between the buildings, the two proposed buildings on state street. i think they get a little bit too much on state street where even though they are on two lots it looks like this massive building even with the smaller two floor buildings ends up looking large. the both sides, both lots on state street. do you want to comment? >> yes. as stated this was presented an a variance to me in august and the neighbors were expressing their concerns about the project, and at that time i understand the concerns that they raised. i also see the point of the project sponsor and the hardships i am mposed by the topography of the lot and you

have an apartment building essentially on both sides, an 8-unit building and 4-unit building and the project to the east the garage at the very rear of the residential building because it sneaks up the hillside there and seeing that doing something that maybe they can do something that would be code complying that would add the dwelling units that may still require a variance but adding onto the existing buildings did not seem very practical when you have a through lot like this and would call for or encourage an exception to a lot development. in which case the lots don't qualify and the variance is required. a variance could be justified for this location however i have concern about the

overall scope of the overall project and neighbor project proposed here would not be one granted a variance. seeing there is willingness for everyone to get together and discuss alternatives and i'm happy there was some discussion and alternatives discussed and i'm disappointed it did not carry it through and not before the commission here today but removing that third story would be more acceptable in terms of the variance and what came to light at the hearing was the tree issue and that i did have questions and concerns about. i know the department of public works is very diligent in terms of reviewing applications and they only remove trees when it's been

warranted and there has been a hearing on it and they may make a decision and that will be appealed to the board of appeals which gives me a little bit of pause honestly in having a decision right annoy. -- now. i would be really hesitant to having a project used as justification for removal of the tree if that were coming down the line. so those are my thoughts now. i think a variance can be justified for this location not what's currently before you, removed the third stories would be an improvement on that. i understand some of the concerns about maybe having staff look at the design. i under why the residential design team supported this design in the project. i see it complies with residential guidelines but also i think there may be some revisions necessary in order to address

this variance issue. >president cindy wu: thank you. commissioner fong? >> >commission vice-president rodney fong: okay, so mr. calvin, can you show us what proposes getting rid of the floor, can you show it what it look like? >> thanks for the question. let me say i think this is a completely appropriate discussion and it's not the first time we talked about removing the third floor. i think it an appropriate discussion. back when we proposed it to the neighborhoods over the summer, this is what we redesign and we don't tv -- have the layout for the whole building. removing that type of square footage creates an awkward layout for the house. if the commission is

going in this is direction with removing the floor i would propose to doing more excavation to make the design work. >> have you thought about asking for variance for getting rid of the garage and leaving as much square footage and not having to put cars in there? >> i don't think that's been considered at this point. >> i think given mr. sanchez' reservation about making decisions today, i think we should propose a continuance. it looks like we shouldn't come to a decision today if the zoning administration doesn't feel comfortable. >> i would take this matter under advisement and the pending

outcome of the tree removal would render a decision at that time. that's one option. if the commission, it's fully in your authority, if you do want to continue it, i would suggest some specific direction. >> i think i heard if we get rid of the square feet on the roof on the floor we are all okay. that's what i would propose. >>commissioner kathrin moore: commissioner hillis made a point about architectural variety to distinguish all buildings so they don't look like a project. that means all kinds of thing, that's change of materials, change of administration, overall building, etc. it seems to me that if indeed there could be a new project given the tree situation that this project might need to be continued in order to come forward on its own merit

with the conditions of the comments made by the commissioners including the very important decision about the trees with the new project. >president cindy wu: commissioner fong? >> >commission vice-president rodney fong: essentially yes, you beat me to it on the same page of a continuance. i don't think you want us to redesign it for you at this hour. but just to reiterate the direction i'm hearing this commission would like to take is the removal of the third floor, the removal of the garage, two different expression of architecture separating them so it doesn't look like one large project and probably leaving the tree as possible. i know that's not ours. >> i think if the tree is deemed healthy.

>> i don't think there could be a project with the tree, given the location of the tree. it pretty closes to the property line and i don't know how the building can be designed with the tree. i think it would be with the outcome of that with the hearing and appealed to the board of appeals >president cindy wu: i think i heard commissioner richards say to explore the desirability of the garbage. commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: >> i agree with commissioner hillis and moore so they don't look like the same thing. that's probably the easiest and in terms of the variance, mr. sanchez, the variance has to do with the depth of the

structures on state and the structures on ord not with the height of the structures. >> both structures are located within the required area of the yard. >> no matter what we do with the height, we know it's going to need a variance. one idea we might propose is we really don't need that lower floor although that doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference because you need the structural elements down there, but perhaps you need a way, the cars would go down a grade and your garage would be somewhat subgrade but that would allow you to have three floors and your grade maybe a few steps from street level, you would lower it significantly but you would

still have separation of floors because otherwise you are going further out in the back which would cause more problems trying to take up more of the space in between. while you can explore the possibility of not having a garage. i think being up there in the middle, i hate to say it, you are a long way from any place. it's going to be very hard if someone does have a place to put a car or two cars up there. it wouldn't be my choice if i was buying something and then i think when we do continue it maybe a time when we can get more of a decision on the tree issues. in a month maybe we can get closer on that tree issue. the other question i have for commissioners if we are talking about taking the floor off or removing down in height on state, but how about ord, is that an issue or not?

when i first looked at that, i kind of said it's too bad that the smaller house where the elderly couple is if that didn't have the same number of floors and we kept the other one on order, they don't want to do that. i would be more in favor on the floor off order than completely eliminating that upper level or state although dipping the whole thing down would help to bring the profile even lower than the adjacent homes and making less of an impact. those are some of my suggestions. >president cindy wu: commissioner hillis? >> >commissioner rich hillis: just a question about the variance. one thing about granting the variance is is you have to keep the modestly sized homes but what would prevent

someone from increasing the massing more. could we condition that as part of this, how does that work? >> you can add conditions however appropriate but once there is a standard variance, the condition on that that states further expansion on the property would require a review to determine if a new variance is required and certainly any expansion of the rear buildings those are required in the rear yard would require a new variance and also with expansion of the new buildings. if there are specific concerns to the front building and if you didn't want the front building expanded any further perhaps you would add some conditions, i can't think of it right now, but you would want the condition that would prevent from further expansion. >> could you require with another variance? >> from the fact that the

variance is granted from the same lot we would look at the front building as well and make a determination if a new variance is required. >> correct. i think that's appropriate given the justification for if you are allowing them to build in the rear yard because because we are not taking that much. we are not allowing, no increase in one side of the front building which i think is important. just on the garage, i think ord is a lot more difficult to park than state given the curb and how it works and they are very much different neighborhoods. it's hard to get from one to the other. i would say look at the park. there are lots on the other side of the lots. it would make for a better design and better on the street. i would encourage to look at that. >> i would not on top of that

looks like existing lot can house two cars in a garage. >president cindy wu: commissioner johnson. >commissioner christine johnson: i'm supportive of a continuance as well. generally speaking i'm not, i like to come to conclusions but all the factors that we are discussing leads to a higher probability that even if we are able to come to a decision today, the project would not look like that because there is too many other things that can happen on the other side of this meeting so definitely support a continuance. i will quickly give what i think. in terms of the garage, that was one thing, mr. sanchez that i was going to say as well. looks like both buildings accommodate 2-car garages and

the first floor of the ord building had some storage space behind the 2-car spaces and there is definitely an opportunity to consider no matter the architect decision on the additional floors. i just want to point out my views on things that i would be supportive of potentially for project redesign. so let's go on the extreme example where the tree is fine and needs to stay there and you would building around the tree which is pretty cool. i have seen it before in the world, but let's say you don't want to do that, project sponsor, i would be supportive of looking again at ord court and look at a building with multiple units that are zoned rh 2. if you are landscaping or doing something with the rear yard

on state street side of that lot, a community could potentially be compelling to have a building on ord court with more than 1 unit. don't throw that out the window. i also think that on state street property, it could potentially be compelling to have some level of excavation to account for the floor that i agree should probably come off the top of those two buildings and i also agree the two buildings on the state street side should be differentiated and actually i made this comment before when we commented about differentiation on the completely different project, if you are going to make it different, don't just change the color, make it separate buildings. that's my comment on the design. and if ord

court ares if you are going to keep it to one family unit. i think this wasn't as clear. i would want to see the top fourth floor come off that building and again you can do some reconfiguration and you have the 2-car 2-car garage. if you are not doing the two 2 units i would want to see a shorter building there. >> commissioner moore in >>commissioner kathrin moore: i think the commission has given enough creative suggestions. i think it's making sense to continue if you can't talk yourself out of architecture. i just hope that the tree issue will be resolved one way or the other. if it is resolved. so be it. i'm not sure what the timeframe is but i

think it easily takes another 3-4 months to get this done. >> commissioner richards? >> >commissioner dennis richards: the house in question, 24 ord court, that is probably an affordable house. my fear is we are going to be coming back with a variance to build a monster home there for the couple that i hope live for a very long time but when they are not there, that it should be modest. >> that could be part of any variance decision whereas the finding granting the variance to the small size of the building. >> that's wonderful, thank you. >commissioner michael j.

antonini: i would also suggest to the architect to design something with the remaining trees. and if the it could be to the area where the tree is not and they both come from that curb cut behind the tree below grade a little and the other go in the other way and that might allow you and then you would have the one house would be behind the tree, they would be masked by the tree and they can still have their entrance there and the other house, i wouldn't let the garbage dominate the design but to have them both come through the same wider curb cut to get a wider in the front and maybe a

duplex. >commissioner dennis richards: one last word. fw they want it for their children, so be it. >> commissioners, if you are talking at a 1 month continuance you are looking at january 8th, however you are full, if you are talking 3 months, you are at march 5th. >commissioner michael j. antonini: i would move to continue to february 5th. if the project sponsor feels they can work something out in that amount of time. do you think it's doable and we can have some tree information. okay. february 5th. city clerk: on that motion, commissioners to continue this matter to february 5th. >commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner christine

johnson: >commission vice-president rodney fong: >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong:. that motion passes 6-0 and places you under general public comment which i have no public speaker cards. >president cindy wu: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. meeting adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >>

>> good morning, today is november 25, 2014, welcome to the san francisco transportation authority. my name is john avalos, the chair of the authority, and today, this meeting is being clerked by our clerk, steve, if i can get the last name. steve, stamos, thank you and, cell women to your first leading, clerking the transportation authority, the meeting is brought to us by the staff, and hegan and thank you for your service, steve, would you please, call the roll. >> roll call? >> avalos? >> present. >> breed. >> here. >> campos? >> absent. >> chiu. >> here. >> cohen? >> absent. >> farrell. >> absent. >> kim. >> here. mar. >> absent. tang?

>> present. >> commissioner weiner. >> present. >> commissioner yee. >> present. >> we have a quorum. >> very good, and let's call the next item please? >> item two, approve the minutes of the october, 21, 2014, meeting it is an action item. questions on the minutes? >> motion to approve. >> from commissioner weiner and we will go to public comment, and any member of the public that would like to comment. and seeing none, we will close public comment and we will take a roll call vote. >> avalos? >> aye. >> breed. >> aye. >> campos? >> absent. >> chiu? >> aye. >> cohen? >> absent. >> farrell. >> absent. >> kim? >> aye. >> mar? >> absent. >> tang? >> aye. >> commissioner weiner? >> aye. >> yee? >> aye.

>> the item passes. >> go on to the next item. >> item three, chair's report, this is an information item. >> thank you. colleagues, the election early this month, marked two important milestones, for transportation in san francisco. first voters sent a strong supportive message about the transportation funding and policy with the passage of propositions a and b and the transportation bond and funding measure and with the defeat of prop l, that sought to hold back the long standing policy, the transportation joins with the san francisco transportation authority and other city agencies in thanking the voters of san francisco for supporting much-needed investment in our city's local and regional transportation system. we look forward to rolling up our sleeves to help to deliver the improvements that will support our city's visioner zero, to drive the traffic fatalities to zero and, that

will support reliability and improve traffic management and in the bikes and the walking grass across the city, in order to assure, broad based benefits i have also been seeking the sfmta assurance that will apply to the equity policy and analysis to propositions a and b, programs and i am hopeful that it will be supported i have actually called for a meeting or a hearing at the board of supervisors, to cover that very topic. election night marked another major milestone for transportation in our city and it was 25 years ago, this november, that voters approved the first half cent tax known as proposition b and also created the transportation authority to administer the program and the local transportation sales tax that was reauthorized in three and renamed, proposition k, helps to pay for projects large and small across san francisco, speaking on behalf of my colleagues on the board, we are grateful that the voters with

allowed the transportation authority to have the half cent sales tax, every dollar, helps to attract more in state and federal and local funds, all of the programs outlined in the proposition k, plan, generate the benefits city wide and the major capitol projects are all moving forward including a rebuild, or a rebuild of the parkway and the subway extension to china town, and the transbay transit center and cal train electrickfiation as well as the bus and networks and looking around the city and in my own district, i can see evidence of a transportation evidence work of agencies and the community, from the ongoing improvements and new generations of vehicles at the balboa park bart station, and the plan studies and the capital improvements that emerge from them.

we also celebrate, 25 years of community safety and safe routes to transit and kaoul and significant problem kay support of any transit program. and i know that our executive director has some special come menive activities, planned. and the colleagues on the board in the coming months to review the many accomplishments of the transportation authority. we will highlight the tradition of accountability and transparency and community, involvement here at the da and celebrate improvements in all san franciscans have benefited from, and look ahead to shaping our long range transportation vision, for the city and delivering the next century of transportation improvements and for now, let me wish the transportation authority, a happy 25th birthday, and to each of you and for for our public, watching from home, have a safe and happy thanksgiving holiday. thank you, very much and that concludes my remarks.

>> and if we have no comments, from colleagues, we will go on to public comment, and any member of the public that would like to comment on thit em come forward and seeing none, we will close public comment. and go on to the next item. >> item four, executive director's report, this is an information item. >> good morning, chair avalos, i am please to present my monthly report, which is on your desks, and thank you again, for recognizing the tremendous out comes for transportation and in the november elections together with the sfmta and all of the partners and agencies were delighted and want to echo our thanks to the residents and voters of san francisco for providing us more resources to improve transportation. and as well, we will be presenting you with really fun, and wonderful come menive activists to tell brait the 25th anniversary of the transportation authority in the next month or so. on cap and trade to lead off the report today, we are glad

that the final definition of the result, for how the regulations will be developed have come out, and we saw some movement to help with how these will effect san francisco based on our advocacy and we recognize that there will be three census tracks that will qualify for so-called, disadvantaged community status, and this is or an improvement over the initial version that only identified one potential eligible census track and so there are three and the tender loin and the soma and the bay view hunter's points and the tracks that will qualify for that status, and the growth, council really stressed the guidelines for the affordable housing sustain able grant programs. and here, we still have more work to do and we are trying to shape those together with other city and regional agencies we are working very closely with the mayor's office and abag and atc and management agencies, to insure that this is a program that can be smoothly implemented and administratively not too

difficult to try to combine the formal housing with transportation programs, to meet the state's greenhouse gas emissions targets. the hopeful sign is that they have delayed a meeting to consider the guidelines, to revise those, in response to the public input, and so that that meeting will happen in january, and we will be able to report back next year to see how that shakes out. the other state wide issue and regional issue that we have been working hard on is the cal train electrickfiation program and there is progress and we want to appreciate chair kim who heads the transbay and the joint power board meetings as well as the land use committee of the board of supervisors will be holding hears on this toing. and the program, at the top priority for us as well as for many of the partners in the region and there is a critical, assessment choice before th