clarify the impact fees are based on floor and parking is included. >> even though gross that floor areas should be like an agnostic term does that matter the use. >> in are a sense the impact fees are based on impact uses that's why we're raising the flag of the nexus. >> okay. >> commissioner johnson and okay. so i think i got it now are we saying that right now we will have to redo the impact fee analysis because as parking on the ground floor it counts as part of ground floor areas if the legislation passed we don't have the data to support that ground floor parking has the same impacts as other types of

ground floor sorry i was lost for a minute and commissioner antonini. >> i'm going to make a motion to improve that exclude staff's recommendation and exclude the following language all the time section 3 of page 7 to read section 3 effective date symshall be effective thirty days with the amendment to section 402 shall not political to projects in haven and site or building permit required to do 201-800 not including floor space principally added as accessory and added underground.

>> dough hear a second? >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i personally am not going to second that on that particular exemption for projects on van ness sud it sounds like senator edwards office is going to take that under advertise minded and senator edwards office could a work on their language i'll make a motion if we need to look at the analysis to see if there's a good backing behind and conducting the ground floor parking for the impact fee services i want to have it explicit in our recommendation when you do that analyze whether it's part of the looking at the impact fees or other sorts of

assessment that's a question for director ram and depending on the answer saw i know the answer we'll look at it in the context of the updates to the nexus analysis when i believe are done every 5 years in state law i think that is important to remind there's an explicit assumption the parking is servicing the use of impact so i think i will caution that suddenly we get a lot more impact fees because the impact fee on the square feet basis is less than 34u789d by a bigger number you know what i mean it is built into the assumptions when we look at the impact analysis that's my only word of caution i can't specifically is that will happen

>> okay. just a couple of things. >> commissioner wu pursue i agree with that sentiment about the direction i want to ask the city attorney can we recommend the supervisors office recommended some grandfathering or along in the - you i think it is up to the commission make the recommendation and leave the details to the supervisor or include a detailed recommendation. >> commissioner moore i'd like to recommend to the supervisors that quite recently we've approved a number of projects and projects in the pipeline and caution we're not creating two of confusion about the subject matter but have basically support this

commission has been doing on a number of projects. >> commissioner antonini. >> oh mr. johnson did you want to comment. >> legislative aid to supervisor breed are you suggesting there are other areas we want to look at grandfathering for current projects. >> not one we've done a lot of work where it's critical indeed the special van ness special district in the department off the top of my head has caused us and reminds us of others i'll appreciate but i can't think of others. >> okay. >> i will make sure we double check with planning staff in drafting that amendment. >> it should look positive and suggestive rather than

vindictive and past the fact that's what i think we need 80 do. >> commissioner antonini. >> so i'll make another motion i'll support approval with moifktsdz presented bid staff and ask supervisor breed office to work with the gentleman to say if it's appropriate to include the suggestive legislation in regards to the project on van ness special use district. >> we don't need. >> - okay. what we're talking about. >> commissioner antonini if i understood your motion you're making a motion to approve with modifications but outside of the motion itself you're making a request. >> a finding. >> oh part of the finding then i understood. >> we should work together and

see what happens. >> i would suggest. >> i'll make another motion. >> commissioner johnson. >> i max make a motion to recommend the legislation with moifthsz with the finding that supervisor breed office look at the exemption for certain projects on the van ness sud and review in the future the impacts of including ground floor parking in the square area gross skoonl for the calculation of fees. >> if you want to include that second finding that's fine it is not just ground floor there are parking on more than ground floor. >> i'll leave it out. >> soleave out the second finding

and i didn't get that (laughter). >> you said exemption but grandfathering clause. >> so it's grandfathering so restating my motion i think i got it make a motion to remedy the legislation with moifthsz with the findings supervisor london breed's office amended the sud and okay. >> okay. is it mendable. >> commissioner moore the by line there are no other areas other than areas that are effected commissioner thokz that

providing that supervisor london breed office look into a clause along the van ness coordinate. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 12 for case - thank you. >> mrauth i plymouth use conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon michael smith planning staff the project proposed e proposes to for about a second-story dwelling dwell in the ocean view neighborhood and to construct in its place a third-story mixed use building the proposed building go have 3

dwelling units and off-street parking and tenants and use yet to be determined the property contains the remnants of a second-story dwelling constructed in 2005 the building is vacant and the city records are indicating the building is authorized to be a second-story typically between 9 square feet of habitable area the city has noting not received public comment and to approve the project are conditions we believe it will add 4 family sized dwelling units to the horsing stock and creates a small commercial space ideal for simon's and make use of an underutilized blighted property

and lastly no tenants will be displaced by this project that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions questions. >> project sponsor please. >> you have a 10 minute presentation. >> mr. smith said everything there was to say i don't have anything else to add. >> opening it up for public comment if any seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner moore i want to congratulate the 0 folks for doing something as bold particularly there utilized properties to be used to address the questions we ask every, with a great idea approve or disapprove i have to ask for a

couple of minor provisions having to do with what we see on page 8 to 1 something about parking the way this drawing is shown it actually given the width of the garage door doesn't allow 3 parking spaces to function particularly when there're access to the outdoor ear and if you have, in fact, bicycle parks for a 8 bikes it's across the dimension streams doesn't allow the functions with each other so i want to suggest the 5 mixes of the garage door is not necessary a garage is a garage but it says that could potentially be used as another commercial space that's not what

we're approving today, i suggest we move the garage door and take the side light out have two parking spaces and have an attic with wide assess 2350r the residents to go into the garden space that comes from the garage that we widened the bicycle parking can indeed hang our bicycle on the wall and have sufficient room to do so and those are my suggestions those are a minor change in the facade but the building itself is is a gutsy strong building that will not alter anything i ask we modify this with two cars

given the fact that what is this type of bicycle parking are we doing here we're doing the type of bicycle parking to reduce the parking to two cars that's my sugs suggested change to the partnering and including taking the side lights next to the garage door. >> commissioner, i want to get clarity on what you're asking the garage door is 10 feet in width and that's correct. >> i have it on the overhead you're talking about shifting the garage door. >> to the north to the right. >> to the right. >> taking this parting away and having a comfortable access to the garden pace and widening the

biblical storage area that had slide the garden door a little bit further to the north . >> that's don't believe under the code. >> i'll have to make modifications under the code which will be 3 parking spaces but no problem code wise. >> if i understand my only comment is that the neighborhood the people living in the neighborhood the only comments they've made to any about the project is they're going to be off-street parking because parking on the street is limit in the area and everybody fight for parking on the street. >> i have no problem but one more car in the street will be

what their concerned with. >> i tried to look at angle of parking but that didn't work either and straight many parking for 3 cars didn't work not that way i don't know of any other way. >> commissioner antonini that was the question i had originally we've i you've got four units i don't know not 4 patricia's that is a premium your amenable with only 3 is that all right. with our project. >> my only comment was that i mean two parking spaces one bicycle parking very no problem i wanted to tell you that what mr. smith said to me as probably try getting 3 cars in there is

difficult originally i was told 4 and we reduced it to 3 reducing it to two i have no problem with that, i kind of like the beyond a reasonable doubt of a bicycle. >> i'd like to suggest even if it is strong it didn't work that's what we see i can't force you to put in 3 cars but if we say two and have people that have smallest cars you can probably get 4 cars in but the normal cars don't allow 3 cars in the garage and the go mixed use of bicycles. >> yes. i guess. >> sorry commissioner johnson. >> i was saying in project sponsor it okay with the lower

amount i don't understand why those spaces take commissioner moore's word on the fact it is hard to get those cars it looks like this is enough room but if keeping you informed they don't fit they don't fit. >> commissioner richards i second the motion. >> there is a motion and a second commissioner there is a motion and a second to approve the project with conditions audios acknowledged to move the garage north eliminating the side lights and increasing the area for bike storage. >> and -- excuse-me. and limiting the project to off-street parking parking spaces and including widening

the hallway. >> your widening the bicycle space that's automatic. >> okay commissioner johnson. >> a quick question to commissioner moore are you i mean can can we look at taking a wall away from the bike storage. >> did code requires it be locked by the storage. >> that's correct class one bicycle parking has to be more secure ask you that's why you can reduce the parking if i took a wall away it won't work. >> i have one i guess concern as the motion reads happen once again to have it on the overhead shifting the garage door over and just concerned currently that lines up underneath the bay

area window if we're okay with that, i understand what the goal is which is to reduce the one parking space and provide greater cease to the rear yard i'm not sure if we need to design the facade right here. >> i'm not trying to design the grarg facade but if one takes the color of the door as it is in red it is nice it is showing the building symmetrical but the garage blends it it will be acceptable. >> commissioner antonini. >> i missed when commissioner moore suggested moving the door i'm not what we're gaining we've teen the additional parking

space it would come out at the seem place what are we good friend of mine by moving the door. >> the car moving to the north can get in and out if a second car is in its spot is not enough room if you back up you'll clip the cars rear fender so the movements where o are clear and the parking doesn't work. >> can i significant share mr. smith censure about the facade if we can dpo get two parking spaces is that acceptable. >> if you can prove that the understandably work if you canned approve a building if you can draw the necessary lines do that by all means i want to keep

the door there. >> maybe it will require that the space closest to the wall shift. >> that's possible. >> are maybe the motion reads assuming the angle to two parking spaces and leave the garage door in place. >> limit it to 2 off-street parkings. >> by shifting the parking. >> however it works out. >> commissioners that's amenable to the maker thank you very much. >> so then commissioner there is a motion and a second to approve that project are conditions as amended to include the number of off-street parking be limited to two and increase the bike storage ear. >> councilmember sharp commissioner hillis commissioner johnson

commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 13 this is a conditional use authorization thank you planning department staff commissioner president fong and to modify a facility the project site a pe substation with last us towers that features tense for sprint t mobile and verizon wireless maumentd and modify the existing equipment without any change to the area the project sponsor held a

meeting to which no public attended and that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> opening it up for public comment or project sponsor is the project sponsor here? >> good afternoon. i'm matter here on behalf of the sprint i've read the executive summer and the conditions of approval i agree i think it is accurate and complete summary and in case you have questions i'll be happy to answer any questions any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore

commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and places you under our discretionary review calendar for case at 417, 30th street this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon subject property located 417, 30th street in noah valley to the south in the eastern neighborhoods in block of 30th street is higher in elevation and west end and slopes downward towards the and the a single-family home one store over and over a raised basement this as an up sloping rear yard

by excavating the floor space has a vertical and angle that measures between one hundred feet in depth at the corner historically measures 25 by one hundred would one structure on the north end of the lot on 1915 3 structures occupy a parcel and have has the to no open space so for a rear yard it was immunizing divided into 3 parcels that is 1915 the dr filers residents with one of the property in response to the to the loss of light to remove the fence at the rear of the deck and the fencing above

the railing height they felt those measures with the sent from 9 hardship property line windows will concrete no extraordinarily circumstances that concludes my presentation. >> dr requester you have 5 minutes >> i'm the property owner on harper street thank you for your

time as he's included the residential design team recommended the private funds and maintain 9 planters at the height my concern is this center slash railing which is actually a solid structure and i will illustrate this right now this is the street view inch cut away the fad to see the 3 spaces that are adjudicate adjacent to my neighboring property that this is can the neighboring property in addition to built up and the doted lion it the stent to the building and this is the facing railing slash

class which exceeds the rear bum out of 10 foot it will be a solid item that is in the plan here's the plan that was submitted or the zoomed in version planter is 5 by 60 feet long and 3 feet 6 inch high compatible to my bathroom it allows for trees to grow not only will their planter be a solid surface but have a significant amateur of feet this is through my bedroom to the deck it is shown the condition as proposed and if the planter is gone or if a safety

rally of glass i recognize that per that pose the privacy issue i have shown where the planter could be reduced in height or narrower it will allow more light into my home and it wouldn't reduce square footage on the proposed property or be shortened in height not provide a safety hazard because there actually is no safety railing on this side not much of m a drop and reduce the planting that could happen there are as well my suggestion - well point one is this at that particular time is exceeding the