support of supervisors original legislation that was carefully crafted with the members of the board and have a question for mr. sanchez generally it's been my experience when someone has a property and is doing things to make that more conform than the city and planning department is in support of that action so if someone has a single-family home that has an additional unit less conforming is two units and a single rh how to have a policy that encourages people to make it less conform they're trying to make that more conforming by removing the unit how do we work together. >> we have to look at everybody and the general plan calls for maintaining as much at affordable housing and the city developed we've decreased the

density we'll find a lot of properties not conforming with the units in rh1 and rh3 and so i think we have to look at the overarching of protecting affordable housing and in addition to the fact that the code priorities e provides a mechanism for legalizing those that is a code compliant option accident cod provides a mechanism to legalize those units that's what we're trying to seek. >> i understand what you're saying i'm talking about single-family homes in rh1 neighborhood that are entirely rh1 and it seems to me i know the areas have cc&rs those cc&rs will take precedent over the city's ability to try to legalize units maintenance. >> the cc&rs are private agreement and the city and enforce those that is a matter

between the cc&rs are holder this cod legalize the unit that is about having requiring someone to go through the cod process to legalize the unit. >> why not a new zoning for the rh1 we feel would be appropriate to have additional united awhile certain areas let's see for example, rh1 detached are not allowed it is consistent to rezone and selectively rather than a blanket allowance in any rh1 areas the code allows this in the rh1 zoning district currently and allows for the legalization. >> just a rhetorical question and look at it staifl to maximize the second units as

much as possible. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i'll say a couple of things to commissioner antonini's comments i think what kind of action do we want to incentivize to we've been generally taking we want to incentivize the units count and adding to it where possible and obviously when things are in our purview through different case actions that's the director we want to push for on commissioner christensen's action i'm a little bit confused that was supervisor legislation when you were saying hold back some modifications until later this case file going forward so i think we need to recommend - and i think hose recommending not to move forward with one of the staff represents but moved with one of the four; right? >> i see.

>> so a time you wrap up in the overhead changes. >> review that idea again with other piece of legislation in front of the us. >> it has merit makes sure it fits. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> sum up before we take the vote it is to preserve housing nottology make it easier to demolish the cd r process for the small property owners it less expensive and takes the same time for us as commissioner that creates a lower bar to demolish housing with the dr the zoning administrator said than the cu that's the rub that's why i strongly support this legislation and the recommendations and to commissioner hillis whether it is appealed to the board or this board of appeals is not any concern i watched did board of supervisors they went through 45

items in two hours i think they could figure out somehow to streamline those flood their dockets. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the recommendation for approval with staff modifications removing the fourth modifications and adding to the 5 force the naushths be endorsed. >> commissioner antonini. >> no commissioner bobby wilson commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to zone with commissioner antonini voting against. >> commission will take a short

>> good afternoon welcome back to the san francisco planning commission this is the regular meeting of the thursday, june 9,

disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. as he is mention during the break if you can't find a seat you can't stay from the room many are here for the draft for ivan we'll have 45 minutes there is an overflow room in the light chamber you can still watch and listen to those procedures commissioners, we left off own item 7 ab on bush street you'll consider a conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners across the city may of planning

department staff you until the time you a request for conditional use authorization to have a previously approved project for an automotive doing business as city rents a car and construct a mixed use building with 47 dwelling units within the rc-4 the van ness special use district and the one hundred and height and bulk district foresight within the rc district states points conditional use authorization is required to constrict a structure greater than 50 feet in height the planning commission approved a similar project on may in 2014 the former proposal that is on the end of the packet proposed to demolish the building and construct the one hundred and 15, 10 story mixed use building with 32 dwelling units and 26

remain bicycles and a ground floor commercial space 3 existing curve cuts on, on bush street and 2 on fern street will provide assess to the residential practicing and serve the rental use on the site the current project coincidence 32 one bedrooms and 14 two bedrooms and 2 three bedrooms the bedrooms are from 6 hundred and 10 to 18 hundred and thirty square feet it is 40 blow street parking garage on curve street on bush and another street will be removed class 1 bike parking spaces are provided and secured area and on the ground floor and four class 2 bike parking spaces will be provided outside along

bush and fern street two ground floor commercial space 11 hundred plus square feet the current project in both architecture vocabulary and massing 2 feet telethon with one additional story and represents an improvement over the that provides an additional 15 dwelling units 3 additional affordable units and off-street parking and 3 sorry 36 additional bilks space and contains on active use on the front and the previously approved are only commercial parking on this frontage commissioners since the publication developments to the city's affordable housing program and there are additional conditions relate to the controls requested by the

entertainment commission i've received additional public comment on at this time, i'd like to give those materials to you as i continue my presentation here. >> here we go. >> as you're aware since the publication of the staff report there have been changes to 9 affordable housing policies just this past tuesday an june 7th san francisco voters approved proposition c that adds to the below-market-rate housing more new units with 25 units or more once the election is certified the project sponsor submitted their application prior to january 12, 2016, the amount of onsite affordable units is expected to increase from 12 percent to 14 and a half

percent with one additional affordable unit the draft months ago and conditions to approve to capture overseeing changes and make sure it complies with the requirements additionally on june 7th the project sponsor ended to hearing with the entertainment commission it is required because the subject proximate cause is near structures in addition to the noise continuation conditions for chapter one 16 are already constituent as conditions of the approval in the draft motion the entertainment commission has provided additional site specific recommendations and ask the planning commission adopt them with the standard conditions finally since the publication of staff report the difficult receives public comment from the representatives the lower polk and middle polk association which have both expressed

concerns with the active uses along the third street frontage and other urban design issues staff received one e-mail from a member of the public when asked whether the amount of partnering will be sufficient for the number of parking unit the department continues to recommend you approve it with the modified language pertaining to the affordable housing project owe the entertainment commission the department supports the project that the project represents a sensitive redevelopment and encroachment over the project it that able to provide additional dwelling units and 25 fewer off-street parking and 36 additional bike sparks and curve cuts that reduces pedestrian and vehicular conflicts on both streets

the project is in general compliance with all applicable rules and say all lulz in greater than conformity that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you project sponsor. >> didn't know commissioners my name is nick a project manager with j ed sullivan the planning commission approved the conditional use authorization for the this on bush street to construct one hundred and 15 foot, 10 story 32 dwelling units and empowering commercial space for the automobile facilities as you can see 3 curve cuts to the parking on the basement, ground floor and second floor and

nearly 1/3rd of the area is designated for residential and when he inherited the project we explored opportunity to look at the entitlements and looking to increase the united count and decrease the parking but our opposed are limited we're only permitted a 5 percent increase in the units and explored and removing the second floor parking garage with the units not feasible the amended project that you'll reviewing is one hundred and 17 feet, 11 stories 47 units with a 47 percent in the number of units for the existing entitlements for a total the project also has 32 fewer parking spaces and one curve cut by limiting this to those the same envelope we were able to

leverage the studies we firmly believe that is a great improvement over the projected unfortunately on this recently, we became aware of lower polk neighbors alley project two invitations were sent to two addresses on file with the planning department the middle polk neighbors were invited and 23 other organizations and 43 pertains we meet with the polk owners and prepared an additional ground floor plan we believe this is a better - better achieves planning department as the variance is not required for the active uses and meets the activation with front street with the retail you'll hear from the middle and lower polk folks they want to ask for equivocation activation on third

street we believe the ground floor plan addresses the second is appeared nested bedrooms in one stack of units our presentation today will demonstrate those units comply with the planning code and planning code as sufficient access to light and air i'd like to introduce and then the designer the project he oversee the in house design team and the name is from the idea we're the makers and crafters of building and permitting operate on fillmore street he has concrete analysis and then designed the project in soma and was for 9 years before establish his or his on business and in the california of the arts and the group internationally 3 architecture

firm has went are or worked on the project architect have the record. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is and then part of j ed sullivan the main designer walk us through. >> louder. >> walk you through the design process and the forefront challenges that we have to deal with how to recognize the perimeters and envelope that the approved project set up and architecturally how the because of building that happening half the building was defined in the approved scheme and also the ends on two sides of the site how their defined and as part of

next step on the second diagram which then allows us to begin wrapping our hands around this diagram in reducing the height of the base still registering the base and recognizing the central bay how to better register that in our articulate on the third step the design process is then how we can dematerialize lists the bay in the scheme and what i mean by materialings this further translate into the glass bay in the middle and on the two edges of the building to further manipulate the massing to create more of a formal articulation

this the summer of floor plans and the final design so the ground floor on the lower left we enter into through bush street into right into an entry garden and at the residential lobby at the center and then with one commercial space on either side of the building one facing bush the other facing sutter street and we also kept the original organization by having two units facing bush street and 3 units facing fern at the story 11 and it is where the two or three bedroom units are and then we finish with the common roof deck at the roof level

so and this is the typical floor plan i want to walk through the commissioners through in terms of the architecture of the building one of the things to develop two courtyards light court that opens to the sky and one of them stops at the second level on behalf of the parking what that allows us to do is to reorganize and re-examine how the units can be better laid out in this confined perimeters in the city so i want to direct your attention to a basically comparison facing the two plans i think the very first rule that we established for ourselves how we can first preserve the 40

feet long light court that was previously approved and that being said with the light court offset to the east i myself set the question if that is the best way to desecond the site so i'm only getting sunlight in half the bay it creates a blank wall facing van ness and recognizing that bush street is a one way traffic to right then and there we started to begin to dissect this to begin to re-examine the value of this molt like open

catwalk that bypasses all the living units and the bedroom units versus in our scheme whereby centering the circulation core the catwalk of the open walkway can be centralized bypasses that condition and just to clarify with the one bedroom units right at the end of the core i want to do clarify on the drawing there are windows above this wall it allows for light to enter into this bedroom and fresh air with mechanically supplied as far as the articulation we are landmarked as cladding system with various layers of reveals and how we can eliminate the

scale of the fourth by 8 footed panel that of the murdering and budding them to create a large feel. >> excuse me - do you have much more to go. >> two. >> okay. >> lastly is the last few points the facade materials we're looking replicates the look of a plaster finish and one of the recent projects only sutter street we used a brick facade that we have experienced and cladding material so he last but not least we have referenced more of recent approved projects with a more contemporary touch

similar to what we went after i believe that it is our take on tearing the language of the neighborhood and not proposing a contemporary building i'll leave the end of the presentation into the issue of the front active uses through so this is the proposed empowering plan you guys are reviewing and since we got in touch with m t m what we- the proposed design we're promising to carry across to achieve that 2/3rd's of active frontage by removing the transform back to bush a lot of uncertainty there in terms of how long it will take to make

that happen you're seeing 65 percent of transparency. >> thank you i'm sure there will be questions. >> opening up for public comment two cards (calling names). >> please. thank you, thank you commissioners honorable commissioner across the city lower polk reps the lower polk neighbors thank you for your time and you've received by e-mail thank you christopher's i want to address the late engagement we submitted i note in the letter not at fault in terms of single letter that was

sent to the p.o. box clerical errors was an error we submitted the wrong there was one-digit wrong in the p.o. box on our end they sent that, however, we're it is a shadow organization the project went through a number of meetings with us with the prior project sponsor we worked with jed southern california have an they've referenced 1080 sutter street and liked to seen more outreach we met and submitted in our letter we would like your goal we submitted the letter to have a resolution from the commission today that will direct staff to see the frontage after the meeting yesterday we really feel a continuance it necessary i'll outline why the after meeting last night we

outlined i believe a number of additional issues where the project i want to recognize we firmly believe that project is going in the right direction i want to acknowledge that, however, there is parking issues that is significantly reduces from the 20 or thirty down to 5 the appropriate number it zero i don't know the answer it was game 3 of the nba finals yesterday it was limited we like more folks and our general meetings we like to have a few more people two or three weeks was was not enough time those are great views only one view right there too many questions i hope your commission will entertain a continuance i want to acknowledge j sullivan son it

is in the right direction 3 minutes go fast. >> you have 30 seconds. >> oh, i'm done. >> that's the first chime our thirty second warning. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is kim been a neighbor are moved in the neighborhood of lower polk for the last 13 years and been on a member of the lower polk neighbors for the past almost 10 years and here in support of position of the lower polk neighbors and ask for a continuance on this project the developers is coming to our neighborhood meetings multiple times before the commission and saw the presentation last night

through are a lot of thing things in the air and like to see more refinements and figure out how they'll help to activate fern alley that sums that up thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> sir. >> good afternoon major neil i'm here as chair of the middle polk neighborhood association and speaking on behalf of the morgan the chair of the chair that couldn't join us today j sullivan have great guys done great work and unfortunately, we met them yesterday we think that is not a model for outreach they sent a postcard to my predecessor don and i assured them i was not aware of the

postcard but bottom line that's not how you get a project built and approved in san francisco you should be contacting the supervisor officer who are the 15 people i need to discuss this project and reaching out to as many people as possible i was here briefly so is a couple of words on poorhouse the owner of the bar was impractical asking everyone to support him with that said we've submitted and looked at it this quickly we tried to submit feedback if we take a step back to the previous project that came before this commission basically, the whole thing needs to be blown-up and redesigned and all 3 community groups worked together to bring back another project approved by the commission that project will not

get built and sure enough sold those guys are trying to build a great project but we have design and parking concerns and issues with dpw and the planning department on moving the transforms but many, many issues we would like to have those guys at our middle polk association meeting and introduce their project to our neighbors and discuss it we want to be able to come up and say we support this project and more housing francisco. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> next speaker, please. >> mr. pool. >> can i have the overhead please. i'll try to speak over the report card we submitted and hopefully it is legible.

>> first of all, rob poole/san francisco housing action coalition. speaking on behalf of the three hundred members and thank you for the opportunity so the members reviewed this project and the site is underutilized it is an improvement from the original plan an entitlement no 2014 significantly more units more bmr's their oust and we value and makes project better ones through the community input and something we currently on all that present with the issues coming brother you on the design and parking a lot of these r added if you were to support the project and approve it on fern alley the project sponsor has activated bush and fern alley

and if there was more that can be done to fern alley we currently it to work with the middle polk neighborhood successors with the design it is improved moving the building to the center was certainly an improvement the lower car parking ratio is great as a result more units and less car parking spaces i'll be concerned that delaying the project i don't want to put us in a position the project is clearly on improvement and things that the neighborhood wants to workout with the developer we certainly encourage that to happen and maybe it can happen razors of continuance or not and the bottom is fine it is a good project with the good use

of land and dense building and encourage you to support that thank you for your time. >> if you don't mind hand that in as part of record. >> sorry. >> hand that in as part of record. >> sorry. >> it's in your packet. >> i don't see it for some reason any additional commenters seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i'd like to bring the project into context how it was approved i appreciate the discussion on expanded architecture that's not really was it commission does it's primary responsibility the project that was approved that was the sexuality ration of the project that came before this commission in 2013 and it was sent back partially

because of the fact that the - this creating a proper core and avoiding substandard lightwell type of opposing rather than the code compliant courtyard the issue we have the project that has an alley on one side and a street on the on that creates different conditions from what we normally have when that comes to code required open space in order to avoids open gallery corridors which are remnant of subsidize housing of the 50s and 60s not confront in san francisco it is mighty and coming from the lobby and going

through the rain this raised a question the commission sent it back in 9 to 5 and it took a long time with the proper units this project i'm not talking about the previous architecture there 0 would have been improvements but this project is coming back the site as sold a nice and scheme how it need to come back and pencil out what this project does in a 50 foot height zone in order to get the required or projected stories there is a cu which may estimates this project necessary and desirable that's a very high bar so when somebody comes and

makes a statement they're at 15 units now it is 17 want 5 units but not closer that did of the units are nested units without access to outdoor light and air i believe that those 9 units are not quite meeting the exceptions that i have by providing equitable units below-market-rate or not to the market has this is in my opinion but the units facing the alley are 9 nestled unit not meeting the expectation on a new building on which the units can be properly schneider and here comes my biggest consideration a moment not comment on parking their pros and cons for or

against parking we're next to be built van ness brt we have a polk street bus and cable cars and west and east and north and south that is highly connected but i'll set the distribution on pros and cons for parking aside what bothers me the messing floor at the height of the building didn't assign clearly explained use inform this particular project i directing your attention to a want 1. 1 and want 1.1 a no explanation those have been assigned or labeled being mechanical spaces, however, the project provides

mechanical roof deck equipment unfortunately in the wrong part of roof we encourage the developers to move mechanical equipment with elevator housing, etc. here having mechanical equipment on the interior courts on the exterior corners of the building on the north, west and southeast corner not exactly where we wanted particularly when we wanted rooftop issues on the top floor that are questionable when this building tries to have height it can provide use for expensive units in the corridor that is primarily in a neighborhood of middle-income houses so i'm showing serious challenges not pushed under the carpet we heard a nice discussion on earth that's not the discussion this

is the frosting on the cake as far as the west wall trying to rebutting the commissions decision to send the project back fully complying courtyard the west wall is a property line wall in the future the jane building could be developed as at all as the building considered no right for any kind of grand treatment except for the time that the next door neighbor is not trying to build a taller building number one nothing about that particular wall so i can't take that has the greatest evolution of a project design but i need to direct our attention to where that matters how do we get additional units i'd like to have the commission consider not providing block or

retail but using proper evaluation of the sidewalks including the still not determined mesna for the proposed height that is one way of getting unit count but getting away from the nestled units and moving to the previous approval with the properly designed courtyard we can probably get unit for perhaps one or two require an exception for lighting so i actually will suggest that we continue the project i think the projects has a lot of promise and in the hands of good architects i want to see the questions the broader questions to be asked and reconsidered what we decides previously. >> is that a motion. >> that's a motion. >> second. >> please.

thank you pursue for your comments exposure very good comments. >> i'm sorry to trumpet you could members of the public please turn off our mobile devices it extremely disruptive during those procedures. >> we appreciate the involvement of the lower polk neighbors working together with them is productive and we've been able to provide further activation to fern alley as they requested the interests are completely aligned in terms of building on the project today what the commission is voting on this project versus the already approved project in 2014 we have contractual obligations and timing issues so we're not in the position to be able to come back so it is really one project versus the other, of course, we're willing toe with work the

staff should there be a request to do so we'll not able to continue it we have no ability to do that. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i agree with a number of the things that ever brought up by commissioner moore and while i feel this is an improvement over the 'coz a project we approved two years ago i remember the discussion and the fact that we sent that one back for design changes and of it's necessary it is necessary i'm a little bit concerned about some of the things she's raised i understand project sponsor is willing to work on activating fern alley a neighborhood issue moving the some of the

supportive mechanical material off of fern and into bush that helps a little bit but i think you know some of the questions as to the bedrooms, endorses and other things might need to be redrawn and also i have concerns about design which i think are important because this is a really large building awhile only 3 feet larger it appears a lot bigger it is monolithic in its design we have you know solid elements and glassed elements sort of mass of both of them but not much articulation between the two of them and the previous project had more articulation and had some bays and should feeling of an appearance of being a little bit shorn it is and the other thing

i suggested to the architect i'd like to see some clues from the building to the east the one to the west i mean those are more traditional kind of buildings this is sort of has no distinctive areas regardless of the ground floor if so retail or become housing as commissioner moore talked about i mean, the higher ground floor is fine i think this is 15 feet but some sort of break between the two areas before you go into the rest of the body of the project i mean typically if you look at to the east as you can see go there are distinctive breaks with arched windows that occur on the in the right direction and as they move forward they begin a different pattern and they almost all have the punched windows rather than a solid area

of windows and small windows that look at afterthoughts i think some kind of harmony between a mariah stucco makes the buildings look lessen reduce you need the separation between the first floor and the third floor fairly significant separation you need some kind of finish line or cornice at the top of the building and if you continue with this smaller windows or whatever windows you have probable needs moldinging to make them look like they belong on the street those are architecture suggestions i have and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say i remember i'm not sure we can make those changes not just the design changes but the changes in the things that were concerning to commissioner moore

to be able to approve it today i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> thank you. >> one question for project sponsor to jed folks the on the projects obtain valencia you posted several to the commissioners, i legend over and asked the commissioners did they hear from they hadn't what's the difference i think i heard from mr. silverman two days ago can you help me out. >> i can you guys are busy so we wait until you received the packet and on monday we split up the commissioners and so david silverman reached you did out to you and i spoke about commissioner antonini. >> great. >> mr. silverman and i were on the phoney have the history the

project sounds good but i think that commissioner moore thought of many, many points that need to be flushed out maybe not just the design champ but i think that commissioner antonini is elseed those concerns the project needs some differentiation it looks like i hate to say the word reptile with scales it looks like that to me something different on there and commissioner moore. >> that's a good joke i like your joke. >> i was serious mr. silverman our firm represents the largest variety of the developers large or small you stand in front of us trying to pressure us to prevent us

surprise me i don't think you'll lead your clients into the bind that a project can be disapproved the fact the project was previously a approved if you can come back on the same premise and paying attention to those things that matter to the commission that's one thing this project tries to invert principles we look at projects and again, i emphasis looking at architecture is the third or fourth important thing we love architecture but not a deterrent the people - that doesn't have bearing on the decision i'm asking you why are you putting perturb or pressure that the deal needs to be made we're in the middle of preventing you

from doing that, please explain that our comments were not intended to do that i was explaining the facts of the case and few took offense i'm sorry. >> we worked with you literally on many, many complicated situations their complicate i'd like to remind out of us of ocean center we worked with all of you this project comes back the commission spent a full year given the map and the ability for the second bite and then comes back and basically as nothing said that's a surprise to me in the disclosure of how this project was moved over i'm sure there must have of must have been some reflective how to this project was brought forward that raises a significant question the planners or the

previous owner of the property is an immigrant family that loved one obviously on us to approve a bigger building with a conditional use he basically was going to inherit this live work to emphasized sons including the somewhat unusual modifications remaining a car rental we're not meeting today is code with the parking street side i think the zoning administrator will remember we all went for it we did this to come back in this form i ask that that secretary calls the question i want this project to be continued it needs to come back in a different form and needs some work. >> i'll give the other commissioners a chance to understand what date.

>> i'll suggest july 14th from the project sponsor makes that work the motion to continue to july 14th commissioner wu. >> i think i've heard some of the issues and can be up to the teem whether they want to take it forward or not from the community questions about fern and kwachgsz activation and maybe some questions about parking i heard a mix of hands commissioner moore is it correct to say your concerns were one about the nestled bedrooms that leads to questions how to accommodate that number of additional unit without nestled bedrooms and maybe the mesna and on the corridor concerns about having a corner that is open or not as protective of a rent-controlled place is that

accurate. >> the barbells that is used basically has done to avoid to basically get around the stair sprapgsz relative to fire escapes and stairs, however, as a course of simple miscellaneous you can have - you have, stairs in the right location and add a number of units depending on how you size them with a provision we'll consider the expiration of not forcing the ground floor to be retail for which i don't think there is a mandatory - what additional units can be and

on the fern street does it say, i mentioned as drawn will not work the fern street side configuration shows two planters on a substandard sidewalk were there can be no planters not even announce the retail properly if you would leave it and not change it based on the 25 foot setback another comment with moving the transform like lyndon and blue bottle you sand indeed in the retail space with room for people to stand in the alley so it is a bunch of the two weeks and things i think we've spent a lot of time to set it up for thoughtful design. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i applaud the fact you've

been able to provide an additional 15 units above what was the case in the earlier plan, however, if it turn out that you have to have a couple of fewer units to make the design not design but the structural changes that were poling by commissioner moore and others it still you know is a considerable improvement over a number of units over the original project and you know things have to be right novice to have more units but if it didn't workout in terms of the the elements we've talked about has to be put together in the right manner and talk with the neighborhood and make sure there are no other issues we know about the fern issues and he mechanical roof and talked about the park it is very severe cit into the composition for more available parking those

are for sale units you have to work out that with them i'll be fine with the lower parking ratio so some of the things by the need to look at in the intern between 9 next hearing. >> seeing no other commissioners on the roll. >> commissioners commissioner antonini. >> 21st and july 14th. >> i won't - >> thank you july 14th. >> on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner wu commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards that motion carries unanimously 6 to zero commissioners and is variance continued to the same

date. >> thank you zoning administrator commissioners, that places you under your your discretionary review calendar for item 8. >> case no. 2015 plus north point street request for a discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners from planning department staff the item before you a public initiated two public initiated case four discretionary review on north point street and an rh3 zoning district with 3 thousand plus square feet on a lot with a width of 25 feet and depth of would have had 37 feet plus constructed if 1939 and a

reeshgd of '75 feet that includes a one story horizon that other side 13 feet of feet to the exist building a fourth story setback 15 feet from the wall bringing the total height of the wall to 40 feet and interior alterations during the neighborhood notification period both adjacent neighbors request for a conditional use authorization both concerns relative to the privacy and the mapping to sunlight and is inconsistent with the neighborhood visible character this report the department got one letter in opposition i'll distributed at the end of my presentation this letter is relative to light and privacy the neighbors included in your packet won't be able to

attend and wish to it rate their opposition and understanding the proposal is well westbound the volume didn't include a penthouse and the vertical addition is setback 21 feet from the street and 15 from the existing building wall the department if feel that meet exceptional or extraordinary and not recommend you take dr pecks i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> great, thank you project sponsor. >> i'm sorry, i apologize dr requester. >> my apologies. >> you have a 5 minute presentation. >> thanks very much for hearing us i appreciate it i have 3 primary issues with this addition i wanted to show you - >> overhead of the neighborhood and explain where

we are i don't know if you can see that well, this is where we consider a key lot restricted on this right hand by the department of building inspection and the addition will block you'll notice the front is over here and goes across this way the shadows reflective in the baked as opposed to this in the street it affects us in the back of the house we had all the open spaces so the proposed plan the extension of the back syndrome the property line and will box our particular key lot in as i mentioned i want to show you the view a what it would look like here this is a backyard view from you can't see the writing - so that's our view now.

>> can you please talk into the microphone. >> sorry. >> this is what it looks like with the wall is the extension is there our assess to the open space will be gone if you look at it from the another view this is the backyard this is oh, talk into the microphone this is what we have looking over whoops the emotion will look like that ma'am, you can move the mike over. >> that's correct that better the open area will be closed though not in the plan the builder will put a 6 inch fence around the property none has that in the back it is much different than the character of the neighborhood that will not

only block us but everyone in. >> this is a view so as you can see from the upstairs and this is a view of my particular guard my neighbors were condo and this is the sunlight so what that wall it appears here we're going to be completely in the shade this is afternoon sunlight this is when we get most of our sunlight. >> next thing that's pretty much it then there is also the deck issue in the back not only an extension but a deck on top of that deck will have access into our bedroom window and view it is on the property line that is a privacy issue sfoord and here's one for instance, taken

the time to make that flush with the house next door so that they don't effect the privacy or the sunlight this is they've moved it back this is their deck their house is flush and that's the key lot house too so you know it is as big impact i have a neighbor on any co- - well the woman that owns the condo downstairs is 92 years old she couldn't be here today and she uses the garden a lot she's for health reasons and she's home a lot it is going going to effect their assess and warmth and it is a sense of well-being the additional story that is proposed plus a deck so kind of like 5 stories is going to block

us in glycoagain on this particular side we'll be restricted and block a lot of light to the apartment building next door this is a view of the roof - that had will be obviously the light and privacy will be affected i'll do this quickly the apartments building next to me that's the light from the afternoon sun that had been gun and reiterate the character of the neighborhood will be affected here's a picture of the neighborhood how does one on each side so there we go this is will have a structure on the top that effects the character of the neighborhood in a negative way. >> ma'am, your time is up.

>> you'll have a two minute rebuttal. >> dr requester number 2. >> you have 5 minutes. >> if you use the proerj please talk into the mike thank you. >> you can move the microphone if you need to. >> thank you my name is scott i live in the adjacent unit to the west with my wife and she's in the audience we are one of the folks that object to this nearly 20 years residents we occupy the property to the left 15 people that made specific comments and i counted throughout the process author a they're all obtaining to

proposed construction the gentleman the sponsor of the project has informed us has no intention of residing in the property not going to be a neighborhood only to buy the property and make a lot of money it is a not an unusual pursuit he outbid the previous people that live in the neighborhood this is a unfortunate set of circumstances we want to submit the property to a a dr and bring it into xrienls with the residential design guidelines as well as the code so with regard with respect to privacy percent spofs spoken a deck proposed for the back of the house that puts the

residents and guests within 18 inches marry of of my office and bedroom and the 92-year-old lady spoken to i could not imagine to make the point this is what it will look like from the far side of my bed those are lovely manikins they'll be able to view my bedroom and office and reach inside of my bedroom this is how close it is to my bedroom. >> light the light into the center of our units we're on the second floor and the light at the center part is one hundred and 73 foot square lightwell the proposed construction will add 11 folded wall to the west and blocking 9 light and as well as to the south as you may know the

sun is lower in the sky to the south this reduces the amount of light into our living space the kitchen and diagram that's where all the natural light comes from and it effects the large structure and the light in the garden and again, the garden on the north side of the building. >> the affordability is not necessarily part of code it is an important topic for the city was happening by removing two residents from the property address a significantly expanding the scope and call of the building were moved at least one of the families with small children from the city replacing the people i've spoken to that manage the real estate will go

to over $7 million this is a significant increase the my mind petitioning in that will open space and in the backyard of those buildings are low and transparent the fence about the size and structure what you see front of the you this allows us to come together minimal an area one and 50 feet long and 75 feet deep the neighbors communicate over the wall there are dozens and dozens of human beings that like to come together as well as the comments from the developer has suggested and show a 6 foot o pack wall will be played in the middle of the middle-income spatsz building compound.

>> compatibility and character there's a lovely picture that was shown an aerial picture that was shown of the neighborhood i'd like to point out that of the thousands of streets in streets of san francisco this one block between broadway and - is one of the 31 segments that are skeeven streets of san francisco this kind of a street that is impacted by this very, very ambitious project to build this prong we see you know we're aware of no other center the assistant city of san francisco that provides the city of fine arts no to the street like it in summer you should reject this application. >> - >> sir you'll have that time in your rebuttal. >> speakers in support of dr requester

(calling names). >> thank you commissioners i'm not shawn he's asked me to read a letter am i allowed to do that cool he wrote directly to brittany and expressed his deserve to be here i'm concerned that the neighbors concerned or concerns are not addressed and 14 letters you've received understand hair part of the page the commission has to review but stunned the applicant has not added those making any modifications to the plans or reaching out to the neighborhood i've attached two things and hope to hear with the building inspection and first reattach my letters you have it in your packet please consider the following

number one i strongly believe that the applicant didn't need 4 of the 5 proposals with the residential design guidelines and outline old in my letter he did expect the decided residential design guidelines will be take into account when considering approval if not not much in having the residential design guidelines and fourth two detailed examples marks sure the scale is compatible with the building and please see the attached picture into my backyard trying to pull that up can you in fact on that for me adding the fourth applicants building second from the left so if you look at shawn listed here he lives therewant to commend develop this green building here adding the fourth floor the roof

will stick out no scenario that is compatible scale and insure the building represents the middle-income open space and no respective as you can see the building comes out into the yard a little bit but 5 for the minimum setbacks from month property lines that gift relieve to the neighborly buildings your giles say it out of scale leads to residents feeling boxed in the applicants plan is absolutely box in the residents and no relief along the property line this can't happen and no area to make the findings this will respective the my mind open space and the rear addition needs took scaled back the letter talks about scaled back to - which further drives home there are additional neighborhood i find this application ambitious with no

right to the neighborhood i'm sorry, i can't be here and sent a quick video showing what our street looks like. >> do you have time to pull it up. >> 7 seconds. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners scott clearly addressed the conflicts with the section 101 with the proposed development i'd like to reiterate the impact of light and air and privacy that impacts b street the knowledge directly behind the proposed construction and currently have's wind current through sufficient privacy that has been violated with the additional fourth floor and roof deck the neighboring building has pled for reference the same height as the fourth floor and

below the roof deck during this time the engineers cut a line into my bedroom and living room that made me feel uncomfortable and drawing the curtains diminishing the natural light and patricia based on her george washington high school and make sure the building respective the open space and violates the george washington high school as it encroaches on the noise pollution and additional violations previously discussed including insuring the scale is about compatible with the surrounded building it didn't and in order to preserve the virtual character it does not and the proposition and the size of windows to the existing believes in the neighborhood it didn't not i strongly oppose

that thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> project sponsor any other is there any additional public comment? >> in support of dr requesters seeing none, project sponsor you have 5 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the project sponsor i have a few brief comments and i'm going to turn it over to to the architect to talk about the details we appreciate staffs support in particular the residential design team the rdt determined that the proposal is consistent with neighborhood character it is consistent with the rdts proposals in this neighborhood

and project expansion in the district, we have sensitive to the neighbors concerns and i'll submit that many of the concerns are addressed by the original design of this project that is modest and sensitive in scale the fourth floor addition as mentioned is setback 15 feet from the front facade a total of 21 feet from the front property line the rear addition is just one story and extended to the 45 percent rear yard line where up to four stories are permitted this is an extraordinarily deep lot at one hundred and 37 feet with that, i'm going to turn it over to to the evict to talk about the project i'm available to answer any questions as it the project sponsor thank you. >> thank you.

>> i'm kelly the designer the project some the arguments you have heard or read in the dr filing this that there are not any fourth stories in the neighborhood there are - this okay - >> this right here a fourth story addition down the street it is visual from the street there was also a letter of opposition from a fifth person who claims we are harming the character of the neighborhood an additional closer to 15 feet from the house and not 2, 3, 4 character with the buildings around there are in the neighborhood many fourth story additions

we have - as you can see them as you march down the street some of those buildings with four stories and fifth story penthouses this is a five story with a roof deck the fables that spoke about privacy so there's a pattern of four story additions in the neighborhoods and federal and state it is a two unit building so on the ground floor we've done the redistribution and the new units is one thousand and 80 square feet so the building on the ground floor was - the addition stops at the 40 percent property line we could do that on the pop outs beyond that we stop at one story and at 45 percent setback line

on the top we did our addition the fourth story as discussed before that setbacks 15 feet from the third wall a legislative setback on both sides of the street already and stops 13 feet before the standard 45 percent setback one. >> i don't know if you have questions further about that but i didn't explain anything but there are studies too. >> you have 46 seconds. >> okay we did some studies there are impacts to light obviously when you have a story that's us existing conditions okay i'm done.

>> is that ding for me. >> thank you we're available for questions. >> you'll have a two minute rebuttal dr requester i'm sorry public speakers in support of dr requesters any public comment in support of project manager dr requester you have a two minute rebuttal. >> there were 3 story structures on the block there are not a couple of pop ups and i don't think that anybody is you know focusing on that that that's fine a fine compromise further back if 15 feet from the front of building and also no deck on top of those that is proposed that hobo one point the other point she showed a

building a four story building in the middle not on our streets in fact, here's a picture of our street if i can with e have the overhead there we go no four story structures another picture looking at the other way from the penthouse again no four story structures. >> so also on the back she says you know i don't take up much room that's true they're at the does the property line with the sexually assaulted that had been the one story with a deck still shades our property and completely diminish our light what we get mainly not a lot of light our yards on the north side but in the summer we get a

whole generated of sun at this point we will have nun thank you. >> thank you dr requester number 2 you have a two minute rebuttal. >> ma'am, you have 20 seconds left for additional comments. >> one of the things when i initially talked to the building inspection we show him the backyard and the impact the comment i got in fact, an e-mail look so many issues with the neighbors we'd rather work with the direct. >> for the benefit of the public the first chimney indicates 30 seconds left the second louder chime is 30 seconds. >> thank you for hearing me i know that is small potatoes but it is important to our

neighborhood we had and preapplication thirty people there easily had you done this as 7:00 p.m. we'll be there we have other properties in the backyard 5 foot setbacks we'll be up against that we're not asking i am him to build but open to negotiations hosed not this is what it is going to look like those poles are two call that shows you the extension he'll add didn't talk about the first floor with the deck directly community-based my bedroom window this the other point we've not brought up the street is super uniform a lot of the streets in the neighborhood but if you look at this is what i gave in the packet yes, i've told about the pop united parcel service you can see p them about in general on north point is a 3

story weekly with two condo units that's the other side of the street heros one more pop united parcel service or up towards barker street and those are pictures i've submitted i think you get the picture too big for the neighborhood we want him to scale back and make administrations to protect privacy and light and maintain the character of the neighborhood. >> a two minute rebuttal. >> just a couple of quick comments clarify ford we community a significant amount with the neighbors and made specific offers of roegsdz and

then also as to the two lightwells that are on the east and west side it is improved light and air should improve we're roving the staircase if that lightwell i'm available to answer any questions and this portion is closed. >> it is in its own right some of the questions we're asking when the building is set up for being flipped in large development and it is not to say there are issues by which this project does the right thing we've asked ourselves we go through them question number one we wouldn't have continued 437 hoffman last week i'll put that in as a place holder when we

hear that on june 30th the question i have the second units is one which i believe by assess and location is a very difficult units to feel comfort and sufficient square feet is 24 inform feet wide and almost 75 feet along with no proper windows or lay outs other than wrapping itself around the garage and having an indirect assess from the front of building. the other issues that raised concerns for me is the additional terraces and roof deck i'd like to look at the drawing e 5 which is the proposed second level where i believe that the stares on the

garden side of the property is too wide and interferes with privacy i ask that be cut back from both sides if 5 feet it becomes narrower to provide the privacy for the properties moving on to organization 7 that particular floor puzzle me two floors that provide oversized master brainstorms and it looks puffed up when that floor is used to also provide a roof terrace that for me is not possible in that neighborhoods and again, the neighbors concern about height and looking down on other people and thurp your nose at others that didn't work we've talked about that many times a deal breaker and again on that

particular floor with the rear sticking out as much i think that that particular floor has to pull back a little bit perhaps reconsiders the area around the powder room i'll leadoff with those thoughts those are the issues we discuss all the time i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with commissioner moore yeah. i think the decks have excess and support of shaving the deck on level two and perhaps that could be carried through to level 3 are no - is there a deck on this level 4 is this a deck also. >> okay 3 decks okay. >> excuse me - ma'am, ma'am. >> there's a deck at the

second level on behalf of the first floor at the rear and this is the one you want to see brought in by 5 feet there's a deck let's see. >> fourth floor at the front and that one i get rid of i don't think you need that one, if you have that one on the floor like second floor okay. >> so that eliminates that let me go into that in a little bit more depth if you look at the plans two masters bedrooms doesn't make sense so i think what could be done is you could take that third-story you have 3 bathrooms with the mart bath and then two other bathrooms i believe on the third-story and

you would be able to shave off cut back a little bit on that master bathroom and the size of the what is marked as the master bedroom and master bath that is a sheet number a-6 okay so if you cut some of the rear area off of that - >> commissioner antonini you're talking about the third-story. >> that projects that piece and oh, the fourth story. >> i'm talking about the third i'm trying to make that a little bit smaller or take - we're keeping the depth the same we're moving the den from the fourth floor to the thvrtd by making a deriveder in the master bath and on the third-story making that

more of a regular sized bedroom but put the den in the area there and remove it from the four-story and you can by taking about 10 feet off the front of that and eliminate that den and those areas and the deck on the four-story so i'll defer probably to the dr requesters it to find out the position i think that if we move the whole four-story back instead of 1 feet a separation it will answer their light and air concerns and make that a little bit more in keeping with the neighborhood more of a pop up than an entire floor so that's kind of what i have in mind. >> i think there are two concerns with the dr requesters has put forward the privacy

issue from the deck at the front and also the privacy in the massing from the four-story so if there is a reductions in mapping on the four-story the discretionary review requests ask for it at the rear. >> no. you he wanted it both. >> so - >> we're not in negotiation here and after your can you think i'll call up the gentleman. >> i'm kind of throwing this out those are ways to make that possible to shrink that four-story whether string or shrink it from the rear are a little bit of both you've eliminated the ken from the four-story and a lot of other stuff up there the area going to the deck and the front was a wasted space you still have a

market-rate bedroom and a bath and dressing area on the four-story but noting nothing else everything else on the third-story. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah. i'll agree where this is going as far as massing and deck i think the second floor the deck needs to be squeezed in by a foot the third level exists but on the fourth level the elimination of that roof terrace the question we're getting and massing on the future and ask mr. convincing 5 feet on both sides with the back and the fronts but interesting to hear from the dr requesters kind of. >> just it is a little bit hard to follow the modifications but the light coming both is the

air well and blocked by the massing at the front and the top story that blocks the light into the lightwell the privacy area that in the back is caused but is first floor expansion in the back move that in; right? like we've done with the neighbors to the left so we don't have 18 inches but move it it from the back and pull - i'm sorry move it towards the center in the back on the top and pull it back ten feet is a good starting .10 feet is good pulling the whole mass of that top floor back and the deck on the top i don't know why it is there to be honest but those are good issue to address did two privacy and light concerns. >> thank you we'll get dot fence in the back by the way. >> and the project sponsor you

mentioned you made concessions and did not move forward can you tell us what those were. >> we'll be comfort with the 5 foot setbacks or pinching in of the deck on the rear addition and taking away the terrace on the four-story the 15 feet in the fronts i'm not sure that addresses privacy ace light impacts we'll be go comfortable with pulling back the future four-story from the restore perhaps 3 feet. >> thank you yeah, so i would try the consensus you don't want to see the deck on the second floor pushed by 5 feet from the east and west side the elimination of

the deck on the four-story in the front that front deck intoifr and having a setbacks on the future 5 to 10 feet. >> additional. >> i mean additional 5 feet a setback of the entire building 5 feet on the four-story no additional in the fronts but the setback is more important to be setback in the rear. >> is that a motion. >> i mean to start discussion let's see hear i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'll doctor to the dr requester, sir if you want to come up and answer my questions we're willing to shrink that four-story a minimum of 5 feet and possibly 10 feet it's sized east west i believe if i get the direction right. >> north-south. >> north-south in any case.

>> the question whether you take it all from the fronts moving the elements back or you take a little bit from the back and a little bit from the front which is the has the biggest impact on you, you should know. >> i can speak to - any other dr so on the west side and the mason is top the additional four-story primarily effects the light that is coming into the lightwell and since the building faces the south we would like to take that mass off the south to get the maximum sun from the lightwell that's my preference to pull it back 15 feet. >> it is back 15 it might go back further. >> alisa miller 10 is my preference and reduce it into the backs like more of a pop up

like the rest of the neighborhood. >> realistically i don't think the commission will go for to reduction 10 maximum 5. >> 5 in the front and 5 in the back. >> more in the front would be appreciable. >> and what about the side from the fostered can it come from the side that's where the light hits. >> your constricting them quite a bit so we'll stay with the width and cut it up from the back. >> from think side property line and in the ability to reduce the deputy of that first floor. >> no, i think you have to have enough space for to units to be over one thousand square feet but the next nor we're

bringing in the deck 5 feet on each side building. >> can there be an exception it abducts us on that side. >> we'll think about that. >> exposure. >> i like to remind us with the roof deck on top of the four-story is also something we want to take into consideration away was that note mentioned from the applicant wants to reduce the building mass in the fronts and pull it back to the extent that beyond the 10 feet he still has a small balcony that is of no consequence but reduces the mass further on the unoccupied roof to the street side is 10 feet minimum beyond that would be another three or four step outs balconies for this upper level

but that is an option the applicant can purview with the caveat it has to pull back if either side and not sit on the property line as to the rear i think that would be kind of interesting to explore how on the extended ground floor as shown on drawings drawing drawing drawing - >> okay. where is that. >> the for better or worse the ground floor occupant as to whether or not that ground floor unit should pull in from this side by 5 feet as a pop up we often pull buildings back in order to mediate the expansion and the impacts on the other buildings by doing so that could

architecturally being making valued for on the windows and i'll kind of like to encourage that can you formulate this into a motions are you comfortable. >> i think we the lady may have to draw it up and community-based around and show it to us i think we've all expressed the kind of soft points we want to see i think many 101 amenable and pull back the terrace. >> how many feet. >> 10 feet from the front and if there is an additional

balcony by further reducing the four-story that is beyond the 10 feet but the balcony will have to pull off from the property line. >> you're referring to the rear of the four-story. >> no, i'm talking about the street side. >> this is essentially the deck on the future wouldn't be able to have a firewall. >> we will not bring it into the property line. >> right. >> if they do desire to do of it's traditional for that area we're taking away the roof deck it might add a juliette balcony three or four feet. >> how far from the front. >> 10 feet, yes it has to hold 10 feet and modifications on the terrace on the certifying thsect

needs to - mr. sanchez explained it very well with those types of building we hold them 5 feet off the property line and that's an additional. >> added. >> is that a motion to go take dr. >> yes. >> second. >> a motion to take dr. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. on the first floor your what are the sizes on each side. >> 5 feet in. >> total 5 feet. >> no comes in 4 feet of property line i was in a meeting the other day where that was

police department to me as typical for - >> i'll go along with that by desiree design it and taking that back you make the bedroom narrow but even with a hall you don't have in separating the dining room from the living room you'll be able to capture enough space to have a fairly large bedroom i'll be poster of that narrowing of that pop out and done the motion that contains the other lightwells. >> commissioner the project sponsor representatives is asked me to point out by rue the ground floor units and the capacity is effective becoming a

merger so the project has to come back to the planning commission agency a conditional use authorization by the way, it is no longer 75 percent of the existing unit. >> so the relocation of this unit into the lower level the way the merger definition the new unit has to be 75 percent of the gross floor evident exist net we have 80 square feet to play with before that's triggered thatuires the project coming back as a conditional use. >> how many feet on each side 5 feet will it losses. >> one hundred and thirty. >> 65 on each side that trirgdz and cu. >> so we can do a 45 window and see indeed we can see.

>> 3 feet works. >> 3 feet works too. >> maybe 3 feet on each side that is a pretty good separation. >> 70 feet we have 70 square feet total. >> is there anyone raising their hand. >> hopefully, we'll wrap up the reduction in space on the become a choice the designer was trying to make the unit on the first floor we're trying to fight against that we getting the capacity and open up the proerj here the adjacent building immediately to the right this is the subject building and this is where i live the building to the west shawn it was written for him those o are 5 foot savings

accounts that calls for 5 foot ear here on the other side i'll invite the owner to look at the existing second floor. >> this is a a one story pop out we're taking 10 feet if the front on the four-story and come in on the deck above the pop out we're okay with just enough square footage to keep it at a 75 foot. >> commissioner moore will be amenable to change our position. >> we have to stay otherwise we're defeating we have a hard time with how the unit is designed to wrap around the primary use it hard for me i'll let that go i'd like to see the

sides coming without impairing the ability to have the footage if it is 3 feet i'm fine with that. >> i accept as the berserker 3 feet. >> i have a suggestion. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. my suggestion you've are is a very deep rear yard and i think outside the box you could possibly go further into the rear yard without rear yard expectations is that true or not. >> so the obviously moose is a 4 story box including the 15 for the set back they've carve out at the front of the building and the 3 storehouses they're not developing above the pop out and beyond that any one of the pop out provisions in section 136 usually an additional 12 stories

or sorry 12 feet addition or a 10 foot deep, 2 story with 5 foot setbacks not proposing that they're not proposing the fourth floor and not proposing 9 four-story they've taken away the massing and remind you this is an rh3 zoning district that has two abatements. >> that question about that single floor if we setback 3 feet on each side if we could their to a verdict their extension if we go out another couple feet what do i mean twhoil pinching that would maybe capture enough square footage in the unit. >> they could do that. >> it would require relocation

of the project. >> well, we don't want to do that. >> that's in the realm of possibility going back to commissioner moore suggestion we accounted articulate it brought in on the suicides it meets the 75 percent threshold and then the decade what about brought negative impact an additional 5 feet which i think sounds like that is up to the commission. >> is that amenable to the maker. >> yes. the core i i don't believe making this building is in the interest of having a quality unit. >> i accept commissioner moore any additional thought commissioner moore additional thought. >> no secretary to summarize and call the question. >> certainly try i think i got

all but one there is a motion that has been seconded to take doctor and approve that xhoifgsz specifically a 5 foot setback on the second level terrace and a 5 foot setback - right from the side property line and eliminating the four-story terrace with a 10 foot reduction at the four-story and eliminating the four-story roof deck and setting back the rear additions presidential 3 feet inform allow for no triggering the conditional use, was there the 5 foot setback at the rear of the four-story. >> no, just 10 foot at the front. >> only the front. >> that's all i have very good

on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson no commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to one commissioner johnson voting against. >> the commission will take a 5 minute break literally in 5 minutes we'll be thursday, jun give me a minute question should i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate 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 on item 9 for case no. 2013

e at mission street the mixed use project for the draft urgent please note that written comments will be accepted at the planning commission until tuesday june 25, 2016. >> good evening. i'm deborah. >> excuse me - one announcement to make i have an announcement to make a comment of disclosure i worked for 28 years for the firm that prepared the background for the eir while i had an engagement that that first name for decades and to a certain extent e stent because of long-standing relationships i'd like to put it to record no conflict of interest and mire contributions

♪ discussion is partial and unencommit murder >> thank you i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> good evening sxhifksz and members of the board i'm deborah a hearing to receive comment on the environmental impact report or dir for case numbers mission street mixed use project briefly the project will diminish the structures and constrict an 38 plus gross square feet 5 to 10 story residential building with ground floor retail use with 20031 residentials and feet will be development with a below grade

garage not a hearing for approval and disapproval of the project that follows the dir certification i'd like to provide bb greened within the mission plan the eastern neighborhoods as such the development proposed this is consistent about the density loud by the zoning rezoning for the site was a analyzed in the eastern neighborhoods eir and therefore a c pe check list was complete the list scoped out many of the inadvertent properties on background studies the department determines that the forked eir will he'd wind and shadow and golden and soil the projected project has a significant and you think yieldable commemorative shadow

on the playground located to the north of the project site i'd like to make a few rangers rashgz to facilitate the comments safe 19 staff is not here a court reporter is here that will be contributed and respond to tie in writing and the responses to document or rtc their respond to all written comments and make comments to the draft eir and pursuant the ceqa one 50 as a result the project shall manpower not be a significant impact on the environment and at this time the issues are outside the scope the ceqa process important comments today should be directed to the adequate and accuracy of the information in the draft eir and not to the merits of proposed

project that will be considered to the another time so i'll ask the commenters to speak slowly and clearly the court will produce on accurate transport and state your name for the record the draft eir was published on may 4, 2016, the public comment began on may 5th and extends until 5:00 p.m. on july 5, 2016, following the close of comments the planning department will prepare the rtc document after hearing comments from the general we'll take comments from the draft eir from the planning commission this that concludes my presentation. and unless commissioners have questions i respectfully request the public hearing