you can't do an individual meter i'm seeing more and more of those i yield areas with gang meters i'll walk further and notices that some people have committed it smokeless our fairs for muni are lower than other large cities and should be explored we have exceptions for montana that pays regular fair if you're old you don't and young you don't if you're handicapped there are all reasons why you don't pay the full fair we have to look at it honestly and see if we can get for revenue for fairs as i mentioned but a master plan we will go from here and out on the richmond district a huge place and utilizing the hills

and working in conjunction with bart to see if there's a way a joint line can be done those are some of my thoughts on the issues. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you, thank you very much for this presentation i'll excited about next week i appreciate all the information we got toy and except for today that was supposed to be last week and for next week i'm is a starting to digging than moving forward some of the other available plans on mta website and a lot of great material since i asked for the hearing for a while i will have just. >> couple of questions and comments and hopefully be able to focus for next week and not take two much time why did he personally think this is important so you mention that the mta has a big team that

works on larger projects to make sure their integrated into the planning process i've seen it offhand on the hunters point team and mta really was i've seen how mta was super involved and how land use and transportation amongst other topics really went hand in hand i remember all of the new york police department's around when there was supposed to be a 49ers stadium and what that traffic looks like and the bart was supposed to go through there bypass dog patch not bypass it impacted so the transit hub is here the stadium the housing going over there in any transition from occ they continued and i got to the planning commission i know the mta continues to do that work

but personally the planning commissioner, i feel that the last decision makersing process even if not joint hearing and a lot of big list to have all the cross talks about and joint hearing having a base level avenue what the mta does helps. >> with our decision making >> that gets to step one why i think this is great we're doing this just a couple of more things why the joint hearing a lot of work to have 14 people cram in here for 1 or 2 hours what i think we'll get out of that and how you present it today i'd like to have the crossed talk what each commission needs to support our positions at least with the planning department you know in a couple of years i've been on

we've asked different types maps and information to support the case files we get that impacted our decisions like anyone dan as a map of a large project authorization and i can see requests we might make to staff and others on maps and different sort of cables that that would be helpful as we make decisions i hope we can have those decisions base level tools and more broadly two other things i hope more broadly one i'd like to discuss the ongoing decisions in housing are hindering the agency how they work as an example in the pie chart you guys showed and this gets to my question but saw that out of the

numbers 46s, 48 percent, 56 trips occur in a car where personally owned or not i'd like to understand i seen the information in the materials on mta wednesday night i want to understand holistically how we've seen the road share shift over time and are the decisions we're making as a planning commission discretionary review decision where parking and how much parking and whether there should be off-loading and all those things how are those helping and hirndz and not impacting those shifts and it is helpful to know ios facts because every time we have a project here we're saying get rid of of parking spaces or more car share one or two more car share spaces a small project we

you know off street loading where we want on street loading are those decisions helping or hinder the agency ability to facilitate a mode shift or does that matter are we up here talking to ourselves and finally $5 billion is a huge unfunded number i'd like to be able to have both commissioners sit up here and understand what is broadly speaking in that $5 billion and understand how it impacts land use and transit only these little other as an example of where you know how that conversation can happen if we go to a universe the central subway was not opening in 2019 but part of unfunded number that has a huge impact on the central

soma plan the central subway was two dvds we would be having a different conversation around 14th street so it would be good to understand what is in that number and if that will impact the needs to make the plans the planning commission will be looking at and what should we be looking at and commissioner antonini makes a great point of subways if that point is not there make that $10 billion and have plans for a subway in there that ended any comments and love to hear comments from the staff about the mode share issue we're having right now so thanks. >> come on up. >> okay commissioners, thank you for those questions first of all, historical backward on the 50 percent

number we've been doing a survey for i know for 6 years and seen since the early teens we're definitely we saw that number cross 50 last year for the first a progress where the majority were made by private or carpool by transit walking and biking we have a few years ever data muni ridership is approaching an all-time high as transportation is increased the share they're increasing towards the long term front line, of course, that gets to the second point if the city is going to grow and more people use transit find ways to invest in transit many people ride everyday the busiest lines are

standing room only can't get buses and trains to serve all that need yes, sir. e yes. the $5 billion is huge a huge role the entitlement plays in again encouraging especially new residents to take advantage the transit option and the bike share options tliep in san francisco i guess for now yes, it matters i hope our joint meeting will talk about the findings you've talked about and through hire level policy we can work together to achieve that. >> okay. thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> i want to echo everything that commissioner johnson said we definitely need this hearing she had great questions piggyback on things that she said i get the sense they

conveyed we're not planning things together in terms of policies so improving the that concludes my remarks on top of the van ness and should we be reducing them we have a letter from the mosaic asking us to change the code to have less parking spaces one of the - so planning and doing policies to drive the policy goals will be great we sit we're over here doing our thing and you're doing our thing until the public says opm i see the streets are so congested i'd like to see out of this joint hearing as well as context so where we were and the impact and what did he do to

meet the need and the impact we anticipate and what we are doing about it how many more cars as a result i don't get context out of the data can we put it in the lay of the lands looks like that would be great. >> i think some of what we're seeing in terms of what i said about where we're going and the impact and need what we're seeing in terms of the lag the projects are coming and being populated faster than the system and causing a lot of anxiety like potrero hill and 16th street and not too much in other other areas of the city the other thing when we approve those projects there's a nexus

around the demand put on streets and transportation and everything be we're getting value or capture back with mitigation fees where the the rest of the money coming green or are we digging a bigger 0 hole we have all numbers but request every projects are we creating a bigger problem and what should our policy be i think that is something we can work on together so looking forward to the joint hearing and have anymore questions in terms of did policy issues but i think more tight integration is needed as well as what you've done and staff level. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you for your presentation excite inspiring thank you for the thoughtful comments i hope that all comes together next week the 2 points i want to add is transit first

and sf data connect makes san francisco exceptional to how they've moved by successfully managing an increasingly difficult system for the demands people are putting on that the question i'm raising the behavorial conflicts are obvious in terms of vision zero and the transit particularly with the on slot of non-managed uber's and some of the conflicts i see between san francisco infrastructure in terms of stations bus stops work, etc. w the large neighborhood way i see those two elements the commuter buses and he is uber

lyft the anti behavior to the pedestrian safety and love to have that particular issue excuse me - i'm speaking excuse me. i would like to see that perhaps attached on in terms of what your plans are as the city is growing and you touched on today that will be increasing more noticeable and harder to manage. >> thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards and one other comment completely i get it and thinks to get people it is a great advantage for people not waste of time and this is an anecdotal i saw someone from the commission and anecdotal putting it in context from point a to b

on mission street, however, myself any dentist who is in san mateo we're talking about we don't go there is this has he will and their business is down thirty percent maybe join mta small business commission hearing a great idea all the things effect all the parts of keep and i don't know if there is changes on the red carpet lanes it great to try it let's make sure we balance the needs out. >> commissioner moore. >> the presence of cars driven by visitors by the occasional zip car yours are can you see problems partially because tourists are not informed about how to deal with hills how to deal with pedestrian

right-of-way and use the color coding on the streets including the bike lanes not only alternatives but have to wait in line all of the things for the locally initialed people are great ideas the ability for communicating how to use those new tools falls behind because the number of cars those resident rental cars and visitors rentals are not managed and often contributing to the observations i've made if that would be addressed i'll appreciate hearing what you are going to do with this. >> that concludes the comments we're looking forward to techniques joint hearing the commission will take a break we'll take a full lunch break

thank >> welcome to the planning commission commission regular hearing like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. commissioners, we left off your regular calendar on item 14 for the readings informational presentation. >> good afternoon. commissioner president fong and members of the commission i'm kevin guy others director of short-term rentals i'm here to

give an updated of the status for registration and enforcement as well as our outreach mutters for the process improvements so if i could get the laptop on the screen please first i'd like to give a quick backward the regulars for the short-term rentals is phenomenon february 1st of last year prior to that time all short-term rentals of residential unit for less than thirty days were not permitted without some sort of special approval the program does allow the permanent arisen or resident to rent out their dwelling units for less than thirty days subject to limitations our office was established in july through trailing legislation to administrator the enforcement aspects and then i joined as director in september we have is total staff of 6 so for a quick overview today we

received 2000 applications for short-term rental civil rights approvals and in terms of balance 200 and 52 application are being recollected or in angle incomplete status and another 200 under actually review and others 24 pending review over the last several months the review times as decreased quite a bit applications with complete documentation are typically processed within 2 to four weeks of submittal so that chart shows the trendline the bottom vertical bars indicates the application month to month and the top blue line applications submitted over the course of the program and the launch in late

december of last year early january and february of this year, the monthly volume as fluctuated you but the overall trend is a steady increase. >> i apologize if some is blocked by the rolling text the capitalizations i want to summarize the remedy process for a leldz short-term rental hospitality in san francisco again one the core requirement is that you be a permanent resident a tenant of the units and get a civil rights instead of the mechanism inform insure the transient opt out takes and applies to the office of shfrlz short-term rentals for the business rendering that services an important purpose to make sure the host is the residents

of the unit they wish to use for short-term rentals your staff reviews the application steering wheels that is proofs of the permanent residentscy and with records we approve the civil right or issue a denial letter next, i want to touch on the steps our office thus taken to educate the folks in the program and improvements not registration process itself as you may know this topic has been covered extensively by national and international media not only by san francisco short-term rentals a topic all over the world and several interviews with media as well as presentations to community groups like the small property owners of san francisco the hope sf and the associations and others that have been trader to for the roles for the eligibility and the needs to

register we've expanded our erected with more convenient locations and scheduled intact for applications throughout the week and added walk in hours for folks that canned make that 8 to 5 monday through friday are general inquires or want to submit an application and scheduled the hours as demands exist you want to make sure that none has to wait within a couple of days when the request applications comes in we've held newcomers offsite with the all day registration at the city hall and at the earthquake retrofit fair in april and a serious at the ortega branch library so the past before the office

was fully staffed with practices in place it was taking longer to review standard applications and those applications we had missing documents so in response we implemented a positive improvement on the action of the property if the proclamation is submitted in good faith we'll think continue our wasting time is shorting but want to emphasize there is something of a once on mraings application is submitted we don't want to pursue on penalty with someone spot rules we've been working whoops excuse me - >> we've been working inexpensive with the department of technology and windfall support from it staff and the planning department for the website one of the features that is important to the registered

host the ability to submit through an online form and making continued improvements and rolling out additional host accounting tools we'll be able to monitor the the nights we're hosting and change impact information about them as hoecht and look at it statistics how the office is doing overall and with the functionality total website in the coming months so we're exploring a mechanism for the online application for members meeting with the staff at this point under the registry it is required a brief in personal meeting in the process this is a critical step verify the status of application and be certain were you be issuing civil rights to hosts and if we

ultimately achieve a level of data transparency with the platforms in the future we're going to have an online process and such a somewhere we'll insure the hosts for the program and for example, if we needed to verify the host continues to be a resident of the unit they've that registered not moves away and renting out it or not exceeding the 99 cap of non-hosted rentals a measure of a better look at the data if we get more creative ideas to streamlined the application process so but without that sort of daylight transparent we're concerned the online go application if if it dr. is in person component to verify will create frauntd applications so we've received a number of

suggestions from the host community as well a abbreviating the quarterly report forms as well as things are lick the creation of a temporary application that folks want to rent out to guests may be one time a requester year and we're analyzing those and make recommendations to the board of supervisors at the future hearing for the changes might take legislative action in terms of the short-term rental program and to reiterate i want to emphasis having a level of data collaboration with the platforms between the platforms will open up foeblts for streamlining so next, i want to take a moment to discuss the current numbers for the registers and the host in san francisco based on the latest data airbnb from june there are 8 thousand plus

listing on airbnb with 65 different hosts based on data from the april from the budget analyst office airbnb and home alone have 18 hundred and lift key has many they're very, very common for hosts to list on one platform and get greater exposure on multiply podiums nostril prohibited they're taking the rerjdz unit and advertising across nor platforms so the number of listings you see often cited in terms of statistics don't correlate to the short-term rentals. >> so digging deeper spots data just for airbnb for example, allows us to understand

the type of host not rent-controlled units the natural question why the delta between folks that applied and the civil rights not rentals versus the listing and hosts out through so there are categories of the hosts first of all, that are ineligible to register around 18 percent of hosts are believed to be renting out their homes for the more 99 days per non-hosted the hosts are not present the hosts have the run of the unit terms full-time vacation rent-controlled units and many lift multi by definition not a resident of more than one unit and greater than thirty days and traditional hotels and timeshares those later categories not for the register they're using the platforms to advertise their

rooms there are other 22 percent of listing i've termed as dormant those are listing that were created between 2015 but received fewer two reviews so most guests tend to read the reviews so if you see fewer two reviews chances are that person is not doing short-term rental anymore so other similar vein oath 11 percent are infrequent received fortune 3 receives and maybe explore a temporary once a year type of civil right this is really the host population that their referring to then maybe a substantial number of tenants or condo owners or homeowners association that require the short-term rental

those maybe legally you loudly for short-term rentals but they qualify they live in the unit and stated in the ordinances 200 and 79 nights a year but afraid the lymph gland will find out their contradicting their caesar we sent the letters to the property owner of records and hosts had are unlikely to come up and apply they're concerned about the repercussions not the downtime but i think an important to understand a bit more why speed up our efforts and outreach more people have come to the door for register we've had an increase in the applications that are concerning to us you lastly as well now i want to privet to the

enforcement efforts right now under the ordinance is focused on hosts in compliance we've done a lot of enforcement work and pursuing more kworments with a particular focus on folks not eligible for the program that call them the people are full-time rentals and things like that people that are not eligible even if they apply so is we've issued several noiktsz to two of the hosting platforms they've not had a need to register as under the ordinance our office is utilizing web and others data to facilitate our versions i will read off real quickly numerical statistics to summarize 6 hundred and 9 enforcement cases and issued

notice of violation and 200 and 55 have been closed with another 83 cases pending cases on one plus dwelling unit and issued seven hundred and 50 thousands of hosts in violation a really brief look at the revenues yes, i did. >> by the program from both application fees and pencils each fee costs $50 that is one hundred thousand for the application fees and the fee collected is not covering the cost of the application from a policy stand point it is worth noting and considering a higher application cost is coverable my discourage hosts from registering today, we have collected $200,000 over that penalty are referred to the

general fund for collection we have anyone enforcement case in litigation it is $200,000 for penalties we're awaiting the outcome of that litigation all or else passed by the board of supervisors to summarize those at a high-level additional requirements to verify the registered staff of the hosts or face bookings for unregistered hosts and requires monthly monitoring of them and go back to the board of supervisors for discussion regarding improvements to the arraign process so the prelims of the amendment has been detailed because of the filing of litigation pending an injuxtapose in september and this week the board further

amendments to these amendments which passed this is ohio it is our way of saying this is an involved discussion i'm limit my detail on this issue we have pending litigation but bring everyone up to speed where in the legislation i'll conclude my presentation by giving contact freely on applications if you have general inquires about the rules if you want to file enforcement placements i thank you for your time and i'm available to answer any questions >> opening up for public comment not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> and commissioner wu >> thank you for the update this commission spent a lot of time and it is interesting to

hear how the conversation goes forward i talked with mr. guy about clarifying the short-term rental rules with the residential hotels and other sros i think that is something that the office can follow-up on. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. mr. guy thank you in terms of kind of painting with the broad-brush you have 2000 applications some are not approved but the ones that are approved and the ones pending around 2000. >> put is another way 2000 people are attempted to confirm in one way or another and issued 15 hundred civil rights. >> trying to figure out the hosts sites and hosts which even though host number it larger because there is some unfortunately larger sites but a

total of 7 thousands of those sites that is a fair number and about 2000 of those registered so for a good generaltion possibilities. >> yeah. if i could have the overhead quickly at the laptop so the judge the top level of data for airbnb the largest player is 85 hundred listing and this is a phenomena hosts mount listing and your listing under the platforms with the data is absent hard to see the distinction between listing and units on the others platforms tsf we're in the neighborhoods of 7 or 8 thousand hosts and several other listing. >> i added all the ones and took off thirty or 40 percent

multi listed between the agencies that sounds like fairly good and went through the rest of it it sounds like the rest of the existing hosts may not be eligible unless they change the way they on behalf of. >> our enforcements is focused on two generalized buckets we want to be responsive to neighborhood complaints we receive a number of complaints from neighbors those tend to focus on the i won't call them micro but the smaller small policy issues that short-term rentals with raise when they're done intraoral that the quality of life impacts and concerns of noise and parties you know people don't properly dispose of trash or trespass across properties of the short-term rentals things like that those are proximate causes and want to

be responsive to these these don't necessarily coincide with the types of cases with the other policy concerns the short-term rentals trying to remain housing stock and not have an i didn't and it is - the hosts with multiple proposals. >> it is easiest enough because you have staff but those are read the online or a variety of sources by going through and finding if they match up or not you can contact them if they want to play ball or not coordinate. >> once we receive a complaint

there is a little bit of detective work with the address if you go online and look at the listing they don't cite specific addresses there's a reason for that but there's a little bit of work we're really good at finding the listing and identifying and triage them. >> it is fairly a small number of abusers are doing a lot of feel a larger number are out of compliance but maybe guilty and maybe willing to conform to the law. >> right certainly, if we get into a situation issuing a notice of violation you know you might think of as the more ideal

version avenue short-term rental renter someone that rents out spare bedrooms to stay in the city that kind of sort model they haven't come in to get rentals their technically in violation and maybe penalties but we very much encourage and want to work with them to get them registered and legitimized if they're eligible and want to be. >> i agree the more types of people that register the more successful through directing our efforts for the enforcements on the larger problems and you know making everything closer the number of registrations closer to the number of users. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> a thank you, mr. guy a couple of questions have you mapped out the rentals are occurring in other neighborhood being impacted significantly

more than others i don't know if it is the case but has that been mapped out. >> we've done in terms of mapping and we want to map it as a gross scale in terms of the registered users but looking at doing some kind of mapping above where the airbnbizing it is relatively easy and can provide in the future updates but we're seeing the thinking the how did places people want to stay in the feeling of san francisco neighborhoods you see a lot of the castro and hayes valley the mission certainly a fair amount of russian hill and the south of market areas you tend to see

less of them in the southern portions of city but pockets of those especially, if in their transient adjacent and out of out-of-towners that are hot spots but the concentrations in the central mission. >> you get those folks not to register but if they can't comply the first part about getting them to comply what's the approach i mean there are a board of supervisors legislation that requires we do some of that is that the hope that leads to kind of more folks coming in compliance. >> under the ordinance without the amendments the approach educating the public and reminding them of the need to register and making ourselves

more assessable through walk in hours and in the event things like that publicize well attempts around just to be frank none of overseeing events despite are prairie well attend not a barrier of access to talking to us face face i think there it is a phenomena of people not eligible and doing this activities and don't want to come in and get registered they're what we call the frightened people they understand the concern of their lovrd in a subletting position and things like that so the stake is the enforcements work now under the existing ordinance much of the enforcement is focused on a host by host base

not impossible to do enough enforcement 0 encourage people to get registered actually some concern out of getting caught and a substantial penalties but the board i think clearly indicated that they felt there was several approaches that are needed something that does involve some amount of you know wouldn't say improvement of the platform of involvement but to be part of compliance. >> when will that resolve itself with the timeline. >> yeah. as far as timing wise the most we know it is scheduled for early september september 7th so obviously the outcome preliminary injunction hearing will have an effect obvious soon or far out the legislation will be implemented

and remains to see the recent amount of amendments that were passed pay first reading from the board this week. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> question mr. guy thank you very much and will you be able to send this to us. >> when the department was handed offer responsibility to the department mayor's office of short-term rentals 11 hundreds open complaints what did you inherent what happened to all of these. >> the dividing line a number of short-term rental complaints that were pursued so by and large between what kind of midst to our shop with the effective data of february 2015 imthere's been individual cases for planning to resume their work

and us to do some work. >> 11 hundred the right number. >> i don't. >> there was a significant. >> quite a number i don't know the exact number this is this the planning maybe i can find out. >> 11 hundred the totals of all complaints so the number of short-term rentals complaints. >> do you know what it was. >> i think one hundred or - >> do - has all been resolved as well. >> close to. >> what we're seeing with the current rules and we know we'll change at some point the hit rate an complaint is 40 percent 6 hundred and 43 a notice of violation are you seeing the hit rate for 45 percent i mean we were pursuing all the

enforcement cases we possibly could to get those resolves as soon as possible and there was a case hotel yeah. >> sure. >> the question the penalties under the old law we're talking about the old law when did they start once you get people to turn 43 when is the penalty posted. >> generally speaking the responsibilities falls on the property owner just to be clear the penalties start aau occurring per units on the day we issue the notice of violation so on day one for the first time violation for $488 per day a subsequent violation we reach the activities it has remerged doubles to 9 had and 68 and up.

>> fairly significant. >> there's other mechanisms once you get to an egregious violator that concludes the city attorney's office. >> people have not been able to rent in their lease is there any interaction with the rent board with people renting out illegally. >> people are come in and registered their landlord founded about the activity the process is absent different for short-term rentals and that there's a thirty days cure quick process that is much longer than many of the sort of lease violations and things like that so, yeah a thirty day process for evictions involving

short-term rentals so i think that is important to note that distinction but seen that phenomena and seen people apply for civil rights and by the way, all of those appointments we're not here to regulate sons-in-law private agreement between the lease of the tenant/landlord but exhaustively review your lease some people apply and the lovrd gets the notice and they call and say i want to rescind civil rights. >> let's say their law if you run the numbers 8 thousand and 10 thousand on this 2000 rented what's the kind of performa of this avalanche of that potential

violation will you be the one that cites the hosting platform how does that work. >> i think the exact way to approach under that scenario is depend on a lot of factors figured out through trailing legislation to the amendment the core process itself it is a little bit hard to predict undergo a somewhere like the amendments that were passed by the board if those go into effect much of our focus will be contact with the platforms and looking at mass and begin scraping out those potential 28 or 25 posting and people never rent-controlled unit don't mean to diminish that but some phenomena not to say we've not

inspiring have enforcement against host 23 we have a phenomena hosts staying they're small vicinity or give or take to other ways of taxi drivers that didn't meet the deadline of the definition and if their urban registered it an illegal activity the majority of the work was focused in a sweeping way and hopefully working to identify the urge u unregistered users. >> i missed the earlier part of our presentation he apologize the number of new commercial platforms called about 60 is it around that number. >> it is a constantly developing landscape we've seen the phenomena of what sites that

by all appearance meet the platform but a handful of 67 properties things like that and around the infringes we have sites come and go really your you know our primary focus on sort of the major short operators in the operators that are airbnb and home away not fully integrated. >> one of the few moments i'm seeing and like to know not web-based but at base i sign up for an annie have one on the phone and people that can be directing us through the app you don't go on a website it's a way to merge the technology would need to be looked at. >> that's an exact point we see the phenomena host play around around the regulatory and

we see the apps thank you for that. >> that concludes commissioner comments and thank you very much for your update. >> commissioners item a 15 ab and zoning administrator will consider the va r on howard street office development authorization conditional use authorization and variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners claudia department staff the item before you seeks a conditional use authorization to establish a non-residential within the downtown commercial district and office development authorization to authorize up to 88 thousand plus in addition the zoning administrator will consider a variance from section 136 d two for permitted

obstruction it was continued from the june 23rd hearing to allow the project sponsor to conduct community outreach on the southeast corner of howard within the downtowns zoning district and one thirty height and bulk district the site is located within the downtown plan area the central soma area and within the soma youth and special use district the site is occupied by and single building that has two distinguished structures howard is located on the eastern portion 6 stories over parking, vacant at the first story and second story and occupied by the office uses and situated at at corner of fifth it is 3 stories over basement and opted out the project will convert 19 thousand plus square feet of institutional use at the ground floor of howard street and

approximately 46 thousand plus square feet of retail use at the second story and two to three story to howard it will construct a new 4 thousand plus square feet fourth floor penthouse on the howard portion the project will remain 44 thousand retail use at the housing location as i mentioned at the request of supervisor kim's and with the agreement of project sponsor that was continued from the june 23rd commission hearing to allow times for the project team to meet with the community members as a result in an effort to respond the sponsor as proposed and staff represents the following changes to condition 7 relating to the final materials the project sponsor shall continue to with work the planning department on the

building design including where feasible widening the canopies on the howard portion and providing additional canopies on fifth street and adding pedestrian lighting on fifth and housing the rest of the condition should remain the same after the aspects the staff recommends approval specifically the project complies with all applicable planning code and the project is consistent with the - including did pending central soma plan it is in the zoning district that permits ground floor subject to the conditional use authorization that had convert 20 thousand plus space into office in that an existing building not well suited to retail use and it will remain 4 thousand plus and basement level louis the tenants to downsize

and remain from the current location the office use will continue and allow the tenants on housing to expand in their existing location it represents approximately 13 plus of the large office use and another current rate it produces approximately oh, that's wrong - >> $480,000 plus in fees that benefits the communities that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions and believe the project sponsor has a presentation as well. >> project manager please. good afternoon commissioner president fong and fellow commissioners i'm with hudson

properties on housing street thank you for having me. for thank the staff claudine for a collaborative effort that allowed us to present this our zones manage properties within san francisco and have a long history of working collaboratively and effectively with the city, planning department staff and this commission on delivering projects that benefit the san francisco companies and communities approximately 2 years we had confusion with our tenants an howard street and they were interested in reducing their retail footprint and expanding their lease and burl ton occupies the basement level of the property the you weren't two floors for storage around the same time filed for

bankrupts and immediately vacated the ground floor and second story lastly the labs a company with their roots in the city calls san francisco their home wants to expand within the property that event created the project we're presenting to you today after working diligently that the staff and as claudine mentioned schedule for the june hearing shortly we remember contact by supervisor kim's officer who asked we continue our hearing in order to meet with the local neighborhood organization and listens to the concerns we agreed to an june 29th we met with the filipino and received beneficial feedback on the design additionally, we offered up an opportunity for the organization to delay the artworks on fifth street and the market street

project and i'm pleased to report not only have those efforts move forward but have very recently received a letter at the filipino culture heritage district detailing our collections and agreements we've submitted to the commissioners and staff we're proud to have successfully engaged with the neighbors and lastly brought on peter with the architecture to be the project lead designer and had the pleasure of working with peter we shared the same goals with the promotions in san francisco once again thank the commissioners for the opportunity to present this important project and thank staff and the communities for that their helpful and collaborative effort now introduce peter from foufrl architecture to talk about the design thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners

peter pleased to present our designs important howard let's see if the slide it up here. >> so first thing i wanted to clarify the reason for two addresses that projectile is one building that is two buildings our our principle work in 899 howard a lower building you see on the image here which has burlington coat factory but connected to the other building that creates some strange constraints we have to work with as and renovate the building i'll explain as we precede the building was overflow room a

warehouse for pg&e and later the emporium as you can see the building needs love and it is not really an attractive contributor to the neighborhood. >> this the upper floor you see the two buildings sit by each two colors 8 and 9 is currently burlington coat factory mostly used as storage given their reduced footprint and the adjacent floor it the existing office when you go down to the ground floor it is burlington retail

use and the college administrative offices that is the area proposed to be changed and used by office as part of the permit. >> i would note that between the two buildings little gray square we're introduced a lobby that allows us to assess the upper floors but otherwise the entire ground floor use remains the same. >> and the basement of the building there is continues to be the retail use by berg ton an escalator that takes you up it is natural to use it no changes

to the existing garage in 875 that's where the loading is and 65 bike parking spaces and 28 additional bike stands outthink the street is moving forward here's the outside again and take you through how we transform it so it is little to see this basically holding up the building are those massive sheer walls and so we're kind of stuck with those they're also supporting the building next door and take off all the other cladding and open up the opening as much as we can and then next step we're add what can we'll take the areas where the sheer

walls are the blanket surfaces and create a warm compelling material and celebrate them as solids and put glass on the rest of the oscar pistori opening up before and after as you can see the transformation of the building and i will note that in working with the filipino heritage group one of their couple requests that were thoughtful they asked us to look at extending the common places we can do by code about 4 inches more than we can and asked us to look at the lighting more safeties on the sidewalk for people walker on howard and fifth we've done that and asked

us to look at adding canopies down the streets which we've down done. >> looking at the corner of this alley and you can see the lighting on canopies and the facade and see the sheer wall pagers are convert into a warm material statement facade as i mentioned the lobby on the ground floor that is a driver for an expression on the ground floor to a lobby to move upstairs and we've introduced a kind of canopy at a lower level to introduce the scale and then

at the larger scale the facade is kind of a bump out to help you navigate towards the entry. >> we also saw the opportunity to take what is blank roof escape and transform that being so something that can be seen from taller buildings we've added a kind of additional conference space and outdoor areas you see the ambulance for that and the rooms with that space what it looks like. >> those rooftop are modulated you can't see them we've setback them from the street and the planning department staff comments and then here's the sense of the outdoor space on the roof

lunch and so forth. >> kind of a parting shot of building that's my presentation the taken place a hero to answer any questions thank you for the opportunity. >> we might have questions opening it up for public comm t comment. (calling names) >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners adrian lead organizer for carpenters local 22 in san francisco and just to let you you know we fully support in project will will bring work to our membership and the reason we're actually, i think one of the biggest reasons we support it something i like seeing it is a local significant try contractor if you, you don't know this company the license number is 92

which i think about last year, we went over one million licensed contractors in cool so that goes to show you i think 1929 they started so this is definitely a local significant try general contractor and want to see this thank you. >> good afternoon robert mccormick representing digital software i didn't bring my crews i'm under dressed we're a tenant on howard and occupy the 4 and 5 floors so this is important for us 20 years ago it was born in san francisco we've grown up in san

francisco we're proud to call 875 our home it is an important piece of the portfolio critical for events subject to or relevant to business growth in our community events we feel integrated so we're here to support this item as we go forward we're in discussions to take additional space in the building as we look to the future and our ability to accommodate the future growth for the company in our home is critical for us extremely important for us thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm with

the labor local 261. >> thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak on this project this project is not only important for all the building trades it is important for community, for our members and i ask you and encourage you to say yes and support this project thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> there are a number of reasons of why i'm fully supportive of this project i'm delighted to hear that the community negotiations have been brought forward to support this you already had a lovely transformation of the building definitely needs to step 21st

century i'm delighted to support it and move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm also supportive of using a space not well suited for retail and to office make sense and also added additional lighting and improved the pedestrian experience there so it does have a lot of good things i'm supportive of this measure. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that with conditions. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously on the variance, close the public hearing and grant the variance.

>> commissioners item 16. >> san bruno a conditional use authorizati authorization. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and fellow commissioners jeff department staff the item before you requires a conditional use authorization for san bruno after the project shows a demolition of a single-family dwelling demolition of an unauthorized unit and new construction of a 4 story 40 foot tall mixed use 2 commercial spaces and 3 dwelling units 40 feet high and a rear

yard at the second level of 21 feet since july 1st, the publication four letters of opposition i've provide for the commission as it provides the wells an actual - 03 dwelling units and a code compliant rear yard and removes the off-street parking it is code compliant and with the character and scale of the district the department recommendations the commission to approve that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> okay project sponsor please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is bryan koffman i'm the project architect for the properties on san bruno avenue i began working on this project a little bit over two years ago on behalf of my client and the original property is actually a contains a single-family dwelling on the property right now and when i was tasked with developing the property i was told they would like to have a commercial space locate on the

ground floor of the building with some possible commercial space as well as plumbing units so one of the first things i did when looking at the project was to take a look at codes section 317 and as you can see from the system photograph of the - >> so the single-family single-family home raised approximately 3 and a half to 4 foot above the adjacent grade so one of the preliminary challenges for this project how to create a code compliant commercial space at the ground floor without triggering issues dealing with section 317 in terms of demolition of the

current structure after consulting a few different planners i've been discussing the project with it was recommended this is actually a few, call it an ideal campaign for demolition i discussed that with any clients and had others negative experiences in applying for demolitions it was a text example of why demolitions are allowed we preceded forward the official project is designed we have a commercial space down on the ground floor of the building on the second story have an additional commercial space above that and the top two floors of building were designed with dwelling units and until a

few months ago a building with 3 commercial units on the lower two floors and residential on the upper two floors with the passage of the legislation dell with unauthorized units this property was determined to have one we were told in order to get this approved we need to more dwelling units in the end than started with thus, the redesign the building to include a third between which we're allowed to do by rights we changed one of the two commercial spaces on the second story at the rear and two additional or additional between a two commercial units over 3 dwelling unit property.

>> okay. does that conclude our presentation. >> thank you open up for public comment maybe have questions for you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> opening it up for public comment not seeing any, public comment is closed. hang on. >> didn't you did you want to comment on this project. >> gadget my name is paul i am a merchant on san bruno avenue across the street from the twelve dwell i own the property next door to the dwelling unit 2729 san bruno avenue i got acquainted with this project a

week or two ago i didn't receive any mailings about it i've been president of the merchant association on san bruno avenue for over 10 years we've received almost on everything that gongs received mailings from the planning commission for changes with you know within the neighborhood didn't receive anything on this so the preparation has been short a couple of 3 things i'd like to address as number one i'm understanding that there's no off-street parking i'm understanding that there is bicycle parking in lui of automobile parking being in the car business i

understand that per household there is probably a car and one half per households in this situation i'll expect that they'll have four parking space stalls for the units provided secondly, we don't agree with four story dwell on san bruno off not consistent with the architecture we had a rather large project took place a block away which was four stories and had something like 10 units of dwelling and incidentally provided parking for 8 stalls

for that building you know the congestion in the neighborhoods briefly is pretty severe is that it. >> 30 seconds. >> okay congestion is severe, we feel that 3 stories might be a doable item and lastly we have a number of small single-family dwellings in our neighborhood and we like to think of them as our painted ladies this is the beginning of eliminating single-family dwellings in favor of large high story projects thank you. >> dear san francisco planning commission i want to thank

commissioner vice president richards, commissioner moore, militiamen for their relies to my e-mails i'm michael wong a property and business owner on san bruno avenue located on the south side of the proposed building on the avenue i agree with what paul is talking about the concerns on the proposed buildings on san bruno after the existing building is a first story and has 2 off-street parking the proposed building will be four stories 40 feet tall mixed use with 3 dwelling units and no off-street parking far automobiles the two adjacent buildings are two stories we have parking for our tenants it

should blends with the building on the block most of buildings on the proposed buildings are one, two or three stories but not 4 there's a recent development of that new building a block away san bruno avenue that is only 3 stories at the local chiropractor for over 20 years most of owners tell you that parking on san bruno is environmental for their business with 4 stories and no parking it will impact added neighborhood and the businesses also for me like outpatients it can't take public transportation or they use a cane or wheelchair and someone drives them there

wherewith the tenants with cars going to park they can park on the streets over in front of the neighbors houses and closings i'd like to planning commission to reject the proposed building of 4 story two commercial dwelling units with no off-street parking. >> i propose it showcase more than 3 stories and should at least one off-street parking for commercial district thank you very much. >> good afternoon i'll be speaking on behalf of myself and several neighbors who like to express their decided contents of the san

bruno we discussed and want to preserve the unique culture of the neighborhoods and this will hinder that morph the over crowding in the neighborhood has increased over the past couple of years with the construction of the multi unit half of block down the nuances of parking and overcrowdedness will add to this it also risks or there are risks of safety i'm sorry there is a risk of safeties that building in this session taken a half of block of parking spaces and people are forced to walk around or walk on uneven roads or sidewalks and think it will hurt this building to be

completely demolished and constructed in the same way and we do hope that commissioner take into consideration that the residents of san bruno avenue we appreciate the diversity and the eclectic lifestyle and just home grown like family dynamics this property will development into a huge complex and allow the slippery slope of other developers to come in and do the same we want to preserve the san bruno cultures that i lived in for 33 decades so i hope you'll consider that hopefully reject this proposal thank you. >> hello commissioner

good afternoon how are you i'm teresa with san francisco communities empowerment center on san bruno my grifl has a property new development on san bruno avenue sf c uc is a nonprofit and has non-english speakers they come for translation i've not received no letter translations about that so sf c uc is not opposing to stop the san bruno development i don't opposite new building housing construction any concern is san bruno commercial believes that are not providing off-street parking for others occupant the new building

i hope you still remember on san bruno avenue in the current form an example of what should not be duplicated they have no parking allocated for the second story commercial we hosted several sfmta moving forward neighborhood meeting mta knows that transit along san bruno avenue is busy all day and commissioners you have once again the project into san bruno without the consideration what impact will go impact us and do you commissioner ever go to san bruno avenue and the peak avenue that is very narrow street we have now you know over capacity very congested during the business hour all the businesses

are full and sometimes they can't stop because the businesses are full when you put something into this project on san bruno avenue you'll create problem safety problems and in my opinion every new developer should be riders to include think onsite parking i ask you to require the developer to provide on-street parking if this commission moves against this request i'll read this complaint to the board of supervisors i pray this can be solved here at the commission level. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment, sir. >> my name is eugene tom

good for every commissioner i'm looking forward for the design just to own single request are for the 4 story building i don't know why nobody finds here i'm protesting the building you. >> thank you is there any additional public comment? >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> folks will you give a brief overview of the zoning ♪ neighborhood commercial district including height and parking requirements and while i'm very appreciative of the community having strong feelings that is helpful to reflect against what this commission needs to look at if you don't mind

>> the general description of an ncd generally two or three stories looking at the context of that neighborhoods it is pretty much that except not many 4 stories in the description and the intent to include development of 4 stories and it is compatible and not detrimental to 9 neighborhood the ncd districts provide for vital to the district and the ground floor commercial space not onsite if you look at other commercial storefront in the lot width in parking objective a lot driveways but for residential buildings if you have a storefront it is hard to sit if a driveway ♪ neighborhood regarding the codes for parking

requirement there is section 150 e requires available parking by requiring the bicycle park but this project will be allowed to apply for the waiver for parking there are two ways to reduce the parking we choose the quicker way and does that answer your question >> yes. it answers the questions for the public because this is what we consider a code compliant project for the facts it replaces the unauthorized unit are additional units 3 units in the neighborhood commercial district it is desirable to have the retails on the ground floor with a potential office space on the top with a smaller office

whatever and i think the building itself that is within our purview living quite positive it operationally is very modest building doesn't try to be unusual in the building expression it is compatible for the setting the only thing i'd like to ask is that you put in a notice of special restriction and the reason it is following residential buildings with 3 units don't require an elevator that is building as it is now, however, there is a possibility by happenstance the owner can choose to put the residential unit on the second story the building with automatically require an elevator which it does not have at the moment the notice of restriction does this

building be adaptable it will require with the prevailing code i feel that is protecting use it is a suits he will part of code but for the architect knows that there can be a change in venue i consider that to be just a good idea. >> there's the second question i have i'd like to have the other commissioners think about it the roof hatches i find them really in this particular neighborhood of lower buildings a little bit two aggressive suggest that we do what we consistingly did suggest an access by hatch but indeed quiet the roof escape and take any addition of height away i make a

motion to modify the building as property for the conditions i'm suggesting. >> second. >> exposure one note regarding the density correct me if i am wrong mr. spears i think in the zones they're limited to 3 units for the next residential density in the future not allowed to add a fourth dwelling unit you but add a condition of approval if circumstances change we can add that and . >> and to address the second comment before the hearing there was a discussion with the project sponsor they will be open for the hatch but for simplification for the process ass plans not realizing at the last minute the renderings and whatnot i believe that the project sponsor are open to that

change. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> sorry commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'd like to ask mr. spears please can you give us the square footage of the 3 units that are being proposed for that housing. >> yes. >> i believe on - i know there are townhouses. >> the commercial space i'm sorry my apologies the residential space at the rear the total of 1400 and 50 square

feet that's a small font and then the second unit at the front is 14 hundred square feet and the third unit. >> i think it is 5 hundred and 91 square feet. >> a fairly small unit and a couple of units substantial i think there is a good possibility those two bigger units will have enough bedroom units and i'll agree with the neighbors i think this is just going to add to the close session congestion in the area i want to see maybe a room for a small office and parking in the back of small office to

accommodate at least two plaza case can be made it is small. >> realistically 3 the neighborhood it has a lot of commercial a ground floor retail and commercial, occasion multi single-family units and at the rest of the neighborhoods so an area where most people drive and most people have you know assess to parking and as you go back from the after the exceptions everything else is pretty much you have garages and a lot of cars in this area. >> i presume most of the renters or owners of the unit will have cars. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess the neighbors i

practically understand where you're coming from it is a change looks like a big change in the second big change on the street the other o1 down the street the development of the city is spreading south side so in at castro and mission we have below mission street and noah valley have monsters homes 7 thousand square feet it is moving south and even though this is hard to imagine with a thousand new residents a month coming out the city they need a place to live and the current development are balancing out there has to be equitable development around the rest of the city the left-hand side the far southern neighborhoods and san bruno avenue and visitacion valley and

excelsior i understand we have the same fears in my neighborhood we experienced the same thing more crowded and dense but very vibrant i hope and look to have you welcome the new residents in the units as part of the fabric of the neighborhood it can workout as for the parking issue the reason he seconded the motion we have before us two units and a curve cut with no parking so you have no park there already taking up basically 3 residents and 3 spaces taken up one car each do the math the number of units is a net wash that's the rational i'm using

one legal and one unauthorized i'm okay with not having the additional parking space because there those no change also i know buses are crowded i take the n and the muni we had a presentation by the mta making sure that the cases development even though it is lagging i look at all the bus lines within a quarter of a mile of the site it is a good place to put a denser building and fully adding from 2 to 3 it seems like the right place to do it the rooftop hatch is needed to be there and their aggressive and looking at the streets it is over the top with

the penthouses. >> commissioner hillis. >> i support the removal of the penthouse i think they add to the height it is their aggressive on the height and taking the full 40 feet so i think this penthouse is kind of given of giving a health not necessary especially south on san bruno and the parking or retail i agree with it is difficult to do both as you walk down san bruno and i have many times you lose the retail flavor there is parking in garages not a great feel for a retail streets i'm supportive of keeping retail here and having a prolong not many on the streets that don't have parking i think this is generally works and am

supportive. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions to remove outline existing rooftop penthouses and replace them with hatches preventing a future elevator house; is that correct. >> a request for no restriction that if a fourth unit will be added it has to be followed with code and add an element. >> add an elevator. >> you'll have to have an added elevator. >> you want a separate motion because they're all reports as normal procedure. >> not only ideas maybe talk with the zoning administrator. >> i'll recommend adding a condition of approval if it fourth unit is added in the

future the project sponsor will co comply with the adding of an elevator. >> second. >> very good commissioners on that motion with conditions as amended to remove all roof stair penthouses and replace them with roof hatches and if a fourth unit is added to comply about the codes our commissioner antonini. >> no commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one. >> with commissioner antonini voting against. >> commissioners that places us under our discretionary review calendar for cases

pacific avenue and var commissioners please note on february 11th after hearing and closing public comment that was continued to may 12th commissioner johnson and commissioner wu were absent and the commission continued this to june 030th by the vote commissioner johnson and commissioner president fong were absent without hearing it was continued to thursday, july 14, 2016, commissioner johnson and commissioner fung you need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous testimony and hearing. >> i have reviewed and we're on today. >> i also reviewed this. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission carli planning department staff the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review

of the building permit on pacific which is located in the pacific avenue commercial district and 40 height and bulk district it is seeking a rear yard with the cottages within the last 40 feet and presented twice before as of february 11th the commission reviewed the projects which was a proposal to convert an existing 12 thousand plus square feet 2 story into a mixed income 9 residential unit and 19 hundreds square feet splits within the ground floor and it included a two-story vertical addition renovation of the front facade and the reduction of the height to create a court i've included the plans in our memos as exhibit a continued from february 11th to may telephone in general

consensus that incorporated the ground floor the project sponsor revised the plan for the may hearing by removing the rear dwelling and incorporating it into the front an iteration has a setback with 3 feet above grade and those are in the memo the commissioners heard the item and continued to the june thovshth requesting the dr requester meet with commissioner bobby wilson and commissioner moore to reach a compromise and since then two hearings please note those meeting not are not considered a check list of action items but topics to bring the project sponsor and the dr requester closer to a final design following the meeting several changes the rear units are reintroduced and to read

like cottages an open area of lot area 24/7 the two buildings a 0 projection has been yonder the lot line to maintain the parking and the magnificence within the buildable areas greater sergeants and decks removed from the setbacks and nothing at the fwront of the building is reduced from the one or or second story the pacific street has greater articulation and pattern the neighborhood the height of the base is reduced and east and west property lines and into two parts and wood fencing has replaced the concrete wall to provide bettsc

>> since then 3 letters of the support and 3 letters of opposition and the department recommends the commission take dr and added 6 units and with residential and commercial uses that are more for the commercial district the project is brought the existing structure to greater massing in the rear yard and no exceptional or extraordinary one note he wanted to correct myself rear stairs at the back of the projection that need to work on to bring them into code compliant and that's something if you have any questions

appealing and that concludes my presentation. project sponsor. >> i'm sorry dr requester. >> given this is the thirds hearing you'll be afforded a 3 minute presentation and the interested members of the public will be provided 2 minutes.

>> commissioner good afternoon. i'm andy on behalf of the dr filer thank you for sticking through the process you have many projects and weeks you've reviewed at the same time i want to urge you to stick it out as commissioner hillis said that is important, important the neighbors we get this right in february that project was by the site the context context and the impact on neighbors it fully combined a non-compliant structure with a conforming structure as we previously explained article 1 allows non-compliant structures were envisioned to apply only until the non-restricted compliance structure was under article 7 the february proposal maximizing

this is the double decking we talked about the project returned in may we removed the - the double dipping was the rear units were added to the rear of the new structure but moving in the right direction graphic one is may versus today's hearings there has been progress and noted by the staff but stepping back this is nibbling at the edges rather than than only 6 hundred and 50 square feet have been moved and the rear yard variance have returned the rear yard is made smaller by 27 percent and the yard is still a heart escape and doesn't step down the sponsor says over 4 thousand square feet have been

removed a simple aquarian that was rejected to what is in front of us shows you a continued lack of sensitivity if you choose to let this project move forward we'll make the following requests deny the asked variances. >> remove the open space and the bumper out and replace it by bike parking and roach the rear yard slab and lower the west half of the building and reach of elevators require the condo map to distinguish those those common areas as permitted to permanently prohibit tourist use and reduces the terraces to a maximum one hundred square feet thank you very much.

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is norm i'm the neighbor an larkin street no rear units on the rear lots facing this could be moved to the current parking area and opened into the rear yard space parking can be replaced with bicycle parking as this neighborhood is served by public transit and remove the pop up to the front building we ask the yards be brought to the natural grade and flow that the policy of the street this is approximately 11 square feet the roof deck is not needed there's a large yard and should be large enough to serve outline units and roof decks are not did the on this block we appreciate they've reduced this in size and this should be at a maximum of one square feet regardless of

size it is imperative that it is patiently - the roof areas are commonly owned and prohibit the roof space into the terraces thank you. >> these names are in support of dr (calling names). >> yeah. please outputs on the overheads thank you, commissioners i'm the neighbor and 40 years practicing in san francisco the sponsor has thrown around a lot of the numbers to accommodate the neighbors this is not the case

buyers - this was a non-compliant building this was a project not presented to you in the first place and the commission rejected this for i'm sorry in may the rear units were removed and the commission state the project was two large and lacked a narrow backyard of the existing neighbors this hearing only 6 hundred plus square feet requests removed and the rear yard was smaller the rear units were added in to the explicit mandates introduced 10 years ago what is more for the third time in succession this misleads the planning department and planning

commission they failed to live up to the opportunities those warehouse properties offenders they continue to demonstrate poor planning and opposes all financial gains i design any project within the zoning guidelines what do you say to me if you allow this project to go forward please deny the variances. >> good afternoon, commissioners kathleen at last hearing commissioner moore said 23 units will be directly effected by the project the architect said only 10 here's the been there are 38 units on 10 contiguous lots and 38 units

we believe 23 directly face the project so co-sponsor got it right she was talking about homes she was talking about families and the negative impacts of light and invasion of privacy the primary perspective the one that you as commission have applied on all frontages that existing context whatever it is is one of the key aspects around which a project must be designed a developer doesn't get to pick and choose what to ignore and match and respect every project needs to be built around this context and this project while improved still doesn't get it it didn't respective it's context it is going into a century old

communities we cannot shove it in that the 23 units deserve more thank you. >> any more speakers in support of dr requester >> good afternoon, 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