e'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 wit 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 your appointed by mayor ed lee e.r. gavin newsom so we feel the developers called in san

francisco has to be challenged and no further development unless working class housing and allow people to live here that is not happening in san francisco instead, you have airbnb making money off of the development for speculates i think this commission that's why people are attacking the commission people attack you out in the public and the planning department has attacked the senior workers who want to follow the code and there are suits against the planning department their illegal discrimination against that planning members they've kicked out the senior members of the planning department they want to enforce the code that's what you've done under this manager and the mayor of san francisco

there's a excess tefk problem in san francisco this is another example of working class developing development being destroyed this is the awe intense of this being destroyed by the people of san francisco (clapping.) any more public comment on this agenda item there - >> sorry. >> happy new year i own digital television and i'm speaking on this but also on the stadium and a little bit of what

the gentleman said i am against the explosion of candle stick. >> sir, i'm sorry the public comment for general public comment is coming up right after this item this public comment period is for 453 state only. >> you can speak studio that. >> i'll sit down and be patient did you want to come up in thirty minors arrest general public comment is the next item. >> is it. >> i should have been begun 3 hours ago active missed studio time which cost me money i'm surprised she's not here and thank you for asking me to speak before. >> is there any additional public comment on state street item? okay seeing none, public comment

is closed. commissioner antonini and yeah. for the benefit of the public was mentioned earlier that the exploitation of candle stick is not something that be about under the jurisdictions of the planning commission this was brought up in previous comments getting on to the actual discussion on this particular project we asked for things to be done and in my opinion they were done to make this into a very good project we asked that the garage be made smaller and went from 4 cars to two brought a level down to 4 levels steadfast of instead of 5 that's 3 a and a half because of the set back we've removed accident penthouse and roof deck the seat belts are quite large between hours we've made them larger from 139 it 182 the set

back on the the fourth level and inches on the east side of the building those are sixth set backs and pretty big changes and the unit size have been reduced counsel to one barely over 22 hundred square feet and 21 hundred square feet i had we had a discussion earlier during my remarks a lot of times when our talking about square footage there's a lot of things that don't get counts as square footage and some that do you know, i think the project sponsor has brought up a point that 8 units in the area over 23 hundred square footage i believe that's what you said if i'm not mistaken over 2 thousand f this is not that unusually large not a problems are larger homes today f