ase since the project casts a shadow in the rec and park department spray park located to the southwest site is located within the zoning district and 58 percent bulk district within the potrero the property on, on the corner of tennessee and 19th street currently the site is developed with a single story in the waterfront area plan the properties are a 5 story remain to the north and to the east third street is the aerial which includes the sfmta t line and

the number of projects is the mixed use commercial development as part of large project modification it is for the rear yard as well as exposure and planning code required the minute rear yard equal to be provided and the project is accommodated ♪ l-shaped configuration to relate to the mid block open space however, this layout of rear yard with regard to exposure it is required to a rear yard of the code and this will not comply generally planning staff is in agreement with the proposed modification given the overall

project and find it to be compatible with the project and we received a letter from the dog patch and from the adjacent property owner and letter of opposition on 10th street substantially the department received 3 additional letters of support and one of opposition i'll provide to you now so you can each get one of those as well as one of these >> staff was in relation to the planning code which established a priority planning and recommend the outlines in the report the important characteristic that support it include that the project is consistent point objective and the policies of the general

plan the project is capable with the neighborhood character and provides a mass in scale contributor to the housing stock with open space and lastly the rec and park department in consultation with the rec and park commission made a dirge the shadow impact will not be significant or adverse lastly i'd like to address one more technical parking issuance staff reassessed the parking requirement for the parking ratio of one by one and we believe that the evaluate parking for the two sub telethon blarg or parking garage there notice reduction area that

maximize the use if the planning commission believes it fulfills a code requirement we ask why we would liquor to inform the commissions that they effect future decisions i'd like to provide you a copy of that code sections for you reference that concludes my presentation. if you have any further questions please lemon know. >> thank you project sponsor please please. >> good afternoon michelle with the architect the project was described well, i'll be brief it is 59 residential unit and 8 of which are onsite below market

rate with the dog patch association there's a bunch of 5, 3 bedroom unit and 19, 23 bedroom units the rest are one bedroom - we've been working with the neighborhood and the planning department since 2013 and the resulting project has gone through any stages along the dog patch neighborhood association from the letter that you received from the association their pleased with the end result after a year and a half and many the presentations working with them regarding the parking that was brought up it is actually to our

office in the past week and the code section that crisis is referring to regarding the two and 3 bedroom unit above a thousand feet when they which will be allowed one by one parking it kicks in another building code section that gives the description of either having a space efficient garage valet or using lifts elevator, if you will, existing site is actually, two stories below grade for the most part and the new garage is below grade so actually to make the garage important efficient what

comes out 6 center spaces to have the one to one parking didn't benefit the project at all it is below grade space in fact, one the comments from the neighborhood groups get us more parking that's what we want more parking we explained we are at the code limit of parking and we actually added extra car share spaces beyond requirement it is one car share space we have 3 available closest to the adversity using the car share one of the big proposals for the project is the greenbelt it is proposed along both tennessee and 19th street mostly along tennessee street a continuous

planning department strip in the dog patch neighborhood another items item the actual use space at the ground floor is particular practically a series of walk up unit not easy because of the two frontages and the lobby area is tfas the street all parking is below grade. >> thank you opening it up for public comment just one karen .

>> good afternoon thank you for your time my name is is karen i'm here actually representing all the residents of 755 tennessee we're not here to oppose 777 are nitpick every daily we do have a real problem with one element of the building as it is planned and that is because of way the buildings the two building inspection intersect and the way the building is planned at 77 it will block most of our sunlight completely this is not a small thing a major impact on our quality of life and on our property values that is not a new issue the architect is the same thank you for a lovely building we like it and other residents have been raising it for the last year but we also come not only with

this problem but a potential solution whereon of the resident in the building has put together where we believes is a solution not only protects love of our sunlight doesn't diminish the side of the buildings and is it appears to make it a nicer space for the neighbors i leave this copy whether in particular solution is something to be considered we strongly request that you don't take the sunlight from our building we think this is a pretty reasonable request and hope to welcome we expect to welcome love new neighborhoods into dog patch but we have this request thank you for your time. >> is there any additional public comment okay. not seeing any any public comment on this item? and opening up to commissioners

commissioner antonini. >> well, first of all, i need an explanations that on the parking issue from staff i'm trying read those over i'm not clear from what you can tell 2 or more bedroom unit has a right to one to one parking and studios one parking should be i guess .5 if i'm reading it cell loud to the have more they have valet or lifts or a variety of mitigations. >> so i would say the general parking ratio for those units not meeting the two bedroom is .75. >> oh right. >> those unite to exceed one thousand square feet are 23 units are entitled to the 5 rate

ratio this triggers the provisions in the code section and embedded within that code section is the section i highlight under subsection b i which requires they adopt spaces it reduces spaces for parking and maximize other uses so the pardon has provided valet as part the thought parking situations and we've identified the subterranean or maximizing of other uses there's an opportunity within the sub garage. >> let me go begin at the beginning unit over one thousand

scapegoat and two or three bedroom are sdoiltd to one to one parking there's 23 so that takes care of that and the remaining unit as a right i guess or maybe by cu .75. >> correct. >> if we do the math at 50 spaces their compliant but you're saying they could use their space better and add a few more spaces. >> first we're saying in the code our concern you know we want to raise this for the commissions consideration yes, we building if they were able to do you want the needs there could be additional spaces. >> for parking for the residential unit. >> maybe a supplemental area.

>> perhaps for uses because the way i'm reading it it says you can mitigate by mechanic spares lifts or valet or other means that allows for space they're dealing with below grade housing i don't see the staff thinking i'm reading this section on page number can't tell what package package number 6 top of page 6 it sounds like the way i'm reading it they're going or doing the things they need to do but create more space by rezion they're lower level and make room for more accessory space but that adds to the cost of the project if you want to do more

stakeers. >> supervisor bedrosian the intent if you allow more parking and therefore the additional parking above the ratio should be above the 58 pays and they're getting more spaces this triggers the spacing benefit and under this is assessable parking not space efficient, however within our purview the nature of the design it is underground that by provide more space efficiency didn't allow more addressed space and because the underground design engages the street pedestrian level you can make that finding and approve the project, however as we see

it planning staff sees it under our code. >> yeah. i think that it is the additional 6 spaces but it would also is difficult their - one of the reasons to have a finding since they're providing valet they're using one mythical factor although staff feels they should do more valet in and of itself makes it difficult to get to the car i specifically do not park in the garage i don't mind a valet with you waiting so that has nothing to do with but i think i understand a little bit here and i'd like to see how what project sponsor has to say about this issue too if he's available to answer that.

>> commissioner richards. >> so i guess question. >> i'm sorry. >> to respond to my question and why not make it more efficient or why you think you shouldn't. >> well again, this code interpretation came up in the past week and we thought that was extremely efficient to use all the existing embodying i have a photo and it's dug out two stories below grade so we're using below grade space any additional space that we could remove from the garage wouldn't go to liveable space because it's above and beyond not to common area that's useful there's plenty of the useful above grade so instead storage

one thing we've horde again and again get as much allowable parking in this building. >> thank you i understand what you're saying hundred percent and ask the people in the neighborhood who might live there do you want more storage or parking spaces. >> i think this is rescued in the dog patch neighborhood association letter and the letter from the immediate neighbor actually another board member subscribing the parking withhold to have as much parking as possible. >> it is only going to get worse. >> commissioner richards a question for staff they're asking for an exception under the parking .5 as others .75 or.

>> it is not roll on exception it is in our opinion explicit meet that efficiency, however, you can make the findings to say it does. >> nobody is saying eliminate spades only make them more efficient. >> by eliminating spaces that makes it more efficient. >> you can fit 50. >> you can get more. >> zeal to commissioner antonini's point they're not saying eliminate parking make it more efficient is is good uncle of the land and not see everything like junk and another question for staff we talk about 9 subterranean

would there be any place usually from the street or for storage. >> that depends on the design but the slope of the lot and two floors below grade it will not impact the footage it is actually a good storefront frontage. >> it will not engage the situation it is two floors down i like the project i think there is good outreach and support from the neighborhood and this parking thing but onsite affordability i like and the open space on the roof i have a question for the neighborhood at 755 on can you walk me through it what you're recommending still retain the same number of unit and protect the quality of

life in our building. >> not an architect so i'll have to let you look at the drawers but essentially our building unit run north to south 77 goes opposite with a wall cut off the sunlight into our space and what the person who put together the packet in you move some green space this is currently designed on third to the interior of the building essentially turning the building into a u instead of an l you maintain our sunlight and you also actually give the residents of the new building sunlight from two disconnections again, i'm not an architect that's within the drawings he prepared.

>> we have it mr. benjamin have you sown this well. >> you can e-mail them. >> we're asking to approve this with the drawings and wow, i mean i'll defer to other commissioners. >> year and a half quickly of the design i don't think this is going to meet building code they face based on the way the shifting of the unit to that interior property line you're going to lose those the similar separation. >> the end is the parking would do we do make that more efficient thank you. >> o'connor. >> i like to ask mr. benjamin a question, please on drawings

a-204 i see the garage stoppage storage spaces that's that space inaccessible it is drawings a-201 the southeast corner the two spaces which basically close off that storage >> well interests four or five before you walk into this space. >> we're talking the southeast corner. >> the spaces are larger than the standard width but longer than standard so one could assume one car is four or five feet in you can get around it is noted labeled for storage or

lockers only a parking space you can't maneuver in that. >> i'm sorry, i happy to be in one of these spaces because people that take things in and out. >> it would- none of the storage this is preliminary was designated as unit storage as opposed to generally storage. >> did this provide a laundry room. >> no washer and dryer in each unit. >> did you have since you designed both building. >> our office destined both i wasn't but, yeah. >> that's a problem by default did you engage once you concept

listed this did you think about that. >> we thought about it and we as i described we worked with the neighborhood if december of 2013 we had our immediate neighborhood meetings we heard from 75510 for the first time on april 1st, '52 weeks ago exactly we didn't hear from them for two years old we met with them the property owner and myself i showing is should say for the last two years a space of 2 and a half photo that's open between - i could put this drawing up when we - here's the neighboring

building their units are parallel to tennessee street and their 3 unit both sides property lines and windows on both sides this side actually is x possessions one room give or take and took the property line wall back four and a half photo all along this white gap here so we acknowledged it when we started this process two years ago we neighbor at the 19th building had concerned we were building up to his property line windows and kept our building back to commodity existing property lion windows and made

sure our rear yards opened into the courtyard of the tennessee building whether we met april 22nd it was 11 o'clock and the sun was directly above us the building will be a different atmosphere not stop the direct sun in the summer and spring objective in the winter. >> you'll respond to light colors friendly materials and texture that will indeed in its oppose right contribute and not degrade. >> i'll be happy to work on that germany know the color on off white property lions and walls facing light court for the

reflective light. >> i accept what you're seeing ongoing communication to bridge a very big disconnect i don't think this woman can change the building but we'll have dialog how this is detailed the one point i would like to support the departments position on evaluating parking and what constitutes efficiency a minor tweak to add additional assessable storage or other possibility on that lower level i don't know how to do it is not alternating anything i love the way it deals with the sidewalk and engages the rooms are well

portions and many attribute i like to make a motion to approve with the condition of adjusting parking to follow staffs recommendations second. >> i'm not sure i'm saying this correctly if you could help me. >> commissioner wu. >> i want to be clear the code says stack elders or valets are sufficient means so they have proposed valet did that mean all valet. >> yes. that's one option but theoretical that what give you more parking spaces moving the cars in and out. >> maybe the code should change not having valet and so the idea that if the

developer does stark steakers or i don't know for other obvious; right? >> correct. >> there's no intent to give any more parking garage anything like that. >> not not allow more parking. >> i'm supportive of the motion that commissioner moore put afford if there is going to be an exception about existing conditions under those an underground space. >> commissioner hillis i'm lost still on the parking so what staff is proposing it is it the same number of marshes. >> it depends on how it is designed you could reduce 6