and any travel. everything or else small businesses and neighborhood services and jobs and we have a motion on the floor of workforce we shouldn't focus on how much and how fast we're bleeding without the repercussions the failure of zoning it is time to fix the code so we can start growing our communities rather than destroying them >> game-changer commissioners john i want to continue what the those excellence comments started it is time to get to the truth about the urban mixed

zoning and pdr and deal with that step one to dispel the mist that at the planning department seem to hold in mire mind it was not just a residential district it is easy all you have to do is read your own zoning code and look at it on the top page it is clear candidate mixed income and in particular the master plan for the month month while protecting against the displacement of pdr used were p widen on the map and on the last page a chart a field survey and the map is in progress as you can see that you've already sense the eastern

neighborhoods was approved adopted approved 21 residential projects the mo and 11 more pending they'll all taking out pdr and only go replaced token small amounts when you add up the numbers taken out one hundred feet plus of pdr what is pending rubber stamping those projects takes out another 4 hundred pdrs now could i don't think anyone will pretend to tell me logan this pdr this fast is not wholesale displacement it is for heavens sakes admit it and the question what to do about it, it is clear if this way the plan was approved 7

years ago is - was gravely inflated by the course of events and economics impacting the city i have to go back and overhaul the eastern neighborhoods and zion that is failing the city and our neighborhoods and it is failing everybody and i'm stunned at the way that somehow it is a great plan let's keep going no. you have the tool and overhauling the eastern neighborhoods and developing tools that will a great benefit with your staff the missions and other neighborhoods it is time to do that. >> hi, i'm marie with the quatro and i don't think i ask

add much to the points everybody made i will add that in your even flier that you put out you talk about how robust pdr is and how they pay well, because they're a college conceded people that are assessing those pdr spaces and all the blah before blah but the flaefkt you're cutting pdr spaces as fast as you possibly can to build more luxury housing overwhelms luxury housing does not solve the housing crisis you've got to start if that's case build low income housing but not on the back of pdr space got to keep the pdrs space thank

you. >> sue hester you've had too good staff reports back to back i got to graduate the staff for hard work and the reports give us some information but there is other information out there. >> i'm working with planning department staff on trying to trace the displacement of square footage and jobs by the thing that triggered the eardrum report each neighborhoods didn't come out of the sky but a 6 year battle at the planning commission not the phone number i didn't a baloney that was. displacing south of market and

potrero we had an election in 2000 that meant something the board of supervisors started the eastern neighborhoods that of those a inspection that was played out at the planning commission and planning department none of you are on the planning commission at a time when we gutted the protected area now offices that didn't allow housing either hoosiers was a conditional use offices were prohibited industrial areas and so we built 5 thousand units of work the industrial areas and the process the mission south of market and the base of potrero took a huge hit 5 thousand unions of market rate

housing was not affordable and we displaced people because the pdr businesses, the entire infrastructure was gutted one of the things we learned in 2008, was the office tanked and what saved the city a mixed economy from pdrs no kidding if you look at what happened did planning department should have tracked this the newspapers did the office market went south by jobs kept plugging along because there is a market for certain low jobs the city and they were pdrs so again, i thank the staff for doing things i point out the zoning doesn't permit office

conversion south of market at all until the downtown plan and they never allowed it the industrial areas that was prohibit in zoning thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is a shawna homeowners with the homeowner association and i just like to support and to elaborate more than more an alone talked about and emphasis. >> few points our observations have been a huge displacement of pdrs in favor of prioritization by the board by the planning commission for luxury housing in our neighborhoods i've been here on many occasions looking at 3

projects i'm to point out again within a few blocks have displaced the businesses we have 1601 mariposa and arkansas and looking at 83 the closings sites the neighborhood how can we save a pdrs place we've seen prioritization we want more luxury housing in an area that can't support it but the eastern neighborhoods plans this commission is federal and local us all the promised benefits of open space parks specific needs for the enar exclusion of thousands of folks it is not getting any funding and we're now dealing with cumulation of negative impacts the neighborhoods i want to encourage the commission when it come forward we have too much

maybe ken tense we say oh, no we've counted our figures show we fail beyond your neighborhood can support and what the eastern neighborhood plan that originally promises for that our neighborhoods thanks very much. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. it is kind of interesting i was part of entire eastern neighborhoods process for 10 years or so and you know a lot of people are demanding changes are the same ones part of progress and everyone negotiated and came up with an idea that seemed studio meet the needs of pdr as well as the needs of changing empire because you know the industrial use many of them in san francisco are no longer viable we have seen the growth in

certain kinds of pdr and i'm encouraged that much and comfortably to hear it but large factory uses are not practical in san francisco anymore and to try to zone and keep those uses the wider scales makes a lot of sense there are a lot of factors we went through 24 a.d. nausea he - we have paid parental leave and paid sick and leave and gross receipts tax you'll not have if you put our businesses you outside of san francisco limits a lot of pdr businesses have moved because of the taxation and easy to ship the

products when you don't have to deal with the beau is sometimes those work very well, so that's part of the factors a loss of pdrs and the part we're seeing more of a higher ends boutique type of pdrs that is welcoming but i don't think you'll see the kinds of things before so as as you recall we set aside areas that were descends for only pdr and they still exist and many of those the area was depicted as is bayview area interesting has the lowest rents per square footage the survey that was presented today i've talked with a number of people that have companies that moved from the areas last week potrero hill to get lower represents and the vacancies are lower than the entire i industrial uses the

city as far as the contention we should be counting lofts and other things lost before the eermentd that is water under the bridge we knew about that when we decided how much pdr square footage pdr would come by anticipated to be a lot of the and how much we had to save and protect that was already factored in i think that would be helpful to me and part of today's staff a misunderstanding of umu and u mo i'm sure there is this is urban mixed use an urban mixed office and certain uses are skurmd in parts of the areas and certain encouraged in other areas so i

think that will make our decision makers decision making process better if we have a nuke what actively is encouraged and approved i'm trying to answer the questions of pdr uses didn't hear anything but like to see that the future we spend countless hours or arguing of pdr use i think that is vocation they're in certain areas they should be encouraging pdr other areas there is no requirements it is actually geared towards housing or office in lui of pdr so the clear staff ca make that

the easier to answer critics that may say this area should have pdr whether or not it should and, of course, the contention we build out as much as we can in potrero hill one-half been down the road and staff gave us figures surface housing in showcase square so it is good to establish that with numbers so we can answer those who makes comments so he appreciate what staff is doing and i know i think you made a good point as far as the enforcement of abuses those are there we can't say handle those here we don't know about that i think that is a dbi and staff issue that is important that

when people are congesting illegally from pdr to opposing or residential we have definitely enforce that immediately our projectiles to deal with projects in front of us and decide whether or not there should be pdrs are not pdrs and this project is beneficial we don't have much to do what was illegal conservation and sxhvks. >> interesting enough i wish someone from the industry here i wish i'm sorry spike there's one so to compliment you had said a couple of things before the pdrs deduction on the lofts ms. hester not on

our caption item list we were if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. that the staff said that was long and tracked process the 333, interstate was that decided. >> 660 third street street i requested a continuous to garter additional information for the response to the appellants break off that is scheduled for hearing on the middle of may okay. >> i guess a question for the departments of the containments there are quite a few of the one and some how many are tell true they're actually due to

conversions as a percent. >> you don't think i don't have an exact percentages but certainly merits to some of them this is a pro process i'll - we know there is merit in some of them in many cases not a valid complaint. >> any ideas of square footage the complaints. >> we have a rough estimate of the complaints we have active in the office roughly 8 hundred thousand square feet may or may not be accurate we are adding up the square footage of the entire building and often there maybe restrictions by floor by floor, of course, and, of course, many may not be valid. >> okay one of the things that also struck me here was the enforcement was public i

imagine. >> yes. >> so anyone that has questions they could call or ask you. >> okay and yes. the parking space information counter is very, very helpful and also our enforcement staff can answer questions as well. >> thank you. >> the other question i have the large question two of them with an when you look at the eirs and look at it what was anticipated think the neighborhood for housing we're a lot closer to 100 percent than the loss of a pdr my question would be as we approach the limit on the eir for housing i think that was 4 thousand something big and the loss of only about 1/3rd of the umu or

the loss of pdr if we anticipate the rest of loss on the housing we'll be way over on the amount of housing we're producingo so i'm assessing how to reconcile the approves or disapproves what the amount of housing we expected in the outer limits i'm trying to find the reconciliation do you follow. >> if we have the pdrs loss to housing given the run rate how far on that eir would we be. >> oh, i see we have to add up the numbers. >> even the ones not proposed we anticipated 3 point some million dollars of public defender's. >> the challenge the eir anticipated a fair amount of office space a not even close to it some of the eir some of the pdrs loss that was anticipated the plan was anticipated to be

converted to office. >> there maybe a conflict of suppositions are not that an out and zeroing we have a couple of requests i hope john didn't leave john has a definition of a transition zone he imagine pdr little more housing co-kind of go further and further transition is a blend of two poles at the ends and in the my mind a continuum as i look at the map it doesn't appear as a transition actually brought two maps i was going to ask staff to produce and the projects we have

approved those are maps we get in every packet and the gentleman not here said to mention that 2450u9 that was a good idea. >> john's map start with john's map so the question i have when i think of transition and look at it this thing map it is hopscotch with the residential pdrs and on a transition is that - amy reading it wrong how transition should be maybe that's a bad word that was used maybe shouldn't have been used. >> i recall again, i wasn't here for the discussion on the eastern neighborhoods but kind of - the reason that is as checker board we did a block by

block analysis and the zoning changes part of the eastern neighborhoods plan we consciously did not create a districts of within or another but a block by block basis one block pdr and one block something else it was a conscious decision for a couple of reasons because of the uses that were sustained on the sites, and, secondly, specific create a zone the area particularly in the northern mission that was a mixed use zone this didn't allow any other used for zoning or lease for the times period and zoning did, in fact, allow zoning and office with certain requirements but

allowed them and pdrs did not the beggar question in my mind is with higher employment we have a small vacancy and we're talking about loss of pdrs human nature pdr space will it be enough given the projections of what pdr is going how much actually are we're going to have we're talking about losses i don't know the whole pdrs and the question is it enough for the future. >> okay john if you might if you - can you tell us what you're doing in central soma we get reports on that it is as high elaborate. >> they should be almost finished hope to see a draft in

certain parts of central soma new requirements of half of pdr within that and the big office buildings not just recreation and parks department space new it takes high density development to finance that that's the trade off we have loads of office space to make that possible and ways to controls could be sdoepz controls on replacement of existing space you know you'll have to amend the mo you could impose it is important to beamed the mo area the ground zero are almost you know praufrment eaten by the parking it is the parking in a way that is killing the pdrs if you follow me and you

know one parking is, of course, no longer our standard policy but the rest of parking the building the more space for pdr. >> let me interrupt you on prestige i'm looking at my potrero hill friends i'll call you out 1601 mariposa i proposed for pdr space rose said we need for parking the give and take more parking or pdr this is the magical solution i want you to know where he stand for parking for pdr. >> thank you. >> one more question do you be given the pdrs space with the vacancy rate we have enough pdr space and this is okay. this

loss what do you think. >> the pdrs is the older buildings and that is the most flexible spaces for small businesses and midsized businesses can't afford represents that a new building about necessaitatnecessitate. >> i'll appreciate if we can look at the whole thing and get a memo. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> commissioner hillis sorry. >> it is a good point the clean up it pdr an area that is zoned for pdr it is there you

can't do anything i've had conversation with the folks at sf made that's where they land in making sure the areas we zone for pdrs are actually remaining pdr the trouble is the number of complaints to lease our building for office at the rates that are probably the 3 times for someone to go down and break the zoning rules and lease it for office we've seen it in cases my enforcement and doing more are there financial disincentives we found someone who is leased they're building for office and instead of what they're afraid

populated to do for pdr are they fined significantly he know there is an appeal and permanent issues been what the building was used for but i think you know we've faced that with airbnb we've got to penalize people and make sure they know that - i think that will slowly erode away. >> certain planning code we can pencil them not depending on the size of the building but pdr would be fine so to your point in terms of the - the ability to dissquad that penalty we'll do that the large the sign the larger the penalty

perhaps something that can, done with the illegal size and tie it to a penalty. >> we'll discuss that. >> come back and make sure you have all the tools to enforce that that is the biggest on or about but policy issues zoned mixed use you know what did code says and it actually promotes mixed use offering obviously that will be housing at this point but questions to whether we look at it and require thing happening in central soma like the replacement of pdrs on the ground floor but the issue if we zone for something and made that bargain to make sure it is pdr. >> schoer. >> i want to acknowledge that

is a really good piece of work and can it do more yes, it, many of the points raised by the public will be considered by the department a lot of the not only the discipline by which it was done a great chapter a few years ago having new improvement as a new tool ♪ discussion didn't exist at the time, we had the last report and knowing how enforcement works and knowing this commission has had its staff or lease a budget to really having a robust group of people doing it operationally is for me emt the right step in the right direction i need to see change a reaction to a notable problem, as far as, your discussion commissioner vice president richards to protecting and expanding pdr i would like

to look at improvement in access because public transportation i even say an incredible important question whether parking is fighting forgive pdr space we've heard from the potrero people they need a robust transportation system for the increase in hours but for the protection of public defender's what i have there hoping combined with the affordable housing we can have the affordability of work place that's one of the ideas of umu when the eastern neighborhoods plan was created can we do more yes, we indeed need to alone carefully had new housing and potrero hill for example come in the mission the fees for

transportation are really use in those areas where we are needing to find a new balance between housing and workplace and nicole the protection and continuation of pdrs those are my comments to add to the discussion and basically raising the flag i appreciated everything you're doing there were a number of interesting challenges coming from public comment i want to see the work that will be communicated back to the evening work that the two folks are doing on the particular subject matter >> commissioner vice president richards and a couple of more things the pile on sighed from mr. sanchez the article the chronicle on pdrs a quote by someone a proposed management

for the money for square feet the penalties are base size would act as a better detergent and the thought i leave we've heard last week the whole issue of the bmr percentage correct decisions were made early in the 2000s and 2012 at this time it didn't look like we needed to get things going and now from here on 25 so i look at that conversation ♪ lens and say praepz perhaps we got the pdr the city wrong we thought there would be more other was and less pdr but look at that as well in terms of office space two million square feet currently under sub lease and a low vacancy rates an pdrs

at up to this point in time eight or ten years should be revisited and asking the question on affordable housing maybe the question should be larger >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have been of my inpatients a furniture maker between 101 and 280 on cesar chavez i visit him for various things i see open spaces around interest they seems to be vacancies in that area i think that it is american people area we should be as city encouraging construction of low cost space for pdr because it is a perfect place your close to feces a long ways from housing no conflict industry has the best use of success rather than trying to preserve or reestablish approve

or disapprove in a congested part of city with offices and housing and parking problems were brought up by commissioner moore i mean this is a place where it is tailor maids for sfroil and that's exactly where why it was sdeensdz and only pdr the past also, we have infected commission controls when we look at larger projects the mission we are encouraging and somewhat expecting replacement of pdr by those projects that presents a perfect place for some of these promotions to be built that will allow the establishment of new pdr low rental rates that will probably be more feasible than trying to find places that are in denser areas with competition

are dhaerptd for pdr those areas only allow pdr so no competition from other uses that herman keeps the square footage rents low we should closer what maybe and could be more dense and see what we can do to establish the low pdr in those areas. >> okay. he think that concludes that thank you very much staff for your reporting break. >> good afternoon welcome back it the planning commission registry hearing more registry hearing more thursday, april 7, 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 regular calendar. case 14 plus an ord street a conditional use authorization that was at the end of march third. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong department staff the the item before you a request for conditional use authorization to construct an horizontal and vertical edition that was brought before the commission on january 7th at the hearing the proposed project was as follows: of an additional of totals square footage of 4 thousand plus 4 hundred 90 square feet on the first story

to a remainder of a complainant garage level there is an attachment for reference at the hearing the commission voted to continue the item and directed the project sponsor first, the newly create second unit needs for square footage and access to the street and not a space that is used on a short-term rental basis second to work with the adjacent neighbors with the massing at the 3-r with regard to the setbacks and rear and burying or during public comment the flight shadow studies incorrectly representing the site and request the project sponsor to work to resolve discrepancies the request for a number of what for an additional of

approximately 24 square feet bringing the square footage to roughly 4200 square feet of 24 hundred square feet 65 percent have added square footage is below grade the above grade will to the trigger the conditional use the overall increase has been reduced with a proposal that provide a balance between the sizes of two units the previous studio unit has been redesigned resulting in a two bedroom with 1 thousand plus square footage the original proposal capacity the garage from one to two cars and captured the second united as a result this is as a separate enhance and below grade the project sponsor has brought in

lightwells the project sponsor has also continued to work with the immediately adjacent neighborhoods and representatives of the organizations regarding the massing since the last hearing the project sponsor has circulated 3 recessions one before you and a meeting to discuss the issues and direction on the project specifically the three story the design team has been reduce by 89 foot 6 inches to be a 15 feet from the 45 percent property line the depth has been reduced extending two feet that beyond the pop ousted facing the subject property to a bedroom and the project proposed 2 feet of setback for a total of 6 foot 7 inches of building separation and along the northern does it

shifts the mass closer to the northern property line by one foot 9 inches this setback adjacent to the neighbors own setback is total separation of the area of concern 16 and a half square feet and consistent point guidelines the solar panels will avoid shadowing regarding the shadow molds seen in terms of shadowing the following should be considered a licensed survey included and additionally the planning department staff has a long time the nafrg neighbor to did addition pled in 2011 and the height consistent the project sponsor has acknowledged there was a dennis herrera coagulation between the model and the conditions as such

the angles the model software to represent the shadowing conditions since publishing the case packet 10 letters have been received from the adjacent neighbors that were distributed to you today, the comments find do project to be too massive and limits the depth of the three story of the second in charge while the shadow model was corrected there is now a discrepancy on the equinox that was raise by the neighbors the department finds this necessary and desirable to the housing stock and provides appropriate setbacks to the adjacent building the department recommends approval based on the staff respect and the compliance with the planning code an otherwise code enforcement not seeking veterinarians that concludes my presentation.

i'm available to answer any questions. >> commissioners as staff noted this item after hearing and closing public utility public comment acommissioner yo were absent did you look at the video. >> commission chair are commissioner president fong how much time this is the second hearing and normally it is 10 minutes. >> we fluctuate between 5 and 3. >> let's go with 4 minutes. >> very good. >> thank minutes. >> very good. >> thank 5 minutes. >> very good. >> thank you.

>> okay. good afternoon, commissioners thanks for having us back refresh your memory that was a project on ord street off of 17th street in bernal heights we're doing a modest addition as you can see a simulation is barely visual from the street at all we're russian hill i retaining the bulk of the sty house that is there and we're creating go family-sized units a three bedroom and bedroom the envelope that we're proposing the whole reason we're here basically because the legislation from supervisor wiener's office we're over the

100 percent requirement and over 3 thousand square feet so the legislation said we needed to be here and the legislation was basically about this was a monster home there was concern and it is the text of the legislation those very, very large homes were built the neighborhood that's the reason for the legislation. >> so the former and scale of the building the two images the scale of this building is now smaller both houses on both sides as mr. perry said 65 percent of additional space underground and can't say be seen and are we have pulled the back so it is no deeper than either the two neighboring properties and we have lowered the parapet that is basically the same height as the house to

the north so the red outline it the existing house the green outline it the proposed new three story and the yellow are the areas we've eliminated including areas from the existing house to create more distance away from the neighborly properties on south side we've pulled back 13 feet from the back and another 4 feet about 6 foot 2 from face to face eliminating some of the spaces on a the house and on the north side 3 and a half feet 7 feet from the north side so we have a total of 6.6 separation on the north so responding to the concerns of the commission i think the planner actually went through it

well, we reduced the square footage and reduced from a san francisco to a two bedroom, two bath unit and a three bedroom, 3 bath the volume of obvious we're proposing is smaller than thirty ordering a single-family home and the same volume two single-family units i think commissioner johnson had a question whether or not this is a demolition we've done the calculation and didn't fall under 317 we responded to commissioner vice president richards concerns with the size of the unit and also looked at we've had meeting with the neighborhood group 3 schemes you know to try to come to some agreement and basically the only disagreement at this point is not about whether this is a monster house

there e-mails and you know they're afraid concerns seem to focus on this on the shadowing of the house to the north thirty ord and i'll say yes we're adrc shadow in the winter months to the house on the north end up the orders of 15 to 20 percent increase in the winter months so you know i'm not saying we're not doing it this but shadowing is not covered the residential districts under 40 feet certainly i'll understand a church and a spiritual space blake struggling with but in this case parks a shadowing on the parks this not that kind of face we meet all the requirements of a conditional use it is necessary and desirable and compatible with the neighborhoods i hope you'll

take into consideration and allow us to moved on had this project. >> kps kpgs open up for public comment.

>> i have lived in the blocks surrounding ord court and ord street and states street for over 20 years before you is the second conditional use application under supervisor wiener's interim controls the developers current plans do steady the allowable square footage for a two unit building and therefore the developer requires a conditional use permit once again i want to remind you as you may know the gross square footage is threatened equally recalled the viability or

location the 22 ord appeal if in that permanent will have striker finding at the last hearing you gave the project sponsor the first instruction to change the second from a studio to a full bedroom flat the second to fix discrepancies the application document and the third was to resolve all of the neighborhoods concerns we appreciate the additional housing unit but reject the instruction two and three have to be resolved the following speakers will please present they're afraid arguments thank you. >> hi my name is fabio i'm the neighbor that lives to the south

at the 38 ord street thank you for your time we working closely to try to identify areas of expansion at this point the only remains one area of concern question wanted to brought to your attention and if anyone mass been to thirty ordering you'll clearly see the space the back is effected by the permit area of sunlight on the selts that's the primary area onto the living spaceless the current plans positive changes don't address the issue of the light and the concern is that the current plans are shifted more to the north so the rear conversation is taking up space on the north side and have a significant impact on sunlight that my neighbors live in we're estimating a 20 percent loss of

sunlight on an angle basis that is significant with that said we feel we're extremely close to a good solution i think there is a good win-win a very small piece of square footage on the top rear third addition if that was removed i think will mitigate the situation and all the neighbors could anonymously support the project so the next speaker will present. >> can i have the overhead. >> game-changer commissioners my name is so sonya i live on ord center the to the immediate north of the subject property at

the last hearing i instructed the project sponsor to address the skrirpgsz we reviewed the new sunlight study on the maps 72 hours a simulated we're upset by the actual conditions and the two projec- the application dons the true shadowing and can't be relied on we saw the sought a second opinion that someone reviewed the document the only explanation perhaps it is incorrect and you'll find the letter if our case packet over the past one and a half years a pattern of errors is playing we are faced with the

facts had we not circulated all the plans we would have loss the percentage and the present packet on the first day he have winter we'll see on shadowing when in reality we've losing for sunlight as the architect needs to have plans to make two statements in his applications we cannot be expected - the instructions to fix any descriptions have not been met with incorrect baseline data he respectfully ask the planning planning commission to insist think accurate documents and a as requested by commissioner moore thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is a derrick i live on ord street to the immediate north of the subject property i acknowledge we have a sizeable house 200 and plus i'm generally not agreed to a plan like this i'm worried the sunlight and air is more removed those are detrimental effects the planning commission has said they'll resolve we'll only losses a few hours of sun we asked our architect to create a shadowing model based on the architectural draurlgz your model accurately reflects the conditions we

render the proposal and commuted sunlight the existing scenarios as it turns out we'll losses 20 percent of unanimous sunlight and winter 69 percent page 3 of the cu document claims any shadowing will be eliminated this is consistent with the statements that the project sponsor had made to us despite having dlooul documented the concerns for the past year and a half and your instruction to arrival of resolve that they've become worse over time the solution at the end of of our presentation is simple and fair and prevents an eescalatio

>> hi i have owned and would go on 17th street over 20 years i live around the corner and up the hill from the folks i of the to say every one tea duo neighbors opposite that as well as go neighborhood associations yet the planning department is asking approval i was also surprised is that the project sponsor tried to say this project is okay. it is underrated and can't see it it from the street if you use that loophole precedence the developer can say you can't see it from the street so i can build a 12 thousand square feet

house that is under grade or can't see it operationally is a poor precedent but the other thing we want to say i'd like to really thank the planning commission and andrew perry of the planning department, the project sponsor and all the neighbors who worked on this because everybody g did a really go back and thanks for that but the end i stand with the one and 20 neighbors and the two neighborhood successors that oppose this project thanks. >> good afternoon. my name is a bill i live on lower terrace i'm directly effected by the project but i lived in the community for 20 plus years and i'm alarmed particularly about the light and shading issue as

the city is more and more dense we'll come up again, this again and again and again, the key thing to come up with a acceptable set of facts if you look at our package you'll see two different points of view on the shadowing and it continues to change you'll not have an accurate view where it ends up your original was flailed that was changed so right from the beginning a problem i guess what all saying the only way to resolve this to appoint or encourage an independent analysis of light and shade how that is done is up to you both parties agree an independent point of view and bring that in and get an objective report before that anyone proposes a solution to this you cut the baby in half and both sides play

the first the individual that is doing this for the purpose of profit that person should get did burden i've been a developer this is the safe and the fair thing i ask all the commissioners, if it was your living room a 20 to thirty percent of light and air and so forth wouldn't you want a obviously solid analysis before proceeding thank you. >> hello, i'm grace i'm here today on behalf of the planning anticipate land use the noah valley association and a letter from the our president dear commissioners the plan land use has reviewed the topic of a

conditional use application for the properties on ord street the eureka valley association was the supporters the department of human services given the project didn't meet the objectives of scale and size determined and because we believe there is feasible alternative that will respect the interim controls we ask the planning commission deny the request for a cu permit thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is susan i live on douglas street the next street over from ord street and i just wanted to say i'm really, really happy with some of the changes to map to see the second larger unit it is a huge improvement great to have more

housing in our neighborhood and something we need but at the same time, i regret to say i can't support the current proposal in front of you because i actually through this process got to go into 30 ord street at the house and see what it is actually light i was in a victorian like a big shoe box next to me donna i don't get much light if you could see the way they're afraid living room is laid out i can see this will be a huge impact on they're afraid house and life that's they're afraid main living area like i said i'd like to support this and at expansion the second you're not but can't get behind it because of the statewide shading and the shading question

i want to reiterate what something else said i feel this project is close this is a longer a year and a half maybe more and i feel like we need the extra push so everyone can be happy i believe this is in sight thank you for your time and consideration so far. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is gary the president of the corbin heights and on the planning and land uses of the eureka valley association the project sites falls with the organizations both organizations voted to oppose the city are ord i was hoping not to be here not that commissioner meetings are not enjoyable but we've been working along the project has improved yet from the beginning

one outstanding on or about amongst concerns one by one all of the secondary initials have been addressed by the critical concern placing the rear of the property to the north in perpetual shadow has gotten worse several suggestions for shift the bulk elsewhere were on the horizontal rear and height increase on south side and shifting the mass of top floor towards the street are rejected the developers purchase a parcel and do they're afraid stuff and move on the rest of the neighborhood lives are the disadvantages a minor judgment tattoos north side will take care of the problem we vote to approve this that will allow a better project and give peace to a may be that had the rug pulled out from under it thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is martin i live on bulk west overview 34 offenders we had two attractive proposals that have been rejected all the project sponsor has created a new prosperous not solving the old one we see a similar project to all the concerns of the neighborhood be addressed instead of it was shifted from one neighbor to another neighbor he's been persist tenant we've we are pleased to present the following proposal one we kindly request the

donates westbound accurate as previously requested by commissioner moore so we can prevent exclaims and two a floor addition on top of that represents the square footage and the setbacks of the current design we wish to rove part of three story past the rear yard the project sponsor only or less placed the lymph and can revert to the floor plan on the second story to reduce and 3 enter a independently indication agreement so any shadowing schizophrenia be mitigated those only represent 4.4 percent of the overall project the resulting building will be larger than the adjacent

structures larger than the neighbor to the south although it exceeded the interim zoning controls by 4 hundred plus square feet we'll withdraw our opposition we believe those requests are simple and eloquent considering the zoning control will be strike we ask this to the neighborhood association and communities can get behind the project thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioner i'm not here for this topic but my family owns a piece of property a couple of houses down on 60 offenders 26 that the planning department helped me to rehab and i know there is a lot of issues here but this project is adrc housing i think that is

a key thing in that city are you right now to add housing i'm supporting the project is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to bring delineation to the points being raised and some feedback what i believe the commission asked when continuing the project i believe there was credibility and the opponents asked for us to ask to check the documents for both properties had been worked on about accurate and matching which was done and another verifications i believe in today's package were done the biggest challenge we pose is that instead of proposing the two car garage interest will be

indeed a larger emphasis not on housing cars but people i think that has been indeed done i last week to respond to what the instructions are that the corona interim guidelines were given to us, yes we look at a project that is increasing by a certain percentage and look at it as question see that that dn't mean that the percentage by which it increase is a detrademark of us improving the project as long as the project fails within those guidelines that didn't require a variance or create other odd intents we can use gefb the california license and the standard of care has been executed by the

architect who has the building and in all buildings the administrations of the buildings meeting those exceptions i had we do not have any standards by which we can measure the extents of loss of sunlight on solar panels and mr. washington if you couldn't mind giving us as a commission and the public a little bit more information i'll continue afterwards after you explain that. >> kwoosh i understand the commissioner moore is if there is a specific criteria for casting shadows on go solar panels to the best of my knowledge noting not that i'm aware of. >> i think your answering media question didn't mean

between the neighbors moving the panes but, however, any, any reasonable building expansion the emphasis on reasonable the youth authorities of project occurs below grade and the expansion if try to project beyond the properties to either side that with that said, some also in indemnifying the city i don't believe this commission has has the authority to rezone design a building and make that smaller because of some loss of direct sunlight into a particular room i'm sympathetic but indeed the separation and that are particular part of plan is 60.5 that was presented i personally don't believe there is any way by which i suggest that the

building is other than what is proposed and so i am in support i think that met a number of important challenges the rest is thus following those types of consideration we are users for everyone else and within personally comment that is has to do with with the dark color of the building the building in the context of the adjoining building is less visible a lighter color by using a dark color it inadvertently looks like a massive building those are my comments i'm in support. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'll agree with commissioner moore a couple of questions for staff i know we've heard those conflictsing reports

on shadow studying by the way, looked what the project sponsor presented and maybe comment on that staff pulled together the plans back in 2009 it was completed in 2011, i looked at the heights that were represented and they're afraid consistent what is shown isn't current plan they're afraid based on the lights survey there is an update in terms of the shadowing the neighbor supplied a photo that clearly showdowns on the winter soltice something was not adding up the project sponsor acknowledged the discrepancy and adjusted i'm not familiar with the actual

modeling software program use but though the angle of the sun represents the existing conditions most or less that was brought to your attention we researched this, etequino equin the photos as well as the next person but. >> i looked at the pictures they're sometimes there are shadows on the backyard or partially on some of the - they're not total lack of light some shadowing but the other thing i'm going to ask you while you're up here commissioner moore said separation of 16 feet to the ceda and north is that accurate. >> between the subject buildings and the adjacent

building to the north which is where the issue of shadowing at the three story that separation is 16 and a half but the lower floor it will have a pop but this is four feet but at grade level the main impacts of the shadow - >> the main issue at 16 feet that's right a huge separation in single-family detached they're afraid 3 feet and those are away from property lines i mean this is even in 0 more dense neighborhood like this is exceptional you amount of separation i have other comments but thank you yeah, he think this does the thing adding the second unit is a fairly good-sized unit with two bedrooms and as appoint by

co-sponsor and i agree with the legislation assess those particular prestigious they're of a size require conditional use conditional use but doesn't mean you can't approve a project you feel is necessary and beneficial they've crafted and put that below grade and you know adding the carefully adrc the square footage to minimize the impacts as much as possible it well done i believe some of the just a minute properties are square footage and they've lowered the parapet supposing not to interfere with the solar panels so i'm supportive of this my fellow commissioners have to say.

>> commissioner vice president richards and mr. pearlman. >> you've come a long ways i appreciate all the time you've spent working with the neighbors and we're down to a thin line rights as i look at this is my living room on the first day of winter and having reason to speed this my question i looked at the versed the third one created more of an issue around a shadow that is not protected but not significant to the neighbors why not kind of go back to moving it around it reduce this somewhat you might not be able to get to zero anything you can do to give relief. >> yeah. we're boxed on, on outline four sides if we start

at the street east setback 10 feet because of the envelope but the house of september 11th has north facing large windows that face there we want to setback to that on the advisory committee facing 36 ordering the opposite side a lot of concern a whole series of windows that face this property we were asked to pull away we did that and pulled in you know additional even cutting back the additional house the lower windows on the propelling have more light the back there was the whole issue of our extension to have shadows we've pulled back 9 foot 6 from the last presentation 15 back from the rear yard setback on the north side we've you know we've gotten closer but we're still 7 feet

from the property line and so i do want to comment on they're afraid offer first of all, they never showed us an offer secondly, so just cut of one and 84 feet we don't have a liveable living room and dining room and kitchen space for this i completely understand i think you did push towards the front and squared it off if you made it a little bit longer than and thinner this living room will useable. >> yeah. if there's no on or about of going further i mean we've been around and around. >> question we can pull back another foot absolutely. >> what will that do for the shadow. >> it will be minor because i

mean what doesn't show you hit certain times of the day with a shadow we're hitting the edge of the roof and going into the yards next door the trajectory is moving to the west and lower the sky the further we pull back 9 more it will shadow in the western sky is may you know in the middle of the day allow a little bit more light but later on the day creates more shadows in terms of cumulative not much difference and absolutely we're happy to reshape it but cantaloupe it off i understand, sir will you comment on what mr. pearlman

said open to reshaping it but create shadows at different times of the day. >> he's come up with different phases and bedroom extensions the problem we've seen over time it is being widened and closer north from our prospective it - the very problem we've discussed with the last year and a half we've also opposed this we know that can't work for us we're at a point it if work it's time to cut it off they're in our opinion a few areas to trade square footage and open to that discussion i'm not sure this is understood conversation is difficult as mr. pearlman appoint there is

leeway. >> where is that. >> on the sides of the building the north side a setback i personally don't know what is there for it is created the laciest ration maybe there to protect our solar panels but an agreement to mitigate the savings the square footage will have on the top floor so one and 84 square feet can come down close to zero if we identified both areas i think. >> i'm a little bit confused can you help me out you're okay are having the one and 84 square feet still there. >> no inform i'm sorry we'll basically ask for a execute back the area that affects us most and in return identify a few areas to trade square footage.

>> mr. pearlman ask for your comment please, please. >> so we're caught between a rock and hard place we are if we're pulling back from the rear yard setback to the south we're kroutd the windows we've been asked on the south part we're getting closer to that house in the case that is tight they're on the property line those windows on 36, 38 ord the closer we get and they are in shadow it is north side all i'm saying that all they want us to do a literally cut off the top floor in line with the step of offenders living room that's a simple thing i on the area did

that the two building is not useful we have a staircase there will be space behind the stairs not useful. >> thank you this was a difficult one for me kind of my neighborhood some of the folks the eyed u audience are people i've worked with on issues do we have a code compliant and i've explained we have to have - it's tomatoes not insignificant the impact on the building we're on drs nearly 7 feet dwfrn the property line and the wall of the proposed structure is generally more, in fact, probably more on any building i

think i do believe that mr. pearlman trying trying to do a dance it creates more issues for the other side more darkness i may not unpopularity with my neighbors so this project is necessary and desirable but this was kind of what i got into when i took this position you have to look at the facts 72 hours a code compliant and cu i'll have to vet for that. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to make a generalized comment i don't believe us undergo that's a good question this is going to help use it is a precedence for on the issues are complicated but i

do think we need to resolve them within the existing rules not whether the interpretation of one and 80 feet in a code compliant sensitive we shouldn't be shaping and movng around i ask the idea of lighter color of the, is pursued indeed we know i san francisco public utilities commission to living on to lightwell in my ketchup the lighter jane buildings the better for reflective light to make you're living space feel lighter and basically not decreasing the building. >> i'd like to make a motion that we approve with conditions. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner vice president

richards. >> i'd like the seconder one of the conditions be there's a light colored building where you have reflex reflective. >> in my last point that will indeed be part of what we're conditioning. >> thank you. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that matter with conditions as amended to include the conditions on the light color to be used commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero places you think iton item case - this is a conditional use authorization.

>> good afternoon sxhopg and members of the commissions joining department staff the the item before you is a request for continual use authorization for the proposed project on the ground floor of an existing first story building on van ness on 20th street within the zoning district and height and bulk district to seek the hours of operation to operate between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. for a self-service laundromat the laundromat is operating twenty-four hours and the project sponsor wants to legalize the twenty-four hour operation no expansion of the existing building or other changes that proposed to date the department has received one and 22 letters in support of project and 6 in opposition of the one and 28 letters one and

23 letters were included in the pauktsz and 5 received and filed. by the department after the pathways were delivered i is where those 5 letters here in order for the project to proceed the commission must grants a conditional use authorization to extend the permitted hours of operation for the self-serve laundromat workplace the mc-2 district the department recommends approval building the project necessary and desirable for the following reasons the extension hug hours of operation will be good for people during those hours for the reason the staff will be other site 2kw7b 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. the add service

creates additional employment and the continued operation of a locally owned business that will not displace tenants with the not result in a net increase of laundry mats the area the project meets the requirement of the planning code the project that necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood the business is not a formula retail use and will serve the immediate neighborhood that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> project sponsor please. >> hello i'm adam my family owned a laundromat on south van ness since 1936 i'm the fifth

generation to do business in the mission and my father and fwrarth were born locally and thai parents owned a shop we operated for 20 years as a retail formula so they did picture framing and stipulate they're tired so they move forward to the 80 district and turned the glass shop into a laundromat for 13 years we've operated twenty-four hours a day and nothing has bad happened only one complaint in july of r78 2015 from the department we immediately contact them and they requested a conditional use authorization we tried to expedite that we have hundreds of positive reviews from people who support laundromat a lot of

the neighbors i've known since two or three year-old because my parents had a glass shop are they're for that they say prostitution and other crimes have gone down and so usually in that type of environment we have eyes on the street and security cameras and flat screen tv the laundromat that shows people they're afraid rotated so people are less likely to misbehave and seeing yourself recorded we're well lit with securities cameras and gotten rid of graffiti we have proper signage and looks at

on the bathrooms that's pretty much from a security stand point poem the number one think people look for a safe environments none wants to be there at 3 in the morning and feel unsafe we have constantly having people coming not seeing any, at 4:00 a.m. it is surprisingly a lot of people work two or three jobs with can i see and juggling for example, a lot of the customers work in the janitor business and they work downtown they come in at 8 or 9 and polish the floors but don't get off until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning and they rich to the mission they're open to one or two in the morning but with the

staff don't get off until two or three in the morning we have nurses that come and get they're afraid laundry down you've heard about the price of mission they're afraid priced out but still work in the mission they'll come in at 4 in the morning to debating beat the traffic the bay bridge backs up it used u used to not back up so early but they do they're afraid laundry between 2 and 6:00 a.m. and that's it. >> thank you very much opening it up for public comment if there is any. >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. and commissioner vice president richards. >> i have a question for project sponsor we have in your packet some paragraphs of

actives can you verify this is our laundromat. >> i want to make sure. >> yeah. yeah. yeah i got those pictures. >> comment. >> we know prostitution is an issue the mission district is not new it's been for decades i think what i want to add did laurptd laundromat didn't profit someone didn't want an environment with prostitutes in and out that's why we have an attendant twenty-four hours a day look this is not allowed at that location that's all question, side i'm not telling you anything new prostitution is

well happened before the laundromat. >> commissioner antonini yeah, this prestige make sense it legalized the - and the project sponsor maids legal argument to use the time to they're afraid advantage so and we did get quite a few letters from folks that support this if anything the presence of lighted space my tend to discourage prostitution not promote it is beneficial and he'll move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> are you looking at the zoning administrator may ask a question what's the hours of operation i drive by the laundromat they're open late

what is typically done i don't go to laundry mats. >> irish department staff it varies depended on the neighborhood like i used to live in the panhandle area they were open to 10 or 11 but other laundry mats that varies by neighborhood. >> we don't have a policy one way or another so you don't know dense multi shifting neighborhoods we keep them open twenty-four hours this i'll support but this is a little bit unusual particularly this package is highly unusual but do you have any guidance on that. >> not particularly

commissioner. >> does any commissioner know a laundry that is open twenty-four hours or that's the what it is there are 4 in my neighborhoods i walk my dogs about 10 or 11. >> i live the mission about 4 blocks from the site the laundromat in my area is open twenty-four hours you might know that better than i do. >> if you want to come to the mike. >> go others on mission street that are south towards the city but it is more like mission and ocean come in. >> it is real they're afraid peep who work multiple jones jobs and don't have the washing and laundry facilities they need to do it when we can there is a practical to have a well

maintained laundry to helps to deter laundry in the best of two worlds other people are basically giving a signal if so laundry and this is a all it is is that a fair interpretation. >> certainly i'm in supports of doing this. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that matter with conditions commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and place us on item 13 guy place also a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and supervisors doug department staff the item

before you is a request for a conversation to demolish a between and build a two-story dwelling on the square feet lot the downstairs inhabits the ground floor and the second floor and the first half of the three story the 5 bedroom upstairs that covers the rear half and the entire 6 floor is 5 thousand plus a one car garage and entrance at the ground floor the project is locate on the south side of guy place which is a residential street within first street and lansing street with this rincon mixed use district it is brought forward for second story dwell it

includes a 4 story residential building to the east and then 8 story condominium to the west the remaining prosper on the street include multiple systems and smaller lots with multiple dwelling units on the north side of guy place and one commercial building at the north's corner of first street the larger rincon hill is paramount high-rises and in conjunction with the conditional use authorization the commission is asked to consider the demolition users constitutional right adapted adopt upon review and the sounds like? staff has recommended to bring it to a habitable place to reconstruct

this single-family home and considered unsound a residential building unsound maybe approved for dog that is described in the draft motion the department has innovate received me communication from the public regarding that and has found the place to be unbalanced necessary and desirable for the following reasons the proposed project meets the retirements of the planning code it complies that the 317 condition shall consider as part of conditional use authorization for dog of existing dwelling unit it is more than 60 years old that which is recarding and therefore not a historical resource the cost to replace the foundation that brings e brings it to a habitable space will cost - the project results in a

net gain of one dwelling unit and replaces a two two bedroom that each contains 2 or 5 bedrooms the height and scale are compatible with the immediately neighborhood context will provide a transition the 4 story building to the 9 story and consistent that the neighborhoods chafshg has a relates to the earn properties that include lightwells and setback that has light and air impacts and minimizing not towards that property to mitigate the impact and it will utility the planned control and pay 200 and i'm sorry 200 and $80,000 in impact fees so the draft motion the department recommends approval that concludes my presentation.

i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay project sponsor please. >> good afternoon thank you mr. secretary good afternoon. i'm greg here a very happy to bring to you a new two unit residential building the presentation was thorough i'll try to be brief let me quicken - the features will be two new units that replace an unsound single-family building with 8 hundred square feet and the

upper units 41 hundred square feet with 2 bedrooms this is a unique residential topological hundreds and hundreds of new units were constructed at rincon and all one and two bedroom units this is a valuable product ♪ naebdz it provides one off-street parking and two class one bicycle spaces that is hebrew height is 65 feet with ground floor and a complex setbacks to sculpt the building this aerial is a view the rincon neighborhoods the project sites is the purple parcel the million dollars of the photo and more small-scale photo with the site located you'll see the two existing story building a lost

with the higher neighbors that the class up of the facade of that structure and as mentioned the historically evaluation this is not a resource in terms of the sites the technical analysis of the soil the existing building was a replacement structure after the 1906 san francisco earthquake and fire that replied the original home that was destroyed and the foundation built was unreimbursed brick and reimbursed anterior and posterior quality concrete an unstable sands that sand has allowed settlement and cracking the foundation and improper embedding of the foundation led to a path of failure the upgrade

costs will be for the foundation and actually, we looked at 3 scenarios of replacement and repair supporting the house and removing and replying the foundation the average cost over 200 and $2,000 when divided by the replacement costs based on counter department is it so of about $337,000 this sounds likeness factor 60 percent exceeds the threshold and therefore the structure was determined to be unsound here's some paragraphs of the areas of the foundation in question as you can see the deratted concretes here there is concrete schooling and a lot of rot that rests on the concrete and share cracks of the foundation and here's a deteriorated footing that shows you the lack of - the interior

the house has racked windows and doors and here's cracks the ceiling and in the finish on the listen tell over the door as a result of the settlement the facades itself i want to should you the materiality it will have wood siding and the plastic finish on some of the places and bronze aluminum and window door frames and black and stainless steel balconies and to give the narrow facade some articulate the metal overhead garage door here's a prospective of the

upper for stories the deck is the roof of the lower two stories that extend to the higher retaining wall at the rear of the property as you can see side setbacks and sculpting allowing height and bulk of the building next door the upper four stories set away from the rear property line and the setbacks i mentioned are also visible here in many side facade we conducted a shadow study for the 6523509 at all building by determining the angles and the eludes of the sun when shadow from the building could possibly reach the guy mini park across the street and due south of the site we were able to calculate the times the at a and days of

year when the potential shadow could reach the park with a combination of sorry this is the digital model of aerial view the digital model to project the shadows to be sure no net shades on the park we can create animation for the dates and times the shadow reaches the park as you can see the net building not net the building shadow if in that rose colored tent and to assure the slots were sunlight creates a triangle there to insure that never gets shaded by your building we created notching the north corner and you see that

restricti reduction i hope you don't get vertigo but the mass was recommended in stories 2, 3, 4 and the second was removed on the upper two stories to avoid net shadows on the park the project meets the criteria or conditional use the existing house proposed for dog is vacant and unsounds like with the failing foundation the building is not a historic resource the promoted replacement building has a net gain of within dwelling unit with 4 bedrooms of bicycle parking and limited to one off-street parking space the upper unit a full family dwelling unit the location on the side are code compliant and

it had multiple reviews that resulted in the design that evolved you saw for density scale and massing and materiality meets the criteria as a necessary and desirable development and meets the demolition criteria required under section 317 as a democrat 86 unsounds like building the general plan it is a high quality in fill housing and it embodies the vision of rincon plan there will be more 200 and $18,000 paid in community for rincon and soma and caregiver we respectfully request that the commission grant the conditional use with conditions as proposed

and the building owner are here we're all available to answer questions >> thank you, commissioners opening it up for public comment not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> thank you you made a lovely presentation that hit home the complexity of the rincon plan how this project embraced we don't say have a prop k park you're doing everything in creating the rincon hill the guy place park so i think is nice one could ask the question the lower units has a lot of circulation place that's part of fact that extends ether the entire length of the house and makes that it is what it is the

expanded 4 bedroom home is quite large but the benefits the appropriateness of the solution they out weigh i'm in full support and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. he too think this is very good i had a question whether with the zoning as far as the thought to have 3 units instead of 2 human resources commissioner antonini we considered that in depth and planning department staff did a thorough vesting unfortunately this is a small lot the zoning e voen will support more units we looked at the possibility of a third unit given the building code it has additional existing this is a three by 70 foot deep lot we're pulled in 3 feet the upper

stories have a 10 foot simulating setback we've sculpted foreshadowing and not enough to get the circulation and he is grassness for a third unit. >> i see that looking at the size we had a 25 foot. >> a tiny foot lot. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> move to approve with conditions. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on items 14 ab at california street and 779 pulling you'll consider a conditional use

authorization and the zoning administrator will consider requests for variance. >> with department staff the item before you a continual use authorization for height steadfastly 50 for for bulk and continuous an california street for the proposed to demolish a parking lot and merge the lots for a 65 foot tall building with residential units it is granted from the zoning administrator for rear yard for had the dwelling units within the rh3 and a height and bulk and within the nob hill special use district adjacent to two cable car lines it includes a recessed corner for escaping at the corner of powell and california with visible and cable car kiosk

the lobby is assessed and in addition the rirltdz have direct assess the project projects to reduce the curve cuts on california to no larger than a specified space class one bike parking and sfooich biking is property on powell we received 5 letters in support and the pardon since the time of publication 7 letters of support and nob hill association have been received and one letter of opposition from the polk i have copies for you for your review. >> this project adds 44

dwelling units and activates the streets open what is now currently underutilized parking lots and parking structures it is code compliant and unbalanced with the position and policies of the general plan i need to reads an amendment into the record the commission secretary has a copy continue 14 pursuant to the planning code the project sponsor must pay align affordable housing fees applicable to satisfy the inclusionary housing for the principle project the percentage is two percent but subject to change under the promote collaborator amendment from the voters approve the charter at the june 2016 election the project sponsor shall pay the fees at the t