some are only 50 percent and some are actually, i don't know if anyone has any information how many boxes are actually relative to the full number i can get it answer later yeah 10 onsite affordable it as good distribution of units some larger and some smaller ones and it provides eyes on the street as the gentleman from the golden state university said that- hastens i'm going from haejz college a corner that has a lot of problems this will putting put eyes on the street and the retail will revitalize that area and provide retail services lacking in the tenderloin now

and there are some problems with the people who's postal boxes have to be changed maybe possible the actual post office box be the same, same, zip code that expedites things for people that have businesses you can ask those remain the same never want to say with the frequenting is capable of doing not saying that could be done i think all those things could be worked out advertised a good project aside is from the general delivery will be established i don't see any other problems. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask the project manager a question you're probably more you get better communications from the post

office i imagine you have a lease with them others do probably get in touch with the post office what's your what is your lease month to month. >> no, it ends december authenticating of this year. >> is there a plan not to continue with that lease. >> no discussion at this time about that they may terminate their lease or move sooner than that i can't speak on behalf of the post office. >> recognizing this you've done a good outreach and talking to the people last week in the tenderloin there wasn't that don't of an outreach recognizing many this is an issue. >> we've talked about with them this lease was extended from december 31st of last year to consultant the post office because they knew that was

coming down the road because of the closure over 5 years ago the closure list wore cognizant of that and working the best they can. >> you've got commercial space in the building any discussion of the post office continuing to lease property from you in the new development. >> the building will be under construction for 18 months i don't know if they know to play ping-pong that's up to them i can't speak for them. >> i agree with commissioner antonini i'm generally supportive a good project better to have the post office obviously responding to those concerns and on record a little bit troubling we get one e-mail in mobbing their plans it would be great for them to be more open but generally this project works and good for the neighborhood. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. tuff definitely in agreement with the commissioners

commissioner antonini you were looking if this is an underutilized site approximately, one thousand of 8 thousand boxes are in use that's clearly underutilized i have a couple of questions about the design itself but i agree having the ground floor retail is a better use of this site i believe that having neighborhood services including delivery services is important unfortunately i don't know we can condition this project with having to do with the post office is or not going to decide that's not the correct way to do but ask ms. connor based on our understanding i don't know how much research do you know anything about what the post

offices what requirement for the past number of years crazy budget issues and billions of dollars in the red and continue to go redder and have a closure but do you you know if they have any sort of positions on providing general delivery and other sorts of more general services within a geographic area. >> i'm not familiar with their policies i wasn't able to have consistent communication by their post office issues were brought to any attention i know that on the environmental side when the mitigated negative declaration was finalized in our packets there's comments regarding the post office that's when the environmental planner dedicated them and talked about

the eventual plan but the general policy finding i'm not familiar. >> we canned speak for the postings in time i just don't know we can condition them to continue services if that is not in their plan i want to ask the project sponsor or the architect about this project part of section thirty 9 finding is we're looking at the backyard requirement for the exposure i noticed on one of the on the schematic for floors 2 and above there's no dimension for the length of the common open space so you have units in the inner side of the courtyard approximately 4 units there are only open space is the courtyard

otherwise no open space or no windows out into the open space and no legitimate or width dimension can you tell me what that see. >> albert yeah, the project is a l shape plan unit that face the inner side there's the starting at the second-story we have common open space and f that translates straight up and the units all have windows and natural light and air that face out over this. >> yeah. i understand there's a total square footage of that but what are the dimensions. >> could you shu show that on the overhead so everyone watching can see as well. >> thank you. >> commissioners one of the

sheets let's see - >> a-2.3 as a little bit more information and that the kind of approximate depth is 18 feet 6 inches and the width of it the longer dimensions is not specified i couldn't find that but i'm approximate about hundred feet. >> thank you mr. sanchez that's correct. >> okay. great the only reason i asked the question thank you zoning administrator because the dimensions of the courtyard are different on your schematics than on the other set of drawings that are provides water in the packet so one set is 1764 and another 1648 and one set is one dimension provided for the credit the width of that

courtyard but no legitimate so that's why i'm asking the question the classification is a little bit inconsistent i'll asking about this is key to the exposure requirements that we're looking at section thirty 9 at item before you is section 134 for the rear yard that can be modified you're correct to note in other cases you consider exposure but not for well known reasons closure is not part of the thirty 9 variance. >> the variance for closure to put a rear yard. >> correct but taking the to items together. >> the variance for the closure is not part of the decision just the rear yard. >> thank you for confusing

everyone sorry you can respond thank you. >> no problem the square feet for the sorting you're talking about on the a .23 is 1764 with 3 hunters . square feet of open space and there's common and mix between private and common the balconies. >> i is see that a question for you then it will be 18 foot 6 inches and the length is what. >> the length i don't have the length we can approximate it. >> is that the final area for the common open space another drawings 18438. >> yeah, the final and common space on the roof. >> and very well-appointed roof. >> very lovely thank you, thank

you. >> you're welcome. >> commissioner richards. >> thank you very much interestingly we're here looking at rear yard expectation i was in the tenderloin a couple of weeks ago for the turk and las vegas worst project we continued and virtually every building has a rear yard exception virtually no way to put those buildings tomato together that's not shadowed or windy every rear yard has an exception if we didn't have one i'll be surprised i want to thank you, mr. connor you laid out this stuff i read and you did it thank you. >> interestingly enough an issue with the post office trying to make a decision having community serving businesses and the post office has its on

decision-making process i'll ask and maybe my fellow commissioners to the project manager the trust from the postings were to say we want a general delivery again would you be open to having them in one the commercial spaces or allow them in 95 thousand square feet of commercial space you have available. >> we've talked about that it is welcome to the discussion but the post office will not discuss it with us. >> the question for staff would be condition the approval based on the project managers agreement to give the post office kind of a first right of refusal on the space bottom line we want space for the general deliver space can we do that. >> you know asking them if they make the space available. >> if the project sponsor indicates something they're

willing to do it didn't needed to be adapt as a condition but concerns at a hearing crafting finding that are to justify that condition and the city attorney is left the room momly but want to seek their advice to craft that to support it. >> i'd like to explore that and the second thing the architecture maybe the architect or ms. connor can talk about the architecture in setting i thought the earth was good by the skooirt and albert the architect this is not in a historic district but close in the wrong direction in fact we went through a long process

battery on the design of the project but we were looking to do a unique mix of contemporary and convenient last year the corner speaks to the surrounding fabric like a punched openings and those dark low scale materials and the sides flanking is a contemporary flare and those will be all done with contemporary screens and modern construction. >> so a mix of the old and new. >> right. >> thank you very much another question the bmr units i understand maybe director ram can help me or ms. connecticut connor wore granting some exemptions of the project sponsor did step up and did a contra costa to hawkins they'll

do that at the maximum by law we're not allowed to ask for more this is what the law requires. >> what is proposed before us yes that's correct. >> great one other question about the post office someone mentioned that could move to fox plaza that could be demolished is there a project in the works we're going to have this issue come up again. >> the commission approved a project on that site four or five years but i think my understanding is that project is not moving forward but we have heard nothing from the project manager in recent years but my understanding is that i believe i don't know if they've formally withdrew the application but their investing in that building in other forms so my sense this building will be around for a while. >> one other question the studios on the open space is

haejz i guess the deck one haejz person got up is the basketball courts. >> i believe the basketball court reporters or courts have private space it was done as a environmental impact report. >> let's see commissioner richards sorry to interrupt i contacted the dah dah they're on the way up to discuss the issues. >> i'd like to tease that would one i think there is a possibility of an agreement i'm supportive of the project and make a motion to approve but what a wait for the da city attorney. >> a couple of exemptions i've

read the report and the one of the comments were granting reduction of ground level wind current when you cvs having those projects their normally exempted to reduce the current when they keep them the same one up and down it is deemed to be an exception even though it didn't make sense it is not making anything worse leaving the wind currents essential unbalanced and for mr. sanchez is this a rear yard modification or expectation they're creating a rear yard that's large but not 25 foot all the way it is a large area in one corner the building. >> a rear yard exception under the zoning district for a 25 percent rear yard one the issues

as well, the fact it is a corner lot typically want to have the building walls on both frontages and no way to accomplish that with the rear yard requirement they're providing relatively large amount of open space but it's not large enough inform satisfy the exposure the reason for that the width of the lot a little bit less than 80 feet not enough dimension to give a code compliant it is enclose but didn't meet the technical specification and i know sometimes, we consider a modification if it is enough not placed in the same location but more than off so in this case it didn't reach the case for a remodification. >> not a process available. >> for the c-3 you can't do a modification. >> it is essential a modification but it is not -

>> as people point out such a dense area, no possibility to build a 25 foot rear all the way along and the other thing for mr. sanchez the closure the amount of the - looking at the credit card or kwshd did closure exception the courtyard was two small but what size is it relative to conforming. >> if you were to take the frontage as golden gate the requirement is 25 percent and 19 point one feet or so and they're at 18 and a half. >> pretty close. >> the fact it is a corner property and the building wraps around it prevents it for closure it is close and the

design staff reviewed it that allows for quality units but not meeting the technical specification not to say we shouldn't re-evaluate our closure requirement at a later see . >> i think that is important we are asked to grant that is one your grant bir presumable but it's important that everyone upstairs it is close to compliant and someone brought up an environmental we've got the deck no significance to impact i think this has been handled i belief of leave to commissioner richards can i want to make a motion but he wants to ask about the condition of the project

sponsor being first right of refusal to the post office. >> again pie question was plan will be existing post office regardless of 5 hundred square feet or lovingly necessary and sdwieshl to the neighborhood and inquires to the post office to having a lease he know the post office decision is completely century independent i've ask the project sponsor if they'll make space available to the post office as a first right of refusal at the project sponsor monetary compensation and e is we do that. >> the commission can't impose a girl first right of refusal but in taking issues and there are also california specific also has a law that prohibits

rent control this is broad and could be seen and prohibiting the fire hydrant first right of refusal who is open at some that it in the future who knows it might happen i'll move to approve the proposed and proposed. >> second. >> commissioner it could be not the u.s. people of the state of california but a private, etc. and do a transfer from exist post office address they have on record to a privatized post office. >> okay. >> there is a motion and a second to approve that matter with conditions on that motion commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards and president fong snoechlt amazing

zoning administrator, what say you? >> request the variance noting a corner lot and the lot dimensions as well. >> very good. >> commissioners going to take a quick break and thank you. >> do i have time to get a sandwich or - >> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission 2015 disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under our discretionary review for the benefit of the public item 10 as withdrawn that puts us on items 11 and telephone called together items excuse me for case numbers

on brandon street discretionary review and case no. 2014 at pennsylvania street discretionary review we have the same dr filer and the same sponsoring the dr requester gets 15 minutes with a two minute rebuttal i rebuttal as well as the project sponsor. >> good afternoon rick are the department staff the item before you a request for the discretionary review for the associated proposed project on brandon street located in the are rhd zoning as well as 208 pennsylvania in the 40 heightened district is it includes a establishment such

legalization of new dwelling units at 530 to pennsylvania avenue open brandon street legal lisz 10 dwelling units and work unit anothers brandon street the legalization of 9 units and dwelling units on brandon street the legalization of 7 unit with 34 work unit and 80208 pennsylvania the dwelling units with work unit and 4 dwelling units. >> none of the proposals are for the physical expansion of the building nephew to date we've received limited option and a opposition and group

classification whether or not the project will result in evictions the drefr has a number of issues some of which are the lacks of due diligence by the owner and public discretion not locate within a residential district not subject to the guidelines the department finds the project p is in compliance compliance with the project will establish new dwelling units with the dwelling unit impact fees with the eastern neighborhoods impact fees and the dwelling unit for the brandon street properties the variance from the zoning administrator to address is the planning code requirements the dwelling unit mix and as a result their permitted within their zoning district as we recently became aware of dr

requester concerns the zoning administrator and the department enforcement team will ton it work with the compliance of the flying s r and the zoning administrator can address any additional question there's appears no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the department recommend the proposal consistent with the progressive area plan and not take discretionary review if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and this that concludes my presentation. >> thank you dr requester. >> sieving attorney for san franciscans golf course and

former attorney for the jobs and housing i am here for i think the 20 years after i went to the initial hearings at the planning commission on one of those projects i know the first project was to pennsylvania 208. >> those projects the projects at issue had a design by a fraudulent engineer who had a co-lufl partner in the believable and went majestic through 0 the building inspection to construction had the buildings were under construction on pennsylvania they were containments that were filed by the neighborhood association potrero bursts about

the containment the first with an they complained about a radioactively structure not appeared open the plans the second complaint was filed when larry was the zoning administrator and the building was merry possess and pennsylvania building at that time was offend and office registered and the files have disappeared from the planning department i've been pursuing those plans all the time all along and the zoning administrator know see it their disappeared there was enormous by potrero hill about the illegal construction and payroll none both bothered to look at the plans and the permit if from the planning department no

record of it the current owner a sf property 31 they inherited this mess that was created by the construction that was done illegal but had tenants in more units than legally depraved and 234ik9d reporting the core issue is who is responsible for compiling with the lo law what's the responsibility of the zoning administrator how does he do his job how does staff do their job if there is a credible complaint do they do anything about it when someone is indicted for fraudulent plans and the supervisors is