needs to answer a couple of questions and needs to make some modifications in order to fit the circumstance. >> commissioner antonini >> i generally like a lot of things about this project. first, in terms of the parking. i mean these are nice units. they can be for sale units and i don't get into a situation where we sell self-selected, people can live in san francisco. once you don't have cars or want to have cars. i mean if you do buy a unit in its going to be a nice unit of ghana one have a place to put your car and people going shopping or taking your kid somewhere if you have any or probably not going to want to go over to van ness invite the students from galileo per space on the bus when you go down van ness. i often will take muni

bell walked from market and van ness to my dental office on franklin street which is 2 miles but it's better than getting onto those crowded buses. they're going to get better when the bus rapid transit but it still isn't done the way it should be done in the subways are light rail. anyway, that being said, i've no problem with the amount of parking. it's only one car. units. if you things that could be improved. first of all the exterior whatever happened to building walls and putting windows and? what we do is build windows nokia we don't have anything but glazing. i would like to see that work with the project architect and try to make it look like it fits in a little bit better because to the east, you can see there's a building they might particularly like the style of it. it's a fairly new building there was likely built in the last 20-30 years, and has some pays and it has more of a punch window window instead of all glazing which i don't really know if it's cheaper to build it or why we have these solid windows all over the place. the other thing i would see is some of the units are pretty big. the audit

numbered units. they have this huge master bedroom which looks like it's 27 by i think, 16 which is a pretty big rented it could be that way but it may be possible to redesign those bigger units and end up with three, three bedroom units and of course you have the two three, two bedroom units on the fun once if i'm not a stake in. that would be something i think i would try to look at because it might be better to try to design. it's interior design which we really don't have to do that much with but it would make more family-friendly units whether more bedrooms in those. the idea of a big unit is pretty large on the top, i understand the access problem. if there was a way to combine those or rather separate them and make an additional unit it's okay. but, i don't really

feel is that necessary. it's a big units but i don't really know if there's much that can be done. i have to defer to mr. keegan and see if there's any way that could be done if it looks like we had to cut it back so far to keep the shadows from helen will spark, then it might be difficult to make that not a townhouse. as far as the height, i mean i think it's the compliance, i believe. is it not? we already taken enough height off to block the-not block any light on the tennis courts and maybe some impact on the places to the north, but there's a fairly good separation from those. i mean, you can always have no shadows anywhere. see with the other commissioners say >> commissioner moore >> of a cover clarification from the applicant were staff regarding access, private

access to from unit seven to the roof deck so we have a penthouse for private roof deck axis given elevator penthouse with the public stare what exactly do we have here? last week, i think, we have a project which attempted something like a weaver re ourselves to basically anybody who wants to go to the roof deck basically comes up on the common stairs. i think that is a pretty healthy thing because this extra as additional height and clutter in a neighborhood with our typical and it adds to the shadow and impact on neighbors to the east who-and to the northeast because they are already affected by shadow anyway. could you explain that please the designer of the project? >> sure. i'll start by saying

were not propose the la to go to the repaired the elevator penthouse so that we match you with the height of the parapet so 4 feet above the roof level. we do have two stairs that go up there which is required. when you don't fire department access from one main public stairs going up to the roof and then we have an interiors therefore that residential unit. to get access up there >> but that is what we at this moment are debating because we do not believe that the private access stare from the unit below is necessary. >> that's basically-if anybody goes to the roof they often go the same stairs. there's no need for the unit which already has a very large terrace to have extra dedication penthouse access to this route. i find that really somewhat ironic that the terror space for this unit seven is already 1305 five squared. that is easily three unit sizes of medium-size studios in the city.

>> one of the issues we run to previously before the shadow impact analysis we had to stairs going up to the roof which provided all of our common open spaces on a roof. when we have a lot off the first 35-50 feet the building we had to illuminate the main penthouse up to the roof as well as the old waiter panos and it cannot be used as common open space. we often run into bombs with the fire department if we have a common stairs going up to the roof deck and it's not intuitively designated as private open space did we end up having to provide [inaudible] so it is something we can potentially look up here if we were to provide a common stair only up to the roof and provide locked the gate so only that tenant has access to it. is that which are getting that? >> i am actually getting at that. you're providing

balconies of 80 ft.2 on the majority of the units except the one in question, which is 1305 ft.2. >> right. another issue is on the sixth floor because of the shadow impact we can actually have any guardrails in front of the building and so that is actually just roof and not with deck access. so what is main living area we don't have any roof decking on the 64. this is actually just flat roof and i was again an issue chapter is minor sampling won't even allow carbonyls to be stuck into that shutter window. >> normally, we would not put the cargoes of the edge of the roof anyway. we pull them as far back with any override of any stair penthouse, etc. so we were never pushing guardrails at the edge because you can look at that >> we can even push it out. >> there still something off. thank you for it! mr. roman, my question has been-not been

answered and that's the question i'm asking for a variance in noncompliant structure. where are we with that? >> commissioner moore additional variance requested maybe we could speak to the suggestion that this is limited commercial use building that's an existing use of the building. that's one story have to lot. the back half of the lot is ground floor with a mezzanine, which were there were offices. so, the fact that the structure encroached into the required year rear yard makes that portion nonconforming but they're not exacerbating the nonconformity. the new vertical addition is that when i percent outside of the required we are your. >> we are getting into the very gray area of noncompliant structures in the discussion we had on pacific. this is the same discussion. what would happen if this would be a demolition? this would be basically a project which grows from the ground up, takes its proper attitude toward your

yard and in concert and harmony with all surrounding developments because it is primary residential, and would indeed, involve a building which would probably have eight units with open space and more bounce than what we're seeing here. i'm very very uncomfortable. we are basically being thrown again to the same kind of discussion that in pacific we need to come at some point with a planning department to some kind of better understanding where we stand with article 1 and where we stand with article 2 when it comes to new construction, so it avoids mix and match his. i'm not an expert on it by a long shot but i know there's something not quite balanced here. we are making compromises around the building that tries to do all kinds of things but in the end, it maximizes-it designs the building and maximizing an envelope and that is just not enough because it

misses out on being sensitive to what is surrounds it. that is my problem >> can you just clarify, if this building the existing building was demolished with a be able to happen with it less of a building envelope to build in? >> my understanding that is correct >> they would? >> they would be further restricted >> all the residential components of it [inaudible] >> zoning district in other words the ground floor is bigger than it would be otherwise but the upper floor is about the ground floor are all within the end below. they could've anyway. >> i think the restrictions were the concerns about parking were very well expressed. broadway is already basically an extension of highway 1 going down van ness into lombard. when the prt on dennis is being

built this we further exacerbated because walt left turn destructions off van ness going downtown. this will further exacerbate the problem of using broadly in both directions. the street is actually the moving lanes on broadway in front of these buildings is two lanes. yet, now you have cars entering and exiting out of this particular situation it that is a very difficult thing to inpatient on top of what is already going on. i happen to walked other all-time somewhat little bit prejudiced but the difficulties as a pedestrian as well as doing with past within cars who think they own the freeway. i think we are, indeed, not adding a residential building the kind of harmonizes within those constraints including the adjoining neighbors particularly going north,, northeast. i think we would be better off looking at the building which looks at parking

at a lower ratio. perhaps even in the basement. it deals with the ground floor where in a way that's appropriate to where we are and does a building that involves the number of units that we can do but in a better way. >> commissioner hillis >> just a question. i like the project. i think it's well-designed and i think kind of the biggest impact to the park has been mitigated which i appreciate. i share some concerns about the top floor deck in trying to minimize the structures and the penthouses that penetrate the top deck and i think it's appropriate to reduce the private staircase up to the roof in either replace that with a hatchet if you want private access or use the common area staircase for that.

i also share your concern about eight units. i mean that unit on the top is large. if there is a way that's code compliance to reduce you be able to get to units instead of that somewhat larger 3000 square-foot unit. i mean don't be something i might be happy to writing staff to look at to maximize the amount of housing and modest sized units of housing we can get on the site >> the first issue be happy doing a roof hatch on the. disregard administrative battle but it should not be an issue. so were fine putting a roof hatch*that private access to the roof. in regards to modifying the top floors to get an additional units in that it's going to require further discussions building and fire engines of travel distances and whatnot. that's why we've not integrated at this point. i think there is a solution in there somehow. we have to maintain top-level being a

townhouse connected to the lower level because of the egress issue. i think we can probably get an eight unit into this poem. we need to work with staff >> okay, thank you i be comfortable moving forward today with those conditions that the product with debt be only accessed by a terrace from the upper units attempt is made to work with staff to try to get an extra units on this site. i get the concerns about the ground floor but i didn't think given the context here is a bit different than what we saw on pacific. i sympathize with the neighbors on the layout. i know there's an impact to this, but if you look at the setbacks as you go up this building they start to get 40 feet amount plus, in the rear on the upper floors. so, i think that appropriate design and project in this context it would move to approve with those conditions. >> and second

>> commissioner richards >> question for staff it is this eight emotions do to fix no, it's not a demolition. section 370 does not apply. >> not residential >> no >> newbury is needed? >> it's a change in use and noncompliant structure. >> it's not a noncompliance rupture. >> it's not a noncompliant structure. >> i think there's some confusion about that. >> it's an rn-two dish. >> this is allowed. this is when i percent code compliance and i could actually go to the light wells as well in case anyone is curious. >> commissioner moore >> i still like the commission to open the 8.23 we are we are not seeing the living room of unit for audit store floor to

basically 3 feet of the face of the adjoining bay window good do you see that? >> yes >> it's fairly light on the window but that is existing with his existing those structure. that's where the existing office envelope is. we are proposing to remove that part of the building structure to provide a light well. >> yes, but you are providing a notch where your dining room table is. instead of coming straight across from the bathroom going south your notching and you are 2 feet of the face of that bay window that. i believe that is too close for privacy issues across the light well in the existing

unless i misunderstand what you're trying to do. >> i think you understand it correctly could be worked with the adjacent neighbor and their fine with us putting foss across along that edge and that's what we dumped it was her non-operable windows as well. >> what is the use in the day there in the adjoining building? >> i'm not sure but i believe their kitchens and baths in the mid-in the building and bedrooms and living heirs towards the street rear yard >> is this a rental building next-door? >> it's condos >> i find it very unusual summary would want to sit of the adjoining building and in the past we have not taken privacy. where providing what needs to be done that. so i would basically still say that the distance between the baby and your window has to be 5

feet without you are not. as soon as the building-as soon as they unit which is currently being affected from your neighbors being sold there will be problems. so those private agreements we had them with noise and whatever other things, they don't really matter to what we need to hear and that is basically to insure that privacy concerns are properly addressed when they need to be called and that is my current >> i think would be comfortable moving that section back to feature lineup 5 feet all the way across the third floor. >> [inaudible] >> that is correct. you are drawing it correctly. >> were fine including that is part of the conditions. >> that's fine with me as a second. >> can i ask a question? rule >> go ahead >> forgive me to you said this building is compliance. is that

because if it was residential right now would be compliant? there's no clear yard. it's not on vallejo we have a rear yard setback requirements. is that rear yard setback requirement exists on broadway or in exist because it's commercial? >> the existing structure encroaches affectively into the entire rear yard. so there's only 9 foot-distance between the actual hotline and the rear was part of the build. so that existing structure maintaining. they're not exacerbating the nonconformity >> is that it's in compliance currently but that's not good >> grandfathered in >> if you want to sit down, thank you >> attics this odyssey and real ledge and encroaching into

the rear yard. whether or not project sponsor is exacerbating that noncompliance by obviously they can do a vertical addition on that portion in the rear yard. that would not be allowed. only option there would be to ask for evidence which they are not doing. the vertical edition is one of percent within the code. they have notched every single setback accordingly including the template notch beginning at 30 feet from the rear property line. >> this thing has lost its >> commissioner moore >> i want to stay one more time the neighborhood surrounding this project in the pacific avenue corridor, the project in broadway corridor in on cross streets all have noncompliant buildings in there which are by default now being turned into residential will be exacerbate density developed residential patterns which don't benefit from properly designing residential which

fits this is a great sparrow this could be well developed with training carried on the existing building and creating something which indeed braces for looking attitude towards residential densification which is this particular project does not get their attack is a good architect at the questions about its. however, what this project is entirely designed as maximizing an envelope including some lingering questions that we from a policy point have not clearly formulated with respect to the reuse of these older buildings and what to do, i cannot support this project. i am really hoping that this commission-sorry commissioner antonini you will not be around to have a discussion which clearly addresses the future of the sites in the context of what our real issues really are. so i cannot support this project aside from the fact

that i appreciate your work and the seriousness of what we do but i cannot >> commissioner hillis >> appreciate those comments but i want to make sure commissioner moore you understand the difference between a code compliant mode one you would build a structure from nothing on the site as opposed to setting and what we saw on pacific. i think what you see is the difference being on the first floor am a you would now have a beard yard we are is now you have a structure. going to the end of the lot on the first floor. as you get beyond the first floor to the second floor, third, and beyond, you've got setbacks that comply in would look exactly what we would see the building built from scratch your. on top of that, you've got a development and a project that's responding to the context. i think that's most important we respond to which the public park across the street in making changes to its façade that respond to that so

doesn't actually shadow the park. so, i get the issue but i think we've got to look at those new ones is and understand it's not an enormous difference were talking about. that's what were talking about. if you want a project that does that you can certainly take the first floor of the building and lop off the back that are necessary and you have a compliant parts. we should speak to the developer but i'm not hearing anything from neighbors and looking at the context of this project where on both sides as well as in the back and the walgreens on the side your start to encroach. there's not the kind of midblock open space that i think we saw on pacific and see elsewhere that contextually were not really doing anything detrimental by allowing this to happen. which is a bit different than what happened on pacific. so, i'm okay with the project as is. i don't hope others are the changes i think

that had been made to the top and two for the notch. >> commissioner antonini >> i am fine, too. i think this is a good use. i don't think we have to do a whole demo and rebuild because i'm not sure what were going to gain. we don't need large number of tiny units. the unit sizes are good and if that upper unit there's a way to make two units were the one unit is, then you come up with eight units of reasonable size that i think is a good use for the size of the space that. i don't think the extension of the first floor into the reader has any impact on anybody. so i think that is i'm fine with the project with those changes did to fix commissioner moore >> i like to clarify the open space according to our courts, there are tennis courts and basketball courts, there's not a single element of grass or

walking or sitting in this particular. it's a functional looping of hard surface play yards. there need to be protected. they will they were rebuilt a few years ago with a lot of neighborhood and city support because it's a difficult elevated structure which needs to be completely refurbished and no shadow on that particular part. it's important. however, i believe we would be better off considering a project from scratch that something what we have here. the difficulty is with a conditional use which does not really ring it to everybody's attention and that we had basically letters of concern the being given to us

not even senseless because people were not aware should be an indication that this project as far as neighbors are concerned is pretty much flying under the radar. >> commissioner richards >> there's too many questions for me to say yesterday. i sport a continuance. i don't want to say no but i've too many questions. i was looking at the part of the building. not the back of the building. so i would love to be assessed this could have a go back to staff with commissioner moore's concerns looked at very brief continuance and ring it back to us. >> commissioner hillis >> i know it's late and sometimes these issues get complicated but i think through stephanie architect we bolted down to what the change would be. from a project that would be built from scratch to this price. i get where we have questions we like to continue them but that is in essence the difference between the project. i appreciate the concern but the difference would be that first floor. it would be set back to allow a rearguard. if you look at the drawings in context on the overhead we will see, to the west is a building.

that takes up that lots. that would be adjacent to this building on the first floor. to the east is a small open space that is already kind of boxed in by the existing built environments. so, i mean, i'm okay continuing its and continuing to work on it but i think we 02 people come here to rock these projects and put a lot into them to try to get down to the issues and understand what they are. i think we do in this case. unprepared to vote. there's only five of us here so that to continue we've got to continue, but i think our knee-jerk reaction is kind of windows a bit of a question is not as complicated in the situations i think were making it out to be. people obviously have worked with neighbors to make this a project work. i get there's concern in the back but we are complying with the rear yard setback on every floor but the first. >> commissioner richards

>> could we take a look at section 188 point a to make sure that's not covering this building? 180 a, codes section. >> could you give a little content to the section >> eight just talked about a noncompliant rearguard building could not be converted to the residential use without seeking and justifying of a variance. >> if i could if you look at trying [inaudible] in this section, i think there's confusion you. the existing building goes back into it the rear yard would be today. it is in a one-story building but if you look at that section and the portion of that section that is just that one-story parts, that you cannot build on there today. but everything because that's the existing

building. >> the building is complying or noncomplying itself? >> the new building? >> the existing government >> the existing building goes into his noncompliant but all the addition is complying. all of the upper floors >> i get it. >> roxy removing 15 feet off the back of the building. all this hatch area >> that hatched areas being removed. it's actually increasing the compliance. >> yesterday were actually lowering the back half above the first floor. if you >> if you just take a look at 180 8a, i would be happy. >> while he's looking that up, if you want to illustrate

director rams, we try to point out in which area. >> this area here is the only area the existing building that is being used on the ground floor as part of these are seen and look. i would not be in compliance. that if this was a brand-new building all the hatch indicates area of the existing building were proposing to remove. that 15 feet of height in the rear yard are locking down. vastly reducing the impact on all the rearguard at they currently exist and the lowering the back 35 feet or so of the structure. 34.4. >> thank you. >> while they are looking commissioner moore. >> i think it would be interesting to see the pros and cons. commissioner richards,

i'm kind of like interested. i haven't thought about continuance but i think would be interesting for this commission to see that if we study what a tear down the existing building and start from scratch with look like. they can create a completely different building. also, see i've never seen a shadow started. i'm basically being told it cast shadows but i've never seen a shadow subject i'd really like to particularly as you go up to the corner where the open spaces, to the open space itself sits on the platform and it is easily 6 feet taller than me above the street level. when i walked by there i see the feet of the people on that court. it's not to grade. i like to see that relationship together with the proposed building as well as

with and envelope which would basically demolish existing buildings and to show the commission with the trade-offs are in terms of units, interment unit sizes that subject it can be done quickly. the figure 3-d mappings. you know enough about residential design to do that quickly. that's what i would be asking if we have a continuance. i'm in support of a project there. it just has to be done correctly given we have other sites in the neighborhood where we are starting not properly addressing a problem that the reuse of those existing basis >> can i adjust that >> yes >> if we toured on this building and started this project we took into account the impact on the park address across the way the building but the exact same envelope, less the last 25 feet of the building on the ground floor. we would have it it parking

exception perhaps a units because we would lose several of the parking spaces on the ground floor because we are required to the accessible spot in there which takes up a fair amount of space and that would be the result of that. the only real change here of the building as proposed using the existing envelope on the ground floor is the additional parking. >> what that is something is a big residence for me is the problem on pacific. i'm not prepared to design a building based on parking and driving and parking space driven. i'm in support of accessible parking and he kept parking i'm in support of reasonable amount of parking but for the reduction of what you are proposing. so, i think the story you are telling is you could design a building with 25 foot rear yard which would be interesting to see what it does relative older to unit design what you might have to add terms about any sort terraces

but am interested in pursuing that because i think- >> it won't do anything to the unit. [inaudible] >> i think it will require a unit we design because you won't have to look at the allocation of how you deal with your ducks in your balconies. >> it would be the exact same >> the second floor would be access to the rear yard. >> commissioner antonini >> i think this is kind of your projects presented to us. we are to opine on the projects, not create a new project. if the commission doesn't like this project they can vote against it. but i don't see where a continuance is going to gain us anything because i don't think project sponsor once a project whether doing a tear down and rebuild. they want to build on the existing structure which makes

a lot of sense. as far as the parking ratios, and the impact of coming out onto broadway, cars travel quickly. they traveled quickly on franklin street. my neighbor who lived to be 103 years old used to get out of his driveway into his 90s almost 100 by carefully backing out into their picking his times when he exited, but it's not like we have a vast number of cars that give one car per unit. maybe in this case one unit without a parking place. i would like to see it passed as presented. >> commissioner richards >> mr. foster >> all do my absolute best. section 188 noncompliant structures enlargements alterations and reconstruction at this is specifically subset eight with no limitations of article 1.7 especially section 172 and 180 here of occupying structure as defined in section 180 a.d. enlarge altered or relocated were undergoing change contents edition of use

in conformity with the use limitations of this code. provided that with respect to such structure there is no increase in any discrepancy or any new discrepancy in any level of the structure between the existing conditions of the lot and the required new construction set forth in this code provided there may be required to the code are amended third this is a divorce of the existing portion. there is no-the changes to the non-compliant structure actually [inaudible] >> song back to the parking issue. i've heard with the neighborhood said. if you got the building offer you three parking spots and you create a backyard. how are we? how do you feel about that? project sponsor? >> were in a transit which neighborhood. we have a backyard.

>> bother deliberating on the density units, we are getting six two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom units which is actually far far greater than what we've required for example in the neighborhood association and market octavia etc. there is a provision in the planning code for rc are in districts that clout the three-quarter provision if the units were less than 500 ft.2 they could counted three quarters of a year. if you count that out you only get one additional unit out of this. the difference between nine and 88 is the maximum number could i just want to point that out treats >> i'm good with that. >> object sponsor want to respond? >> a lot of moving pieces here. the parking is a template. any other neighborhoods this was eight two-bedroom units can end up with eight two-bedroom units

were not that far off aware market octavia would be eastern neighborhoods would be. it will be less than 121. the problem is, some neighbors don't want parking and other neighbors have been told there is one to one parking. this is the classic story of the project sponsor always been rule >> if or not existing in the rear yard i would not have a problem with it. >> the one thing i'll say about the rear yard, it will improve the rear yard >> i get it. i'm with you there. get rid of three spaces. it seems like a win for the environment, the neighbors or we can continue. >> commissioner moore >> i have avoided for the last number of years to make a counterpoint to commissioner antonini position on parking in this particular case as we are

now moving into a new era of thinking about tdm i believe that we need to take a very hard look at reducing parking wherever we can. because we cannot continue to speak out both ends of our mouth eagerly at a time when the transportation environment and the movement environment around this particular site will be greatly altered in the near future. >> commissioner antonini >> i don't speak out above-cited i've always advocated for parking. i advocate for what i consider to be normal people who have families that need a car to live. even people who don't have young children generally would want to have a place where they can park their car. that's the way i feel and we don't want to exclude that type of person which is the majority of the people in the united states, and were self-selecting

out people who don't have cars and sometimes those people's abuse don't agree with mine on a lot of things that i think we have to be brought on enough to make up lease for people who do have cars and there's nothing wrong with that. it's fine to have more transit, but trying to scope these projects so there's less than one to one parking. these are for-sale units and i don't think they want a backyard. i mean, they have decks. you're on the third or fourth worker. i want one always done to go to this backyard when you have younger. probably not going to even use the backyard so i don't see the point. when he is gaining anything by having a lower level except to add to a little more conformity which they are already making it more conforms. project sponsor, how do you feel about the backyard? i don't see what we can >> i think would have been a challenge with it because we

designed going to be code compliant and use the code as our guide to create it that's how they ran the numbers to make sure this a viable project that i think there's a struggle for sure i know because were not sure how that's been a pencil out and whether that make sense. we would lose half a parking space and we end up with 3-4 for the seven or eight units at the point >> that doesn't work. years ago, we acknowledged units with more than one bedroom would have allowance of parking that is higher 121. on many of the years that we approved parking for could we give less parking for one bedrooms were no parking, but if a multiple bedrooms we did the 121 as part of the code we put in. so, that only makes sense here because i think you can end up with what did you say, probably eight two-bedroom should is that which are thinking to fix these are family sized unit. >> their good size there only two bedrooms but good size. i think the project is scope that make sense to me because nobody's really gaining anything by not having that extension into the rear yard in

the back >> commissioner richards >> i think we give more time to the project sponsors you can work with us and figure the subject i know it might be a bit of a surprise did was focus on the front of the building. happy to continue into the first meeting we have in september. commissioner sec. >> you can continue any day you like. you are going to-you be coming back strong >> half a block from an ncd. you're not sitting in the terrace where you actually need a car. of everything and anything for your living. >> commissioner hillis >> i noticed you are raising your hand it's good to hear a valuable. i just want to say,

we kind of our cross purposes what we're trying to do and accomplish in solving every problem the city has in one unit project. sometimes it does not work. i don't i think actually, the ground floor in the open seas probably better without first floor going all the way to the end getting kind of what is there in the context of the walgreens and larger scale buildings. i know i have a family with three kids good i challenge anybody to get them anywhere they need to go without a car. from soccer practice. so, yes to my think were on a good trend in the city not to have one to one parking, but our own wolves are inconsistent there is some have to work there some 121. there's a lot of projects being built in the city that we don't see that you have one-to-one parking. there's a lot of people and families who do need a car. again, i'd be all over the city on uber or lift spending millions to try to get my kids around to soccer and

baseball into school on time. then you have to quit my job. in order to figure it out. you begin to hear your thoughts >> a couple of responses. one might think were making a big assumption that families live here. again, $1200 a square foot . i don't know how much the average square foot is here. i wait and i have made a decision to live in an urban environment but it's a small space and given the high cost of childcare and everything else, but we are unique. most of the people in our neighborhood are not families. so i think >> everyone of families live there if you build smaller units without parking you not definitely not going to get- >> you might have a young family that lives there for a couple of years and moves somewhere else but we've offered to the sponsor and i think it's a good way to get this done today for them to lop

off that last part of the building. the rear yard that's an amenity, two. that's a place where you can go down there kick around a soccer ball. people will self-selected people will say, this two-bedroom condo am going to get a little bit of cheaper price on it but not to get a parking space within my price range. someone else may say well you know what, i absolutely need to cars because we commute that a fark the go look somewhere else. i'm interested in i think that's a fair compromise. we should not let parking design the whole project and that's exactly what's happening here and i think to echo commissioner moore's point, hours and hours on these meetings on transportation demand management environmental concerns and everything else. honestly, these units will sell. in our neighborhood, demand is high. they will sell.

somebody will bynum and somebody will live there >> i get the get we grapple often with their space. what else could you use it for. you might as well put parking in the. you can have a shot at attracting families. i get it. i don't think this is a very the standards got a ton of families of special egg utilizing 2-3 bedrooms for maximum out of families. but i don't quite agree you lucked out that off you got some nice open space that's when to her. you're probably better off with the second floor backspace on there then you are first floor. so i get it. were making we can make tweaks like that. are we improving the project? maybe, maybe not. but i get it. they're bigger policies that were scenes were trying to [inaudible] try to do them on every project sometimes gets a little challenging >> i am aware. having these eight units a hustle to get a live there. some may be family could some of them may not be.

but we welcome those new eight households and i think there's really an urgency to get more units approved but make sure that their respectful of the whole context. so, i'm hoping the project sponsor would be amenable to that and we can get this hopefully the commission would support that as well >> commissioner moore >> can i ask you a question. do you by any chance-you live around the corner what is the distribution of car sharing traces on the street there? i know there. i see the provision and i don't pay much attention to it anymore. this particular corridor has literally car share places everywhere on the public right-of-way >> yes. there are several city car share as well as zip car outlets within a 5-10 min.

walk. there's several along polk, both in private condominium buildings as well. and other commercial outlets. i mean, there's definitely no problem in getting harsher. i would just say other than a 99 unit building that was constructed in 2014. oftentimes, several of the parking spaces are empty because people don't have a car. further, you will see there will be a constant stream of gmc pickups at all times of the day. people's motive transportation is changing. our building of 99 units we have 15 children. most of whom are small. the many empty investors, retirees would've grown up have been in the suburbs at ray's family and they want to come back into the city. that buyer could buy here. we have many young professionals with roommates.

so, i know that we want to bring in families. i am just take that top unit 3000 ft.2. that's $3.6 million could mean, sure there's a family out there that can drop $3.6 million but i don't think it's what were thinking of mom, dad to car to get in a golden retriever. i just want an offer that. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore, on the point of car sure in that era was also in our mind is one of the first supercar locations on the corner which we approve the building on and it's no longer there. so come i think some of the destinations we are building project. commissioner richards >> if we stop sent based on census tract the car ownership

rate is .5 and we had from the american committee surveyed two-bedroom households on one car i would be okay with it. let's just do it did fine but we don't have that. so i'm open to 10 you it. i think were at a stalemate here today. let's come back. >> can i adjust that? if we were to not try and squeeze in the eight units and keep it as seven units and we took off the back 15 feet of the ground floor, would we be in agreement? >> repeat that one more time, please >> if we kept the unit count at seven-seven or eight units and we take off the back 15 feet of the proposed structure of the ground floor, would we be in agreement with the commission? >> what would that accomplish? >> will have to reorganize the garage. we can explore looking at parking stackers. will maybe lose parking. i am not sure. we will have to look at it. it would give you a larger rear yard and i guess it would bring it halfway closer to

>> 10 feet into the required rearguard >> you'd have a beer yard- >> it would be closer to it. >> you would come in five more feet >> yes. >> uncomfortable with that. >> i'm okay. i'm fine with that motion replacing the motion that is before us now. >> it depends on the motion. what it all includes. >> same thing. additional rear yard >> a roof hatches for the roof tec open space. popoff 15 feet from the ground floor as proposed and will work with staff to address interior layout of the garage >> and it's a privacy issue of holding back >> yes. include the third-floor light will

>> i am good with that >> commissioner moore are you good? >> i'm good in principle. i prefer to see plans before i approve something. that's my own nature. i prefer to see drawings and if they can be shown on whatever september 5 or so whatever the date is, that would be fine by me >> did you say you want us to come back and show you? >> yes >> you can chose on the 15th. kind of like we did on- >> basically eliminate [inaudible] >> with the deck is >> yes. >> how are you responding to our challenge about those 3000

square-foot unit on number seven and the 1300 ft.2 of terrace on that unit? that is a challenge for me. >> you'd like to see a smaller duck? >> yes, i do >> i find the imbalance in the building given also the cost of what this huge oversized unit does somewhat un-proportional to what we are trying to do >> can we set back the deck from 5 feet from each from the back and front? is that getting to where you'd like to see this? >> yes it should be set back. it should be more inbounds. 80 ft.2 versus 1300 ft.2 balcony or deck size is somewhat a message for a units inequity than having a hard time with. >> so in addition to the other changes we will remove the last

5 feet of the deck and said dr. garbo? we will convert this to a roof hatch. is that workable? >> we will work with staff to figure this out >> okay >> i think we've kind of be dissolved. >> we listen to you. trust me. we have. >> commissioners, there's a motion and seconded to approve this project with conditions as amended to require roof hatches to explore an additional units notching the third level of the building and reducing the first floor 15 feet from the review leader also reducing the roof terrace 5 feet from the real. is that >> could you repeat the sentence of the roof hatches? >> requiring with patches >> in lieu of

>> excuse me i don't think you never roof hatch [inaudible] the common staircase saws have a penthouse because the roof hatch on the private >> yes >> on a motion commissioner antonini aye hillis aye moore nay richards aye fong got so moved the motion passes 4-1 with commissioner moore voting against. that will places on your discretionary review calendar for item 16, 1276 market st. this is a mandatory discretion review to >> the cost of the premise of this item before you is an application for mandatory discretion or view deception medical cannabis dispensary or ncd for sure doing business as

mowbray and spirit located at 1276 market st. the project site is located within the see 3g data general zoning district 80 x height and bulk did. it's bound by market street to the south i say to these barking street to the west and grove street juvenile. perception new and city replacing a bacon ground floor commercial space. see occupied by retail sales and service these doing business as the dollar store. the subject space has been vacant since november 2015. the proposal would allow for on-site sales of medical cannabis and her medical cannabis edibles to person 18 years of age over holding a valid medical cannabis identification card. addition the proposal would allow for the medication of medical cannabis many that smoking vaporizing in her consumption of medical cannabis edibles would be permitted on-site. as was the on-site cultivation again meeting like underwater plants be kept on the premises

for the purposes of harvesting medical products. the proposal would make tenant permits to the existing 4001 at 21 square-foot ground floor commercial space with no physical expansion at the existing structure. the project sponsor remains a full-time security which is include indoor and outdoor video surveillance that in addition security guards will be employed inside and outside the subject retail shit hours of operation for the ncb 8 am-10 pm dear. they maintain full-time security as i mentioned. [inaudible] project sponsor employment levels are anticipated to exceed 30 employees the first year which does include security. as approved by the board of supervisors of the prominent public-health serves as the lead agency for permitting and cds. the print unto you is generally limited to the location of physical characteristics of entities are principally permitted the zoning district and cities are part to be heard by the planning commission which shall consider whether or not to exercise its discretion or review powers of the building permit application should the planning code section 202. to

date the department has received 19 letters of support to the letters were received after the active publication deadline because were transmitted to the commission of their service. you have those letters. major of the public, transported up close and cities folks on the need for additional state axis to medical cannabis in san francisco as well as potential for increased economic economic activity. the department recommends take discretionary review and approve the following week. the ncd is a neighbor serving units that complies with all requirements of the codes and secondly the site areas already and credibly well served by public transit including muni and golden gate transit services as well as per part this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. project sponsor, please >> good evening commissioners. antonini congratulation get we commend you to the service to the city. >> thank you

>> we will split time get on here representing mr. nate half doing business as mowbray's medical cannabis dispensary at 1276 market st. when i was first retained by mr. hoss to assist them with the project at a conference of betting the neighborhood to ensure there's no conflicting uses or potentially conflicting uses within 1000 feet the results were conclusive. there's no use serving facilities recreational facilities or schools anywhere nearby. this will actually only be the only dispensary in this area worth of market street. it will serve the valley civic center midmarket corridor larkin street and even up market. the dispensary will revitalize this corridor to clean up the surrounding area market street is in much need of attention and economic developments. he's been a speak about his expense and the work is done already towards improving this area in the community >> good afternoon were good evening commissioners. i started

at barbary coast as a doorman that worked my up to the general manager there. being first on every job and a dispensary is the key to being an effective general manager. based on the knowledge on definitely a semi-overall knowledge am deathly a security first guy. patient security and comfort are paramount to running a well having a well-run dispensary. beyond that, i care deeply about the city. i'm a proud third-generation san franciscan raising my family here. when i signed the lease at 1276 market reach out to supervisor kim's office to kind of get advice on the issues that plagued the neighborhood. at her suggestion for my walk the property with house and birth of sf safe as well as cmdr. teresa humans of the tenderloin command and learned a little more of the specifics about the problems that are on the block. at their recognition to secure the best lighting and security cameras