recommendation is to initiate those planning code tech amendment and schedule a meeting no matter than september and one last matter i'll note during the time of publication and the city attorney made minor changes to the proposed ordinance the changes are clerical in nature in table one adam back the term senior housing that was incorrectly proposed for deletion and therefore maintain a coherent insistence and the commission secretary has a red line version signed for your review that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you opening it up for public comment one speaker card tom. >> good afternoon, commissioners tom executive

director of liveable city those clear up are tedious and it is harder to clean up the code than put it in a shredder preserve those provisions it is a massive undertaking we don't know this is a good use of time for thees hover era we ought to be taking into account do those parking reminders still serve us do we need those have we learned anything since is i hover - some of those are dense areas of the city the geary and mission street and son through should be

rational parking spaces and a lot of cities that are performing parking have done this downtown is one set of requirements and usually no minimums and maximum and go to the commercial corridors and the lower density ours are all over the place in large part the department has not taken this on in the liveable city and changing the parking requirements in zoning district in of him and supervisor president london breed took the initiative there but you've got a bunch of piecemeal changes and we ought to think about a schematic for them bans their characteristics and the other thing we've given of examples some very, very high a example restaurant you require one space

for every 200 square feet if you add up the aisles the city of oakland comparison one to ever 6 hundred a third to a fifth of san francisco requires in the geary so some of those doonls i don't i don't think anyone knows you can racial lists in the ways that the cities do we hope we'll when in comes back to you you'll give staff direction to start that process of rationalizing not reiterating by knowing what we know about tdm and other things how to create a better set of parking controls thank you.

>> thank you mr. dulavich is there any additional public comment? >> speakers on this item. >> seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that looks like it is a necessary thing it is basically a clean up and getting rid of clerical errors that make sense not including successor parking as part of area when deciding how much parking to provide that is redundant so mr. dulavich a bigger job not in our purview but make sense to look at the whole thing in the future but a big undertaking but some thought for the future but anyway, for what it is it is fine i'll move to initiate. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to support the

thoughtful provoking ideas that mr. dulavich brought forward relative to what we've been doing going backyard to parking and other cars to drive around to find a parking space i am looking forward in trying to just administratively arrange part of past i think we agree to xhufk bridging i don't those rules were created moving into a carless society or wherever where it is impossible to cross the street and not run over by a car or uber i hope this commission sends the right message to everyone that what

mr. dulavich is talking about is long overdue to give us better tools to deal with the challenges each of us in many fragmented we have a followup special meeting on that subject matter if you're talking about vision zero that will be basically every time i cross the street have to watch out 4 out of 5 times and i think all of those things at a critical point including a challenge of gentrification not just deferring but coming to terms that's my comment and i wish the director were here but perhaps mrorgz what ask the commission indeed a special meeting where all the things come together and i hope that

mr. dulavich will attend with those thoughtful comments and commissioner vice president richards you would carry the message to all - and commissioner president fong. >> we're having a joint meeting july 21st that is a point of topic we can touch on but suggest a special hearing i agree with mr. dulavich i've looked at the zoning tables and saw parking was required and was shocking this was transit rich i could be having this taken on and amend ask staff to investigate how to get this issue into the work program. >> maybe before you do that actually next week commissioners the staff from the sfmta is going to be providing with an informational presentation and a precursor sorry to the jointly e

joint hearing you may not be to solicit some answers and our own staff is generating a vision zero plan for next week. >> great. >> maybe mrouch comes to those meetings as well. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i don't accept the amendments we'll discuss that another day this is an initiation i'll be curiosities to talk about restaurants obviously there is no minimum amount of parking small restaurant have no parking at all that explicit help their business amends people pass by but the city should look at the city plastering not enough of those around that's for another

day and commissioner antonini i do there is a second half of the recommendation and that's to schedule a public hearing september 8th. >> i guess september 8th we should do it all the time. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt to initiated and schedule another motion. commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion unanimously 4 to zero and places us on item 12 ab article 7 phase two of require organization and simplification project planning code initiations >> good afternoon, commissioners aaron starr, manager, legislative affairs. for the planning department staff the the item before you is the in violation of the reorganization project and

focuses an article 7 of the planning code phase one streamlines the planning code by consolidating them into one sections of the code and railroad organized article two residential downtown and industrial zoning by creating zoning district controls that commission vote to recommend approval in october of 2013 phase one was adopted by the board of supervisors on february 10, 2015, and signed by the mayor on february relationship 2015 focuses on the economical district the main focus is the deletion of the definitions in section 790 and the controls to the use in section one a 2 and reformatting article 7 to follow the same format the code reorganization for all districts to use one set

of depiction and you think or once that is complete articles 8 and 9 it will be realized and i'm sorry this ordinance makes the subjective changes that confused terryville mcds with the permanent sdrmdz for the sunset district requiring cu for the ground floor were there remembers principally and requiring the cu approval for serve on the empowering of the pertaining permitted instructional services on the second story to adopt the recessing resolution and schedule did adoption hearing for september and this proposal is rather large it is split into two ordinances one that deletes the table in article 7 and one with the new tables back to

article 7 and make modifications staff is proposing that adoption hearing for september 22nd this will give 3 months for the proposed time and for the staff to host meetings as needed a single vote will initiate both of the ordinances before you that concludes my presentation. i was going to have someone from commissioner tang's office but appears they're not able to come so - >> thank you opening it up for public comment (calling names). >> good afternoon my name is george i'm the president of the coalition for san francisco

neighborhoods as i would like to see inform first let you you know we want to work with the planning commission and hope to always we went through a bruising battle that the affordable housing bonus program and one of the main reasons was the neighborhoods were not involved prior to it starting are being initiated and we had problems are article 2 that we were told that would be cleaned up i recall regular we find out there were slight but small differences that changed things we're told it didn't change anything we we find out after the fact a tiny change was made in the case of article 2 i

think it was high related and this is so big and so massive for us to get our arms around i think we want to postpone this i'd like to say indefinitely but at least for a while so we can really get some the people that know what is going on about planning and talk to some of the planners like monique and aaron and really start to understand more what is happening here and that would be my only comment we're tired of always chasing what is happening and we would like to work with you and we're hoping we can huff that goal thank you. >> thank you, sir.

>> hello my name is a paul weber a dlth delegate to the san francisco neighborhoods echoing with george said in the past worked in one case with i guess one can say not to with the staff on two more matters one was article 2 and ahbp and in both cases in retroactive it appears little or no input from the neighborhoods and so we're urging you to deter entertaining this at all until number one outreach to all so supervisorial district by the staff much like in ahbp and, secondly, we will comment a small group of us who worked

with mr. starr an article 2 we'll get comments to him within the next three or four weeks we're absorbing the law and not to do this in one round in possible we'll give him our comments and we'll agree that approach worked very, very well with art 2 then is massive article 7 and on top of a new article 8 none of us has seen an example of another agency the transportation commission in seek input on parking permits they went out and got questionnaires and got poodles and put out this article explaining all before they came to the governor jerry brown body to come up with anything we've happy to work with staff but urge you to ask staff to hold

district wide meetings explaining the law and all before you entertain this thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. weber. >> good afternoon tom executive director of liveable city and want to commend staff taking all of those you know myriad of controls and trying to reiterate them it is a terrific undertaking and again we've said some of do make sense i want to talk about the one that is substantive change and some of the things we've e-mailed those to staff you might think about the before

reforming the liquor store but have gospels for keep the area in in front clean does existed of exist around town and establishing this for all liquor store citywide makes sense they create problems in neighborhoods and secondly, the cu if you make that a cu have criteria commissioners what have you asking to receive the desirability can you go on further we propose the concentration of liquor store and grocery stores that don't serve liquor but into healthy feeds and proximity to i think compatible used to high schools probably the worst problem so have criteria for crusoe that you as the commission really know here's the guidance in the

code third thing with the uses look at where their permitted as of right in all the 346 and liquor store have the right uses it is interesting their potentially creating problems and restricted in some areas in the special use districts and not preempted in c-3 and that's the intent for the usual on busy streets that pattern didn't make sense we ask you look at if if you're looking at liquor store concerns and non-substantive looking at the ordinances that includes the commissioner sanchez ordinances and others clean up since the door is open it's been on our minds neighborhoods the liquor store controls dpooon't make se.

>> thank you mr. dulavich. >> sue hester asking the commission to dwell in the land of reality this is before the 4th of july we have summer vacation and we have labor day and the hearing thirds hearing after that that is not realistic everyone of the neighborhood controls went through a process in the neighborhood and few of you were on the planning commission but it is not respectful to have a deadline that didn't acknowledge that the neighborhood associations take a summer break like you do like the board of supervisors does everyone is going onramp vacation for a month or so and the planning commission

should respect people enough to say 22 of september that's ridiculous t the earliest is months after people have reconvening of the neighborhood associations and the text available i've been bugging mr. starr for the amendment i have this and couldn't come to the meeting what was the same time as the hearing an that consummated the same time so i didn't make it to his touchy feelly group by a set a deadline for the people to have those full texts what is discussed and ask people when they reconvene especially july and people are not meeting in

the middle of summer it is respectful you should be respectfully people planning department should learn by example and if you have a date in the end of this year i would be that would be appropriate i've appeared are when they had the original attempt to redo the planning code law 6 or 7 or 8 years ago and didn't go anywhere i understand it needs to be ring with the harmonies of liberty; y written i use the planning code and asked about the planning code all the time and you should say no what's the rush because i think what george said was true because he's buying pit holes that is not the right word have potholes potholes in the language and the one knows they need enough time to go through

thank you. >> thank you ms. hester there any additional public comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. a few questions i guess i think there were suggestions made possibly to break out - issues being brought up by supervisor tang for those cu changes and the sunset districts from the clear up from the rest of orals that seems to make sense to me mr. starr can do you think. >> we've worked with supervisor tang on changes i mentioned if we can put it in that have it in one ordinance rather than bringing up a separate one and surgical our prerogative she'll have to introduce her on ordinance for

the changes to be made. >> you know the only thinking there was some speakers that talked in terms of needing more time to review there is a lot of paperwork but her stuff seems fairly simple maybe possible to move her ordinance through quicker if it wasn't attached to a large item. >> if i can talk about the public outreach on june 3rd i sent out information and hosting on june 2, '05 rfp one person showed up for the coalition of san francisco neighborhood i went over the proposal even prior to the meeting although it was contrary to what sue hester said i published the ordinance on the website and sent an e-mail it was published on the e-mail page and went over that

i'm happy to host more outreach but if none shows up not worst that. >> the follow-up question i see that supervisor tang came through what a lot of ordinances for the sunset were other supervisors asked question have a lot of neighborhood commercial districts throughout the city many of whom might benefit from the controls but apparently like you have controls in one portion of city but in his own. >> you're required to have a cu for liquor store and the bars on the ground floor that changed consistent throughout the city so just reilly bringing the sunset into compliance or the same standards of on the commercial districts. >> the same that applies to other mcd. >> no, from article two apparently it that changed we

removed do cus for the ac boric conditions. >> it's permanent in other districts. >> i know that. >> west portal but i don't know about the other streets like chestnut and gearing, clemente i'm thinking of neighborhood commercial streets i know you can't answer that now but curious that sounds fine i think it would be moved forward and that answers many most of my questions mr. starr a couple of comments in regards to timing you know when we initiate something we have the whole summer life golden goes on we have children and grandchildren

and obviously people are interested in something she thai should be able to defendant it over 3 months but we can continue it it didn't mean we have to adopt it on the 22 of september that would be looter in the commissioners feel is it so appropriate even though you schedule it there are two different things a public hearing and the corporation date and split these up it requires a public hearing. >> it requires a public hearing like every others piece of the ordinance but department sponsored requires two hearings this is the first time aided and abetted second one the adoption you consider adopting the ordinance people can come out and talk. >> you wouldn't have a adoption a public hearing

separate from the adoption. >> no a formalized but for the earlier two ordinance a half do so outreach meetings i sat down with the coalition of san francisco neighborhood and thought had in goodwill between that organization. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say about the timing i think that is looks like necessary thing time xhoumz and certainly see if the date is correct for the 22 of september. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> let me take a slightly difference attack sitting here representing the public that is what we do i believe this particular piece of rewrite and reorganization is strung two rapidly many of the peoples o people are not professionals and work 100 percent of the time on the work

as profession but come into that when we hear about it the second time when you schedule a meeting anyone that is interested will show up on that day may not be able to do so that means i believe that the process that was ultimately forced on us is a commission and what we supported for mohcd required the neighborhood outreach to those groups that was instrumental in crafting the sub icy building that there is a simplification and understand the structural implication that i have problems and some people will use the words dumbing down i'm not

trying to attack you but the sub its should be - do neighborhoods have participated it in a creating that we'll have a better piece in the end a not have meetings that take us to midnight to fight for the pros and cons of what we can and cannot do but suggest that you use the experience of the affordable housing bonus program legislation and use it as a unique for consensus i'm prepared to move quickly but not prepared to initiate and schedule for the adoption today. >> ms. reorganizing we value

the public comment and improves the proposals but differentiate an different public process that is necessitated by the degree the hpc and of interests to every district the work that aaron's doing is reformatting the planning code to make it easier to use i can tell from the responses 2 to 3 the early effort there are very few people let alone groups in the city to the level of detail that the coalition for the 0 people are interested for the most part people are confused why we want to change the structure of code and feel we've waisting time so feedback from other folks not here that are overall outreach and involving them in something

that more or less a technical observation we need the close input of coalition for for the most part their few people that are interested in the detail. >> commissioner wu. >> so i think that i think one of the key stakeholders i've heard to get may be written language to the department in four weeks or somewhere around that timeframe i think that targeted i know the meeting on the 20 to have a couple of meetings i don't know on a monthly basis it is up to you how you set them up that would be helpful i could be open to initiating for a at a later date sometime in october i heard ms. hester talk about 3 months but

then into the next holiday but maybe the commission is open to continuing to push out until the work is done. >> go ahead. >> i would like to note that coalition for san francisco neighborhood invited me and another colleague to a monthly meeting our attendance was cancelled because director rahaim attended and presented something else. >> i guess my thoughts go back to when i first starts an article 2 kind of reorganization to me is something akin to this is phase two he heard a lot of mistrust in the planning department and we're pulling small business owner something not sure what in is about etc., etc. we initiated but continued the adoption and the folks, etc.

to write ever come ma and theirs changes not minor and not major i'd like to replicate that process but give them a firm date like we have two months do our work and come back and that's what you get you wrote article 2 and this one as well that is meeting and organized forgive years i think another month or two will not kill us and couldn't get back up and sing kumbaya. >> i would ask to you initiate it and schedule the adoption hearing this is the first step that allows us to notice the hearing and gave me the communities. >> ask the gentleman a question, please.

>> thank you, mr. wooding are you and the organizations up to the challenge for what we did in article 2. >> i think see i had this a couple of key members that understand planning code okay. >> most of us don't i go 0 those meetings but more of a peripheral i sharpen pencils. >> i'll be open to initiating with the understanding that you know we'll give the organizations - >> so we'll try i mean, i spoke to mr. starr briefly just before this meeting he indicated i know that he'll be willing to work with us a little bit so if

we very specific questions we can go back and - i think what is hard for us just the size of it, it is so big that it's really hard to pinpoint which are fovrlg. >> i'll be open to initiating that with a continuance on adoption if for some reason a lot of open initiates but if good faith. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm open to initiating i saw the article two process and everyone acted in good faith mr. starr does a good job in walk you through those his intent to make no changes and have the

public utilize the code and the folks from the coalition understand that i move to initiate and maybe set a date in october to give a little extra time to have those meetings and encourage mr. starr to hold on open house perhaps once or twice i get the people don't show up but closer to that date i think folks will so if there is a date in october. >> well, i want to approach forgive me we want to planning on doing the outreach i think that helped a lot in the affordable housing this was so much confusion there so many people are saying so many things so planning could also commit to

doing outreach in different areas i think that would be helpful you know as well. >> i am not i get it this is a bit of a different amen is a reorganization of the planning code and not i mean the affordable housing affordable housing bonus program was a big policy shift we were allowing different height in neighborhoods it didn't have that i am not we've got to understand this is a different monthly on the policy front and then- we want to be respectful of staff and the neighborhoods if you brought this to my neighborhood group not a ton of interest i get it your group is - >> there are some umbrella neighborhood groups that like we're an umbrella neighborhood group that don't duo have interest because so many

neighborhood groups recommended and i think overseeing groups merit being talked with. >> so i'll suggest that mr. starr put out the e-mail and recommend and the planning department staff can attend to explain that i guarantee not a huge response but if there is great and other groups like yours that are interested in that technical change that we should talk with them but a date in october jonas. >> october 13th. >> that's my motion. >> second. >> thank you i guess mr. starr one question on the earlier 2 experience you had what was the process you sat down with san francisco and how many meetings did that work well. >> once they put their concerns in writing i addressed them directly that would be helpful and move forward and

when i spoke with the folks every time i've presented this i'm open to doing more outreach meetings in the process okay. thank you commissioner antonini. >> no, i was going to subject the october date. >> commissioner moore. >> sir in. >> comments that you wrote you suggested that each spoiler district would you mind coming up to the microphone please that you thought that it would - more established business is that something you'll find reflect audience i think that is a couple of reasons number one you know, i haven't what did

through that but this is a focus on the commercial groups integration into all of a sudden one package regulatory matters so if that's going to be the case my concern is if they hear about it the night before the hearing they're going to picketing and also after our hides why it was not brought to their attention if it is truly just an integration of a variety of rules in one place fine but get out the word to those groups we can certainly help the coalition can help with some of the members getting the word out to the various businesses and a a couple of people that work

with us on the omaha's but i believe that there should be neighborhood input if nothing else to aau skwaj the concerns they're not pulling a fast one we don't believe that that's not our experience with article 2 as mr. starr appointment that went acquit well, i thought. >> i believe that is correct was so many pressure no escape it ms. hester's points regarding the timing this is something that timing is not perfect it that a concern your falling hiatus we'll be gone the three weeks rather than the two weeks and unraveling through the remaining 3 meetings in september and into early

october. >> well, then hadn't failed to notice an election in november which effects a number of supervisors excuse me - >> i think we set it for october 14, '13. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt at resolution to schedule an adoption hearing for october 13th commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore. >> can i ask a question does that include the specific construction that the initiation is contestant 0 on those meetings properly schedule eat neighborhoods notified. >> you'll be adopt a initiation if this passes if you're not satisfied the time by october 13th then you can continue the adoption hearing further out but not sure you can make that resolution contingent

on something that happens in the future. >> i think we can continue it like other article 2. >> okay. then he accept speak as i appreciate that - yes. >> commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero commissioners that places us on item 13 ab street a conditional use authorization don't see the zoning administrator oh, here he comes and the deserve will consider a request for variance. >> good afternoon verna flores the item before you is the request for the conditional use authorization for 1416 to allow

the reconstruction and reestablishment of two units on a 6 thousand plus square feet lot within the r568 zoning conditional use authorization because it proposes a density of up to one unit per 3 thousand square feet of lot area and pursuant for the de facto exposition and a front setback variance will be considered by the zoning administrator pursuant to planning code section 132 to encroach the setback of 15 feet a single second story building currently occupies the subject property through major alteration and the de facto demolition of the building the project will combine the units into one

single-family dwelling the second unit will be relocated to a new structure and post construction in the middle of the property the two structures result in a net increase of two bedrooms and separated by a variously courtyard and to date the department has 8 communications in support including did adjacent neighbor located on 12 and some of the communications we received after our new packet railroad delivered i have them available here for distribution one of the additional comments is also from the adjacent neighbor regarding the concerns with the front units impacts to their view and the project sponsor had all the changes in the concerns during their anymore detailed presentation the department is in general support of proposed design that

is reviewed busy rtd the residential design team and meets the guidelines with the which he will last on the unit a requirement to remove the clearly list - to add two units into the golden gate park the project will not displace any tenants as a result of this project, the project provides a central courtyard and amble private open space therefore the proposal meets the open space requirements despite an unusable rear yard and the project meets autopsy applicable planning codes for the front setback which the project sponsor is seeking a variance for

that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you, thank you project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is robert height i'm the owner of 1460 lastly and lived continually for 33 years since august 1983 the gentleman my partner for 3 two years shared life with me at 14 for thirty years until his death on august 27, 2013, this project is acquit personal to me from the day that we moved in we started thinking about building our dream home on the site

let me tell you about him he was an artist and architect he got his masters from architecture harvard university and berkley a professor of philosophy it taught in maine at the academy of art university after getting his ph.d from berkley we came to when envelopes 24 from japan and we dreamed of designing your home with our shared values of simplest and straight and understated architecture he and i me in fate in 1981 and during the time we lived together i'll tell you a little story i read the newspaper from

cover to come over breakfast and after he died i was unable to read the newspaper and couldn't do it but for some reason on september 15th on 2015 i brought up the sunday chronicle and a section in the home section about four architects in san francisco and one of those architects was mr. better known at the scene, you see she's talk in just a mom when i read about her everything resonated with me her whole philosophy towards architecture and japanese aesthetics anyway from the minute i called her the next day between two days we met and immediately we

agreed to go forward so from the information you've received from planning we hope you, see our plans respect the site very good and care consider our neighbors and just finally i'll ask you approve the plans and submitted including do trellis from the rays this project is in memory of my deceased partner thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim caring are the architect for the project we're seek a conditional use authorization to achieve a legal unit within a rh2 district we're also asking the commission to approve the trellis and

planning department has given you, you discretionary the upper market unit and 16 the lower basement units has been vacant for over 10 years to improve the continued use and improve that for the use of residents it integrates the will eshth and landscape with the harmony with nature the lot fits the corner between 12 and 20 and bounded by billy goat park and the entrance is up the street and the entrance is at the rear of the building assessed by a landscape steps along the april and maintenance the sequence for both units it is steep and unimproved it is by - this surrounds the back of 1416 due to the height and bulk and density for the narrows

situation the rear yard is not liveable and billy goat hill above it because the public vantage point are obscured the section enjoys the open views and the rear yard are up against it few people use their rear yard the majority are unmaintained the staff reports described advertise as too steep to access like the balconies and rear yard are more porn than opinion is sits between neighbors it has not front yard and has a deep lot and a detached garage the plans meets the urging conditions through the design of a front matters of fact with the guidelines the pattern of the

sidewalk the adhesive often with multiply vertical annexations starting at 16 the sobrieties are at zero and move towards the acre and 12 and others are outlying and set deep into the lots the proposed construction follows the prevailing pattern by meeting it and is not 15 feet for the provision of the next it tooth's the adjacent buildings by have having a smaller building and dbi independence that - the courtyard and heart integrating the architecture scrape with the prior it and in order to preserve the light and air at the rear is also held in 5 feet from the property line to

benefit both side doors sites their you shared open space and dedicated or private for the space at the roof matches the - the roof deck lions in may 2015 and the owner veronica was sent an e-mail that relates to the view and the bulk i bulk head and the sxents o stent of the view even though mr. underscoring let him knows his view is not protected the height foot was lowered and with a grarl with a parapet at&t and it has been reduced by 50 percent the it up top of the proposed roof deck lions and was appalled back to allow the roof deck stepping in line with the sites

eye integrated and building design is integrated that shows you it is deep into the hill the height and bulk is in the envelope and maintenance the profile that steps if rhythm to the terrain from 6 hundred plus to 24 hundred square feet codify living space and adds much size to the family's home and will be enlarged and have approximately 19 hundred square feet of living space it is well within the size of the houses of the neighborhood the proposed project is over 4 thousand square feet smaller than the buildable areas the neighbors have - the proposed trellis at the roof deck is an important fundamental element and allows i am to enjoy his roof deck for

approximately unusable area the staff says is too big and under the envelope as the trellis an open structure with a shading above that will filter and the trellis will not be visual and the - where the transmittals is partly visible people with the integration into the for ground and backyard within the attorneys at law fosters glass that blockages on the front facade will lighten the mass and landscape is starting at the front yard and originally at the balconies it is consistent with san francisco general plan and meets the conditional use authorization and meet the

scales and it is aggressive and finely detailed with it is appropriate for the neighborhood we respectfully ask you to grant the conditional use authorizations and prediction to build the trellis as this project maybe realized after public comment we'll provide further clarification. >> opening up for public comment (calling names). >> hi, my name is andy archibald you have my papers i believe and the blut points direct your

attention to several points more or less confused me there is two buildings one in the back of this large lot and one in the front both garages are in the front building so the first in the back is coming down one hundred feet and across thirty something feet so a strip to and from the cars is a major chore that is not that convenient and coming and going from samoans house in your car is absent odd also the house on the second story it has a blockage with 4 seawalls so none can see on the blockage in the neighborhoods and streets same with three and four the balcony that goes hallway across and the picture window

room so the privacy of the building is going to be totally eliminate a view from my second story bedroom and going to probably remove 75 so tow perris percent of the ambient light i have no protection and the roof deck kind of is again an odd thing the roofline is becoming a couple inches above the railings on my roof deck and a flu gardens deck we call it on top of that which will eliminate all the privacy and ambiance of my deck and thirty percent of the view is blocked i question i don't anyone will build two bruce believes in san francisco with flat roofs which doesn't strict miss me as a good idea easy constituent roof deck

instead of go solsolar so i tha for your time and patience and courtesy. >> thank you, mr. archibald. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is a jean i'm a neighbor on the street of bob and i was concerned when you know bob reached out into after all us to hear to see the plans but then as soon as i saw the plans i'm thrilled that was complimentary to the neighborhood of our streets like an eclectic street within the the street the design does not

have a big box feeling that is nice it has setbacks and all natural materials which i love and also i was happy it didn't go the full height it could and legally oath story on top of that and another reason i was thrilled there is a two car garage it is welcome for the parking i think every street in san francisco suffers is from lack of parking but to car garage is really nice and also as i mentioned before the materials that architect is using all natural and just beautiful including the terrace the shaded terrace we have a shaded terrace on my house it makes a big difference as far as keeping my house cooler and able to,

outside in the sunshine. >> other than that i'm happy i had no idea so many neighbors are happy and supportive i'm sure you have letters to see i was a little bit surprised to hear the last gentleman speak but anyway, thank you for your time and consideration commissioners. >> thank you is there any additional public comment on this seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> i think this very well-designed project and to answer some concerns viewers are not protected and the fact they chosen a separate garage from one the residents is their choice not anything that didn't have a historic presents and st. francis woods large often have

the garage separate from the house and walk quite a way from the house that's how they choose to build them and this is the personal choice on the opinion of the architect i have a question for the architect on 14 lately and i was luke the plans everything is modest and buildable but on 14 lately it appeared two floors of bedrooms and got large bedrooms and one path on each why did you breakdown the lower into two bath and not two bedrooms. >> well the rear units is bobs personal unit and that's the way he wants to live and the front is the family more the family-sized unit but after bob

leaves the property for whatever reason it is flexible and the it can be divided and nothing above it 14 for his personal use makes a lot of sense i'm supportive. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a couple of questions this project is really about the units merger i think outside the box is the first one we need to look at the front building is two units two bedroom and one bedroom we're asked to look at a unit merger where the front building is an independent building and the rear is the substitute for the unit which is being eliminated i think that creates a diversity set of questions than a dr where someone is obtaining to this and that but a policy question that is larger than supporting the cu

with the building i'm wondering i personally believe that we are in an rh1 we're not in rh2 where we could consider this is as a in fact, following are rh2 zoning allows us to do is this in keeping with rh1 tries to do rh1 is specific about where buildings fit in the lot, how thigh aggregate to the larger and in this particular case we're basically moving being so another part of property with something from my perspective is issues with the residential design team touched on with the roof decks and i want to stick with this question that being the unit merger and it indeed the building dense fizz in the

rh1 the densification occurs in the front of lot given - and like to have mr. sanchez in that discussion. >> certainly one of the issues the preps we may struggle with the pattern of the neighborhood one that office developed to the front and one others one side to the rear this is given the large lot to maintain two dwelling units on the lots so reducing the number of with dwelling units but respect that so looking at this thing this is what the conclusion of the residential design team that is code compliant and given the

depth of the lot had that adjacent building i've been there had it not been extend into the rear as it does located in the middle of the lot this may not have been been supportable but given the context that resulted this of the supportable. >> speak to me if you would about the aspect of the merger. >> technically a demolition because of the building that was removed but you know ultimatum we found support the findings are in the executive summary one of the rent-controlled units housing that was produced by one because of the structure being the construction at the rear but the department found that was supportable maintaining the number of units having more usable family-sized housing with

the front building and in that context as well. >> i city don't see the communication commissioners the residential design team put forward a number of specific exceptions which i'm very in tune some of them might have seen met the issue of the trellis and would i believe is the aggressive nature the roof decks because of the rear property interfere with looking at the privacy of the others but goes to waste. >> any comments from you mr. sanchez or sfr from staff adding that. >> let me make sure that is one of the items before you as part of our review of the conditional use authorization and if you choose reduce the

size of stent of the roof deck i mean as the architect noted given the top grateful it is a large ltd by given the top photography the roof decks are the most usable parts of property the residential design team sponsors the design of the roof deck i understand the concern of the roof deck is reduced the deck at the front it reduced in size from initially proposed does the trellis issue still there and there are some nice things about the project i'm concerned about from my perspective the fact that the other building at the end is where it is not as much concern as starting another pattern i'm not interested in to pursuing it in other parts of town there was a tendency of wanting

to do that this is an exemption and not only a large lot but unusually shaped lot there is not as much objections to the architecture but some of the policies issues i have a conflict with i would entertain but i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say supporting the project with complete adherence to the modifications that the residential design team made because i believe that they're correct in keeping with making an expectation to what is an rh1 neighborhood we've not changed that. >> i have a couple of questions for the zoning administrator's two pre1979 rent-controlled units and one not rented and one uncouldn't have happened when approving there is one rent-controlled units renderings on the

property. >> the rent board will make that determination for the rent compliance i'll be hesitant to say that needs to come have not retirement boa rent board there are two units left on the lot and it could result in no rent-controlled units. >> ya demolished. >> yeah. >> but ultimate the call of rent board. >> that's a policy concern to me. >> no, i think that is a very good project in that that takes away the structure that probably is number one fundamental i didn't have a chance to walk through this to see the condition and have a tendency to save everything no matter regardless of safety or not

saying the building is non-save we're getting two new units that are a lot better and we should be doing i'm supportive of eliminating the trellis if the commissions feels that's the staff recommendations correct me if i am wrong about project sponsor made modifications to all the other recommendations of the debt can you comment on that that's united states way i heard it. >> verna definite that is accurate the project sponsor approximately worked the department in order to revolt all the concerns bought up about the rdt say for the trellis so that would be what i'll be in favor of doing removing the trellis and keeping everyone else the same and zoning administrator was given i believe even though this is a non-conforming use it is two units in rh1 not make it for

normal by 20 having two units in two locations. >> the planning code allows for more than one dwelling unit provided that and i. >> that's a huge lot a through the accommodate two but a nice courtyard to make them separate it could serve two families earlier in the project sponsor is not occupying the second unit. >> commissioner wu. >> sorry commissioner hillis i apologize so to share the comments of fellow commissioners it is well-designed and the context of the zoning administrator discussed i know this project works well and unusual to have the to buildings and two units separated by actually that is well-designed i mean my concern that size of the deck in the trellis in the rear

unit you have we feel this new construction there are a lot of decks you have balconies off the front that can serve as shaded area i have concerns and the stall an internal staircase that get you to up to the deck saw on the rear of the building a stair dictate. >> so it is well-designed will support some changes to the trellis eye perhaps the rooekd in the rear. >> commissioner wu. >> yeah. i can be supportive and support the staff's recommendation of the removal of trellis it is differently shaped lot is a condition you won't see very often. >> commissioner moore.

>> mr. sanchez can small business build 3 units on the lots. >> i don't believe the density b will allow up to 3 units. >> i want to get back to the unit merger if indeed an exceptional lot the units are acquit large why not take the attack that the units merger on the front piece needs to be somehow mitigated by adding an affordability units but adding a smaller unit more suitable what is being replaced or merged to really deal with the opportunities to a forward-looking gentrification. >> i think that would be a great idea but the scoping will not allow that number of units and 3 units you're saying. >> i thought you said, yes.

>> not large enough to accommodate 3. >> i thought in this case, i urge you this is not the case i think that adding the conditions of following the vefrm needs to be reconformed by staff including the omission of the roof deck. >> commissioner antonini make to motion to approve and making sure all the others changes and amongst those changes the trellis will be eliminated and that's my motion to approve. >> it is the trellis and the roof deck there are to parcels. >> i believe the staff recommendation is the removal of the trellis not the roof deck. >> that's correct. >> and, clarify just 0 reiterate mr. sanchez last

comment to receive the roof deck it is appropriate by the department is looking to go reduce the overall height and magnificence from the rear as reduced by the proposed trellis. >> may i ask have the other conditions been met before us today. >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioner there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with continues as amended to rove the trellis. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore no commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards no that motion fails 3 to 2 commissioners. >> is there an additional motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> money move to continue the item g i don't know we had an issue with the roof deck and certainly made them smaller that

was necessary but since that motion that defeated we can possibly to get it done i'll propose a motion to make the roof deck - commissioner moore giving me guidance on the roof deck you need the size or elimination of the roof deck. >> there are privacy issues with roof decks and this particular rear looking back at the join building that sits in the rear of the owner lot to the west as well as to the east as well as the building future to the west it is hard to get exactly where the windows are but that kind of situation you are having noise and visible interference i believe the project sits on a large lot with the large garden and the other areas you don't need an extra

roof on top of it. >> you're feeling to remove the deck. >> all right. my motion yes architect and that's something i'll take your comments before i make a motion. >> i want to clarify. >> few things the building department didn't say it was a demolition building department says it is a - the building department says this is an additional renovation not a demolition and not one neighbor objected have not roof deck any objection is from the neighbor in the fronts unit but most effected by the roof deck has written a letter of support none has an issue with the roof deck and the rear units with the residential design guidelines for sorts of rear cottages if anyone is thinking about the

site plan even though 12- it is not a rear cottage the configuration of the two units with the courtyard is sort of basically in the spirit of residential design guidelines which says to respective rear cottages and their position on the site so zoning administrator sanchez allowed i lutdz but a specific section in the residential design team no one objected to the trellis and no neighborhoods on the roof decks and this is as a additional renovation on this from the front neighbor from the view of his roof deck. >> the issue about the roof deck the roof deck is 6 hundred and 50 square feet and the rear and fits 5 hundred plus square feet is a sitting down large roof deck i believe the issues

of privacy are not by those people that support it the other dimensions which is indeed a nice building. >> consequences of those things later and approval with the commission was came back a stand about the roof deck in areas they're not typical to basically uphold to policies that deal primarily deal with privacy so as to whether or not the building department says it is a demolition this is the planning commission and i'm not trying to argue i'm fine thank you giving you the perimeters by which we make decisions and have to always look at not mr. farrell trying to chisel but keep it wellness the decision and you don't see the complexities or the similarity

when it comes to roof decks and privacy we want to stay until midnight we'll pick up that discussion i believe i will support the project with the caveat that the trellis as per residential design guidelines and the rear roof deck that is the one on the 23, 80 basically will be eliminated and with that i'd like to change the motion ask the maker of the motion to amend to support. >> my amendment will eliminate the rippled open red cross and eliminate the trillions and a otherwise the project will be approved as presented. >> do i hear a second. >> second. >> an additional motion commissioners that has been second to approving approve the conditions to remove the trellis

commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards motion passes amazing zoning administrator, what say you? >> on the variance, close the public hearing and and grant the requested variance. >> thank you that will places us on item 14 at 2920 franklin street a conditional use authorization yeah. i she or he have to be asked to be recused i own property within 5 hundred feet of this project. >> move. >> move to recuse commissioner antonini. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner on that motion to recuse commissioner antonini commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore

commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes yours hereby recused. >> jonas a clarification on the schedule i think that - >> go for it. >> so i've understanding items in numerical items a number of folks in the audience here for item 22. >> a 4 o'clock calendars indication of 4:00 p.m. just to give people an indication we can't take the item great 4:00 p.m. didn't mean we'll shop and take up the item and the chair to follow the numerical odor keeps item 22 at the 4 o'clock p.m. at the end of the agenda. >> good afternoon, commissioners brittany the

department staff the item before you a request to demolish a single-family dwelling and construct and new dwell the demolition of the dwelling unit ♪ district requires conditional use authorization per planning code section and the existing dwell since 1922 has a health of 22 feet and approximately 9 thousand plus square feet with three bedrooms and one off-street parking the proposed new buildings will be 39 feet tall because 6 hundred and 65 gross square feet the new building will accommodate two two bedrooms and up to four spashz it was published in - however, the case was continued without being heard until today is calendars the neighbors to

the south has submitted a letter raising concerns relative to the mass and the architecture design for the front facade and removal of the asbestos and means to protect their property during construction the project sponsor heirs or appears to reach an agreement before the letters and removing the hazardous materials both are issues reviewed by the department of building inspection or public health and a in regards to the property architecture and aesthetic for the support for the proposal and the massing is consistent with the residential design guidelines and requirements of planning code and additionally the facade includes proechgs proposition and materials that draw in the mixed character of the neighborhood and as the new design and recommending the

proposal will result in an net gain of one between for a total of two family-sized units with two bedrooms and bring the property to the maximum indents that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions >> thank you. >> project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioners michael architect if possible i'd like to use the overhead project okay. so that image is the subject property in the middle this proposes the construction of two family-sized residential unit for an extend family and a resolve of a 1922 single-family residences the existing building is found to be car share exempt by the planners and in the considered a

historic resource under ceqa the exist single-family residences is not subject to rent control the property is valued over the city $1.6 million threshold more affordable housing and like to submit an appraisal the value is

$2.5 million miff dollars a mixed scale of the building as well that building in particular is built to 40 feet as a mid block building an additional building at the corner which is built 40 feet as well and all, are built to the front property line this image is from the subject property looking at directly across the street so as you can see on both sides the street we're looking multi family twjz a mid century apartment building directly across the street so the styles vary quite a bit an image of the property front elevation the overall goal to provide an

additional how soon on the property that brings it into greater conformation with the uses on this block the owners are jennifer and emerson they've made the choice to raise their family and occupy the upper and the family the lower it is found to meet the residential design guidelines - the vertical bay window will add to that block and to the attorneys at law on several the will building and making window proportions more vertical in their orientation this was a

very collaborative design process we had with the rdt and of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a to come to the front elevation. >> the site plan shows at the rear a rear wall didn't extend as far back to the neighbor buildings we're providing lightwells at the mid point of building on above and beyond of property not just one that is fair even for a 25 foot building the lethal and depth of the lightwell was provided during the preapplication meeting with the planning department and followed that direction please no variations are being sought in conclusion taken a response for the residential design

guidelines to create a building to fit within the existing context and working collaboratively and ultimately have the property within an rh2 sdoonz and to provide another housing unit in a responsible way to serve an extended family i want to introduce the owners emerson and jeff kwang and thank you for the conditional use permit i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you dear planning commission good afternoon my name is emerson and jennifer the owners we're here to explain why we want to build our home in the city we are a family of too young boys with another baby on the way with our future family

of 5 having two aged parents that want to move to san francisco we are the sandwiched generation want to take care of our children and parents and looking around to find a place for the entire family living together and couldn't find anything to fit our needs want the parents to have some independence and need a place for handicap assessable and need the spaces to fit our needs and the parents we can look avenue our parents we choose to start a family decided to raise children in san francisco being born and raised as a lifelong san franciscan i understand how to grow up in the city they develop creative and compassionate citizens he too

group with grandparents in the city with san franciscan experiences we share together i'd like for my children to be fourth generation san franciscans and for the fabric of the city throughout the process we work to stay with the guidelines for building a beautiful home in the neighborhood we spent time with the residential design team to come up with a building we can be proud your empathy has done a tremendous job and hopes to have a successful partnering with the department thank you. we hope to have the opportunity to move forward thank you. >> okay opening to public comment one speaker card. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is a eld

have i'm hear here to speak for my client jean lived in the building next door to 9 north for 40 years didn't object to construction ♪ location hover concerns about the design and impact on her home and on her neighborhood she does support responsible development and supports affordable housing in several important ways the project explicit comply with residential design guidelines as you can see from project sponsors render of the project overhead 4, 4 stories for for the most part the buildings around it are 3 stories they're out of scale

is it so made of modern stark materials out of character are the other marina styled homes jean e jones as concerns about the northern lightwell if the permitted building will with 4 stories and the let that is proposed only 2 and twaerdz deep. joan's property and the residents downstairs rely on light for their kitchen and dining rooms their breakfast new york city and for the laundry for the light into the lightwell the addition of this building will significantly impact her light and air she is asking the kwang to widen the lightwell for the setback for the 4 floor to allow more light and asked to remain privacy by adding obscure glass

and finally, the roof deck deck are of a concern over the last year the conveyance have many late night participants the subject of two violations of short-term rentals ordinance there are concerns that allowing both roof deck and the large back beck e deck will encourage further noisy parties we firmly believe that is unlikely the conveyance will be occupying this - they own 5 properties including a two unit building in the masonic if they live with their multi generational family they can do

that we're asking that the roof deck be removed and that the changes be made to the development before it is approved in its incarceration that will be a blight to the neighborhood >> any additional speakers on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i'd like to pickup on a couple of things which were just mentioned by the last speaker issues i'm concerned about but let me start with floor by floor perhaps ask you to come to the microphone looking at a-2 point one i am wondering how the department could see this garage works

remembering something commissioner johnson said last week, i looked at the bike parking it didn't meet the requirement for the bike assess it 5 feet, the bike parking shown is very few feet and how this opens to two unit residential the bike parking is incidentally assessable moving to the east the bedroom that mr. hennessy that has an existing door from the garage i think requires the vestibular you can't say enter into a bedroom living space without that vestibular i assume staff can probable verify that. >> moving to the next floor picking up on the issues of privacy and looking at drawing 8 it is correct that to the

north's side a lightwell unit adjoining the property to the backstair and office and a bathroom faced 3 windows across the lightwell those are larger windows and if the person who spoke about it could come to the microphone - what type of rooms are there. >> there are kitchen there's a kitchen on each level there's a diagram on each level a breakfast invoke and a laundry sonook and a laundry so there are - those these fall into the primary those are necessary to have privacy on office with a clear with glass required to do something and a bathroom most likely will use o

pack glass but not quite sure how to resolve that but the issue of privacy was on my mind with respect to this lightwell roof deck i believe that the units are sufficiently large and medal of valor generational i believe that the - when you assess a roof deck with a circular stair that is made of metal it is noisy roof decks are as we said earlier are typical for this area i'll question that as well erected style i'll agree i reject this building is being demolished the ufrtdz style is

close to my heart i'm familiar with that but not what this commission has to comment only not an architecture review and there be certain things we need to give but want the rest of the commission to consider the others issues i've raised. >> commissioner johnson. >> turk i'd like to echo commissioner moore's comments about some of the problems with the design as laid down out and sort of definitely in terms of potential changes we might ask for focus on the empowering the dimensions of that behind the garage a minimal looking like it is not usable it opens directly into where our parking our cars and so we've had that issue with other projects and there's kind

of a health and safety issue i'm not sure what this means that space but certainly i don't know that that is possible to create enough speculation you'll have enough spaceless unless you'll continue to go into our rear yard i'm not sure that is definitely not a bedroom yeah, the bike parking seems inassessable but i don't know what the requirements are for bike parking for you guys. >> i in order to make it work in anyone's interest have 5 feet between you and taking off the bicycle otherwise your scratching our car. >> that space is not usable for bike parking. >> if i can clarify only 2 off-street parking for this project the other two, that are shown in excess of that requirement if you were to remove them from

this plan the bike parking we can approve the plans was one of the other two parking spaces it is there to accommodate up to 4 but you're right we'll want to designate theaccess. >> not like a street is stripped. >> right. >> putting in two cars can you comment on the bedroom on that first story how many building this building inspection plan can have. >> we don't have a minimum size in the building code. >> i mean for the plans what they're trying to do. >> the law out of the bedrooms i don't know it is usable as a bedroom so if he were to say you can't use it as a bedroom or otherwise change that space. >> the ability to use it as a

bedroom will be demonstrated by dbi for the building of the light assessable became. >> you, you need a vestibular can't go directly from the garage like an air up or something like that a vestibular. >> you don't on the stair connecting the floor above meets that requirement. >> you're going directly into the garage. >> i understand what you're saying and the vestibular and existing into the garage. >> i'll defer to the project sponsor on this. >> yes. 0 commissioner moore is correct we need separation smith and wesson the garage and bedroom we'll make it to add a vestibular in terms of of the size it is large it is 16 or 17 feet by 13 feet if we place the vestibular in this 3 feet by 4 feet that still functions fairly

well as a bedroom i'd like to clarify the comments related to privacy at the lightwell we should on the does the obscured glass for the 3 levels and clear glass at the fourth level so there is no our intention to not look at ms. jensen's property we recognize the fact there needs to be privacy between the two properties and again that can be made a condition in not clear but the north elevation is a hat hatching representing 9 obscure glass and the comment regarding the roof deck the lower unit has assess to the rear yard the upper unit did not 0 therefore we wanted to provide exterior space undercover officer the roof deck and they're have not

privacy concerns at that level in relation to the neighbors. >> yes. a question i have for the folks that spoke you mentioned short-term rental issue can you elaborate. >> yeah. so there have been some tenants there for about a year they've regularly been having parties and apparently having visitors guests and staying there a number of complaints that is at the point that attendance will come and let everybody this about to have a party to prepare to go away our concern that particular unit this top unit is only bedrooms but 26 hundred square feet and the roof deck that is inviting a group of people that are going to want parties and already been on behalf of noise and

disruption so that roof deck is you know seems like it will be a problem. >> i won't support the project without the roof deck. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to get back one more time to mr. hennessy with the small property owner are you visualizing o envisioning those as 6 windows your mention them to be o pack glass what are you seeing optional or not. >> there are obtaining secure glass on the elevation drawings. >> thank you. i want to comment prepared this is a multi

generational project i think that, however, when it comes to multi generational i believe they'll be sharing whatever open space on the terraces in the middle and so i think that i saw your motion to have we taking dr. >> not a discretionary but asking for a change no the vestibular and asking for the roof deck to be removed and . >> are you suggesting with the cars and the bicycles. >> excuse me - mr. lindsey

department staff they meet the bike parking socode and we can have that redrawn to show two parking spaces only. >> as long as that's understood we'll make note of that. >> second. >> thank you commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to a there is a motion that has been seconded topprove this matter with conditions as amended to add a vestibular between the bedroom and garage space as well as is removing the roof deck commissioner antonini excuse me. commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and commissioners that places us on item 1 green

centers this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening brittany of the adachi planning department staff in a rh2 at 1848 and 60 green street with a two family story building and garage located at the rear the property that is assessable from a approximately 4 foot driveway and the project proposes horizon and vertical for the existing two single-family dwelling and the detached garage the altercation proposes removal of more 50 percent of horizontal and vertical the project is tantamount to a demolition therefore the project needs a conditional use authorization

for the planning code sections the existing two family dwell is constructed in 1887 the upper market units is 200 plus and the lower units is 2000 plus gross square feet the full evictions no no-fault evictions at this property after december 10, 2013, it will result in one bedroom with one thousand plus and one four-bedroom of 6 thousand pollute goose secret and relocation off-street parking eliminating the non-conforming gorgeous garage and improving the overall mid block open space initially both to the east and west the subject property oppose

the proposal it is invading the light and air and air quality as in the revised report the neighbors are withdrawn their opposition and the department staff has no commencements and the department is recommending the approval of the proposal abused the project maximize the density and resulted in the bedrooms and the proposal bring the project into conformity the residential design guidelines that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you project sponsor 10 minutes. >> game-changer commissioners tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the project sponsor i have a few brief comments and then i'm going to turn it over to to daniel and project sponsor is here for any questions you may have as stated that is a cu before

you the project oriental as discretionary review matter i raised that because we were originally to be heard on june 2nd since that time this is now a cu we are worked diligently with the adjacent neighbors the only discretionary review people to oppose this project they support the project with a written agreement and brought those even though we presented those presented to into the record we made changes to add a bathroom to the lower units and improve the entry to the lower unit we believe this project enhances the neighborhood as described by staff and supported by the

residential design guidelines so with that, i'm going to turn it over to our architect and again, i'm available for any questions you may have we urge the commission to support this as proposed thank you afternoon commissioners i'm daniel with the architecture we are the architect of record on main subtract quickly provide some background on the dine and the interactions with the adjacent neighbors i'd like to use the octavia boulevard projector. >> could you speak into the microphone. >> thank you. >> it was our intent and the project sponsors to design to

the surrounding neighborhood and we we were looking to increase the overall performance and utilize the materials on the interior facade use alternative energy sources and we're also seeking a platinum certification as shown in the rendering the project is seek to have a cleanly design to making match the programming with highly crafted details it competence warmth with restraint we wanted the materials as calm and warm we have the stone and panels which it is shown here and there is with flats along the industry and the new garage

underneath the front bay in regard to the two scomboir units it is a two-bedroom and two became with lower ceilings and a huge step down to the family room and kitchen area with a ceiling height over 12 feet and access to the rear yard with the sliding glass doors you'll show you a rendering of this the europe unit above the upper unit is 4 bedrooms and 2 and a half baths we have a garden roof to the terrace in

the upper market level to maximize the space upper units i'll take a few minutes to talk the discussion with the adjacent neighbors there are oefrnl two discretionary reviews with the west neighbors on green street this property revised concerns into the expansion into the green street driveway space that currently exists along the western line and also to the western setback and brought up the construction on the property the rdt look at the neighbors concerns and approved this we met with them

on sight the owners of 16 street to hear them out and listen to their issues we explained the planning code in reference to the side sixth district and described the rdt sports the project as proposed we agreed to work with them during construction to strengthen their foundations so no problem cack about to their knowledge and after the meetings agreed to withdraw their options and has support for the project. >> if has has to do with with the relationship with the rear units of the building