10 and 8 and the rest remain the same.

>> commissioner hillis. >> i'm okay with that only the holiday it makes me nervous i mean the fourth of july is a holiday not on the the monitored usually and and the halloween. >> friday and saturday night and new years eve. >> thank you i don't like it. >> oh, then san francisco holidays gay provide sunday (laughter). >> all right. let's see with what the commissioners say i'll be concerned about the holidays. >> i can change the motion. >> change to new years eve. >> yes. he says new years eve and gay presiding sunday. >> a that's a sunday night but

i don't know whether the commissioners want to include that. >> we'll continue with the commissioners comments. >> commissioner richards. >> we identified the specific holidays highlighting the specific i think i'm happy with new years eve and gay provide sunday's are there other holidays i ask to amend to gay pride sunday. >> commissioner johnson. >> i'm sorry i don't want to extend this i know we're getting out of here another 5 i don't like being random and to me i like thanksgiving eve i like to go out and help with the

digestion so commissioner richards is for it was new years eve and gay pride sunday did you have a thought on how to word it. >> i'll pull a motion that was a cu when we expanded another organization we capacity the holiday they picked it and we said okay there were three or four a year. >> i would be okay saying that you could be open lows than 5 holidays per year only new years eve or gay pride sunday or easter you know what i mean that is a less random way we're sitting up here. >> we could work with the neighborhood four or five is

perfect. >> that's hard for enforcement for the department because then it's up to your own records and not that we don't trust is there a way to do research we're taking a motion of intent between the day we finally hear it and the communication with the project sponsor. >> we'll be flexible on and off to entertain the day we approve with. >> commissioner hillis and if he says new years eve and gay pride sunday. >> i'm totally okay with that new years eve and gay pride sunday that's it. >> commissioner richards. >> i'm cool with the two days. >> commissioners we have a

motion i haven't heard a second thank you commissioner hillis there's another motion and intent to approve this to allow foyer operation or extending the house on friday and saturday night including you new years eve and gay pride sunday in addition to the friday and saturdays. >> that's right in addition to the first and saturday and thursday at 12:00 a.m. commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> thank you so much take a two minute break good morning. welcome welcome to the to the planning

commission october 23, 2014, that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind electronic devices. and and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners my apologies we need to return to item 12 in order to continue that matter so if that we don't have to go through the renoticing issue if i could ask to make a remotion with the same conditions only continuing that matter with the intent to approve. >> okay he was the maker of the motion i'll move to resend the motion that was previously made you want to vote on that. >> yes. please. acceptance. >> we have a motion and a second to the resend the previous motion for item 12 for

case no. 2013.255 c an john's street. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and if you could now. >> i'm going to move to approve using the conditions of the previous motion from any think it's march 132008 i've astronomy stuff away with the expectation that the establishment on john's 520 jones will be able to stay open think friday and sarnts on the patio until 2:00 a.m. and new years eve and the nights of gay pride sunday and the other change inform outdoor 3450u6k will be allowed or 0 after 7:00 p.m.

>> and the other conditions are all the same and intent to prove. >> emission to continue commissioners until november 6th. >> continue to november 6th. >> is that because of sound limitations. >> that's i believe the previous motion from 2008 already talks about working with the planning commission to or the entertainment commission to control the lovely of amplification. >> i this we added an extra condition for the planning department to. >> for the planning department to enforce all of the conditions. >> second. >> specifically the entertainment commission. >> condition that the project meet the noise standards of entertainment commission. >> so there's a difference if you can find a previous motion i can go through it.

>> that will be included in our packet to actually update that is so e as a motion of intent. >> continue to november 6th. >> commissioner richards. >> it was live entertainment. >> the specification no live entertainment after 7:00 p.m. >> and commissioner hillis you seconded that. >> thank you. >> commissioners to continue item 12 to november 6th with the motion of intent to approve the matter with the conditions as noted commissioner antonini commissioner johnck commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero thank you very much and i apologize for all that confusion commissioners that places you under our discretionary review

calendar d and v on green street request for discretionary review and the zoning administrator will consider a request for at rear yard surveillance. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and commissioners i'm the zoning administrator this is an abbreviated analysis typically the team leader provides that but unfortunately, he was not able to be here you with a discretionary review application to contract a third and fourth floor edition to a single-family residences in the r and one zoning it encroachment ten feet plus into the rear yard the exterior stairs from the third story deck governor it is nearly 58 feet deep in an area of 64 thousand square feet it is

occupied by the lot the surveillance was scheduled for the july 23rd surveillance hearing, however, the discretionary review was filed after that and the hearing was continued the planning staff has the following public comment some has been passed out 4 additional letters from the neighbors on the same block and from the hill association and two in opposition from a resident in the neighborhood and a letter from the architect engineer and from the project sponsor the neighborhood concerns generally include the proposed private verifies the effects caused by proposed construction and this scale of the proposal those in support of project say it is conceptual and appropriately scaled and they

find the project sponsor willing to work with the neighborhood and the intent to constrict a green construction and the design team decided the demonstrations pattern is in character with the neighborhood and many four story buildings in the neighborhood and on the street the proposed stories are set back from the suicides wall and the neighboring 4 story building and the rear estimation has as neglectable effect on the neighborhood the project is compatible too on the in terms of the square footage and lot size proposed light well meets more than one mets the residential guidelines in terms of the limited and the par fit is conceptual and there's no

exceptional six they recommend you not take dr and approve it as is that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> so dr requester our team has a 5 minute presentation. >> can i get the slides. >> yes. >> when start speaking sfgovtv will bring them up for you.

>> outlook good afternoon, commissioners andrew peterson representing the dr requester team they've failed to comply with the set back and an extraordinary circumstances be granted a surveillance to continue the design guidelines our question to the commission what extraordinary circumstances give this project special treatment navigate to the residential guidelinesism are extraordinary and exceptional and the projects current plan will harm the existing neighborhoods asia existing character first 312 green tripled the area on the smallest block incompatible with the

existing buildings they're a 8 and a half block and among the smallest on the block the proposed changes would create nearly 3 square feet descender than it's neighboring neighbors this falls outside the density range of the block what justifies this inappropriate elements that have avoided the parcel to a did he give to adhere to the guidelines it should respect the buildings and not overcrowd the smallest block, and, secondly, the proposed building does not respect the mid block area and blocks light to the adjacent properties 312 green has 90 no

yard and enabling the building density willes latd bat this crowding they'll add two light wells and violating the commissions requirement for matching light wells. >> a surveyors report shows the project sponsor filed it fall downly state the garage is half a foot above the elevation it is one and a half foot above the curve that be honoree than the plan and to address those concerns the building should respect the set back requirement from the property line and have a full-size matching light well on the eastern front and lastly because the grades and the adjacent solar appends that violates the state laws to

protect homeowners assess for solar energy to o so the rooftop shades 40 percent of the area and environmental analysis shows the proposed changes for the height position will increase the position on the solar installation by a factor of 7 greatest during 4:00 p.m. and significantly worse during the winter months as a solar rights act created in 1978 includes protection to allow the residents actually sunlight the project should limit the new structure to 3 floors lastly the boarder question is about the kind of hours that is created if the commission grants this purchased for over one million dollars it will, worthy

over $2 million this puts it out of reach of the san franciscans myself included and the largest building the greater financial return hence the plan why else go beyond the lots for a single-family home over time will have an impact on the current units for the working as follows that will not remain with the skyrocketing prices to renovate the property if affordable rent control to market rate instead of why not ask the project sponsor to reasonablely scale 3 story residents that prefers the open space and certainly no exceptional reasons where the project sponsor

shouldn't have to follow the same rules 0 it effect we ask the commission to limit it to 3 stories and comply with the act. >> thank you okay opening it up for public comment for people supporting the dr requester are (calling names). >> good evening i'm the owner of 1416 schizophrenias he will street joining 312 green street one of the things i'm interested 2, 3, 4 is number one it is blufk this fourth floor obstructs my view of the obstructs the view of the trans america building and something like that i grew up at

16 castle street one of the things i've enjoyed is the roof i'd like at the view of san francisco now you're looking a brick or increment wall another thing i'm interested in what's going to happen to my foundation i spent over $100,000 to repair my foundation 7 years ago and my contractor is very careful he moved the foundation that was attached to 3312 green street moved it back 6 to 10 inches to not disturb their foundation i want to have a guarantee if there's any disadvantage to my foundation someone obey liable and office of the city administrator another thing the heights limits in san francisco is 40 feet; is that correct does the guardrail would it be included in the 40 feet if you

look at the blue print the guardrail is love the 40 feet limits that's my certain thank you. >> next speaker >> good evening. i'm james kirk at 308 green street two houses down from 312 i want to thank the commission for hearing this item today that's an important issue for me and my neighbors i'm sure you're aware of light and air and green space are hard to come but we're concerned about the proposals we have at milestone my home a beautiful landscaped patio but 312 will dramatically light the

light our patio receives and the same on our roof-deck instead of a set back for 4 stories with no cigarette on an 18 foot lot we support this, however, it is way out of scale we ask the commission consider the impact of the neighbors of the light and air by granting those expectations i've heard we've asked the developer and haven't heard asked the developer to gave me with the community but didn't i attended the only meeting i was uninvited and jack who lives next door suggested i attend i sheepishly knocked on the door and bruno was very nice by sure you can attend i don't know why this development will

have no impact on you are that we went fully respectfully ask you not take dr. >> good afternoon. i'm tom i live at 5 minogue place digital behind the proposed project we appreciate our consideration we believe the impact of the mid block space is significant on granting the - does not warrant the granting of the residential guideline code on the floor area of ratio base that's one hundred and 50 powers larger than any nearby property this is why we believe it's out of scale in height and bulk

most of neighbors have small backyards the increased shadow will impact especially during the wintertime and green space is precious is very scarce in this corner of town we merely ask that the developer and the commission be sensitive to the concerns of light, air and quality of our limited space on telegraph hill thank you. >> are there is there any additional public comment in support of dr? >> i have additional handoutss additional letters that have come in recently. >> i'm jake a neighbor on green street you've heard thank you affair for having us here and

thank you for your hard work you're doing important work to the city to make sure that wonderful place we get to live makes sense that way thank you. i appreciate that so you've heard a lot of discussion of open space we're only - one the things that the open space in the neighborhood and the city we're one of the densest neighborhood we've our naishdz neighbors are good friends and because of character of that space and the way it is today and how negatively impacted by the shading we changed the character and maybe not had the opportunity to get to know each other in the same way it is needing to be

persevered if you allow special expectation for something of this sort others will say oh, let's continue down this path it's important inform the city entirety because the solar panels the way the building shades the panels as mentioned during the peak are period of the day when we need the most limit power my solar panels will be shut down we need in resource it is inappropriate from a policy prospective to allow an over development with the negative effects fortunately i think there's a way forward we won't be here

except the project sponsor is not open to dialog and compromise within the last two weeks we've asked for a professional mediator to come to an accomodation that all the neighbors want to see the project developed while to see work done on the site myself and the another neighbors request you take dr for the project and the important matters we've discussed in consideration. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, project sponsor our team has 5

minutes arrest. >> come on come on come on hello there commissioners thank you for having us today, i'm the owner and architect of the project before you and this is my wife susan and my two wonderful daughters and my father who's here mom couldn't be here but my father will be living at the residence as well i've been a resident of north beach over 20 years and essentially as a renter and this represents an opportunity for my wife and i to become first time homeowners so we have