commissioners my name is patricia i'm one of the neighbors not rights on the blocks but in the neighborhood the project sponsor was asked to take a fresh look but the design remains essentially the same the project continues to occupy the entire lot the rear yard open space really is for the benefit of all the neighbors including the ones that accompany the new building the building height should be staggered to and then the avenue this will roach 11 hundreds square feet from the project all and all the priorities to respective the neighbors quality of life i ask you not approve this project thank you.

>> good morning fs /* /- good afternoon we submitted a letter and definitely think that housing should go forward it is not that hard to comply about the 45 percent setback as in the letter this is 2007 zoning and in many ways trying to hit a home run as a single and get on base why can't property owner and neighbors work together with a 45 percent rear yard it seems like this is a big waste of time it is a waste of planning department staff time and waste of the neighbors time they can get on the on the same

page i wanted to thank planning department staff and the members of the commission that working hard it is tragic that something else has to go on and on they scant right-hand turn the four to five percent i would ask the commission to simply give the permission for the savings account and move on. >> any more speakers in support of dr requester not seeing any, project sponsor.

>> architect for the project sponsor staff gave a thorough review of all the changes restrictions we've made since you guys last saw this i'll go through the architecture briefly to show you where and why we did it in the rear yards since is last time we'll substantially changed the rear yards by moving back 5 and a half feet to code compliant 45 percent point here we have taken magnificence off the fourth floor and reduced

that by a substantial amount and rows on each and in compliance with the neighborhoods suggested to us on t on the rooftop we've gotten glass handrails their inner visual from the public right-of-way we've setback 10 feet consistently and on this side made the same kind of adjustment we've taken i think this was miss construed by the neighborhood actually, you, ask we took a certain amount and put that amount in the back it is 8 hundred and 60 feet less than what we took out here in a sense advertise it is not double dip

we're only on second base a common ground between the naebdz neighborhoods we can provide for light and air and reduce the magnificence in the front we've done it consciously throughout the with area and at the same token no damage to this side of the street by reducing the massing we think this is the good neighbor thing to side we've heard that and taken that point of view to hart we've added back in the rear yard two small cottages and we think that there is no - we understand this is in the 45 setback and no shadows and sunlight by putting that amount of massing two small

cottages in the rear yard for that reason we ask for your approval of the project. >> i'd like to talk about the elevation but i think that will come up in the questions and speakers in support of project sponsor. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners i'm nervous i'm robin a small business owner and my business is on pacific avenue two doors from the specific project the building on pacific as is stand a industrial building i supported the original project but this is a big improvement over the original one as a family man the project is offering larger sized units fit for families we have a shortage

of the type of housing we sprelt sprel need. >> any more speakers for the project sponsor dr requester a two minute no, no. >> public comment is closed. and opening up to commissioners commissioner antonini. >> i think there is a significant cut back on the massing 17 percent i can verify my records show 23, to 19775; is that correct i mean, you're taking it from the beginning rather than a point in may and saying it is overall sixth less and made in critical points you've made that along the west

side which if anything is impacted the west side of 10 feet all the way down except for the 8 feet he was there yesterday it seems like i've been at the site multiply times the sites on the roof and yesterday it was around 3 in the afternoon that alley was in the shade probably from 1 o'clock that is a narrow alley and there's a 28 foot wall if the wall is 40 feet not sixth change the amount of light in there and will actually open up to the winter months it is new july 14th to the sun is in the northern position as we get into the fall and winter months with the cut in the middle that will allow anymore light spots all over the place for a longer

period of time and in the winter months you've taken that down to the empowering as far as i know and the townhouses are only 20 feet; is that correct or less than that. >> yeah. can you come up the little place in the back the cottages how high 20 stories from grade. >> from grade. >> correct. >> your mid block space that you're creating here is at grades you said not. >> correct at the grades. >> that's a big issue it was originally one floor and we brought it down to a no floor that's a huge improvement to the west and adding spacing on the east the sun comes from the east so other than view i really don't see impacts on the mccormick side so you've done a

lot of good things the project is done good things i favor the placement of the cottages in the back rather than having them up against the building is opens up more life enrichment committee to the west that is a critical area by putting them at the a fairly short they're no higher than the building you're making the project that was non-compliant with the 45 rear yard it is a new law that passed and now you're making that less non-compliant you've dropped the height for a significant heights of thirty feet with no height at all and part that have is the small pop up for the parking for the bottom of lower floor that is essentially another open space it is such a allow pop up

i like the idea of family-sized units and contextual i'm in support of project. >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you all for thank you for your time to mediate about co-sponsor and myself and trying to you resolve some of the issues i'm sorry we didn't get closer but the way you looked at the was two ways to go at that a code compliant project you know you were demoing the massing in the front of the building similar to what we saw that was kind of listed in this or adding back some of the cottages and giving the ability to reduce

some the massing especially along larkin properties to give them more light and air so i think this is what i want to see a more clarification on i mean it is a small if i can ask you some questions about that i know in you're where you kind of lay out the areas we've looked in the past you didn't include the somewhere or did you to add no rear cottages do you have that in there. >> it would be helpful if you walk through what you're proposing now kind of floor by floor in the proposal you had that didn't include restore cottages and the differences in the project in those two scenarios. >> all right. >> i i guess that's the stock passage one of them two one that

starts with the february submission. >> i think may 10th is the one. >> may 10th you last saw walk through through may tenth and through that up and tells you where you lost the square feet not a huge loss of square footage one thousand square footage that is from the may 10th version the last time and the july 14th and well that is 8 hundred and 62 square feet is what we calculated and this mass not interior space mass like a building profile. >> the overhead. >> the tom cam. >> i don't think i have a highlighted version. >> i want to show one

comparison so this is the ground floor what you see in yellow what we took away from may 10th to today. >> all right. >> we pushed back the garage here okay. on is second story we took away the mass and created balconies. >> on the second story where does the mass come from a reduction in the back of building. >> this is where that was a deep unit we made it shallow we took approximately 12 feet. >> i don't know your highlighting it correct is that. >> yes. yes. >> this line right here is that line right there we took that out. >> okay. >> took that amount on the side out then the fourth floor we took oath approximately 12 feet so be reflected this and reflected

this and put it into two cottages those two cottages are 8 hundred to 62 feet less makings than what we took out of the building we've not double dipped we've gone the opposite we thought the greatest impact on larkin street and on the you know the mccormick and that's why in the backyard it is a better than even trade so how much square footage did you calculate you lost and how much did you add into the rear cottages. >> i never calculated that way we calculated by the gross area we had and in the may 10th. >> that's massing. >> a massing.

>> right. >> 199975 we took the difference a calculated that. >> right so a net loss of one thousand square feet but you took more off the front building. >> took more off the front and put lessen is back. >> i mean, i to me i thoughts that was a better solution for the neighbors then to kind of make less than significant changes to the upper floors and tweak them how many units were in that may 10th version. >> they were both 9 units. >> the two units in the back and 9 in the front. >> you know the questions remain whether enough was removed from the front building to justify the addition of the cottages in

the back. >> in. >> the rational if i may say we know that massing in the middle building would have done damage for the light and air on mccormick the neighbors clearly told us we had to take it there i don't think a case is made alignment to larkin and mccormick is created the problem has created with those two cottages i don't hear that and common sense no she'd and light and air of the cottages. >> i continue to have problems with the parking design choices here and you know the bum out i guess that's 12 feet beyond a doubt the parking that bumps out

is that 12 feet. >> beyond the 45 percent line correct. >> what about removing that. >> and having that setback i mean in the back you do have this i think you're a over and condition to kind of i guess the tendency to deck every space mr. wentz slow you sent out by removing that or minimizing that bump outs on the first story way yes wentz slow architect we had to insistence meeting with you and commissioner mooyo.

>> it was basically a choice we the prefer as closed to a code compliant rear yard as possible with that said about o what with boiled down to the cottage massing or is 12 foot bump out on the ground floor that was programmed for parking exclusively in the spirit of trying to arrive at a solution not too much damage to the project sponsor we devised a dr. murase and parking to be retained while accomplishing the 45 percent or so maybe 35 percent of rear yard open to the

sky and thought that was a demonstration how to solve to the satisfaction i think satisfaction of a reasonable compromise not everybody gets exactly what they want but this is the outcome of some of the two parties at the meeting those two meetings so the way it works was that the parking will come in from the streets introduce a passageway and exits the building using the rear yards to tuck in the parking under the building envelope i don't know if this diagram is ready it happens to have - the point being it could be the rear yard you're asking for a evaporates of the cottages in the rear yards parking assess using it will be a variance but an improvement on what the current proposal and given the number of parking spaces number

of times the car travesties that portion of the required rear yard is negotiable. >> we have the overhead the sophisticated diagram might help to demonstrate the concept so the current line of the 12 foot ground floor bump out by removing this thing area the parking was proposed at the first story and allowing this to be open but you know usable to tuck in the parking right here and relatively sufficient

approximate of a four rear yards this is a potential solution and provided that to the sponsor as a means of showing i think that both sides can probably have what belongs with a reasonable solution. >> okay. thank you. >> ms. walling ton you can comment. >> first of all, there's such a thing as a building code to have a garage separated one thing, and, secondly, we have to have a required exit out of back of the building down to grade and into the second exits for the building and we can't drop it into the parking lot and third you know the amenity value someone in the neighborhoods you want rear yard but look at a parking lot it as bizarre

solution and second and fourthly the only 3 cars i don't know doesn't make sense sometimes you try for a solution and that's what happened. >> do you have other thoughts it is has a design decision you know what is happening a way to get more of that rear yard and reduce that 12 foot bump out on the ground floor. >> if we reduce is bump out

this is our garage right now if he reduces the bumper out we'll have no parking no room for parking maybe two cars sideways and it would be a non-starter for us a non-starter. >> i know the issue of underground parking comes up if you dig underground parking you might as well take down the building it is a non-starter you start over again and the pardprr is for the prepared to sided that. >> i think so the conundrum of the decks if you remove the living space you have decks and decks. >> not necessarily the case on

the roof >> on the roof. >> there's two private decks and a common deck but those that we reduced massing we reduced the deck. >> there are two stair houses and a deck is a lot for building a 7 unit building. >> yes. >> if i can make one comment if you look at the concern of the deck the concern that you have perhaps the use of deck and spilling into the neighbors and profess and noise issues things like that if i look at any typical residential context with 25 wide lots we're talking about sshlts if the side and 3 and 5

feet we typically do here if you look at a project every single project in the rear is setback by 10 feet some are set back up to 18 feet you'll not get that in any context we feel their significantly setback and we want to provide open space for those units and make them liveable where we starts it was larger when you guys saw this in february now, one 3rd of rooftop area. >> is interest an built a requirement maybe that is for staff to comment on the st. patrick can those limited total private roof decks and reduce is penthouses. >> corey teague assistants

zoning administrator it requires a certain amount of usable open space it allows this open space to be private or common or a combination so the code didn't dictate that has ton common the flexibility is provided for each individual project. >> given the amount of open space are the decks on the top floor or common open space. >> it is complex if those are private decks and helped for the open space if you reduce those to the point they don't fulfill the time requirement of open space you have to turn to the open space and make sure you have another common open space meets the reminders for the units as well as any other units for that open space it is a domino effect moving around the

common space no requirement them to be there but provide a certain amount of open space. >> perhaps i can answer 9 units so if we have private open space one square feet and common one and 33 per units so 9 units 5 of these have private open spaces so their decks and terraces satisfy the open space and 5 requirements no open space so they therefore have one and 33 which is what we have rooftop. >> some are for the rear cottages that's the math. >> my question could it be limited on the roof deck. >> i think we need it we don't center enough common open space on the ground floor. >> i mean can you make it

smaller perhaps but. >> some of the problem with the amount of you know stair assess elevators access to get there. >> actually, if you look at the rooftop we have so we have two common stakes on each see those are commonplace they have to be there so those will be there and to privateers at the rooftop no private assess they used to have penthouse we reduced them. >> but they can be access to those and . >> they don't have that anymore they assess it says that from the two common staircases. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to just remind the public that the commission took this project back to the planning commission where the architect of the department were

basically the primary negotiation oversees of changes we were i'm sorry commissioner hillis were witnessing and participating in february and common there was a large number of points of discussion the problem which stops this from moving forward it identical to what is today and the project discussions failed was the two challenges of creative ideas to go back to zero who is defending and taken the approach to a project which stops all expectations and frequent notions didn't make it a discussion of even trade that's what creates the project today,

the use of word even trade i gave here and take her now completely misses the points of the challenges by which the commission pushed the project the project is not an adapt active reuse a new project and circumstance where we have the ideas of compliant open space a 45 percent a key issue not about light and issue and sun and this and that it was about relieving an inappropriate land use beyond the lifespan and reinventing the neighborhoods with a taller building and more units in a manner that it works for each other not about 7 foot tier or reducing or tucking not buzz any of that and no really exchange

of give and take as far as i'm concerned, and let me make a couple of comments here the real issue the real challenge of the commission to deal with the required code compliant open space site is large a building on the site that is fair larger than anything around it that's fine that's a question how you do it and when it came to an idea which in the beginning sounded really like fun to explore the ideas of small cottages in the rear yard would soon become out of this cottages a second story right now house attached housing looks like an apartment building not about this but we know enough neighborhoods in san

francisco for small cottages are exactly what they're describing they were supposed to be a green gasped not supposed to be access to provide what is now only a 28 percent rear yard because the telephone bump out makes the remaining open space which is supposed to be 45 percent really actually, only 28 percent we will only have to cottages in the rear garden by the terrace and scrape 28 percent open space a building with a bump out but no congress we'll go to 34 percent through all the ideas except when one idea came up and it was posed as an alternative

the next time all around the things you tried to modify we're basically at this moments looking at a project aside from others points it can be improved that only delivers 28 percent rear yards that as far as i'm concerned, did not meet any thoughts objectives by which we took on the dilate title of the department and our own to modify the into a more amenable and comfortable configuration that meets the rest of the neighborhood we're back at square one and i'm disappointed it is both within the earth and the developers ability to come up with a project where you have all of your cakes and has to be

a different approach to the building and comfortable otherwise that didn't mean everyone gets everything but it is about an even trade. >> y59 support it the way it is. >> commissioner t commissione >> this bump out is only a floor very low so that was two floors to that bump out brought that down a floor and the open level a gain of that really is a gain of open space even though i think that is much better the parking be underneath rather than the concept i think mr. wince slow makes that closes

open parking people don't want to see the cars it is better to be hidden to the extent it you still have the spaces above a terrace and act as open space so it is a big improvements now i'd like to see if we can cut the decks to a minimum so less talk about i was about to make a motion maybe hear from the zoning administrator but ever we can eliminate of those decks that would be helpful on the upper floor there my motion might be that we take the dr with modifications approval the project but remove decks to an is top of roof down to the level that we need more the open space requirement. >> i think that will be a

motion if we can make it we don't have a definite number but can can be determined after the fact. >> i don't hear a second. >> maybe i should repeat it what we're doing taking dr approving the project as modified by staff, cutting back the decks on the roof to a level to the absolute minimum that makes the project compliance with open space requirements. >> the decks on the roof. >> yes. >> and what about. >> the top area commissioner hillis was talking about the public and private. >> on the top section he suggested can be cut back i'm trying to cut back to the extents there as small as

possible. >> if i can make sure i'm understanding a question how much of the roof deck is needed your potentially saying cut them back to the point their neatest. >> that's. >> leaving them equal on the sides. >> yes. that's my >> yeah. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> okay so it is interesting i was unaware we got package a may 10th revision i want to ask mr. winslowinslow. >> how much give and take i

see a lot of suggestions made in the packet but i'm not sure a lot of them got incorporated what is your opinion here. >> i'm hesitating i don't want to prejudice your deliberations she put it strongly but an intense negotiated negotiation it didn't seem to result in either embrace or result in a collaborative result. >> in my opinion only in my opinion. >> thank you it is got to be one or the other i kibitzing we roach the bumper out with the egress kind of

weird you said bizarre i get it and the february version and this version i i know the cottages were cut back somewhat, but the open space issue i want to make sure that the rear yards actually is not sitting on the slab but on the soil and we got the aggressive kind of roof deck and penthouses the one of those plays into the other the cottages with the. >> (speaking chinese.) and the roof deck and a domino effect so my take will be i think we should remove the units from the back and leave the bumper out and probably can leave some of the aggressiveness on all the decks i will be supportive of that and i think we have to do something with the decks on the roof if not much more we got to where we are.

>> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner antonini let's make a motion to take dr as modified remove the cottages from the rear and scale back the decks to make them the you aren't decks to be as compliance and making sure that has near as postage that entire rear yard is a grade so that should produce an open space in the back. >> that's my motion. >> we're getting closer. >> commissioner hillis. >> so here's my issue with that this is i feel you know act in good faith it was i think what we're doing i've suggested

you you mention reduce i think the problem we everything kicked off do we want to rear units or not you know the reason for the rear units will be that massing was reduced on the front of building to whom i think has been most impact on larkin and the people on mccormick have light and air coming from the rear of the building like the reduction of fourth floor and the reduction of second story to do that from the may 10th version was good you know, i think it was effective so i don't think i can support that we'll take all the reductions on the front of the building but no rear addition and to me as project sponsor

acted in good faith to reduce that massing maybe not enough we can request additional massing i'm supportive of eliminating the common open space on the top assessing the private open spaces by a hatch and eliminating all that i think you don't need the stair penthouses and the elevators on the top floor this is a what i suggest for the decks that helps on mccormick as well as on larkin you'll have internal stairs up to the private open space for two units and you eliminates stair penthouses and elevators penthouses if it is dooblg zoning administrator you're not having common open space there. >> commissioners, if i follow the exact question. >> so if we took dr as part of

whatever motion eliminate the common open space on the top as well as the stair penthouses and the elevator penthouses and keep the private open space on the front of building that will be assessed from the internal stairs roof hatch is that something that is code compliant? >> i can't say if doing that removing the common deck and just keeping the private space i don't know the exact calculation they have right now it is possible if you wanted to - if the issue i'm not sure it is common versus deck. >> you can keep flexible and is remove the existing common deck and only keep what is showing now the two private decks and not testify whether

that is one common deck. >> are you introducing is common deck. >> yes. it sounds like the issues are the overall amount of decking on the roof a that's the issue you may not- that will give that more flexibility. >> but you bring back the common you brepg back the penthouse. >> if we have common area on the roof we need accessibility we have an elevator we have elevators we need a stair and that's the building code that's the building code. >> right. >> if you have too much open space we'll need two stairs maybe just an common stair and elevator we're not playing with a lot of pieces. >> i'm saying if you removed all the common area and have the

open space eliminating two penthouses. >> if you have no common open space correct. >> we need to make sure bans the common plans to address common space on the project maybe it has been reduced they'll have to meet the open space requirement and right. >> commissioner moore. >> i think that is very difficult even the cycles we've gotten to redesign this frontage in words i'd like to look at alternatives of the roof deck decks being modified the real issue is really the ground floor the rear yards 4 percent and the eliminations of cottages not

for all intents and purposes and all the roofs and others levels together with a reasonable design non-cottage rear yard where the challenges are to make this a good project and no place else nostril simply while i like that idea has to work in sequester with a large number of rooms i know that unfortunate the hard way none of the discussion we had resulted in responses which the larger group of people that participated in the design reviews guaranteeing we've hit the nail on the head we'll not be discussing this but guarantee we made a home run and others projects we're doing this just not this one that project

needs other tough design in order to come forward i believe this can be done in a few weeks but i'm not prepared to just have words by which we're not knowing what exactly they're asking for the department knows well commissioner vice president richards. >> i don't know if i could sit to another one of 80s to be honest. >> i know you guys have more meetings i think the sitting here with 5 of us not coming to a decision maybe wait for at that time, other commissioners to come back or take a quick break and - so great perfect so we want to have a full

commission on that i think that will be a combination of all things i guess the dr requester can you come up so question i have mr. small said there's no aside from the open space requirements no harm with the structures in the back their top of the list waits the issue the bake. >> it's the overall entire lot is being used the intention for the new zone to open up the entire perpetrators of that block would enjoy a rear yard we even have pictures looking at

google map fraction what a great amenities for the block in green space in the neighborhoods so when we passe the legislation and i like if i may keep in mind it was over 4 hundred households that supported that 45 percent rear yard it is central to the pacific avenue ncd that was what it is all about to create rear yards and there are so many substandard rear yards they benefit from the open space all of them. >> where the 12 foot bump out is concerned the it is such an innovation of privacy not there initially it is looking right

into my bedroom window. >> looking right down and it looks out all of that looks out to the permanent properties they look at life-saving properties family one other thing over the course of the few months we've been meeting in small groups we've introduced over 22 neighbors that are immediately adjacent to see this property and we've introduced we think very strongly o strong argument why this project should have a fresh look and the last commission meeting the commission asked did pertaining to take a fresh look i know you don't want to sit here and looking at another design we're not asking you to do that

but asking this building is not the appropriate building for this location is just isn't. >> commissioner to quickly answer a question that was raised the math is good but just looking at this back portion in the current design on the map the project is roughly 60 feet wide and 20 times 29, 75 and 1785 the required open space for 9 units turned into the 1133 there's even you can get getting into the weeds of every single deck assuming i did my math correctly. >> thank you

another thing that strikes me mr. small 9 parking spaces 10. >> now 7. >> 7 so one for the commercial is that riders. >> not required. >> so still 9 units with 7 parking spaces we sat here introduce the san bruno with the parking concerns from the neighbors and approved because of this parking space i look at this dense neighborhoods i come back to well the parking is designing the building we want to bump out and enough spaces two or three spaces is a non-starter to parking what would you pick. >> i can't speak for the project sponsor when you don't family-sized units with no parking we've reduced it now from the to 7 and we're in that

12 foot permitted bump out, if you will, permitted bump out i want to conceptualize this there is a lot of characterization of the fact we didn't listen i just to be clear we're listening are hard when you take and cuts all that we've taken out of the front building, if you will, by doing that we create terraces and those terraces now are our enemy from the point of view of the neighbors now a profess issue when we filled that up green before you saw this in the may 10th hearing we had the bulk of all the buildings in the front building and nothing in the back here's the opposite i don't have alignment on mccormick and larkin street we can't satisfy the neighbors either way i conceptualize we

took the massing off the building in the form of two small cottages the remaining conceptually the rear yards is not only at grades in at grades but is terraces this is the rear yard, too, and is concern of the rear yard not that it is a terrace or not usable it is privacy and then you know we're in a catch-22 can't make that one way or another so solve it by taking out the cottages nostril double or single dipping we 50 we donna could put a code compliant that building and put 9 units we had that close design on may 10th and nobody liked it you said back to the drawing

board we're trying to balance we're trying to balance i have not heard any dmoigsz the neighbors as far no concessions this is what sticks in our crown everyone of the 38 and lovingly properties i'll characterize overwhelmed is non-code compliant and enjoyed being a bigger lot force us to say all we want to see ever do it be good neighbors to reduce us to a very small single dip not even a single dip by savings account we have no room to move this is not a open space but a fairness this is the question.

>> one more question i'm sorry dr requesters. >> were they closer on that may 10th version is that i mean you've are heard mr. small say it is a bulk and mass what about is may 10th. >> it was a work in progress but in the right direction. >> what do you need to make that. >> we proposed to move overseeing rear units into the main building without enlarging that. >> is that possible. >> based on our consultants arch the may 10th. >> the rear units from the back of properties were essentially moved up so still in

the 45. >> i don't remember but certainly a step in the right direction we felt moving into the meetings we've been referring to we would take a few steps i don't understand that. >> i mean i'm not the going to make a motion but ask my fellow commissioners question go back to the may 10th seems like the best starting point we start there and not reduce the programming and not single or double dip whatever and starts on the may 10th version and start from there, i hope we can do. >> commissioner antonini. >> in the right direction i think the cottages in the back or the better solution we need to keep the cottages and don't

want to, you know, cuts out more of the square footage from the existing 7 units we'll end up with smaller unit the point to create family-sized units many are 3s and 2s we make them smaller and smaller will be like every dingy units those are single-family units i rather see them eliminated than take up space from others units one possibility to move the cottages if the commissioners feel it is better in the position of may 10th and eliminate all the decks space off the top floor except for private space will be amenable open by hatch i think if it worked out we've got a

possibility sir, can you ask you you've drawn that up is that a possibility to move those units slide them into the back the open space from the rear to where those cottages are as we had before. >> i'm sorry. i'm a little bit take the cottages and metal it into the form of the i mean put it on the terraces. >> yeah. where the terraces are or they probably be either on the terraces or beyond the terraces i'm trying to remember. >> the two stepping areas we picked out here i mean guess second story and 40 floor if we filed that in essentially what we had on

may 10th that's reasonable a 9 united building if we fill those in again, a. >> i'm sorry can you repeat that. >> go i'm asking the dr requester and if you put up the side by side again on the overhead the last page. >> the comparison. >> this one here. >> i don't mean a to interrupts if you took our july 14th version and shifted that the may 10th i guess my question the may taken or 10 was that code compliant. >> no, that was at 35 percent not 45 but 34 percent.

>> on the second story did you need a variance for that on the second story or for the first story you can go take the may 10th and religious the parking on july 10th with no - is that a code compliant project. >> with the 12 foot bump out we could make that work. >> but on the second story you. >> if i can jump in my recollection the may 10th was slightly 45 percent. >> the problem where a 12 percent pop up if you want it in the property lines you have to have a 5 floor pop up so

technically speaking the second story in the may 10th version was not code compliant at the second story but fairly close i don't remember the exact numbers. >> if we essentially used go to the overheads please. we essentially used this that goes to this line that's 9 units in the front building and reduced the garage through a bump out of 12 feet bump finding out we'll get 7 cars in there we can live with that. >> i guess commissioner moore

is next. >> commissioner moore. >> while i believe that looking at the may version at a starting point to modify other important points i don't believe this commission has the ability to formulate exact objectives and ideas but should shape the project and given that architecture i strongly urge this commission forward the project to the care of those to addition from the planning department who work carefully and guided and respondent to meeting concerns and holds it open for both parties to stay in the dialogue yoblg this commission has the responsibility and given we're

lost at two intense meeting he urge you to give it to the departments to work with mr. small and the applicant and come up with a solution that meets the objectives of the interpretation of the codes and from the dr applicants as well as from the commissioners that participated i'll ask we don't at that particular time but up to the time u puts it into their say hands i'm confident they can. >> commissioner hillis. >> i mean you know i'm happy to extend more time i think the may 10th version causes problems and commissioner moore you sat through the same meetings as well as the previous commission meeting on may 10th we have problems with the may 10th that was more code compliant and i think that is the problem maybe we can ask i on the problem we

asked you about the may 10th and prefer the may 10th version but with radical changes so let me ask you this some questions on the may 10th version. >> you know what do you want to see in my opinion and i don't think there is a ton of people from larkin the improvements from the july 10th version was not that it can't be changed you have a sixth amount of massing in the may 10th version and opposite side on the side to provide loyalty to you and your neighbors on mccormick and those on larkin if we went back to the may 10th certainly that first story can be setback currently in the july 14th version and

what else would you look for on the may 10th version august yes, sir. we were hoping to have those two rear units be incorporated within building it itself other than being attached to the rear of the front building so in terms of there was a shifts is instead of being at the rear property line it shifted to be and rear of the fronts property which already had a massing a footprint, if you will, that overwhelms the neighborhood and if i may. >> i don't think i follow that. >> okay. >> which two units. >> the two rear units that are currently at the rear property line now were attached. >> excuse me - in the july 14th version august oh, yeah. >> they were attached to the

back of the front building. >> so their moved from the rear propelling as they are now to the back of the fronts building which increased the mass of that entire front building. >> right. >>; right? so our consultant has suggested that those to units could be incorporated into the building as it is now with the two units you know as a looks now taking up the parking or separate the parking those two units will have rear facing windows or just eliminate the parking and have the units not that i'm aware there i like the i'm not in a place to redesign. >> we need thoughts because i think we've been in a bit of a loop i don't think i've heard

that suggestion i at one of the hearings to put those on the ground floor in the back i'm not sure that works you have to start from the may 10th version and when the may 10th version has a significance massing you know get rid of the see sideably you'll have macon is upper floors in the current version. >> skemg for interrupting you i'm sorry that's why i feel that commissioner moore has it right we're trying to chip and move around the units it needs a fresh look. >> i mean, we keep on saying that but didn't mean you, you know to move piece all around to make the, look better or reduce

the massing i have and the neighbors have asked for more relief from the entire structure occupying this lot. >> right but so, i mean the ideas we've so forth and so forth in the group meeting the smaller group meetings the project sponsors architect said what have the neighbors given up as of now we've give up everything because only one thing we can identify is the additional 5 foot setbacks from the west side of the property i don't know anything else. >> but to be fair to the project sponsors there was a sixth reduction on the second story i i get it this was an challenge for unions in those two comps in the rear but

reduction on the 1 or and second story to give relief to those on mccormick and larkin street. >> the footprints the same it is still the same foot it might take away square footage here nor there but looking at an aerial view in every picture it is still the same footprint for the entire lot if we look at the may 10th design it give us the will rear yard but give us so many massing in the fronts that overwhelmss us i'm asking you how not a balance there cannot be done with this design unless

our absorb the two units into the exist building or the building that you see today. >> i think that is i mean i don't want to propose something but somehow absorb the space you have to. >> you can make smaller units and reduce the size of the units fewer units and that was proposed not proposed but we maids a lot of suggestions none of which have been there's none that except for that the setback i agree with you. >> i think everything will come with good faith and make suggestions it is easy to poke holes and continue to poke holes with impacts but i think that you know the july 14th version mitigate some of the impacts of the may 10th version and creates some more but i think there is a

trade off you know you're going to have a building there with the unit it will be sixth in have impacts which we're trying to grapple with the impacts but to me was better put on the backs of those units now we're hearing otherwise start on the may 10th version and shift overseeing for is the folks on larkin street. >> you on mccormick street i get it eave heard i understand and . >> we acknowledge the rear units have been reduced in size but their 20 foot tall and they still impact with them coming over the new neighbor friendly

fence believe the architect has identified in the new design that there is going to be walls coming down the 20 foot wall and a neighbor friendly fence so, now we're going to have those roofs coming up that are going to be right at the back window of mccormick street neighbors and larkin norm received a letter from one of the larkin street neighbors i'm sorry you know it may appear we're not trying but all along we've said about it is the entire footprint of the project it was suggested like a cruise ship i think that is gotten lost it is still looking at a cruise ship to me i'm sorry, i want it to work i

don't want to come back i don't think any of us don't commissioners with all due respect we've come up with don't suggestions and commissioner antonini i'm not sure we're getting anywhere i want to ask corey teague for some thought to help us all i wanted to ask the architect for clarification relevant to the prior discussion there was discussion how exactly with the original proposal with the rear cottages was incorporated for the may version and it appears to me that the units with second story and three story that in the current version two-story units. >> correct. >> but way the incorporated the rear cottage into the front of the building the may 10th proposal was making those into 4

flats. >> yes. >> cutting them in half and splitting those units from two to four i want to clarify in terms of incorporating those. >> there were 9 units in this plan and 9 units in that plan. >> essentially that was how it was achieved was a basically taking two larger units i think there was three bedrooms units and to clarify the may 10th and july 10th those are incorporated and clear on how we may want that to happen now. >> okay commissioner antonini. >> well, i think that project sponsor in done a wonderful job a lot more light and air on both sides mccormick and to get

larkin properties we're involved that that ambition how much rear yard but one suggestion made by the dr requester that might be a possibility to take those little cottages to one story that is 10 foot tall and leave them in the snapshot they'll be lower in height and therefore have a lower rear yard by two floors for most of rear yard and one floor for the rear part of yard i'm going to make a motion to see that we approve the project as modified reducing the height of the cottages by probably whatever we need to bring it down to 10 feet so they'll not exceeds 10 feet above grade and also eliminate any common decks

on the upper part of the roof, and on this have hatches for the private decks that would be up there and that will be the motion. >> can you repeat that. >> i'll go over it we've taking a floor over the cottages making them first story and more light and air for larkin street and less to look for the mccormick and eliminating the common decks on the upper part but leaving the hatches and private decks and you know that would basically would include all the moichgs as part of the cutbacks that the sponsor made. >> on the fourth floor. their looementsd except for hatches to service the private

decks as needed to satisfy the open space. >> and maybe less than that if mr. teague one the dr requesters said you can satisfy with the backyard i'm not sure that's true would you tell us cottages if their cottages you wouldn't be able to do. >> with the cottages it maybe possible but not having that analysis. >> the other part of my motion will be project sponsor continues to work with staff and staff architects to minimize the deck whatever possible to keep it still compliant with open space and everything else stays the way it is. >> okay. >> can i just make one suggestion commissioner. >> don't use the word hatches those don't work the codes allows for a 4 foot projection

if we put on internal stair through among exterior stalker that has handrails we can make that work i don't want to be constrained to hatches not a good thing and the pull down not the same thing we'll have a minimal impact on the roof. >> eliminate the common space probably fine in my motion to eliminate any as many of the structures on the top of the roof as possible to make it as less intrusive as possible that's pretty much it. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i believe there is a question of clarification here there is required open space and there's a 45 percent rear yard

and that is not analysis is reduction of the cottage to 10 feet requires a comment but is architects whether or not that leaves them with a liveable units you have a small would you come up and explain what type of units you have in mind. >> the units the footprint is 34 hundred square feet times 28 hundred square feet if we took to one floor it will be a really little cottage really little 4 hundred square feet. >> i'm calling you to the microphone to answer that question you've heard a motion to solve the issue by reducing the height of the two-story units subordinate a first story and has to be a viable units in

order for you pending the time and money besides the fact we'll have a major variance is rear yards is reduced to 28 percent the way the project is modify it leaves is rear yard at the 28 percent your potentially agreeing i find that is problematic because the 28 percent rear yard as response to what the code requires is not quite enough for me on the other hand, i believe that there is so many variables that are not addressed because between may and jill there are big jimgz in terms of how to move this and that i i'm not sure what we like and where we're drifting back to in may the terraces were in line with

the units and instead of spilling out to both sides it was a very important point to create further separation between the neighbors privacy we're looking at apples and oranges mr. small if you have an answer. >> the project sponsor would have a preference that will addresses commissioner moore's concern if he were able to gets 9 units in the front building and nothing in the rear yards and we could have the 12 foot's bump out so we preserve 7 cars we can set back on mccormick and larkin street side and will finds that a reasonable solution. >> mr. winslow help me and

interpret what mr. as small as said can you perhaps draw that for me (laughter). >> i'm not sure i'm up to that task. >> you are an architect and and design this on the fly. >> do you need a better pen. >> i'll talk after i draw we are eliminating the cottage keeping the 12 footed bump out

the ground floor for the preacher preservation of parishes and are we assuming the bum out to second story. >> one. >> one story. >> that's the bumpebump out. >> the first floor includes let's assuming the 45 percent rear yard line with a 12 percent bump out the second story bump out will be setback from the side lot line the side yards

they've shown a minimum of 5 feet the third and fourth floor are on the july. >> how far. >> this will be. >> the building. >> so in terms of that's ab associating the two. >> the proposal that the 12 quote/unquote 12 foot extension beyond the required rear yard all 4 floors. >> that's why i was not up to the - >> okay. so on 3 and 4, 45. >> right the 12 foot bump out. >> i believe the second story - >> the 5 foot setback right so

let's - >> got it. >> can you explain that again. >> did you have a roof plan of that version. >> you only have a deck on the second story. >> do the motion. >> just a minute using the drawing. >> that is the current roof plan. >> we'll have to check on the roof plan commissioner whether need an elevator for the common open space if no campaign open space we'll have a rear yards they need accessibility and introduce a lift and all that stuff but probably do that.

>> you'll have the elevator override but not a exiting floor given the number of units autopsy a bum up for the elevator one way or another. >> could you go down to the terrace for the side wall units. >> this is the current second floor with the 12 foot bump out at the second story outs to here to endanger those two units and they'll not be townhouses but flats two flats and you'll have to see how to make that work and like to make that a two bedroom so we'll work on this side essentially that will be filled in. >> when you say that you need

to work on the size i think what is important to us that the sculpting of the building on the east side as well as on the west side has enough interest and enough setbacks for unaccompanied roof areas ♪ configuration i don't want to see the building drifts in a direction in the rear >> that's fair, i think i know. >> can you continue, please. >> three story had been setback to be this line. >> so could you point the screen came up to me. >> third and fourth floor to that line the 5 foot line. >> all are a deck. >> actually no farther back i -

>> this is the okay wait a minute too much screens. >> the 45 foot line this is the 45 foot line at three and four. >> so it won't come forward. >> i'm sorry. >> you'll stay with on the percent rear yard requirement for the third and fourth floor. >> correct. >> correct. >> i don't think that line will come forward it will probably stay where it is. >> 45 percent rear yard. >> on the thirds and four story. >> correct.

>> i have a issue which i like to throw out the rear yards and it's cottages now reduced two smaller units is for me a rear yard that is treated like a garden rather than a paved and fenceed in area that is really having cottages and it is common a certain amount of feeling of ownership the delineation by the paftsd terraces and the green areas didn't express on idea of what garden means here in the city i will prefer to see less fencing and less escaping but more of an informal green area

to dlaentdz not contributor a privacy screen i find that very much not in keeping with the escape there can be planters you're on your see we know that an prelims of privacy but having an 8 food for thought fence is not good they have a visible impact because of a high fence that is typically between properties but not on roof decks. >> just for the record on 6 feet and we've done it on many, many projects that seems fine.

>> maybe i read your drawing our central diversified a 8 foot. >> i'll correct the record it should be 6. >> that can be resolved in a landscaping way in a softer way that really enhance the view shed of people that are looking and create a softness commissioner johnson. >> no. >> commissioner johnson did you okay commissioner vice president richards. >> okay i'd like to make a motion. >> we have a motion. >> i'll have to rescind i'm willing to rescind my motion and make a motion or. >> you can make that. >> i understand substitute motion

what's happening is the two rear units are eliminated or moved into the building mass itself in the following way we're respectfully the 45 percent rear yard with the exemption of two floor pop up that occurs in the behind the massing of the upper floors and then floors 3 and 34 project back slightly to the 45 percent rear yard drawing and those units will be incorporated into the mass of the building the massing on the side is remaining as modified and the area in the back absent the pop up area will be a green area and grade and garden type of area so that will be my motion. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i asked that somebody else speaks the motion into the

record there are too many variables and dwooch uncertainty this instruction will be taken by someone that didn't speak to the preciselyness by which the gentleman agent to certain administrations i've asked mr. winslow or jocelyn to help us in a manner that has earth standards a if i may commissioner moore if i heard commissioner antonini xreblg we eliminated the rear cottages and requiring. >> we didn't eliminate. >> yes. we did. >> that was my motion. >> if i heard commissioner antonini we're requiring a 35 percent lovely left and allowing the pop up of the second story period. >> and all the other administrations with the side setbacks remain in place and the area in the back will be

landscaped and the units will be included the eliminating garden units we'll still ends up with the units as part of massing allowed. >> can i try to summarize the things missed point that out is absent of a hybrid the pop up is 12 foot from property line to property line at ground floor and the setbacks on the 72 hour the results of discussion i think through the motioned that want to be catered forward with the miniaturization we have a more harmonious rairmd with the roof decks at the top roof is that included. >> that's included i neglected to include that the miniaturization of roof decks with the kevin the amount of open space that is required by the project and some discussion

points about the more modern of feet. >> mr. teague. >> i don't want to harp on the roof decks but the way the motion was read if we rove the rear yard cottages and really open up the rear yards as one large common open space my strong guess is that the roof decks will not be riders for the project if we tie that if the intent to reduce them they don't needs penthouses ii want it clarification. >> my motion to reduce them to the extents if they don't need the houses and probably keeping private if they're on the top we eliminate the needs for the

elevator. >> certainly cognizant of what the architect said about the possibility of a 4 foot's entrance baggage to those areas they are allowed. >> to be honest we'd like some roof deck terrace of some sorts. >> i would prefer if it was not written if we have that in the rear yard. >> the motion my understanding is simply eliminate the roof deck penthouses their minimal penthouses. >> penthouses being projection. >> of the roof deck or full penthouses. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> at one point i remember commissioner hillis speaking about to eliminate the common

portion of the fourth floor roof deck only to leave it to private parties; is that correct interpretation of what you said earlier. >> correct. >> is that part of motion now or have we gotten back to the previous idea based on what was just said. >> they'll have to be private their common they require - >> they will be. >> require an elevator. >> okay their private the other point i think that mr. as small as agreed to that the staying in the east west sculpting of the buildings. >> that's part of my motion. >> >> need to find that. >> what do you mean by that. >> the current proposal an east west sculpting acceptable

and by now removing the units back in we don't want to drift back out again with the mid drift. >> part of motion to keep the same footprint. >> the project is modify by staff with the following changes and the changes we talked about the eliminating the cottages two floor pop up and the addition of space on the third and fourth floor to the 45 rear yard property line shall i call the question? my head hurts the motion there is a motion that has been seconded to take the project as modifications with the following conditions to eliminate the rear cottages to provide a 45 percent rear yards on the thirds and fourth level allow a pop up on

is first story side property line and a second level pop up out with setbacks eliminate the full sized penthouses and 5 perimeters fencing should be limited to 6 feet. >> on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> okay. >> next speaker, please last item please. commissioners, that places you on item 18 was continues so we're on item 19 for case fulsome street that is a discretionary review.

>> good afternoon commissioner president fong. >> sexual the variance back to the variance. >> i'll close the variance hearing and grants it with conditions. >> thank you through the chair. >> doug the item before you is a request for discretionary review of the building permit application to constrict a 65 foot tall 6 floor building at the ground floor of the new building will included 6 hundred and 63 square feet of commercial at a storefront on fulsome and

demeanor write i didn't and 5 occupies rooms and sros independently a total of four tourists hotel rooms on the fourth and fifth floors go approximately private usable space will be provided on the second and fist floors and common open space on the 6 floor the project will provide 55 off-street parking and 7 bicycle parking spaces that is located other than see western ends of the transit in the western soma and so you weren't by a mix of retail and light supervisorial uses within a residential enclave for residentials use are not permit the dr requester

represent the san franciscans for reasonable growth and sros that be used as trientsz hotel rooms the sponsor is abusing the development controls for the sro dwelling units for the reduction of units by 2/3rd's not providing for commercial space instead of residential uses within a residential districts the dr requester has not addressed the concerns since the reports was published the departments has two additional levels of support from the fulsome organization and walk sf and a telephone for the property owner also supporting the project the department recommends that the commission not take discretionary review the development complies that the developments controls of the planning code the department didn't have any information to say indicate the sro dwelling

units public school operated as hotel rooms as the 4 rooms are continued for hosts to have short time girlfriends due to the limited size as permit in the planning code the project sponsor is seeking a modification of the rear yard requirement by providing a compatible use of open space for 13 individual units and two decks on the 6 floor of the building for the remainders of the units they'll be more assessable to the residents the zoning administrator will consider this separately at another meeting that is immediately adjacent to the enclave where only units are for the street the dwelling unit better responds to the character the street and the urban design advisory team say their consistent with the design

policies and guidelines of the western soma guide plan and they've determined the proposed design will enhance and have a clearing defined passages that are appropriate and compatible that the buildings and uses in this neighborhoods at the fulsome street that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay dr requester please. >> can i have the overhead.

>> sue hester separated controls for residential hotels sros and dwelling units this project is a mix of them it is 53 room sro using the controls if our in the planning code area in their but not quite what is a told her for a resident managers units the planning code should know this by heart this is no resident in the resident manager onsite and so it begs the question one the questions immediately is how are the hotel rooms meshed and the communities who makes the

decision someone mass to manage the space how is it managed the second question that really why are the hotel rooms there when the pb a the planning department correctly said those hotel rooms don't have exposure not meeting the requirements for dwelling units to those rooms this is one of the enforce they can't say be used if anything as a dwelling unit or an sro so those don't meet exposure reminders that's why their 4 hotel rooms and this is an area were there has been a surplus of attention from short-term rentals. >> the second thing that too bad corey left he was in the

conversation long conversations with the zoning administrator about what is necessary for an sro and the first thing that sros deal with the they have reduced open space requirements they have massing requirements with house close to the next building is different and what do you have to do you can't have a full kitchen you can't have an oven we have discussion back and forth between me and say zoning administrator and the gentleman and so what happened on the plans that were submitted those are the plans that were submitted on for our review not the plans i filed what you have an oven and an oven and burdens

define an sro or not sro when i see those plans i say, huh? what is the planning code requirement there is only two burners in an sro and no often allowed and over here we have four burners and an oven. so it is just showed up in your plans that wasn't in the plans for the dr or is 311 i used and i found this when i found this staff report so it says to me their fitting in as many units a maximize revenue their fitting in hotel rooms, which they couldn't ever do if it was a residential project but because no dwelling units exposure that

is required by all dwelling units and so you have a management issue and how is the space managed we had enormous problems you 351 turk street and one on 4 hayes that's where the whole thing gotsd convoluted way require to encourage residential hotels sros what they are is men because there is closet space is miniscule and their upper income techies that have lots of kitchen substitutes from their jobs >> and so our creating not supposed have a kitchen and ms. wu knows her agency does

sros they are different holy different requirements for an sro than a dwelling unit and that that one is maximizing and no one is paying attention except me and now you so i'm asking. >> thank you, sue your time is up. >> thank you speakers in support of dr requester. >> not seeing any, project sponsor. >> hang on are those speakers in support of dr requester. >> you are okay. >> so, now project sponsor. >> in opposition hang on one second one second. >> okay.

>> common sense and members of the commission i'm jack i'm here representing real text inc. and someone is in the audience i appreciate all your time so thank you for your patience. >> as the fourth generation san franciscan cares deeply for the city it is my pleasure to deliver it and the time is limited we're tired i'll do my best to address our concerns as soon as possible but myself and the architect will be available after the presentation to answer

any questions we believe this project is appropriate to this block of fulsome it directly is with residential design guidelines the development guidelines is a commercial in a quieter residential uses on the block the project has been refined by the department staff and the citizens testifying and neighbors that provides 53 sro dwelling unit not a group housing our units include individual bathrooms and kitchens and have a maximum size of three hundred and 50 square feet not including the bathrooms the guys and work working with the staff we understand the importance of activating the ground floor that has been designed with the 8 percent of street footage with active use the project is sensitivity to

context and it's massing controlled to help to better relate to the escape of the adjacent building and had a dr not been filed no commission would be required the dr requester has not been resolving our concerns i don't believe fully understand the dr requester concerns and had to make sense of those papers per the application the concerns are project includes four transient hotels rooms not 53 sros and lack of nct and abuse of the sro clarification by 2/3rd's. >> to respond to the first concern this didn't provide transient hotel rooms they're by code and have been included with the family and friends and

because there's a storage of hotel rooms in the city we developed a detailed operational plan for compliance with the operation and the hotels and have been collected and paid by the guests to respond to the second concern the ground floor on fulsome has 14 foot ceilings a ground floor imperial space and others room is provided their appropriate to the field of the dead end block and others western valencia to ronald to the thirds concern in abuse the classification it reduces the open space by 2/3rd's and this project provides for open space than required sro dwelling units are permitted in the western edition

sud this project is beneficial for the neighborhood and city provides housing the revitalization a new neighborhoods serving commercial space and multi purpose room and treatments of the trees and impact fees in excess of 5 thousand dollars and has the first transit policy. >> below-market-rate housing sro dwelling units are prized 2/3rd's making them the most housing types of available a need for the units and their society units of affordability that bring 7 onsite units to people that urging need them our company believes in being a good neighbor and strengthening our relationship with the neighbors

this project is one that is supported a number of local small businesses and partnered with amazing organizations that worked tirelessly for our communities if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> speakers in support of project sponsor. >> good evening hard working members of the planning commission. >> i'm rudy i'm the chief executive of the filipino-american associations and here speaking in support of fulsome street project by real text real text is a track record of supporting local fence and campaigns if promote the south of market area communities

partnership is development of the vibrant filipino heritage district in the soma and demonstrates their commitment to fosters the culture diversities by giving san francisco the plague that tells the story of the trades the soma born filipino that entered the history books as the first asian-american to be in the aerobics between 6 and 7th street in the heart of community please approve the fulsome project as proposed with recommendations real text is a go solar corporate citizen in a valued communities partner thank you. >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm not carolyn the director at the united playaz we're a organization in the south of market i wanted to share with you about our partnership with real text we were introduced to them they came to us and to ask us how to have a richer community investments our response was invest in the kids and that's exactly what they did not only with united playaz but several others organizations that heard families and yacht in the soma done that through is enrichment of the east developments including the very own program right now i have 25 staff and one and 50 can i see at the great america that's a strong communities partnership that's