and move to public comment. >> is any public comment on this item? 17 b seeing none, public comment is closed. being inclined to grant the variance on the revised plan some of the concerns but i appreciate the rice plans and look at it of the typography and the relationship to the adjacent proposals it is appropriated and meets the 5 fovkd for the grant of the variance and public comment is closed. and anyone wants is a copy of the deny and going into recess and the planning commission will reconvene after their lunch break thank >> good afternoon and welcome

back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on items 11 ab for cases at fulsome street zoning map and adaptation of feelings for shadow i believe that commissioner wu. >> yes. commissioners, i need to be asked to is recused bcdc a partner. >> commissioner woo ho and second thank you ton that motion commissioner antonini commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner

president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> okay kimberly planning department staff and the legislative affairs a remedy it on the proposal for the planning code zone height and map and a recommendations to adapt findings that the net new shadow casts on the park located 0 on 17th street and fulsome not adverse to the use of partitioning the the subject property on the west side of fulsome street between 16th street and 17th street in the mission district and zoned by the city and county of san francisco currently the project site is developed with a surface parking lot the proposed project new construction of a 9 story 85 at all 100 percent affordable

housing project with a approximately, one and 65 thousand plus square feet and up to one and 34 dwelling units the property project contained 9 thousand plus square feet of communities support services, 4 thousand plus square feet of trail development center one thousand plus of accessory office space and retail use it is proposed by a partner between the economic development agency and the chinatown development center on may 10, 2016, supervisor campos introduced the proposed ordinance under board file which will mainstreamed the planning code to rise the zoning map sheet sorry z n zero 7 and

height and bulk map from a public p zoning and 50 x height district to an urban mixed use umu and 85 height drieths rrpts the planning code section regulates the shadow cast by any verify environmental review voementd within one hour before sunrise and one hour before sunset they must - under the jurisdiction of the rec and park commission on july 21, 2016, the rec and park commission conducted a dual noticed public hearing on a regular meeting and recommend the planning commission find the shadows by the project on 17th street and fulsome will not be

adverse to the use of park on june 10th the planning department dermentdz the proposed application was exempt from environmental review there section 15183 plus of ceqa guidelines and the california resource guide section had which provided an style environmental review the department received so far one inquiry arrested from the mission delores association some issues and others considerations under planning code section 315 an affordable housing should be considered a promissory note use and comply with the review premiers in lieu of others otherwise commission hearing the planning department shall administratively review

and evaluate the physical aspects after an affordable housing and in coordination with relevant design guidelines that affordable project seeks the provision as would usually be granted under section 329. >> for this project this project is located in the go be mission district that's been experiencing gentrification and displacement this project will create up to one and 2, 3, 4 affordable residential units and support by the evolving work the collaborative work by itself community this seeks solutions to retain socio economic

diversitye neighborhoods are affordable projects the planning department represents adoption of zoning district to the board of supervisors and second to adopt the finds the property project not adverse of the park an 17th street and fulsome the planning department supports the proposed rezoning and classification it allows for the 100 percent affordable housing in the mission district enhancing the supply and will advance those goals the mission action plan further the department of the the property urban mixed use is appropriate for the site it is contestant with other zoning found in the immediate neighborhood although the shadows cast by the project has numbic the magnitude on fulsome park occurs in the

early morning or evening hours during the periods of low park use and the net new shadows is a small area in comparison to the park the project is consistent with the objectives and policies and of the plan and will add up to one and 34 new to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote in the mission neighborhood commissioners that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you a project sponsor here. >> sorry about that. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm eileen the senior project if the office of economic workforce development with the chinatown development center the project sponsors for the fulsome affordable housing development through years of advocacy for open space and affordable housing from the mission consulted ear excited to be selected by mayor's office of housing and community development as the team to

create the inventory of affordable housing apartments on fulsome for the neighborhood your vision is to create quality and heath enemies for families and transitional age add one bedroom and two bedrooms and three bedrooms if cradle to career to residents and the community chinatown avoiding c will provide the services and the market street will be providing use for youth and the the services on the ground floor and mission centers and good snarn centers are priority preschooler for 44 children jane kim towns will move their administrative offices and skwoovpz for youth and have the offices at that development sorrow they're also a corner cafe and public restrooms this services the general community the development team has been extensive outreach and has

received positive support on this project we'll have submitted our letters of support package to the commission that included on one letters from businesses and small business owners we had our third community meeting it was a well attended meeting are over 80 paternities our land use attorney will give you an overview and we're here to answer any questions you may have thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm ann and our firm is solomon the architect could i have the laptop. >> computer please the site for fulsome we refer to at a between fulsome and shot well and the cd park fronl others fulsome street in the

proposed design what was ken sieved as a firefighting agreement for a motion and a second between shot well and fulsome our design is still in progress but that is our intent to make the most felt south facing park adjacent setting to create one plus affordable housing with a new community hub for the mission district the building massing is organized around the courtyard to draw the sunlight and maximize the connection between the building and park and provide eyes on the park and active ground floor with a community serve use it an mates the park itself

- the northern corner and the instant childcare the cafeteria on fulsome and the park public rooms overseen but is cafe but available for park yours, the mid block courtyard for the residential facing on the community room that faces the park and mid block courtyard and office space for jamestown at the corner of shot well and the park next slide around the mid block courtyard to create a town square for residents that commands the use out over the park on upper floors next slide corridors and slates located residents have use out of the park as and come and go on the 8 floor a roof garden for

residents that overlooks the park and allows the building to step down to relate to the more intimate scale an shot well it is designed for a relationship with the new park and the housing is a backdrop to the park eyes on the important new communities resource providing security and safety for park yours one on the streets and the park itself an amenity for residents right at the front door. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm allen with the law firm of perkin it is a pleasure to present to the affordable housing project i think coming up shortly on the screen a visual of that but in

the meantime, before projection over 40 feet in height the commission must finds that is insignificant here the rec and park department and also the commission did find and recommended this commission find the shadows cast on 7th street he fulsome passenger not adverse to the use of park several factors that support this recommendations first consider the quantify analysis the shadow analyze in our package the load for 17th street and fulsome one .4 percent of theoretically available sunlight the project will increase the shadow casts as a percentage by another one .4 percent resulting in 2 hous 8 percent that when caring those keep in mind the increased shadow to be expected given the city is planned for building heights and dense and the project were essentially planned together by the city to

in conjunction with the land and formally as dedicated to a parking lot as one example as a mentioned the project will provide yours at the park with restrooms in addition there are several quantify quality as staff noted shadows in the early morning or evening when the effected areas are at low use and second now shadows on the park in the summer not an important part of season and third maximum the new shadows relatively small 2.7 percent and especially at peak level the shadows is summer soltice the park is in a low point of use or closed and financing and importantly the building casting the shadow provides a public

good already discussion how many letters of support in your packet and obviously providing hundred and 27 executive projects and for families and transitional age youth and nen finally in the mission district so just for all those reasons and respectfully ask the commission to find that the project will not have a significant impact on the park i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> okay opening up for public comment (calling names) i can't read that one (calling names). >> sorry must be getting late

and the headlines are a little bit tough. >> excuse me - >> the one and only here good afternoon, commissioners i'm korea smith on behalf of the 3 members of the action coalition thank you for having me. and unfortunately as you may know we have a project review team we worked with the project sponsors on a recent tougher the mission district and had numbers united to save the mission join us we're familiar with the area and generally obviously a good place for housing in principle may not shock you, we like the idea of more affordable units and the height and makes a lot of sense in this situation specifically mission needs more affordable housing so we do not out right endorse

it but generally a good idea thank you. >> my name is dale i'm with mission economic development agency and going to be reading the letters submit by anna and other not able to be here they have work so translated from spanish anna's letter good afternoon. i'm a single mother and immigrant from gavin newsom it is uncomfortable to live with so many people with no privacy as with the promise neighborhood and a leader of women activists in the mission i've seen many families live no conditions not fit for raising children many families had to leave san francisco that creates problems for school and work many people

are spending more income on transportation commissioners i ask you to approve this thing project that generates more affordable housing in the communities i also ask you rise only projects that rice luxury unit we can't afford to rent or buy and from dda i didn't good morning. i'm daisy me and my family came from honduras and we avoid living in a street we live in a garage and my daughter got on illness many families in san francisco live in a condition like this my family and many families need housing for this reason i'm here to say to you support this affordable housing project on fulsome thank you.

>> good afternoon mission resident and working would the office of economic workforce development and those testimonies that was read from people that came to speak before you and they had to leave and they poster working-class people single mothers that they care of their children and they clean the offices this is like the washer people that need affordable housing housing for they're not going to be here they have little kids and don't see little kids but their legally in a bad situation we're advocating for the more housing this project particularly was part of community planning when

we started did eastern neighborhood plan the community identified those sites for an neighborhood park and affordable housing we did all the - we saw a parking lot and a lot of business people were complaining about the parking and other people want to park and so they said we need affordable housing and need to convince people we need to have this possible and the same for the height some people don't want to see high believes in the mission but we need housing so we are trying to get people in support i hope the commissions we get an unanimous vote and a few times we feel we get an unanimous vote from the planning department but thank you for the opportunity to say that thank you, very much.

>> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. p commissioner antonini. >> yeah. this is a very good project i'm happy to hear it is part of mission for a section of eastern neighborhoods and very supportive and hopefully expend the same kind of supports be the affordable or market-rate as they come before us i have a few questions he saw there was a - exempt from environmental review is this the same as the community plan a statewide exemption because this is an variable project. >> thank you commissioner antonini this is a statutory project because it met the

criteria about that been 100 percent affordable thank you it is approvable underneath you know we have to apply the same standards regardless if it is affordable or foot affordable but under what the community exemption from the eastern neighborhoods. >> part of the review take into account the previously scope of work on the eir so it did fall under that review and it found it in fill will not have more significant effects than the pressure eir. >> that's important to note it is a project that has been analyzed and it is a consistent with what we did when we analyzed the viral eastern neighborhoods so that's important to noted with all the projects that come before us as far as the shadow is concerned

one .49 existing i guess this adds one .4 comes to 2 pointed 84 of the theoretical available annual sunshine question have to be sure we're doing distant of those numbers as we consider others projects and assume this doesn't cast shadows on the residents or other parts of the neighborhoods i don't hear anyone objecting but i assume it staff has look at the no non-statutory shadows and other parts of housing and stoop. >> well under 295 the analysis is about rec and park

properties. >> when we hear you know 295 prop k limited to park but we always about hear people also mention the effects of shadows on housing in the areas so i'm not hearing anyone bring up that point i'll assume there isn't any and not obligated to analyze is that if so not part of casting shadows on the new parks making sure we are looking at the types of things the project it sounds like a wonderful one and then is that limited to san francisco residents i know we have legislation there was passed that gives preference toe people in a zip code more affordable housing and maybe we can get absence input on that. >> so all citywide affordable housing will be applied with the different occupancy preferences

and neighborhood preferences for district 9 is one of the preferences ♪ project >> i understand 24 was a top priority if it is a neighborhoods first consistence with our laws that make sense the demands for housing for residents in the mission district and those should be the ones that accommodating not people coming from somewhere else it sounds like legislation that came throw us prioritized fairly high percentages for radius around the project as top priorities for the affordable housing. >> okay. so that's sound good this was a parking lot i guess it is been for a long time an industrial in the past. >> the site as owned by sfpuc and had been operating as a

parking lot. >> we're for the displacing any industrial use otherwise everything sounds like it is fine with this we're increasing the height but ads for unit and the impact on the park shadow is okay hooefl we'll continue to work with staff on the design and a sketchy picture of the exterior and i think that staff has to continue to work with the architect to make sure if it have an institutional appearance and all the things we require of other projects articulation a various difference in height and brapz more things to make it look remain i'm supportive based on the information. >> commissioner moore. >> it is important to repeat commissions action today is basically limited to commenting

as to whether or not the adverse shadow effect on the park or not i like to take a moment to acknowledge what i think is an ingenious project the pressure soot is independent of the design of the building because the park is not density as open space for the building but the park functions on its own why don't do i know that i've sat on the pacific design review and reviewed this park and read the full low down how this park is run and the building was never described but the park being the facing park being a wider side facing south was designed for

really embracing the community and their strategic and limited so the pacific design review looked at completely independently of the building as a park and now as the building design comes along there is a wonderful story unfolding how beautifully they work together to divide up with the north and south side and the way it is presented a fabulous solution nobody can possibly find the building shadow adverse to the use of park particularly that is a common interest building with a 100 percent affordability i want to briefly comment although we're not approving it's on the exceptional design of the units poor the design of the units 100 percent affordable housing is an

art on its own which is something that needs to be elevated to be appointment as exceptional because we often have just market street units the design lacks the skill we as a commission review is and ask questions i want to acknowledge the architect for putting their best foot forward the building is large i hope that you mean in the use of colors and have materials that is facing the park we can doing everything we can that the budget allows most of the money in the inside that's what eagle is all about and find a little bit more money for bringing color and other changes to the south facing facade that becomes in its own right the canvassed on which it

mystery itself i hope we think a joint venture with rec and park and the building to doing everything we can i'm in full support of this building do not finds any adverse effect for the - because of shadow for the used of park and move we approve. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner vice president richards i don't want to budget committee labor the point but it is it would be nice to see the community support a project in the mission it is 100 percent affordable and the shadow casts by the building is not not in ohio it is a trade off work making a director rahaim. >> thanks i tomato one comment it sort of gratifying for the department to see this move forward it is a multiple kind of source for this project back to

the eastern neighborhoods and the communities and did not have identified the site as a place for an open space and affordable housing we were able to help to negotiate the sale from the puc that's why the zoning action that was a puc p for public and it is a really gratifying thing to see i'm excited about that and obviously an important component of what we're talking about in the mission action plan 2020 and trying to increase the affordable units in the mission and second-hand smoke so on this is gratifying to see this project move forward. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to say almost the same thing but thank the department and having the mission action plan in place indeed all the pieces come together a crucial time any misstep in timing would have not

produced what we have today. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to o commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded a recommendation for approval to the board of supervisors on that motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 12 green street commissioners please note that after hearing and closing public comment you continued the matter until today by a vote of 6 to zero and commissioner president fong you were absent you have to acknowledge you've reviewed the material. >> thank you for the reminder i have read and prepared to take action today. >> thank you. >> good evening planning

brittany of the planning department staff the item before you a request for a de facto demolition of a two family between an green street within an rh2 zoning district it is before you it is a paramount to a demolition per planning code 317 and requires the conditional use authorization this project was previously heard on john 30th 2016 and continued until today's hearing from the direction from the planning commission to improve the quality and quality of lower units since is continuance the project applicant has made the following changes to the proposal first they have removed did roof deck above the fourth floor and the entrance we configured for the two units and third the lower level unit on green street as expanded the

level above and increased by one thus plus square feet an, an additional bedroom the revised project results in one three bedroom occupants and one three bedroom of three hundred plus an expansion to bog units that are approximately 2000 plus square feet and 2000 plus 95 square feet respectfully staff has no comment from the public at this time and recommending approval of the project as property because the project complies with the planning code and results in a net gain of bedrooms that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you. >> project sponsor please. commissioners this is the second hearing. >> good afternoon commissioner

my name is daniel with fellowship plan architecture we're the architect of record for green street and w working with the owner andrew on the project as probating in any mentioned carefully considered our comments and made changes to the project to increase both the quality and quality the lower unit i want to take a minute to walk us through the changes and like you if i could get projector. >> starting with the entry-level we changed the project both units entered through the green street entrance that is up 4 to green street and dropped down a flight of stairs to get assess the lower unit this is the basement floor plan and this is the garage and it is

located in the same position it was in the last proposal but we've done we've added a stair into the mudroom to take you to the upper level and added a bedroom to green street this here jumps upstairs and added a master bedroom and small office to green street and then in turn moved the master bedroom up to level 3 and as brittany mentioned removed the roof deck from the scope of work overall added 11 hundred square feet so green street making it a three bedroom, 3 bath 27 hundred skweelt and increasing it by thirty percent this concludes the changes since is last hearing thank you for

your time i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay any public comment on this item? >> not seeing any, commissioner vice president richards. >> i wanted to ask the city attorney is she here can you let me know where the demolition allows. them to be under rent control or not. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i don't know the specifics of that but the suicide is whether or not indians the building need a new civil right of occupancy it is made pits the department of building inspection and then when the rent board considered something to rent control that's what we look at it is really that question fails more in the jurisdiction of the department of building inspection and the rent board. >> thank you mr. lindsey do

you thinks whether or not the new project is a alteration of the building code demolition. >> exemplary david lindsey department staff it is an alteration permitted through the department of building inspection. >> great so. >> from the section 317 the planning department considers it to be demolition. >> your understanding the the state rent stabilization the building the result of the building permit that - >> the certificate of appropriateness. >> an alteration didn't require a new one so my issue you know, i read this at the grinning of the hearing there are 3 issues loss of rent-controlled units i'm grad this is none the list still

larger but the ordnance the other one on the staff report and looked at the housing element policy 2.1 discourages the demolition analysis it's an increase in the affordable housing project sponsor can you tell us how this remits in the necessity of affordable housing. >> we're not creating any additional affordable housing but the b 50 building. >> how about policy preserve the natural older ownership units and not considered a naturally affordable units above the 80th percentile.

>> this is conformation with what the project sponsor said naturally affordable or not we have two units roughly whatever times the value more than one .8 mental illness but the two new units will be wah-wah-wah out of legacy league of any affordability anyone in any worlds could a afford but go for $6.5 million this is a guess maybe a little bit less we have a project on trader they'll take a small lot and create to big units i hope this will give consideration and we approved on san bruno same thing 4 unit out of that i'm struggling to bear with that project not with the

cottage i don't i don't like those and don't worry about the existing housing area we're for the demolishing but maintaining the opts out and in all fairness in the last proposal proposed a smaller units slightly for affordable and asked to rise that so a bit of discrepancy i understand your comments creating more units. >> how long is that discrepancy we are rent-controlled issues and getting into the density quality but the 3 issues are rent-controlled and demolishing and sounds like housing demolishing especially more older and affordable and the density i think you're addressing i appreciate the work on the density and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say what we determine whether this project is better for the city or not. >> commissioner antonini for

the architect question i uniform those are condo mapped and would be sold as separate units. >> what's that. >> i assume their condo maps and sold as separate units. >> commissioners tom reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the project sponsor no these would be - remain they can't be converted to condo their existing two units built prior to 1980 they'll remain two occupants and sold as tenancies in common you remain from single opener. >> i seem. >> i understand the difficulty tare existing unit not creating new units. >> correct. >> only changing the units i

understand done a lot of good things almost everything we asked to be done if you wanted to get an extra bedroom but an individual decision and tons of spaces if you don't want those bedrooms but a 4th bedroom and p in that unit you've got plenty of extra space i don't have any problem with people improving their property in fact, we should be encouraging if it at the end up being better they'll be more expensive you own it and should be able to do what you want with our approval you went a long way to make the lower units more of liveable units that someone wants to perhaps purchase separately if you live it vinyl from the upper units it

would be more easily distributed but a good job 27 hundred square feet on the lower unit is a good size i'm supportive and move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> while i think the architect followed some superficial interpretation of what we asked for i think added the increase of additional 11 hundred square feet was not not necessarily what we were talking about when we were spelling out a more distribution between the two unit size just for the commission the building increased today is 4200 square feet and will be 8 hundred square feet taken into the increase of overall feel of what

is possible the bulking of both units for one and 5 three hundred square feet for the other he leaves me budget committee wilted the average apartment is 11 hundred square feet the smaller units is 27 and the larger one is 56 plus having said that, what our concern was is was i think you addressed this not necessary just the size of unit but the inclusive location in the basement with no entrance i think you've resolved that and continue to debate the size whether or not that fits i doubt it does given the concern it is predictability and the potential

of children in the neighborhood that the otherwise a fast neighborhoods in that particular part of green street i'd like to ask the city attorney a question that goes beyond what we normally ask we are very concerned about roof deck in areas where they are not roof decks and in this particular situation we never had that before we were told in the last meeting there was a private agreement between the person who was renovating the building and the adjoining neighbor about impact of noise of the roof deck and privacy so that that wouldn't become an issue before this commission is a private agreement between a current owner of the joining building

and something that we approved here a inadequately solution to otherwise what is a larger neighborhood nuisance issue. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i would not advise the commission to look at private aefshlt but approval based on the project before you and the considerations you'll normally give that. >> i appreciate that simple answer the roof deck of is great concern inform roof decks and this building is already so incredibly large i believe that it further x brats the conditions and while the answer to i share your concerns and in a major way but i did not know of how that applies to the building the jurisdiction over

the question you've been skinhead of dbi and not have that commission. >> i dropped the rent-controlled thing my issue i don't find this in general conform weers not preserving the housing only getting rid of of hours and creating enormously large units on the front of property and in thursday paper for 5 or 6 or $7 million it goes against against the grain of the policy i mentioned i stand on that city attorney as for the tic versus the climate change i understand they allow the bypass an climate change. >> commissioner vice president richards the city attorney is

not - >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i apologize. i was talking to the zoning administrator. >> there is a question whether this is a condo map my understanding the 2013 condominium conversion whatever the proper name the two units are by passing the condo moratorium can be tic go to condo an would ever year owners live in both units. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. that's my understanding as well. >> are the units owner occupied and each vacate. >> partly under owner occupied. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. commissioner wu was talking about the roof deck that is done as far as i know that's part of what was done. >> we've removed the upper

deck. >> the lower terrace on the third level acts like the lower space. >> i think well done i am not theoretically to follow the thought of line of thought some commissioners thought we articulating chop more off the bigger unit by the footprint is there and just take it away could be adding additional bedrooms and making that a very large home that suits someone with a large family so you don't think i don't see any reason but have to how shall some private property decisions people make even though this creates bigger and more expensive units. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you really quickly appreciate you guys taking what you got from the last hearing and incorporating it here i'll say personally that seeing the

sentiment of commissioner vice president richards but in general not butted against larger homes in general sometimes they work and sometimes they don't with the changes you made it is representative of our discussion in the past hearing that's why i'm supporting it thank you. >> okay commissioner wu. >> i think somewhat along the same lines i just want to recognize that the conversation is an important one to staff or maybe to the director you know the commission really is interested in seeing modest projects as much and they can and critical to the category i'm okay with the project today. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> on roared not the size but what that takes away we can approve the demolition of a cottage but today i'll not vote yes for it.

>> 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 johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards no commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to one with commissioner vice president richards voting against. >> commissioners that places us on item 13 shared street please note on july 7th and closing public comment the commission continued 80 today by a vote of 5 to zero commissioner wu and commissioner president fong you were absent please say you've reviewed those. >> i have too. >> thank you. >> the item before you to

demolish a single-family dwelling and construct a new one dwelling unit the the item before you is a demolition requires conditional use authorization it was heard on july and continued do today's hearing date after concerns of the overall massing and willingness for the project sponsor to meet with the neighborhood the revised proposal includes the second unit and the elimination of roof deck and a 3 if the setback from the northern property line since submitting an update i've received additional public comment from 3 neighbors indicating concerns relative to the fourth massing and in general the staff is saying that

is compliance and setback with all decks for the property lines that is in with the 2 and a half to the four story and it improvements for the adjacent neighbors to the south side by demolishing the rear unit and add units to the housing stock for those reasons general plan the department is recommending approval the project that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay project sponsor please. >> william architect we met 3 weeks ago i feel i've catered

out the planning commission comments and we meet with the neighbors and unfortunately not a meeting of minds regarding the top floor everything else was compatible and removed the deck and the stairs and then the second major thing we provided a second unit at the ground level and i've dourn done a couple of things one and a half bath with a laundry room and a nice size kitchen and lots of light and ventilations or ventilation i increased the lightwell from 4 to 5 feet and produced a lighted entry as possible a garage and some limits i did recess the entry to match the entryway to the main house in regards to the top floor i feel as an architect lots and lots of projects in the city and

knew mr. lindsey 1, 2, 3 unit buildings and i do feel i'm getting a number of quite a number of requests from families they have do have parents that are anchorage i have my own mom i have a victorian and you scant get her up to the stairs i think that is important to have the functionality in a house we provide elderly parents or you know handicapped individuals a place you know in the house but particularly for the elderly we have a top floor that would could be used as somebody that needed assistant care within the family or visit from out of town once again emphasis those used

to be may be one elevator every 4 or 5 years and now elevators every year just to meet this function we have age aging population including me, i'm 69 with a bad back and i don't karate it is a human eric philosophical i want to provide and is that on the submittal that was done in a bit of. >> hurry i provided a drawing you know today to show you the layout of the unit itself that you know would have you know both a bed and a little sitting area that top floor could communication or function in that way thank you. >> thank you. >> okay opening it up for public comment

(calling names). >> game-changer and thank you for your time commissioners my name is sam mooirns live on shards street - we are thoughtful and considerate of the neighbors we believe the 4 story story a out of scale and bona fide to not include a fourth story we met with the owner and reviewed the plans for 1241 and defense attorney lien and christine couldn't make it

here but proposed option and non-are viable and the openness to change the fourth story given the context the four story is allowable within the code i'm sure it's correct we are appealing the sites context 5 lots and all are two to three stories this is unusual for the 1241 second to the top of hill open shard street and 21 to the maximum code with the surroundings buildings and the building downhill on shrader street. >> i'll be looking at these

(inaudible). >> speak into the microphone. >> pardon me. >> here's marjorie's hours and defense attorney liens house and our building with sharader street. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> if you want to submit that page leave it on the rail >> next speaker, please. >> my name is den and moourns live in a house two doors from the property project that house effects the whole block not only shrader and on bratton all the

backyards join to make a green space and it is like putting a wall with a watchtower in the middle of everyone's backyard like a prison watchtower at the top the hill and really will cast a shadow over all our neighborhood yards and will block the sunlight especially in the wintertime when the sun is lower in the sky so there's will be no profess norway sunlight for the neighbors - people want to live here with lots of emergency vehicle telethons this is hard looking and crashes clashes with the other homes i understand if this was an owner building their dream home and loves that kind of architecture but not the case

and for some reap the architect lives in a victorian is adamant not changing the exterior for no good reason i did not understand yellow lights architect and the developers can't work with the neighbors i was - remove the top floor and soft even the exterior thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners when i came before my name is marjorie crockett and live adjacent to the proposed construction any son couldn't be

here today but has sent to you by brittany his remarks when i came before you honors on july 18th to oppose the proposed construction on shrader street i learned the city code for the valencia allowed a had level construction which will be able to rise 10 foot above any frontage to be able to understand what the city fathers allow that code to exist i took a walk to see the homes nearby and found any answer on the corner of alma and another street up the street from where we are living commissioners a intern block at the corner of alma a large apartment block it rises to the full height

allowable and further at the corner of stan i can't think and the pole street are two further apartment blocks that i asked is this a mansion block or situated on a corner no, that is construction above 4 properties one is 4 level and two, 3 levels please remove the fourth level that is an accelerator, a larger - >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, thank you very much your

time is up. >> okay. ma'am, an equal issue if i give you one more minute everyone else gets one more minute. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners the neighbors that spoke have 3 concerns the first perhaps. >> excuse me - shawn you're not party to the owner or the project sponsor at all. >> no. >> i heard3 concerns addressed this evening architectural style was one of

them we received the direction and advice from this commission at the whereas hearing to stick with the modern design we did that we heard concerns about privacy the top floor is a fourth floor it set 15 feet back in the front and 26 feet back into the rear there will be not be a privacy issue in the front yard the third concern about blocking lights and in an unprecedented fourth floor if i could have the overhead two doors to the north one of the speakers that spoke this building as 3 stories over garage it comes all the way to the front property line our fourth floor is setback 15 feet and for the to the rear yard 2 it has a

26 front yard setback so not many not every house has a fourth floor but not unprecedented thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to clarify what mr. lindsey we're an rh2 height and bulk 40 feet x means the project as proposed not talking about the effects, etc. is operating within the prescribed height limit; is that correct? >> yes. mr. lindsey correct. >> the question for the architect is the third-floor bedroom seems a little bit unusual mr. mayor or partially no closets lifestyles looks like a party room i'm not questioning that i question is why the room

that is so minimally indicate as a bedroom would need to roof decks i find that somewhat eir logical and perhaps because the light in the bedroom and ask that why the projects does many things the bedroom facing the street be eliminated and the bedroom to the rear have a significant setback from the rear of the property jaw leave it and not making sense to have a roof deck and the question of architecture is an architecture special nothing ♪ case it a question of taste by the owner i question why the first story has as much glazing that are more like the 1950s and

makes the jooirn building not harmonious and if it were my brothers i probably would diminish the 5 of those windows their relentless that's not what i feel is a condition i'm comboem the only thing i make to motion to approve with the condition as stated but the front terrace on the three story bedroom be eliminated >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i went out and looked at it this and will agree with the project speaker that shouted pictures of the houses and made a note the house is 3 stories and 1255, 3 floors and went

further down is 4 floors not entirely 3 floors structures there and he would agree with commissioner moore that i think there is too much glazing i think that you know the basic colors and the way it is laid out didn't look too bad but cut the size of windows particularly the ones on the main floor there and have more non-glazed areas and possibly put more emphasis on the pains some separation on the windows but could be made better you have a cornice on the top that ties in fairly well with the house to the next side and have more detail possibly and as far as the top floors concerned i'm okay with

commissioner moore's is that removing the deck that faces - >> street side yes. >> i don't see the need for two decks there and but otherwise, it seems like is a good good thing and non-conforming dump that looks like little house at the back you know i'm not sure why it was positions to far back in the lot if look like there is much to it adds two units and replaces one project sponsor did conform with our wishes to make a second unit seems to be a fairly reasonable a little bit bigger at the expense of the other one it is okay. >> commissioner vice president richards this is a demolition

small commissioner antonini say dump on a very large lot and it maybe more expensive but a good use of land versus the last project i'm fully post. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much yeah completely supportive and appreciate the project sponsor was able to come back and take our suggestions not an normal dimple but like we're like the scary part terrible (laughter). >> but i have a quick questions on the changes with the calling that a mess necessary deck but a - is that 26 feet of nothing. >> the bedroom sits where it did. >> that's kind of far with

nothing there. >> the plants or something not usable deck space not necessarily agree with the removal of decks but certainly believe that is liveable space it is just blank so conditioned something there - >> public art sculpture or something. >> i want to make a point of clarification the deck that is proposed on the front of the in front the top fourth floor on top of of the roof of the three story and setback on the - 3 feet from the north property line it looks like 5 feet from the front building wall and 7 feet from the the south building wall the deck as proposed is

setting well in the measurement of roof 10 feet deep by the 14 and a half feet wide as proposed. >> the condition is to remove that deck. >> correct i wanted to clarify what the deck as proposed. >> i know you removed it. >> the neighbors concern the viability of use up on that deck adding the three story so over the garage to be piecing piecing and removal the deck that didn't justifies two decks on either side is the one way by which you can meet the neighbors concerns to meet the building it sits in the proposition to the rest of the building and that is what the neighbors concerns are i'm addressing the neighbors concern without dmifsh the liveability

the room in its current location. >> i understand audio tape to make a condition necessarily but ask potential the project architect to look at our i'll ask you a question let me finish and come on up i'll ask once the sort of decks are removed so gates and all that look at the design of the building i actually drove down the lot and happen to be in the area to look at the address there's no prevailing roof design necessarily but every building has something and he feel if there's not going to be something not going to be decking you know the things that go along with a deck something than a blank space consider

something. >> i'm actually thought of those comments with the meeting with the neighborhoods what makes sense keeping the front decks instead of the cable railing and we've had that requests over since grass is ousted i have no issues with that, i thought that was the rear deck through the privacy of rear yard and thrown out it is nice to have the idea of light through the front and back but what i have have suggested keeping the roof deck to have planting back there so one you get the sense of belonging green in the back and blocks the viability out from the deck not - cutting it down to the point you want to be and the rear deck for landscaping and brings the

windows did you observe to the floor. >> thank you that's why i'm waving my hand. >> thank you so i'm not going to sit here and anger with my fellow commissioners but support if that is what everyone wants i think again, if we're going to remove that i want to say it came from nothing and a setback you have to look at the prevailing roof designs in the area and make sure it is not just flat blocks with nothing on top so all that stuff will not be there. >> you have the building in its position to have basically a flat roof with orientation and whatever he does is independent of what is indicates in the glass railing so if you review

something. >> the owner choose to put a planter box at the edge of the bedroom window. >> i don't want to belabor thereby i don't want to condition not having those things not a front deck on the floor that's fine but there's something that is missing if you take away the issue and ask the project sponsor to look at it that's all i'm saying. >> commissioner antonini. >> as was brought up it is quite possible we should work with staff to kind of enhance the corner in his and perhaps - not putting the raised areas to the north but makes it get in better with the existing homes

and i don't have strong feelings either way with the deck or eliminate but seems like there is a consensus one of the decks will go and the consensus to take 9 back out instead of the fronts that's okay but less visible if that's an issue the neighbors have been and the other thing i thought of if the roof on the upper floor was pitched that maybe less obvious as the fourth floor but code compliant so i don't know if it is absolutely necessary. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'll struggling with the policy change that every roof has to be activated happy for the project sponsor take it, it is all good. >> commissioner moore. >> the only thing we should be

asking the architect as to say whether or not he'll consider as to whether or not the roofline not a parapet becomes something else. >> and like the 3 dimensions i tried to do that the other projects interesting discussions doing that i agree i don't know like the core in his i think such seen a small i think forget the dimension but above the bay a protrusion can be catered out higher and be quiet attractive with the massing. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that matter with conditions as amended to include the elimination of the fourth floor

roof deck. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places us on items 14 ab and is deserve will consider a rear yard modification on market stre street. >> good evening, commissioners tilly chang department staff on market street was the demolition of a second story commercial building and a new construction of '85 foot tall building containing one units plus and 4 three hundred square feet in the

neighborhood commercial transit and height and bulk 50 percent of the dwelling units are in the code section and no off-street parking is proposed one and 70 class 2 bike parking spaces and class 1 bike parking spaces and the spaces provides the common roof deck and a rear yard the sponsor will provide a detailed presentation for those i'll tough on policy the conditional use authorization to allow the abutment on the lots the the truth is 6 hundred plus square feet and the project seeks the rear yard planning code e and a variance from planning code as 23 of the modified rear yard don't comply and the zoning administrator

will plan on the variance and rear yard request after the commission takes action, an is conditional use authorization to date the department has 4 letters of support two of which from the hayes valley association and the middle polk and the two residents are for are long term residents and printed the other 3 for those who want to review them. >> in conclusion the department supports it it meets the goals and objectives and replaces a second story building with an project with much needed housing presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> project sponsor please.

>> good evening planning commission representative for the project go up thank you for your time and consideration on market street this is a little bit the project sponsor we're a real estate firm with an actual developer and business owner of local nonprofits in san francisco and is have been part of district 5 since 1985 we've been socially responsible partners and support variance neighborhood organizations throughout san francisco like she recall davis mo' magic and the african-american culture centers holiday fair and the eastern neighborhoods center previously one stop that is priority for career assistance they or less outburst the highest number of job placement

a testament to the center we originally were going to have steve come up and speak because of the meeting he had a prior engagement and couldn't stay long term and we have liz the executive director of career center that will speak in support of project but also had to leave because of another obligation so we over the past two years engaging the local businesses to come up with the proposed residential mixed use project we had to work with a triangular site by the way, came up with a much needed residential units and retails businesses and a positive activation of market street we spent a considerable monument outreach in the neighborhood and

will keep every updated and thrilled and appreciative of the hayes valley association and sf pack for supporting our project and met with multiple times with the individual members like jason and detailing and worked tirelessly and made accommodation to come up with a program that question, both accept our project goals and candidates to provide the much needed rental units and provide for rental units on site and promote bicycle by providing one and 75 bike spaces and continue to support our local neighborhood nonprofits we also like to enhance the retail with the emphasis on local businesses we had an extensive experience working with the talented and successful local retailer and restaurants

we've been instrumental in the retail corridor and attracted businesses to make fillmore for vibrant san francisco neighborhood the development in the projects we remain commented with businesses and local residents and sincerely ask for your support to move forward to make 1740 market street a reality thank you for your time and consideration and at this time, i'd like to introduce our architect. >> actually have about i'm sorry architect for the project sponsor we have 8 more letters of endorsement that came in the last few days not submitted those folks cannot be here

tonight this an interesting site as you may know we came to you guys about a year ago and worked on a triangular building on matt and a accelerator between those two a triangular block with a triangular sites with challenges for the architect we tried to incorporate that quality of character of the triangle which is strong sharp angle letter into the quality of the architectural design - the 3 ideas of market octavia a strong and paramount ace tattoos building that is 3

stories high shown with not only a 15 foot lobby and up to 20 feet at the end but in casings a couple of units above it to the three story to give a a prominent element to the building and articulated the base with a strong set of inflicted bays that point towards the downtown and given it a acceptance of the motion in the sense of belonging visibility we think that important on that block and finally at the top of building a prominent cornice and give me it an artistic long broad sweep to give a sense of belonging motion and completion to the building we think that is a eloquent look to the exterior

the core of the building is thank you and mid block we respected the setback that mr. nab commented on and have to say we were working tersely with the neighborhood and our client and with the planning department to get this gore, if you will, more prominent and articulated but to preserve the light and air that is due to the neighbors. >> talking about the program of the building that pacific patrick those are relatively small units we discussed that last year, we had the same kind of program relatively small units with the broadest and most heaviest aerial boulevard in san francisco with bart and muni

metro and buses in the street we decided that we don't need any parking we can get parking but the units are sized we have a great deal of amenity on site and common to a building with a smaller units we've got 2000 square feet of tenant storage on the ground floor we've got a very eloquent and large lots on the ground floor and the retail area is split 20/20 perhaps 3 smaller areas that can be leased both for large restaurant or will retail use or smaller uses unfortunately, we had to put the transformer into the building and shield that with green wrap so the top of the building wraps into mr. marking nabs building and the property itself

on the second story an internal courtyard two important amenities for this building we have a large community room and we have a large recreation both are connected to the outside space and a second story rail two-story liquor and reprogramming that area right now shows private decks but in discussions with the landscape architect we have put active use on the roof this by the way, is adding for sensitivity to that top of that courtyard and additionally a privacy wall separating the rear yard from the courtyard we've discussed quite with those

neighbors on the three story this is an area that we went through a lot of design with mr. mcnab setback the corner with a substantial amount of open space that preserves his views and light back to market street and we can talk about that a little bit more perhaps on the rooftop we are programming more material and green roof and a substantial stormwater retention on the roof that building makes all the right adjustments and respect for the market octavia plan with both the articulated building and a building that has

a proper amount of amenity for this locations a. >> if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them thank you for your time. >> thank you, sir opening it up for public comment i have one card corey smith i thought you were in brisbane by now. >> to build for housing right after this. >> appropriated. >> good afternoon, commissioners koreay smith that the housing action coalition thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak we saw that prolong in november and fully post as the architect ever went or went through that is space constrained but they did a fantastic job in an ideal location as you may know with upper market so it is opted out

by muni and assessable along the busy market street and people are in walking distance with the amenities we absolutely are tlildz this showing spot has from car parking and it fits with the transit first priorities over all we think they didn't a very good job in designing and challenging space and especially the transparency ground floor an exceptional job we support the below-market-rate housing onsite as well as the smaller back and forth we hope to fit the model due to the small nature and the project sponsor has been a very good job of engaging the neighborhood association we have a letter of support and all in all a good project all over the

place good location and we he wholeheartedly encourage you to support it. >> thank you, mr. smith is there any public comment, sir. >> thank you, mr. president and commissioners arnold reverend arnold i wanted to rise and sing the praise of the family we've known each other and lived a operated in the same community the financial for over thirty years and if you were wise and ethical you'll encourage them to do more projects i'll you'll not find nor qualityable people and community ordinary their, their part of our communities in every

aspect in their celebrate our joys and victories and mourn with all the tragedies that may occurred in the community their giveers they left out the june 10th celebration in naacp gala and three or four things patrick doesn't mention they support and give to their retail clientele diverse and eclectic their tenant based and resident tenant is the same in every sense of the word they're the kind of people we want to be active in san francisco and he can't encourage you enough to support this project and move forward your neighbors will be happy and one day - the good thing they by listen to me, i'm a colored guy. >> thank you reverend is there any additional public comment?

>> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> in order for the city to conceiving transition into the much written about octavia boulevard we need to fulfill that you come up market street and this existing thing and not happening i think this particular project is making it happen there is something about a triangle aside is that indeed requires a lot of creativity and something more difficult a rather demanding building particularly need to go around the corner rather than being overwhelminged by the - i'm

happy to see the design his kind of what i feel a sense of belonging motion and a playfulness that meets all the requirements on market street to move along something which has rhythm and livelyness problems are there but i think the creation of a good kwrlgd well diamond that will leave us with 23 units that have nested bedrooms and not as an issue when those units are all tucked being so a an area they have the largest view over the significant inner courtyard so in other circumstances easy to say no with 23 units we start to get nervous but carefully look at where they are i think their fine

i like the daring of give the barriers with the zones where you move along those large blocks on market street and i'm really very, very happy to see this building inspection come online and hope with to changes and i think it will be an excellent transition into the octavia boulevards market street transition we're looking for so i'm in support and move to approve. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree this is i think that was the gentleman also the architect for 17th street and probably for challenging and remember because of the need for multiplied bedrooms and two bedrooms units we were able to

fashion something i hope that will be built in the near future as well as this project it is a dicey market but with those two projects built that will change the character entirely i'm supportive. >> 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 moore. >> commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero discovers on the variance, close the public hearing and grant the requested modification variance. >> thank you commissioners, that places you on item 15 is an ferdinand way conditional use

authorization. >> good evening, commissioners veronica flolz department staff in a nut shell is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow a change of use for a chiropractor facilities only san ferry in the witness stand way at the intersection ocean avenue this is located within is rh1 zoning district and a 40 height and bulk district additionally this project is the result of enforcement case the proposal involves legalizing on childcare facility doing business as ymca as serving 35 children that has

think outside the box operating at the project site since 1998 the project does not seek so physically expand the building but replaces 3 windshields on ocean avenue and is childcare facility will operate mondays through friday between 7 and 6:00 p.m. the surrounding area is mixed use in characterization and immediately to the west the slope elementary school playgrounds to the east are recipes in the west of twin peaks neighborhood and the south nc was a mixture of food and dental and decrease practices most of building are one or two stories in height to date the department has received communications in opposition to the project from the balboa park homeowners association, however,

after the packet was finalized the project sponsor telegraph hill reached out to them and the president and vice president have retracted their opposition letters have you a copy of the retransaction letters escalating and additionally, there were 11 communications in support of project that - the department represents it is desirable for the following reasons the project promotes the operation of an established use the business has served immediate neighborhoods and provides sdmunt need and will not displace an existing tenant, not adversely impact window replacements in keeping with the secretary of interior standard. >> and the project will meet all stat requirements for the

childcare facilities that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you project sponsor please. hello commissioners i'm available to answer any questions you may have chris the earth for the project what we wanted to do was provide a real brief explanation there were a few letters we wanted to answer a few questions that came up in the letters we're happy to say many of the issues were resolved today, there was essentially all we had to do was document the existing conditions a in kind hopefully with the permitted i want to introduce somebody a representative for the church to briefly go over the history of the childcare center in the building thank you very much.

>> good evening i'm the senior warden at the st. francis episcopal church the church was started in 1922 the slide on ocean and fernando was way secured and the first service was held in february of 1929. from the beginning the vision to have a multiple use to serve the community during the week and sunday for services the original building is the parish and had school activities since the church was opportunity the parish had sunday school classes and in the summer of 1971 the live oak schools used this until they transferred in 198 the san francisco children's school

began and the ymca took over the classroom and conducting school there ever since by the long-standing presence of 80 years the neighborhoods of christian science was approved in 2013, the parish hall has not changed nor is that planning on changing since st. francis is a contributor to the community through various outreach program and providing the space in the upper level of the parish hall for the meetings and police officers association poa /* - they have concerns of the trash around the ymca uses prior to the permitted we have

not received complaints nor requests for changes from the neighborhood in a regards tattoos traffic and parking st. francis has one and 50 foot along white zone an san fernando for drop oh, not seek to expand the number of children's in the program beyond the current enrollment sfraps will monitor the white zone to make sure that is not impediment by cars in response to the loss trash we've asked our handy man to make sure the trash is picked up st. francis cares about serving the community and an interval part of christian mix by providing the space to the yuma walk through we share the goal of keeping san francisco a final city thank you

>> and now the ymca will

financial aid is available to families in need. we follow a philosophy that fosters social emotional and cognitive and physical needs of each child. children engaged hands-on learning activities to develop their own sense of the world and encouraged to collaborate problems all communicate and experiment with natural materials in their environment. they work closely with them was to build trusted environments to support each of their different stages of development. a number one priorities provide a safe nurturing energy learning environment to be successful and prepare for the future. due to high demands of the early childcare in our community, the ymca expanded two years ago. to establish a second preschool site in the angles i district which serves but to family each year old b-schools have extensive wait lists of at least 100, plus families for

full-time part-time schedules. their high needs for preschool in the area. this conditional use permit does not expand a preschool in any way in a number of children are in the scope of the project. it's a conditional use permit program as it is. the preschool is allotted to parking spaces in the white zone on san fernando waiver children to be picked up and drop off each day [inaudible] no signs to notify other drivers of the designated drop-off and pickup times. there was mindful of the zone and typically take no longer than 5 min. of parking space. necessary traffic abatement at st. francis charges have allowed us to use additional space for pickup and drop-off. if that is necessary. as for trash and update the date of the preschool play yard in church easement is not from the preschool program. it's

supervise closely during the two-hour outdoor playtime they have in the side yard each day and not [inaudible] outside snacks are provided indoors and prepared by nutritional food service that serves mostly fresh prepared foods and minimizes the packaging. any garbage used by the program is bundled in trash bags and put in the bins behind the church could play yard contains a garbage can use by staff and children [inaudible]. representatives from the ymca st. francis church and balboa homeowners association of agreed to meet next week to develop a plan for the preschool and the church to be more active partners in the well maintained facility and a more attractive and inviting neighborhood. in conclusion of the st. francis ymca preschool is a well-established very small preschool around high quality which provides invaluable community service and on behalf of the hundreds of families and children on the path of growth learning and community of this neighborhood institution we request the planning commission approved a request for additional use

permit at st. ferris this culture. thank you. >> thank you. opening up to public comment. >>[calling names]. >> good evening. i'm tresa matias employee of the ymca san francisco however i am a parent also my daughter who used to go to st. francis. preschool. i am going to read a letter of support from one of the parents. her name is tara contract [sp?] dear members of the planning commission thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the ymca st. francis. i been a parent of preschoolers which regulating at this cool site since the fall of 2013. i just enrolled my third child at the school district. as a preschool for all school this school feels a much-needed void in quality early education for the san francisco community. the school

is well established for working parents hours of operation from 7 am-6 pm and supports families who cannot afford to send their children to preschool through financial assistance awards from the stone them ymca. why scrabble healthy living and social responsibility. this philosophies passed down to its preschool. in closing, i would like to reiterate how wonderful the school is under the wise philosophy that teachers are conscientious and stress social responsibility to our preschoolers. it is a wonderful location and had never had an issue with finding a parking spot which is a big bonus in san francisco with small children in tow. thank you. sincerely tara contract. thank you so much >> any additional public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner richards >> this is a gate great project of the site. i'm thrilled you come into compliance and happy you're going to be working with the neighbors in the neighborhood association on whatever remaining issues there are and

have complete faith to resolve it either moved i moved to approve it >> second >> commissioner antonini >> i am also in support. being a parent and now a grandparent in the general vicinity more than 500 feet away of course am very supportive of this. i know how much demand there is for preschools and from that neighborhood so this having additional space will do a lot of good things. >> commissioners if there's nothing further this the motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions. antonini aye moore aye lucas via richard's aye fong aye so moved that motion passes unanimously. >> commissioners that are places on discretionary review calendar for item 16. discretionary review. >> good evening commissioners

did david lindsay of department staff. unfortunately when going to have to continue this item. it has been pointed out to us that there is an existing drawing units in the ground floor which is been proposed to be removed. when the application was filed, more than a year ago, that would have been approved as without a hearing as an illegal units. but under the change in this section 317 of this last spring, we are now required as a department to look at records on this unit to see whether there's any history of eviction or tenancy, which i suspect there is not but that we still have to go through that process. when the dr was filed, we were focusing of course on be

third-floor addition which was the subject of the dr. so, i have advised the project sponsor just minutes ago of the situation. i think we can handle that at the office quickly but we are faced with a calendar that moves out well into the fall at this point. >> okay. commissioner wu do we see that a motion to continue spewing >> staff recommendation? >> yes. >> commissioner mar >> i was just wondering what time frame with you suggest this comeback? >> well, you would depend on the outcome of our staff review. i think under one scenario, a review would take just a matter of a couple of

weeks if we could come back. ashley turns out he needs it can but need to can need the conditional use authorization to remove the unit we got to get that application files and noticing that goes along with it. so, >> this case very 02 weeks >> okay. you want to pick a date? >> i will let you do your own bidding. i think the 11th is really jammed. >> the eighth is full. i guess the 11th is full, the eighth is pretty darn full. the 10th 15th is closed. >> surprisingly things up on off next week. i don't know if one week is enough? >> under base case scenario >> we could probably do that the review but not get anything back to the commission in

advance. >> okay. commissioner antonini >> that would be fine with me because i assuming it becomes a situation that would not require conditional use then all you have to do is give us the verbal report as to what the status is. we continue into next week we certainly can bump it but it turns out to become problematic it because people wait for this really simple addition. >> very good i didn't commissioner >> i motion mocha i make a motion to forward this. >> second >> we should make take public comment >> any public comment on this matter the proposed continuance >> on the matter of continuous? >> not seen any public comment is closed. >> on a motion to continue this matter to august 4, commissioner antonini aye moore aye lucas new aye