f the planning code that requires straight improvements it's written broadly and done so on a case by case basis we've work with the staff the project sponsor is obviously in favor of making 24 building safe for its tenants i think we understand that and we're supportive of that. >> it's included in the motion as a finding thank you commissioner moore. >> there's always an upside and down side the strong concern of the diminishing pdr of all costs is of great concern some say contradictory and it is quite objective with you go on the web it can happen to anybody someone can buy a building people have

legally been existed termed or whatever where the rubber meets the road the approval here should be only the point of the construction and many of the things that happen quite a while back the huge alternatives on a train moving forward with a readaptation of a building the adaptation is done it's fabulous, sir answer the question we're talking about an industrial building sitting in asphalt with no. you curve delineating the properties from the surrounding public transportation network so the question i'm asking you how will be you u be using the additional space around the building currently there's porta pots

there are homeless people that are uss it for their residence and in addition a number of cars parked there are you attending of intending to park there. >> thank you for the question commissioner if we can get the overhead here's the site plan this black line is the property line everything else is state property caltrain so there is not the project sponsor did not have control over that so it makes it for an awkward site to make less awkward. >> that side is currently being used to the extent of the curb with cars parking and the porta pots and people residing there i think the planning department needs to totally stay on top in order to integrate this awkward

geotry is the best word i can find into a safe building the first thing i would do is working on the project so talk with the fire department and emergency access by a this with this occupancy not to talk about the dual use of industrial pdr and office there are other rules that come into play the architects with older colleagues of mine i think the department needs to track that we're encouraging wanting pdrs to be on the ground floor we need to understand the interplay between the uses in order to create a new building type surrounded by retail, etc. in order to that to function the straight xhochlsz

everybody talked about we indeed had a hard time getting across there's a whole other slew of this no man's land how we're integrating it into a more reasonable network of local and caltrain access rams. >> if i could add commissioner just to give you some comfort we've been in contact with caltrain, in fact, a lot of this they need to be aware of what we are doing we've been in touch with them in fact our contract person has been in contact and that's absolutely we can insure that all groups are coordinating together. >> the other thing i'll ask

ultimately the department be engaged in when we hear selma and other people speak about streetscape and kind of a people friendly environment as we're making it a multi use part of the city i i would like to know who's more suitable to be in what pdr space which - the building itself participate in different ways in the streetscape because which it's curved geotry the curve is less visible from the south eastern part i want to see that the most attractive people oriented part of the pdr is indeed in that portion where the public is participant to see what's going on in the building that's making

it more as pa gentle listed statement we have those questions the industrial building are 4 sided building for industrial use as we're converting them to a new kind of pdr i want to have pdr perimeter in the pedestrian side of the building. >> director ram. >> just want to make sure from the straight up of the scion of approval you're adding with respect to the first floor the reason for doing that is it character and location lends itself to the pdr of the first floor it will be helpful to put that on the record as for another motion of approval. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm fine we need

finding and those findings reflect about the pdr continue to be pdr, of course, in terms of the other access issue that is a finding not a condition did you have something to add mr. calvin an a on a solution possible solution across the crosswalk. >> you can't i don't want to speak to the streetscape aspect we need to work on counterfeiting it one thing i want to add to respond to commissioner moore's last comment those pdr tenants we've identified fortunately have a dual heavier industrial wine storage wine and then in the front around the street the intent to the showroom for the

car charging will be there and the wine tenant having a wine taifrt room a small delhi something to activate it street we've fortunately identified tenants. >> sir i'm not saying that i believe in looking at manufacturing is part of the enhanced vibrant city people do what they do i'm not necessarily looking at the both tick of the space relate to the space of what's happening and leaving it visible to the street i want people in the city to know in general pdr as pdr is preserving. >> again, thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> one other things to the

gentleman's point this residential building i'll treat this as an eviction it's legal and that's where i industrial i want to acknowledge there are probably people that would be there if not asked to leave thank you. >> commissioners there's a we have a motion and a second to approve as amended to include the ground floor be retained with pdr with with support of the condition as well as the management commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president wu commissioner fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes national anthem 6 to zero that places you on our final item under our discretionary

review calendar and for members of the public items 17 and 18 have been withdrawn commissioners this is item 16 and d at 53 state strata mandatory discretionary review and please note in closing public comment the depiction continued the matter until this date by a vote of 7 to zero. >> good afternoon 89 in a chang with the staff. >> i'm sorry we lost our quorum and it is - we now have a quorum again and please continue. >> the item is a application for the mandatory discretionary review for a building for the property on state street on the south side of the castro market

neighborhood the specific area of the neighborhood is referred to as corona heights it was heard on november 20th and continued to today after public comment in opposition the planning commission continued this item requesting that the changes to the building that the mapping be revised so since the hearing the changes the proposed garage have been removed by approximately, one thousand square feet and the off-street hoa's parking has been reduced and the removal of the penthouse has occurred although the stair penthouse are - their exempt if the height limit in addition the set back previously a set back from the

front building currently the fourth level has been acceptance e set back from 18.4 it's been reduced to 23 hundred square feet the upper unit from 26 to 22 hundred 20 square feet since the november 20th hearing we've received 3 letters of support from neighbors one of which was adjacent to the neighbor to the west the neighbors who commented found the proposal good the existing one was an eye sore there's one letter i received today in opposition of the project i have a copy for anyone who wishes to see them in order to proceed the

commission must decide what to take discretionary review and new two family dwell structure you pursuant to the planning code that concludes my presentation. and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. allen is there a project sponsor or he separate. >> there is opportunity for the the project sponsor, however this matter has been heard to traditionally we've afforded the project sponsor and any members of the public 3 minutes. >> so project sponsor please. good afternoon planning commissioners for the record i'm john the architect as from the dr hearing i was directed to meet with the staff commissioner moore and commissioner richards to address the concerns you've raised at the last hearing he want to especially change

commissioner moore and commissioner richards so for their comments today, i present the relatives you raised here on the overview 3 changes with the previous and on the right the revised the penthouse deck has set back that reflect the earth and helps to maintain the front set back and the landscaping we've removed landscape reducing it and the reduction of 12 over 12 hundred square feet this is achieved by removing a complete floor and the garage and reducing it to a two car garbage the removal of the basement required us to redesign the lower unit as ms. chang said we

realized it to make it 2 nine hundred square feet flat in the general configuration it is the fourth floor so the manufacturing is a 3 story building in relationship to the adjacent neighborhood regarding square footage there has been discussion about this we've done an analysis based on the city records we've identified 3 units and 3 of them across the street from the project we've alternated the window and replied them with scaled windows and signage of the stucco to create a modest building with commissioner moore's comments and maintained the garage space and we've

cooperated the escaping with the neighbors to the west that requests we do so we received an appraisal from bridges appraiser that awe operated the project this is an be affordable project we building this has been addressed with all concerns and we've presented this to the neighbors on december 17th and not received comments from them as mentions 3 letters of support and knowledge i understand this was heard i want to let you know the board required a variance and we removed street trees thank you. >> i have speaker cards here.

(calling names) >> if your name has been called please approach the podium. >> good evening commissioners i'm herpes i live on straightaway stated street i'd like to point out that to the city is a determined that the cottage only state street is not a historic resource it's the only building on the block and probably one of increasing 3 in the city that predates the 1906 san francisco earthquake it is the finding that the original structure has been modest, however, i think it's important to know that everything from the street is authentic therefore the demolition of the building will impact the neighborhood but

assuming the wheels of progress are going to roll over the piece of past can we throttle them down a little bit planning department staff has determined that the existing structure is sound you can't read that in the report they determined it was relatively affordable and file number sound they do make the designation according to the mayors independence it didn't apply i don't know why i don't know that's pertinent policy 2.1 of the city general plan discourages the demolition of affordable housing unless the demolition results in a net increase in the affordable housing yes, it courageous the -

i'd like to point out those are not maturing exclusive i've heard you support the creation of two units i accept that but no good reason this project can't include wound unit of compatible size i'll ask you to please read our power and moderate the groeb growth of our neighborhood and send the developer to r back to the drawing board and stop wasting our time with development measures. >> happy new year i'm roxanne i live on state street at the november 20th hearing i think the commissioners were quite clear to the developer

commissioner moore stated she wanted the building downsized one unit can be larger rather than one and urged the architect to be more creativity in designing i quote comparable with the small-scale neighborhood commissioner johnson wanted to see a design more rovbl to the design it would necessarily have smaller units and suggested the developer eliminating the parking spaces commissioner hillis asked to work with the neighbors and commissioner antonini asked for more traditional facade on state street and commissioner richards was most emphatic the design at the november 20th hearing had track moving he said those square footage don't belong in

the neighborhood it's code compliant but not compatible the new design reduced the square footage by 2. and 32 square feet and its upper unit by 4 hundred square feet the new design has the same footprint although the structure grew by one inch the developer is seeking to maximize his profit commissioner president illig please understand this is not about building friendly family homes this is a woodside hill i live with my partner in 2 hundred square feet condo with room to spare the types of families will perspire sisters affordable and

outside space two things the existing property has commissioner moore says she didn't want to see a rejurisdiction of the design today but this design fails to address our concerns we articulated to the architect in a one hour and a half meeting own the december 17th please don't take the dr and allow a spectacular to allow his ideas for the detriment of our neighborhood and family and others thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm hector martinez i live on state street only thing i'd like to add is

the currently redesigned building really didn't do much i think the primary thing it didn't do to detract the building only scale it down a bit essentially by having it have a deck or a deck on the second floor it's created sort of a viewing now into our bedroom window upstairs it hadn't done anything to take into account our concerns obviously again, it is something i don't think that mr. aluminum understand he didn't abide by the commissioners recommendations that try to shrink that back this is my understanding it's to be more

compatible with the neighborhood and allow more air and light between the building we object to this stance. >> good evening, commissioners thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised project plans and anyone who wishes to speak specific requests i'm chris i'm a resident omi on state street planning code planning policy and the zoning all effect value of the property in addition to a lot of other factors in the zoning were rh1 the zoning with about different and rh2 a multi

you use building would effect the value of the building the value of the property is affordable as it was and if the planning code and planning policy is not enforced a demolition time could be done and this price would be based on what they can get out of it there profit i have specifics to give you another view of state street where i live i very specific requests to maintain one affordable not diminish it without replacing it would other affordable and preserve the characters on state street the new plans there's a new encroachment on the sidewalk and

a lot of impedes the mayor's office came out with a plan it was just december 10th and it key recommendation to preserve the affordable housing in our neighborhood we ask you follow-up with that policy this is a small affordable home this is a depiction from the project sponsor it didn't - i don't understand how you can have an expansion on both sides of the aisle both sides of the adjacent home on the left and right it - i don't understand this drawing and if birds eye view only the birds will see that if you look at it from the - okay. so the new plans the roof deck is removed did basement is gunning gone this is a little reduction

here a little reduction there we met the requests at the meeting with the project architect he was not interested and said he wouldn't accept those i looked at the owner it is 52 state straight, llc this is cut-and-paste the best i could there are a lot of trees i suggest setting back the house we don't have the opportunity to make suggestions. >> thank you. sir, your time is up is there any additional public comment. >> good evening, commissioners it is evening i'm judith williams the planning and loudly committee met last time and discussed this project among

other things and passed the following motion because it is a dpoofgs an affordable unit we want to see one of the units retain the scale and affordability of the units that's been lost and i'll random you ad n a asked that the house not be demolished the existing house not be demolished if you're going to do that anyway, we want to see that existing unit replied with comparable size and affordability i'd like to speak for myself and say i don't feel that looking at the plans as best i could interpret them there's very much of a change in the plans the project

architect claims major changes but i don't see them and what you just saw presented by chris parks very little has changed the footprint was not changed it's still high and has the fourth floor that was a request for smaller scale take that off for smaller scale so, however if you will direct the project sponsor to sploi supply one smaller unit that's relatively affordable and comparable to the one that's going to be demolished that might result in a design that will better respond to the small-scale character of the neighborhood as well as addressing affordability so thank you very much. >> steve united public workers

for action you've seemed concerned about the working class people of san francisco oourlg to demolition a housing for waxing and put in apartment for rich people if you're really concerned you'll reject this our view we have to have wauks housing we have enough million dollars condos units in san francisco and further more the blou blow up of candle stick park this is allowing people to do things to then people 2, 3, 4 san francisco like the black people people don't have the chance to speak on it