cate >> good evening will continue to attempt court of appeals are presiding officer tonight is our president and lazarus and she is joined by her vice president -- commissioner fung tech will be here momentarily

and commissioner wilson will be absent tonight to my left is the deputy of the attorney and provide the board with any legal immediate legal advice this evening at the control is victor -- the legal assistant and he will provide assistance to the board as well. i am simply opposing board executive director. we are joined tonight by representatives of the city department that matters before the board. scott sanchez is here he sitting at the table in front maki's the city zoning administrator is also representing the planet on planning commission. sitting to his right is chris -- urban forestry he is representing the dept. of public works bureau of irvine for straight. were joined tonight as well by jarvis murray enforcement and legal affairs manager for the initial transportation agency division of -- accessible services and will be joined later by senior building inspector joseph --. at this time if you would not mind if you go with the boys meeting deadlines and then conduct the swearing in process. >> clerk: the board request

return of all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board rules presentation are as follows: appellants permit holders and department presented to each of 7 min. to present their cases and 3 min. for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within seven limit period. were not affiliated with a party have up to 3 min. each to address the board by noah rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public was to speak on an item are asked but not required, to cement a speaker card or business card toward staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. their customer stirs action survey forms on the left side of the podium back if you have questions about about hearing schedules, please need to board staff during the baker after

the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board offices located at 1650 mission street room 304, between -- avenue. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television sf of tv cable channel 78, and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgtv. think of your attention. at this point in time we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and any tonight hearings, it was to the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand, raise your right hand and say i do after you after you have been sworn in or not please note any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sand china ordinance. thank you. do suavely swear or affirm the testimony you are about to get with it to the

whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> president: >> we do have one housekeeping has to do with item appeal number 15 06x. that is an appeal of a wireless box permit at 1745 alameda. that matter has been withdrawn so it will not be heard tonight. moving to item 1, that has to do with general public comment and that anyone wishes to speak to the board on an item that is not on tonight's calendar that is within the board's subject matter jurisdiction, cannot afford. seen no general public, and then we will move on to item 2. item 2 is commissioner comments and questions to map any thing commissioners? >> warriors next you need to step up the next game. >> clerk: if nothing else will move on to item number three. which is the board consideration of the june 3, 2015 minutes.

>> president: mantle motion to approve the minutes >> so moved >> clerk: any public comment on the minutes? seen on if you could call the roll call please. >> does a motion on the floor from the vice president to adopt june 23 15 min. on a motion to adopt commissioner fung >> doing a boat on the minutes commissioner fung? >> aye >> president lazarus >> aye commissioner wilson >> aye >> those minutes are adopted. enqueue map >> >>[applause] >> clerk: appeal 415 six ivan heller kilday and sarah hickey bursting the planning commission at 150 dennis avenue protesting the issue on april 2, 2015 of my babson and have a

fun and adoption of findings for downtown project authorization pursuant to planning code section 309 with acceptance demolished a one-story office building for parking lots and pedestrian bridge and conceptual one 20 foot 13 story building with approximately 450 450,000 ft.2 four and 20 dwelling units, three hotel rooms, guest suites and 9000 ft.2 of ground floor retail onside loss. we will start with a pound, you have 7 min. >> good evening board members. my name is sarah hickey added kilday and i have come together today we are thankful this process to exist no matter how small the budget the voice in -- and to help our in the entitlement process. we both support highly thick residential endowment in this neighborhood. we go strongly there must be appropriate and scaled to fit in as the market

plan describes. there is the issue i am going to dress tonight at first, this violates section 249 33 a planning code section. second, neither the design or as approved nor the last-minute revisions made by the project sponsor avidly takes into account the over 150 preschools in the proximity of the project, and finally, design alternatives will offer these laws about the skilled and unskilled transitions to the historic -- street as outlined in the previous has not been considered. the 150 project is located within special use this to. in this district we are set back the maximum 80% lot coverage requirement that section 249 through three of the code allows for exceptions to letter

coverage using the -- processed if the existing nonresidential structure of being reused. whereas determined the provision is 20% open area would require postal demolition of existing nonresidential structure, the planning commission hearing exception was granted under the three of them process even though all the structures currently on these parcels will be demolished for this project the project sponsor asserts that section 3078 of the planning code allows zoning administrator the authority to enter the code as long as it is consistent with the express standard purposes and intent of this code. to adopt such rules and regulations and enter patients if he deems necessary to administer and enforce the provisions of this code. however, under section 307 [inaudible] is not granted the authority to make an interpretation in or determination that is in conflict with existing rules or regulations. section 249 33 limits the applicability of 309

exception process to conversions of existing structures. this circumstance does not apply to the 150 dennis project. the planning commission approved this project with the understanding based on the project functioned the building had a lot of the coverage of 83.4% on the ground floor. this letter coverage number is wrong and give the false impression the building would only minimally exceed the requirement. only on the ground floor contract three weeks after the hearing -- submitted another exhibit is a the lot coverage of 83.4% on the ground floor and 82.1 on the second floor. to be submitted to this hearing shows the lottery of coverage shows 89.3 on 54 and 82.9 on the second floor although the design has not changed percentage of design to see the requirement has grow with each new submission that the market plan encourages new building is

i am with respect to the character of dinner by older development got the new and old can stand next to each other with pleasing a fact but only if there is a successful transition in scale. the current 150 dennis design does not achieve this goal that elites only five enough speed of days between 13 story tower and the adjacent four-story report preschool. we are not the only one that is not part of weight from -- in preparation for this hearing today, i look for similar circumstances and found the seniors on cathedral hill to counsel for the project sponsors are presenting that the plan commission hearing on september 4, 2014 the same counsel contended by rice 6 feet away from a senior care building is too close and could pose an alternative repeatbetween the building. during the hearing, he requested a building that follows the current code and respect this of the receptors next-door contract that is the same thing we are requesting today. study after study has shown the benefits of natural light for people especially children that i congratulate has led to nearsightedness and lower test scores in the brief to proposelternative design

that meets 80% lot area coverage. the design is different and approved by the, [inaudible] to our knowledge is not been fully reviewed by the planning dept. given the previous inaccuracies in the package we believe this design needs to be thoroughly reviewed by the planning dept. and planning commission to assure it is fully code compliant. the project sponsor [inaudible] does not provide any additional setback for the preschool. there other design alternatives building the project within legal combines are providing the reasonable setback to the please commit some these involved removing luxury amenities that document design options conservation the amenities of a luxury high-rise are being put about the well-being of young children. you may be wondering why concerned that certain friendly and i represented from the scope that the school beats a legal agreement powers over the planning commission hearing by the claimant i have not spoken the school administration that but that thoughts on this

process. i do have insight into their decision-making form an e-mail was sent to parents on either plan commission meeting before the agreement was signed. the school into a rush legal agreement based on the fear that "the emerald on the back of mitigation that they are now willing to make such as keeping the noisy construction outside of school hours. the project sponsor has thus far not considered the feedbacks of this development and the adjacent report preschool where they demonstrated a willingness to be good neighbor and consider readable reasonable alternatives that the current setback is 5 feet from that is not acceptable to 150 dennis project is about 45 feet from the project sponsors on 100 and 59 feet from the -- [inaudible] as we fully support building housing in greater density within san francisco directly in the midmarket area however, it must be balanced with the impact of development on the neighborhood. in turn, will have a hundreds of families and young children the best respect late last court of appeals to overturn the previous motion and says the building design meet 80% lot coverage requirement thank you.

>> we can hear from the permit holder now. also, the folks standing by the door and then as they signed a seat we need to keep that clear because of fire code requirements.. >> my name is oz erickson >> testifier: fund of this project in the market it can be planned with the results of thousands of hours of community meetings over 10 year time period. i propose project is 100% in conformance with a plan. the plan calls for high density housing on our site and we meet that requirement by building 420 units including 50 below-market rate. we then been planning 150 dennis for over three years map initial plans were submitted to the city planning in july of 2013 reflecting essentially the same design and as the planning

commission moved all our plans were easily accessible by any member of the public. in august, 2014, final schematic plans of 1950 dennis were given to the owners of 50 out the la porte school but just opened in january of 2015. the safety of report students as paramount importance to us back as a result, we are going over and about the city's safety requirements. in fact, were incorporating more protective measures into the construction of the project than we have ever done in over 30 years of development. these measures include the installation of protective acoustic boxes over satellites in windows, protective screen between the two buildings, and restricted construction hours. we have also agreed to install 11 new windows on the northern façade of 50 fell more than doubling the existing building windows for the area for the school. it should also be noted, that la porte school supported the

project as designed at the planning commission hearing thank you. >> >> clerk: >> testifier: steve -- also know that when we pursue justice committed to enamel the fun and la porte school, the vicki bell building has a large courtyard and most of its room based on the courtyard around the fell street that the building does have some windows on the north side of the building facing the 150 dennis site. when the la porte build out this cool little most of the classrooms [inaudible]

basically art but they did build a few classrooms that only have access to light on the property line windows. in march of this year we met with the school initiation plans to address their concerns. result of agreement commits several fund to extort a measures during demolition and construction. the agreement also obligates emerald fund to install 11 new property line windows, more than doubling the window at buildings north wall and modify the wall of the win 50 project as well as grant a new build easement so the 13 existing property line windows plus the 11 new ones will permit access to light and air with a currently do not. the agreement addresses every concerning the school. the school administration resented agreement to the planning commission and was to its objections to the project mac despite continued objections to me pounds and a few others, the planning commission unanimously approved section 309 permit based in part on the concessions that were made to the school in the agreement. the market in the nest especially district does not require rear yards been set up is 80% lot coverage maximum on floors all units do not face a public right-of-way with a 100% coverage on other floors me at 150 then asked project has four units on level i do not public face about riley and family units that do not. on those

floors are lot coverage is somewhat more than 8% back on all other floors of the project 8% lot coverage is that and the average lot coverage is 70%. is on the miss rate of determine the planning commission does have the authority to modify lot coverage requirements via [inaudible] exception to zoning menstruation education was based on the suvs provisions lot coverage subsidies for the rear yards in the general in section 134 given the planning commission authority to grant will guard exceptions. consistent with his own name as traitors code interpretation the planning applied this section 309 criteria. "an exception to the rule -- may be allowed provided the building location and configuration assure adequate light and air to windows within the residential units and to the usable open space provided." these criteria were met. the commission determined all the project units in open space about weight light and air

were not an exception. the code does not mandate that light and air to adjacent commercial buildings be considered. the hearing several commissioners stated that even if no section were granted the project were not necessarily have spent adjusting [inaudible] in addition there courtyard is on the south side of the building not on the north side. because of that even if the commission required to consider the pattern [inaudible] our yard adjacent to does have not been wanted to map the commission's decision was based on substantial evidence that the section 134 criteria were met and do not abuse their discretion and request leopold that approval. after this appeal was filed we in the planning department we looked at the lot coverage calculations using a more conservative approach the lot coverage on the ground floor calculates to 89.2%, not the 83.4% as previously thought. because of that if you so direct billing to modify the ground floor plan. so that all dwelling units on the ground floor lisa public right-of-way obviating the need for any

rockridge exception. -- from the architects wanted that potential change and show you why you do not read any modification to for two is warranted. >> clerk: >> testifier: good evening i am -- pencil architect in the project designer. the pre-ground floor you can see on the screen includes four residential units that face onto the square yard. the 80% lot of its requirement as all the rest of those units not based on public right-of-way. with proposing the modification to the design of the ground floor that switches the residential units and the hotel units so that all the essential

units tothepublicright-of-wayandthegro u ndfloorisnolongersubjecttothelot co veragerequirements. >> testifier: if for some reason you do not hold any commissions to grant the exception of the coverage, we could be the lead of the code base than this [inaudible] as shown here, however expend or yard on the second floor would mean a smaller third floor pulled at the map that the times up and if you wish to continue may do so on rebuttal. mr. sanchez. >> testifier: good afternoon.

the human there will briefed by the parties in this case. i think particular project sponsors provided compelling arguments as to why the planning commission approval was appropriate for this project back in regards to whether or not a modification or under section 309 was appropriate, we do believe this is the public process for the project here the dennis special use district which was developed as by the market -- the goal that had level density at this note here in this transit node. does provide about coverage requirement where future districts there is rear yard requirements. this is the second project that has been reviewed under the venice market special residential use district. the purse was 100 dennis which was a much different project that we believe this budget was abruptly considered the modification for the lot coverage and believe that would be appropriate process. the alternative otherwise would have been a variance process but we believe that given the subject is downtown review under section 309 because of the downtown zoning district,

will be read that is appropriate that that before the planning commission for their consideration as well. in regard to couple points that have been raised by the appellants the subject use of the neighboring school which did open up earlier this year some dissensions between that and with the other case that threatens the senior case. that was a residential project mac subject project is the school my residential use. if the north façade do not be most impacted not the south façade mac which is a setback substantially from fell straight so they are still significant odds of light and air about for that property. budget also proposes to open windows additional windows economy grows on the north façade of the appellant property. there were concerns raised about the accuracy of the lot coverage statements made at the hearing. we did review those with the project sponsor. we do believe that the plans they proposed a now before you have your correct

calculations and they are somewhat higher than the calculation that were presented to the planning commission. we believe the alternative that they have of moving alltel rooms would address that concern at the lower level. the next level above its about 5% higher than what the planning commission considered the most approximate 232 ft.2. when reviewing the projects respond commission approval, the conditions of approval, department of the zoning measure to determine whether something substantial conformity of compliance with those plans and with those approvals and intravenous i find that 200 square-foot difference is substantial conformance with the planning commissions approval. and would accept that revision as complying with the commissions approval. this was approved again by the planning commission . any concerns were raised the planning commission considered him. with significant debate about that and ultimately it

week voted unanimously that is all i have to say this point in them available for any questions. >> clerk: mr. sanchez, two questions. one is both the permit holder and you talked about the first and second floor in terms of coverage, was there any changes then to the residential in excess of the 74 and 70% >> testifier: are you speaking of the floors above >> the residential floors >> at the residential floors above the person setting forth the lesson & coverage so there is no compliance issues were no sections those required those levels. it is only at those first two levels. >> commissioner the number stayed the same? >> testifier: correct >> commissioner the second question is planning usually puts construction mitigation as part of the approval package. hero had a little bit to do with the specialized excavation

among other things. did the department feel that the mitigation in the agreement satisfied with what you normally include as part of the approval mitigation? >> testifier: i think he agreements came again at the day of the hearing, so we have got the project without those concessions agreed by the project sponsor, we thought the project was approvable and did not need further mitigation.. without those agreements that approval was not contingent upon the agreement is reached between the project sponsor and the school. we believe that the construction issues are properly addressed elsewhere. >> commissioner that been related to banner instruction hours and days and things like that >> testifier: within construction hours greatly by building inspection and the

apartment found out that within appropriate i can review further and see if there were additional measures the maiden address in the market octavia plan and related to the ei are, but that apartment felt that all the approvals have been in place for this project would be appropriate. >> commissioner the question i have is a pretty substantial large project that 89% and 84.3, that is pretty significant change. is not it >> testifier: that is why we believe the commission approval was for a 2.4. again, the 80% lockridge requirement is only required at levels which not all the units face the public right away, so if the ground floor of this building were to be entirely commercial were all the units facing the street then there will be no lot coverage of common attic be

100% lot coverage. so, we do have concerns about the dissension between the -- of 83.4 and the 89%, but again the project sponsor can attest that by moving the tourist hotel rooms to the courtyard that will address that issue. >> commissioner the modification of any database the railway does the percentage would be fine >> testifier: right. they could be 1% lot coverage with that change. >> commissioner okay thank you. >> clerk: prosodic as the post buying to please find the site is the week of clear that i will provide the reason aggressive show plans who would as a public, now. great. if you could line up on that side of the room to speak they will be helpful if you have not already completed a speaker card he willing to do so we appreciate you doing that

either before or after you speak and head to the mr. -- else is in the preparation of minutes that weber was is the first complete support to the microphone. commission does the building of anything to say to say? it can wait. we can each eat speaker the two-minute given the length of the board calendar the first part but >> testifier: capt. joe mentioned from san francisco harding commission on the direct of the public art trust and special mission of. the arts commission commends the emerald fund for being the first developers to contribute to the public art trust, which was est. by legislation sponsored by mayor ed lee and former presidential of the board david chiu. emerald fund's decision to use the required 1% for our funding to artistically enhance the public building is a demonstration of civic largess and will

hopefully inspire other developers to do the same. this contribution will enable the arts commission to commission our work for the west facing façade of the bulk of the street elevation to the arts commission conduct a national competition resulting in submission about work 165 applications from artisans international round. the ones of the building and the cultural and history in the cultural life in our history where city made that project a compelling choice for the many applicants. from among the many applicants as selection panel identified three finalists who have been interviewed last week by selection panel. windows finals has been ported to the arts commission for approval and that vote will occur within the next week. that artist will be contracted to develop a detailed proposal for the project in consultation with the many stakeholders mac the article of great disability and will be seen from thousands of persons daily. the web great music from the balcony

facing the civic center. this is an example of a project partnership that complements the mayor separate to establish the essential market as a new arts district mac newbie the first permanent artwork commission for the civic center in decades. this project will be fully funded from the 1% per our requirements from both the 150 then s and the 101 polk street project that when completed it will become part of the civic art collection of the city be met thank you >> clerk: thank you next speaker, please >> testifier: good afternoon. on jim warshaw with joe shipped neighborhood association. as many of you know the neighborhood association was very very involved in market are taking the max we hold it in extremely high regard and