>> good afternoon commissioners. by the planning department staff. the project before you is about the project authorization and office devoted authorization located at 63 fulton st. under the downtown project authorization budget request exceptions perception 148, when current section 152.1 aussie loading requirements of section 270 and 272 would exceed the limitations within 200 identical district. under the office bauman authorize the project requires authorization of up to 89,000 nine and 79 ft.2 of office from the annual limit of office development. the propose project is located on southeast corner of the intersection of wholesome and hawthorne street within downtown commercial support zoning district. the 200 height and bulk this. the site is also located within downtown plan area and the filipino cultural heritage district. the site is occupied by seven-story one 74,693 ft.2 office building that contains 1100 ft.2 the ground floor retail. the

project will construct four-story 92,002 and 44 ft.2 addition to the existing build. in addition the proposal would read glad the existing façade with eight new metal and glass curtain system we can think of the ground floor to move and expand retail space at construct a new corner lobby entrance. the result will be an 11 story 160 foot tall building with two inner-city 4000 six or seven to square free of office space and 5000 ft.2 of ground floor retail space. the department has received correspondence in opposition to the project from both individual residents and homeowners associations with two buildings located immediately adjacent 631. street and 77 dow place. the letter success concerns related to loss of light and air as well as impacts related to construction and increased traffic. it is staff's

attention was not a sufficient shadow analysis at the plaza located at 601 fulsome st. in response steps that request a supplemental shadow analysis memo 461 fulsome st. that is revise the finding way to section 147 shading on public open spaces to include an analysis of this open space. and you have been provided with a copy of that. should the project be approved, commotion would reflect the revision. points of clarification and a couple of errors in the executive summary. the staff report the addition diagonal to his 190 feet. to clarify, the maximum permitted diagonal is when 90 feet and edition will have a diagonal dimension of 242 feet. additionally, the office allocation is not to 89,000 square feet. also, the batteries for the central [inaudible] were easily changed and project is no longer within

the propose central limit area plan. at the time, the packet was published that had not been addressed yet. after analyzing all aspects of the project, department staff recommends approval with conditions. specifically, aside from the aggressive exceptions budget complies with the applicable requirements the planning code. the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan including the downtown area plan. the project would've reoriented the ground floor to create retail along fulsome street thereby creating a more vibrant pedestrian realm. the project is in a zoning district that's permits office use. the project will construct 89,900 ft.2 of office that currently has office uses in this without committing a compact downtown core. the project represents an outpatient approximately 20.3% of the large-cap office space coming available for allocation. this concludes my presentation good i'm available for any questions. project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation.

beatniks thank you. >> project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is when a show with gansler. i will pull up this presentation. >> you might want to use the other microphone? >> thank you.thank you for the opportunity this afternoon to share this exciting project at 633 fulsome st. today, i have with me. weingarten gensler, john kaplan with william julius and debra blair with swig company the owner of the site. when we came to this project

-there we go-would begin to this project a couple years ago we had some major project objectives we wanted to try to achieve. this unique opportunity here in 2018 where cmpc who currently occupies the building is fully vacating the project. the building needs major infrastructure upgrades, mechanical seismic and elevator and in this unique opportunity to provide all those upgrades to this existing building. we wanted to revitalize the project and make it more attractive to current office tenants within the market. so there was a lot of attention paid to making sure the asset provided that value. we also-you know, we are really trying to this a modest project and were really trying to aim high and achieve a high level of sustainability for the project will see some unique features in the façade and

infrastructure upgrades for the project as well. the greatest of which is really wheezing and existing buildings and would try to maximize the use of the existing building at 603 fulsome st. in doing so, these projects upgrades we are trying to fit the community and the public realm along fulsome street and hawthorne street with major pedestrian movement [inaudible]. i think you are all aware of the site here at the corner of opera and fulsome. it's important to note, this is an important and changing downtown district of san francisco. it's got 5 min. access to major public transit in the neighborhood and 10 min. away from the and transbay terminer. makes an ideal location for office tenants in the neighborhood.

when coming to the existing building, it's important to understand his acids and attributes. this way company could originally developed this company and 19 six and they've had a long-term commitment as an owner to the neighborhood and to the quality of the district. you know, when looking at this building in 1968, it had it has it's original claimant in terms of infrastructure and were looking to improve all of that. the building is an exterior concrete frame structure, so that creates unique challenges with dark recessed windows the performance of which are sort of substandard by today's high-performance envelope requirements. create a dark resource-sorry, recessed entry portal along fulsome street. there's retail that exist in that location in the façade is stepped back many feet that creates a dark recessed portal upon entry into the building. when we can to the project, we really look at how this one

provide for the 90,000 ft.2. try to add to the building? at important to note we are not doing with a new ground of development that we are really trying to best utilize the asset of the existing building and first and foremost, is the core location is expanding the court to add new elevators required for the high-rise. the clemens for the building. and in doing so we need to center the office floor plates of the addition around that mass of the court. in provide usable expands around that space for the office tenants. so when looking at a compliant sort of zoning massing, we centered the-that option run this quarter and it's important to note that it doesn't fit well in terms of these is the building structure. that structure built in 1968 hazard

limitations in terms the amount of load it can carry including the columns and foundations. so, it goes those restrictions drove us primarily to asking for this exception today. using the assets we have the existing building is beneficial to distribute download in additional weight because of the more horizontally across the site. in doing so, we also are able to reduce the overall height of the building by reducing it to stories from six stories in a combined massing to four stories in the proposed massing. thus, reducing the height of the building from 192 feet to 160 feet. so, while it's the right thing to do with existing building we also think it provides less impact on the neighboring buildings and to size outside of that of providing the shadow impact and wind impact in this proposed massing. you can see here that

the proposed massing that we have provides reasonable setbacks from two adjacent properties. some of which if you look at the blue condo property, the new addition is at its least 45 feet in terms of separation. [inaudible] street itself is 50 feet wide. were providing an nearly full story city state separation from the conduct of the north sea and 36'10" towards the 77th doubt please property as well. respecting the existing easement and access the link to the parking garage that exist in that location it we are also beginning the 15 foot setback that's required by the planning code against both of those properties as well. not violating those. i think clubbing noted some of the key dimensions that the diagonal were requesting his 242 feet. and the building length on hawthorne is another exception we are looking for at 222 feet.

again, these both comply with a setbacks required and help us reduce the overall height and mass of the building. that mass at 160 feet high, we really feel fits well into the local urban context in soma. if you look at the netscape of buildings currently exist within the neighborhood, the 160 feet height is within that no one and in terms of building length and building with, this also number buildings in the neighborhood that have more if not equal building length and dimensions. when you look at the future landscape of the neighborhood, you can see significant mass even being put

into this neighborhood five. 655 fulsome st., 684 fulsome a major renovation, is a much bigger building profile and 95 hawthorne, which is directly across the street is proposed to be 320 feet tall. so when you take the futility of his neighbor this is really a modest addition to the existing building.. if we start with that as the premise and amassing, but we really wanted to do was approach the project to unify the building. we did not want this to feel like two small buildings attached to each other or round ovation floated onto. we want to stitch together a building that at holistic perspective anesthetic. we started by connecting the new addition and a lower addition on hawthorne street. to create a more unified expression providing moments of relief or multi- source expansion at the corners that also helps to minimize perception of mass on both

primary façades. here, you can see what that looks like in its final form. you will also note there are some nice solar elements we have on the building to bring down the building mass and scale which all go into in a minute. weight we really used a pretty traditional motion intensive solar shading which is to reduce the amount of opening from the façade, but expanded that by providing some of three dimensionality to an architectural element that provides scale and mass. this allows itself, allows solar shading element to really provide more solar shading while allowing for increased transparency in the façade. it great something that's pretty dynamic for the neighborhood while achieving sustainability sustainability goals for the project. 32nd? you can see that modifies itself may see the building façade as it has a deeper dimension as required at the highest elevation of the building defines itself as it

goes to the towards the ground. let's solar shading is required. in terms of the ground floor, the providing a number of lumens on hawthorne street including new street trees and a significant sidewalk widening is part of the project. we are also repositioning the projects lobby towards the corner of hawthorne and fulsome good which we think is a great benefit to the project by removing the dark recess that occurs along that street frontage and by pulling the retail frontage out towards fulsome street to provide a more dynamic street façade. >> thank you, sir your time is up with the commissioners may have additional questions. >> europe hobbies of the diagram you presented? they are not in a packet. do you have the height diagram involve the things you just showed us >> we can give you copies of that. >> i do not have printed copies of those good copies of those good >> s

>> to the theater was organized opposite your opportunity to speak with being out of three speakers and you would have 10 min. >>my name is michael dunner on with hands and bridget and i represent the organized opposition to homeowners association san francisco blue and hawthorne place. i'm joined here today and if you could, rise by some very concerned homeowners as well as my colleague, melissa and him who we splitting time at the podium today. given the time limits i

will abbreviate my comments that i direct your attention to are very competent civil letter brief that was sent to the commission. this project is life with a number of very strange oddities. the developer wants to plunk down an oversize shear wall four-story box on top of an existing seven-story structure. the box does not architecturally correlate to the rest of the building. the existing seven-story seven normal 10 foot slab to slab separation. but the new four stories are different. they have large windows and 16 foot slab to slab separations, giving rise to about and 18-20 foot ceiling on the interior. this is odd because it artificially increases height without providing increased square footage. now, one of the questions that we raised in our brief is whether or not that they are was propped coolly calculate. there's a

possibility that it was not. the project sponsor acknowledges that they are right up to the limit and therefore, an accurate count is fundamentally essential. planning staff told us just yesterday, they were not entirely sure. by stuart because they had not gotten details of the basement, which may or may not even count toward the sar link. that's not the only thing that was missing. we pointed out that there was a shadow study that was missing regarding public sidewalks and pogo in the neighborhood and suddenly, just an hour ago, a shadow study appeared. we have not had time to review that. there's no traffic study regarding impact regarding the back easement and there is almost 16 foot

penthouse that appears at the very top of the project, 16 feet, 3000 ft.2, with two sets of double doors and one schematic with women. one needs to ask, why double doors, a window, 3000 ft.2 and a 16 foot high penthouse needs to appear? now, the developer is coming here today to ask you for a favor. that's a sweet what it boils down to. it says, it wants april exception to have floor plates of 24,000 ft.2 even though the code only allows 17. that is 28,000 ft.2 more that it's entitled to. it says command exchanges going to give you serious concessions, but let's look at what those are. it has a side setback against-overhead, please. aside

setback against sf bloop that is required by code. they have to do it. there is another side notch facing fulsome street that they have to have in order to make their sar. therefore, the only concession they get is a little postage stamp, 300 square-foot notch in the back. other than that, they are going full floor plates on the existing structure. i point out, by the way, without the exception, in red here, you will see what they would be allowed to build. here. he went up an extra story, here. because it would go from 17,000 ft.2 to 12,000 ft.2 given the height. in gray, is what they are proposing to do. the developer cannot build higher. this is something we just learned on the project architect. the reason that the developer can't do it-well, it can but it cost prohibitive

given the weight. so, it's not a concession to tell the homeowners, gosh, we could build higher but we gave you that one and were not doing that. the homeowners understand that they live in a dense urban environment but with a didn't bargain for was the fact that there will be office workers 35-45 feet away from their bedroom windows, and that they would be shrouded in darkness all the time. both homeowners associations. there was no wind study at elevation which is critical, especially given the fact that the building has operable windows. and there will be a virtual wind tunnel created at that height. we have several alternative solutions to this problem. we've reached out to the project developer and we've heard silence in return. i now leave the remaining period of time to my

colleague. melissa [inaudible] >> hello my name is melissa bank from [sp?] i'm also here representing sf blue and hawthorne place. i think really the key. insufficient information to make an approval today. as michael mentioned, there are some details missing to be able to determine sar including both and house the basement and retail the entire 5000 ft.2 has been eliminated from far even though there's certain types of retail that are restricted. the shadow studies only recently been provided. the window analysis has not been complete the environmental review was only provided at the end of last week. there's many details missing in the application that are needed in order for the commission to make certain findings. plus, there's also many conflicting figures. in the project sponsors materials. as far as for areas that are

important to know what precisely is being built in what is being approved and if it's appropriate. we are asking that if you do approved today that you consider that they are asking for some significant concessions, and getting little in return. but we would ask is that those exceptions be reduced get and set a 40% of a reduction in floor area, that we look at a different option of a smaller amount of exception provided. in addition, the slab to slab could be reduced we don't have 16 foot ceilings but 10 foot ceilings and then the project sponsor could get another floor in within that 160 feet. thereby, getting to the maximum floor area that they can get with pdr which is

what they are aiming for. we also asked to be certain conditions of approval placed on any approval which is that the will of the penthouse, and the setback not be used except for maintenance purposes. as michael mentioned, the 27 and square-foot penthouse is concerning to the neighbors along with the setbacks and office parties would be a problem. the 5000 ft.2 retail space should be restricted to those particular uses that are allowed to be excluded from far and also to exclude uses that would be seriously conflicting with the next-door neighbor retail or residential use. such as late-night bar activity. we also asked whether the landscaping plan for the roof and the setbacks, so that they are treated appropriately and we listed certain construction conduction conditions in a brief is whether we think would be very helpful could we have a additional speaker.

>> matt calls. >> money was matthew coulter, resident at 631 fulsome. i want to endorse everything in mr. donner's brief and just say on behalf of people who live in the building, we are worried about what life will be doing this construction project if it was approved. mr. donner suggests a number of ameliorative conditions, mute of steps that particular construction is going on. i'm simply here to ask you on behalf of the people living in the two buildings are thinking about life during the construction that when and if you approve this at any point, that you make those a mood of suggestions conditions come up upon approval. thank you. >> is there available for questions? >> thank you very much. will open up to public comment. >>[calling public comment cards]

>> commissioners, ahmed thompson. i live in hawthorne place. am happy to be here today i know as neighbors we will get heard today. our attorneys summarize the issues it really well. we want to be good neighbors with the developer. our major concern is that we losing our like an air to go into darkness. hawthorne place is a residential condo building is 130 feet high. the edition goes up to 170 feet so it towers over us. there is hotel

proposed. this is the proposed office building. 631 folsom. this is us, 77 dow plaisted hotels are going up right. [inaudible] is 200 feet high. so what's happening this building goes up to 170 feet we are really in the dark. so, [inaudible] not so pleasant. by purchasing transferable developing rights for sale in the marketplace of this buildings value will go up. but they're asking for exceptions. so, what are we doing this. what is the lawyer same spirit in exchange we want some setbacks. they have not offered any. our request-that is us.

this concrete this is a shot from our root. 77 dow plaisted this is 633 fulsome. office building with. that's the existing elevator and has. this is blue 631. you any setback as you can see the buildings are pretty close. this is not a photoshop. this is a true picture. so, by providing setbacks here on the roof, this opens up the back units of blue looking this way. so, it also provides some that we are asking for 25 setback here for hawthorne place in the setback the lawyer asked for the 60 foot back here. this opens up the units looking west. also, it does on other thing. if you move this new addition back

this way, it helps the shadowing that now exists on the public space on the second street. so, commissioners, there's no rush. his two years on the lease. so, i submit to this to your attention. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm gina--i love with it as of blue 631 folsom. i endorse everything that mr. donner has put together on our behalf. i just want to say one of the city planner said to me once you meet people opposed to building towers other people who live in towers. i just want to put a face on some of the people live in our tower. after seven years here at the blue were your 75% owner occupied. we are young professionals. we are retired

professionals and ashley young families, two. we live and work and go to school in san francisco. our children have play dates with each other. we get together for barbecues. just like any other san francisco neighborhood. each of our 114 household pays its share of san francisco taxes. we are not asking for special consideration. which is asking for equal consideration in regards to this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is nora hurley. i am also a resident of sf blue. i moved to the original owners who've been in 2009 and i to speak to some of the quality of life issues living in blue during this proposed construction and already a long fulsome street week spirits extreme traffic congestion from anywhere midafternoon to early evening.

we would like to think it's a five-minute access to the bridge but i think anyone has ever done that commute you know you're sitting on fulsome street on a good day for maybe about 20 min.-40 min. from fulsome and hawthorne to any of the access areas. we are also concerned about access to our garage space on hawthorne during this construction. when you look at the size of the lot and how narrow the sidewalk and streets are around 633, it seems to be nearly impossible that they're going to be able to carry off this construction without at times and perhaps long exciton blocking our access to our garage. as the retirees in blue by husband and i will be accessing the garage in and out during the day not just during 8 am where 6 pm commuter hours. so i'd like to thank you for allowing me to express my concern. thanks. >> good afternoon. my name is

thomas maddy know that hawthorne place. i appreciate the opportunity to be able to be on record that as a resident, for five years at hawthorne place, i appreciate the work that our console is unterberg there you did i, too, encouraged the consideration of the appropriate setback for this particular building. in a unit facing directly into where this will be i have experienced floor renovation, but sometimes the renovations have gone until one in the morning and gone down in my pajamas to chat with people. never a fun think about it very courteous and appropriate in those situations. so i ask that you consider what we might need to do to have the appropriate setback for this particular property and is filed. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. thank you

for the opportunity to speak today. i'm also a resident of ligand binding is margarita >> speak into the microphone, please >> i'm sorry >> i'm also a resident of blue and i strongly oppose the approval of the development of 633 fulsome in its current form. i'm any concerns with regards to the condition of given limited time only going to address three of them. bulk air quality and sunlight and i've spent an e-mail to the planning commission with my concerns. personally i believe that all assumption exception is unwanted. the close edition [inaudible] of the existing building already billed to the property line. if billed as proposed it would be a shiny presence on the street [inaudible] we don't need another [inaudible] please, require the developers to build

[inaudible] i'm second on concern about the air quality in the. fulsome is a very busy street. there's a lot of traffic and it got worse in the last few years. in regard to properties cannot make it into the air pollutant exposure zone map was buildings that surround us as well as [inaudible] i must've been very measuring high 2.5 numbers in october and should approve the development of those likely to request that you require exhaust measures be put in place during the project construction the safety of future i also require, please, that the project sponsoring ventilation please request project sponsor installing a green roof in scott weiner's legislation. last but not least, the neighbor on concern about the proposed addition would produce in many cases limited access to the direct sunlight for many units in my building. two thirds of value

west directly into 633 fold with you most of light in the afternoon. this edition of 5176 feet from current 91 woodlock was about light. privacy is also a huge concern as many as only [inaudible] 30 feet separate about. the downtown plan encourages residential development. as such of their responsibility to provide [inaudible] for those of us that have downtown homes. that includes access to air, like maintaining our privacy as well as protection from uncomfortable wins. please require additional setbacks between two buildings as well as required [inaudible] 10-20. i strongly urge you to deny the request perceptions and to required the addition [inaudible] downtown area plan. thank you very much. >> hi. i so live at 631. should

sorry i don't know the procedures. i said to all an e-mail. i'm the person keeps calculating those angles of elevation. i would not be here today if this plan was already going to fit. wolves are rules. our building designers would love to make a building 400 feet tall or whatever. i assume they were denied because that's what zoning and rules are for. i have no problem with them proposing will develop you i'm sorry about their foundation prompted zero building, i guess. but we are here because were going to go from year-round light, whining, both on the sixth floor was a person prohibited because the timing on the 10th floor. then from year-round to 6-8 months out of your no direct sunlight. we are

surrounded and are people who designed the building in 2007 were awake whenever they get it they had a fully built out at maximum far plan for this building. if there is no reason to have rules why would we not be taking this into account? similarly, it seems that the strange trade. this can add 90,000 ft.2 of office space when were awash in office space could is millions of square feet in the backlog and twitter just put one 80,000 back on the market out of that matters to you guys but to trade for me personally, of course the vice president of the building is very much that we don't necessarily need 90,000 ft.2 of extra office space and it's not extra. so, personally, the trade of walking home to a nice light filled apartment, it's a nice thing. but, i don't see why this demands exceptional circumstances. it is just a

pile is two blocks on top of each other. i respect that you got more costly. i don't want them to have to do that, but rules are rules. thank you. >>sue has severe this case is absolutely not ready to move today. this is a downtown plan case. ultimately. because downtown plan [inaudible] came out of it. there's all kinds of manipulations being done to make it not a new project because they get cheaper fees as well. can they get more money from the entire we build. the last-minute documents are the environmental exception the topic study, the shadow study

just updated today and the plans you have very little solid information that people have time to absorb. what i note when i read the traffic surveys was the only traffic analysis done from four-6 pm. anyone who thinks that 4-6 is a rush-hour and second and. needs to have her head examined were in the planning department. that is a bad time span for understanding what goes on on the bainbridge on the everyday monday through friday. secondarily, the residential development was an impetus out of the downtown plan. they're trying to makes office space and housing and these people who i never met before today really have issues

. the planning department doesn't know how to do the analysis. when you do all the documents at the last minute, you don't have a good thought process. the public can have a good thought process. the fact that you're asking for guidance and are not available from you have not had them in your packets should be [inaudible] to the planning commissioners. when i went through-not only went through the downtown plan, but the eastern plan and western plan. there was a unanimity from the committee sat. that said there has to be a two-way bus down fulsome street. we are is that in the reality spewing that was in 2006-2007 when we are at the height of the eastern neighborhoods. there is no impetus to construct the muni line down there because the developers don't [inaudible]

there's not a pressure group from this developer suite company which is pretty powerful, or anyone else. so, we don't have a good transit system. we don't have real information on and-on help shadow effect of residents which [inaudible] and you have manipulation of the office of development allocation. no office development should go on a document that is being updated at the hearing. which is your policy on exemptions. thank you. >>any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> this is an interesting discussion. i think it's really great to see a building trying to use adaptive reuse techniques to upgrade. relative

to 19 65 billion the question is how do you do it. i think that is where we immediately start to raise questions that those rules which determine how we build buildings and intensified court should really happen the first guided by those rules which are in place rather than trying to make the best use of assets of the existing building by asking for exceptions. that in itself is a serious contradiction particularly when developers like hines went on the street is 75 hawthorne, in the event of an entire tall building for queen performance with people being in the building and not asking for any exceptions or redo in order to make more money. in order to maintain the building is a class e were a+ performance for this kind of a no-brainer but i do not believe i can concur at the expense of

the other issues which have intensified since 1965. i look on this particular case is what should drive our thinking is the policy of protecting housing and the ability of adjoining housing those people who are in the 90s built the building by which many residents spoke because they were at the frontier. so all of a sudden you come up and would protect assets were increase acids for you that you are asking for exceptions on those rules which i believe are absolutely important to observe when were talking about intensified within instrument and livability for those who aren't so close to you. for me, i believe that the request for additional information within critical for more objectively what it is you are trying to do and there is indeed a large amount of information missing together with a set [inaudible] which gives a slightly more comrades of description of your project. i have many drawings

here that are missing in my package together with information about the shadow study, a landscape plan, the purpose of your penthouse and a number of other things not last and least the shadow start. i'm at this moment, and not inclined to look at this project in its current configuration and ask that there be more disclosure and further consideration for the rules recommend this project. >> commissioner richards >> i will open this in the kind. in light of today's vision for the neighborhood replicating the state made in 1968, this year does not make any sense. i think that's what this project is. i agree with commissioner moore. people live in this neighborhood we talked about what wasn't so hot and now

experiencing a bait and switch in your creating situation that's not liberal for the residents honestly i believe. i did in tokyo. i been in office those extra residential builds that's not pretty. you can look and see people are doing. being that far away from people that jones is just completely not appropriate. would love to of seen in the packet again and we got the standard was actually had to ask for it as you're on the screen was trying to follow and put it. the just so much this project takes so much and gives so little. so this project as his is absolutely unsupportable by me that he needs to come back in a vastly we configured scope. >> commissioner johnson >> thank you very much. i actually is a perfect person who lives in arresting the building across a small street from a office building i understood where the residents are coming from. i think commissioner richards made that point. i just focus on a couple questions i have. in the staff report it says-let me go back

to her my note is. that's granting the exception to the limit would not result in a building with a greater those floor area than what has been permitted if the book limits were met. so, how is that possible? >> because this is not a 200 district so the building could be constructed of two 200 feet in height. with a smaller-so it's basically their trading off floor area. that would have been higher elevation >> that schedule, we heard the project sponsor made communicated it again, it's hearsay so i can't say that for sure that's exactly what they said but they did not want to build taller because of the cost. let me ask the project sponsor that question. the question for the company were

>> thanks. john kaplan on behalf of the project sponsor. or talk about this now because this is a decision made about two years ago the beginning of this process. when really putting the building configuration into its general shape we have today and as we tinker with it as it goes through the design development prospect was really kind of a to part question. one, in which we got an existing building with a large court and trying to fit a vertical addition within the scope limits without court makes for very poor floor plates so very small with a big huge chunk in the middle of it. so it was a combination of that alongside the fact that we knew we were adjacent to two residential buildings and at

that height considering the fact we got the best 345 and 75 feet on one side and 75 feet on the other we thought of the more sensitive not to go higher with the height but rather meeting with the existing setback is were included in the case of blue. it was there's a number of considerations that went into the original passing of this building and the decision to go wider rather than talk. >> got it. thank you. so, just a couple of things. that makes sense to me. i think that attitudes have not to say they shifted but they change over time on hype versus lock will when they talk about projects i did not surprise on the discussion you mention here. i think it sounds like there is some energy here to look at the building block design and sort of look at it a little bit more closely could just focus on my remaining concerned, which is this project is taking 20% of large-cap remaining large cap

allocation is that correct? >> yes. 20% this about 500,000 ft.2 right now. we got a 35 and october >> 20% of what is there now and october it will react with another eight 75,000 >> that's right. the project has been in the office for a couple years we know it's in the queue >> right we have that table a couple months ago that i thought. i question is this more the staff-where are we with that are upcoming discussion on the table and with our process around proposition m. but i think it was in may or june i saw the table with the large-cap and small-cap office space project. it was my father was going to be some sort of follow-up in the fall to continue consider talking about like what policy we may or may not want to have about how to consider space

>> i think we were figured we would bring that to you when the two things happened. one is when the new allocation comes in and when essential soma plant comes forward which obviously would authorize a lot of new office visit we want to have that conversation in the context of that and given the projects there. so yes we were to bring that to you rate this file were early next year. >> okay. >> i would just say this but the project it's a relatively small amount of space given the cap. that's why we felt this was a 4-5000 square-foot project and the movie and discussion. because the actual allocation here is 90,000 ft.2. >> i see. okay. so, when i went into this i thought that's the coming out of the large-cap allocation was more than that 80-90,000 ft.2. what i was going with this is i thought that special was happening involves essential soma definitely parties able to

hearing about it in and proposition m i thought we would have a hearing about that. where i was going to know about is not in the essential soma plan areas by why should not be part of the same discussion of or talk about 20% of becoming allocation? >> is only can the i guess because of the size of the project and because we have 500,000 ft.2. we went back big a concern about this particular allocation just in terms of that issue of the allocation. >> okay. i would like to hear from other commission should i could be supportive of a continuance on this but i will say that personally, i'm not hearing the direction that we be giving the project sponsor just yet in a little bit lost on it as well could only other commissioners have some better ideas will try to come up with some myself >> commissioner hillis six could i ask the architect of couple questions if you would come up to the microphone? i think we have some handout i believe from the representative of the homeowners association

these are not yours? >> correct >> but did you have a slide that shows what you can build without the bulk, because i think for me, getting more information on the bulk exception is come i think critical. i think with the issue i'm hearing is you are going to be with the bulk exception you are building is good to be closer to the folks in the adjacent buildings and set of higher. it's going to be closer but not as high. and trying to understand that, i think would be helpful in where this would go. >> sure. i have that up on the screen. see you can see them on

the left side is the compliant massing that is the 160 foot building length and needs is a little less of 190 foot diagonal. it's less than the allowable square footage for florida as well. pardon me. you can see that to get the roughly 90,000 ft.2 of additional building area we are seeking difficult to sick stories to meet that. so the impact is roughly 30 feet higher in the compliant massing to the neighboring buildings and as john had mentioned, when we look at this analysis initially on the project we got be more sensitive to the neighborhood we stayed low with the building. so, we got a four stories in the proposed massing and that generates to get to the 90,000 ft.2 it generates a sort of request for the exception exception for building mass. >> right. on this, non-bulk exception version, at the closest point to the neighboring buildings on fulsome, how far are you away? under your proposal,-

>> the still maintains a 15 set for that. the distance between the fulsome street condominium is the same. the tween both the proposed massing and the compliant massing at the differences there's a setback on fulsome st., hawthorne street of 12 feet and that so the floor plate is centered around the core but we don't want to have happened is an offset of that floor plan run the core that's existing. because then you've got speed wingspans that are unusable of 1215 feet. so we've center that up and by doing so were making interesting separation but going higher. >> how far off are you on hawthorne, for instance? i get -let's discuss this without the limitations of the court because i think that's driving some of this but if you didn't get in center that and put it closer to hawthorne and

fulsome, how much additional space do you get on the as a blue side dispute >> that's a 48 foot that that were sewing this dimension to give you a sense of scale. so from the existing current edge of existing building to the compliant massing it have an additional 40 feet. is that- >> yes. it sounds like were going to-this is going to be continued but i think that would be helpful. the proponents of attorneys provided some diagrams and kind of a compromise position with the massing could be under code compliance. you know in showing some additional separation between your proposed addition and sf blue. as well as 77 hawthorne place that i think it would be good to understand more and what it could

compliant project gets you and how much additional separation that gets so we can better evaluate the trade-off between height and building separation yet because, i think some people at as a blue may be happy if you end up going farther away but higher but it may bring a couple of additional neighbors worn-out upon upper floors who are going to have spear [inaudible] albeit fatherly decision also, it would be hopeful for me to know it seems like the 77 doubt pl. windows are somewhat secondary. they are on kind of a façade of the building but clearly is not the primary façade but i have some understanding of what is well is kind of the closest portion of the sf blue yukon of get that same concrete structure in the smaller windows there. so having some understanding of what is behind. i'm sure there's floor plans at as a

blue and 77 doubt pl. that we can understand. but even there, his position kind of alluded to that because they push more of the massing toward 77 doubt than as simply because i think those are secondary windows. >> can i make a suggestion zero this point in the conversation? we honestly understand were hearing out of the about project approval, continuance right now. i met with a design that works. were in a little bit of a difficult position because we can come back here the taller building next time but a shrunk building because were basically restarting environmentally. i was a restarted with a three-run number of the studies scope them have been reviewed by staff. we've heard before that it's an awkward point in the process for the commission to hear the first time because were at the finish line having done all the studies over two years. and now you're seeing it

for the first time and i recognize the awkward position that puts you in. they put us in an awkward position, to because we've done all the background on a. i fear just continuing this and coming back without being able to come back with something that he would even be allowed to support because we don't have environmental review covered. i just want to put out there, i know we just got through this process. on another project over the summer where we took more intensive look at this. i think the project sponsor may be a bit hesitant to go to all of the environment overview necessary for another design we don't know that we actually have buy-in from the community were from the commission. so i would just ask the commission consider that and think through what might be useful process hereto get us to the finish line so that were not running in circles in. >> doesn't necessarily have to be additional. i think the folks neighboring condo owners put forth a proposal that was

somewhat in between. we are taking some additional setbacks in exchange but still seemingly beyond words allowed. he was so made an exception for that. so i don't know. i do want to tail wagging the that. we should come up with a project that works and that the approval process fall where it goes. but, i just think we need that understand can i get the concept. you're asking for about exception greenock a girl out farther. were just trying to understand what that impact is to neighbors in the trade-off. it's hard to do that with the information we have in front of us. >> it would be useful to you from commissioners if simply, more setback building would be something that would be supportable? >> i would consider that >> the actual layout and how

we make it with the court >> is that something you should explore. the diagrams we got albeit not from the architect but from the representative, showed a massing that could work that could compliant that's 10 feet away from the current massing on the sf blue side. which starts to get you 54 feet from sf blue in the smallest plan that goes up as you get toward fulsome street. so, yes, i am open to any of those options. >> commissioner moore >> i am actually interested in the train of thought that commissioner hillis just developed. the question that lingers with me is that i sense would get a feeling that the increase of 90+ thousand square feet is the right you assume we have to grant. there is, indeed adaptive reuse. there is indeed building performance within the existing building. if i

understood the neighbors correctly, by your increasing floor to floor height you're losing the ability to gain additional square footage that is what i'm interested in. i can fully understand that you are trying to find, to optimize the asset as a shell within you can use to certain kinds of things are starting to have problems is that you are, by increasing, starting to great problems, which fall into the particular mr. cabin is very sensitive to that the policies about protecting and maintaining with ability of residential in that densified city. so, my question to you is, how can we both were creatively on floor to floor height, gave a certain amount of square footage in i'm not stuck were support that we point length support your 92,000 square feet but the opportunity to create

creatively address staying within the required setback apartments and staying within the envelope gets finding a way to maximize the square footage. those would be the objectives and i believe that commissioner hillis teed off the question by asking for additional creativity within the constraints that i think this commission feels quite unanimously and strongly about. that would be my interpretation of what he just said. >> commissioner richards >> commissioner moore what would that look like? what you just said? >> is a re-examination the existing building with the provision that it be reimagined for an effective use of a redesigned court were adjusted core with not necessarily increasing the ceiling heights but maximizing available office space within the volume could

>> oh come back with some analysis on this could be given to various limitations. >> and discuss >> with the commission and the neighbors to understand what it's going to how we would impact them. what would tempe do? what with 45 feet do you in the one picture was very telling as he looked out his window. i imagine what that must look like these big buildings looking right at him. >> we did that creatively on 91st st. and while there were minor changes [inaudible] make a more neighborly friendly building. that's what we are looking for >> this to donna, giovanni comments on where were going with sp1? this? >> [inaudible]

>> can you talk into the microphone, please >> the overhead, if you might, please. i believe commissioner hillis as the architect for some information on what it might look like if there was no exception, which, by the weight was plantings, ppa's response comments. they do not want that. that sort of went right over. this document, which are believe we've given you a copy of, provides you with a schematic showing what it would look like if there was no exception. you can see that there is a considerable setback and this particular box here would be the additional floor that would be treated, of course, a smaller square footage. commissioner moore put her finger right on it. which was the fundamental question why do need 20 foot ceilings

on the fourth floor additions. why do you need a 16 foot slab to slab separation, which doesn't really do anything for you. in other words, if you brought it up to standard 10 foot slab to slab, you get yourself another floor. i've never heard of a developer who voluntarily waives the right to make money with an extra floor just because he wanted larger ceilings. so that is one item that we can address through this process in order to reduce the height. >> figure director rahaim >> on clarify one hearing. first, i don't believe the

ceiling height of 20 feet. could somebody clarify with us tonight are by latency is not as much lower than any other office. office buildings are typically 12-14 feet in ceiling height with you clear fight with the suicides are spewing bedecked with 16 foot floor to floor will sit still easy between 10-11 feet because will you speak louder? fix was to ignite 10-11 feet >> so your ceiling height- >> this is for floor to floor deck to deck you were including structural slab steel structure, ducks and the lighting in the drop ceiling. roughly 5-6 foot assembly you will end up with 10-11 feet for too soon. >> with the current building? b dick's >> sorry i don't have that on the top of my head here. >> that's fine. >> we believe it is 12 feet. >> silly of ceiling height in the range of normal front office to get him into, just clarify, there was an issue raised by the mechanical word about the penthouse. is the

mechanical penthouse? >> is a mechanical pen us. it's fully built to house the stairs of later and mechanical equipment >> then, what was my last question? i think the staff as we could be doing a pca letter we sent with the code requirements are and then there's a lot more detail could i mean, i think what it hear from the commissioners and just another point i want to make was simply that the existing building does not-is not built to the maximum floor area and height permitted in the code. i mean we all know that i just want to confirm that for the record. neither the commissioners say is fundamentally setback father from the two residential buildings. so the question that i would just put to the commissioners, that of your able to answer us today, would you consider additional height in order to allow for that? because the building does not meet the current height limits. >> if we could see that trade. >> sure. >> sure what i'm hearing is a

trainer. as mr. kleven said what does that mean in terms of the environment to review and will have to have that discussion. none of us can answer that question sitting that here today. >> okay. >> i want to be clear about that. because the higher it might reopen some of the environmental studies. we just have to figure that out >> of move to continue the item indefinitely waiting for this to come out >> it really does mean a different environment to review >> how much time do you think stephanie's? >> staff needs >> >> no. jonas helvey audit. maybe the calendar will answer the question force >> the earliest they would be september 29. >> september 29 >> i don't think we can be ready by then, guys sorry. >> october 20, jonas? >> are full through november but if you like to squeeze in on the 20th week certainly could.

>> that's mr. weingartner to make comments >> i'm principle with gansler and oversee this project. i guess, i just want to make the comment is been a lot of description made about the project. there's been some sketchers are. i think the validity of the sketches it's hard to determine the right get we spent two years looking at all the complexities associate with putting in addition to putting the project altogether including four, seismic mechanical. it's not just a matter of the footprint of the addition. i think we all respect the wisdom and judgment of those present there's more to it than that. so, and i really appreciate commissioner johnson's request to be a little bit more definitive as you send this back to come with further refinement. given our study, and believe me, we went into this one to be sensitive as we possibly could.

especially to the housing next door. again we thought that going with a lower project would be better than building a taller project could be more sensitive to the building that exists now in the community. so, if we were to look at things like reducing some of the floor to floor height, maybe incrementally adding some additional setback but to a degree that is informed by our study of the project, would that be acceptable as refinement as opposed to going in with an entirely new project? >> i like to see alternatives. not just a floor to ceiling height but different setbacks and what else can be done >> i'm just trying to narrow the scope >> i think the commissioners are saying my sense is they say more setback from the adjacent residential building are needed. whether it needs to have no boat exception i don't

think they're necessarily saying that but i think they want to look at what the trade-offs are. >> my sense and i can speak for the environmental review 70 we could avoid going higher you can probably avoid the opening departmental review. but that means fundamentally less square footage. >> the classic was 75 howard when they came up to us and said with a master exception. here's what we are allowed to do initial 4-5 various different options was really really really clear to us even though we were renting them exceptions this was the better part. that's not what i'm seeing here. but stuff up on the screen. i squinted to try to see with the project wasn't. that's all i have to go on. if you want to pick up in my opinion just by one opinion 75 howard look what they submitted and see we helped us. that's improving about one of the work on the design because we knew what we were trade-offs were

even though the design was complete. >> i understand. thank you. >> so i moved to continue to the 20th >> jonas, what are you thinking your? >> there was a suggestion for october 20. >> let's set it for the 20th. >> october 20. motion to continue to october 20. >> moved and seconded. >> commissioner moore >> this building would occur on a vacant site. there be a different set of rules is that correct? >> no not the current of rules. i mean the addition >> of the downtown whirls rules woul start at the bottom of the top aye which govern downtown office buildings. in the absence of that, i can only see us take a modulated position on the building being designed to be completely compliant or explore alternatives by which it supposed to be added berries as

it goes up. that might result in fewer square footage but i do not want to start this exercise would basically saying that 92,244 ft.2 has to be delivered to this commission. i want to see better building and what the consequences of that are are not numerical but in the quality of [inaudible]. >> commissioner hillis >> i mean it may not be very as he goes up. in maybe berries as it goes back. i think we want to respond to the adjacent property owners. you got a generous 75 foot setback in the front of the building but as sf blue steps towards that service alley you get closer. that may be okay in places what's in

there as well as it doesn't seem like the impact is as much on gal on the dell place building because they seem like secondary but i think that's what we want to just understand more. >> if there's nothing further and commissioners there's a motion that's been seconded to continue this matter october 20 with the direction from the commission on a motion commissioner hillis aye jan johnson aye moore aye richards got follansbee i so moved that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners that places us on items 17 per case number 2015-00904c >>[reading ordinance] conditional use authorization. >>pres. fung members of the

commission, and staff, todd kennedy the san francisco planning department staff here to discuss this item in the item before you is a request for conditional water use authorization to correct a violation and legally establish a 3788 ft.2 real estate office located on the ground floor of the existing building. the use has been operating at the site since 2014 without the issuance of a conditional use authorization. under the zoning code a conditional use authorization is required this used to operate at this location. a zoning violation case was opened in the project sponsor applied in response. the subject site is also under review for a building permit and variance to demolish and reconstruct the site into a new residential building. but that is separate from this case. to date the department has received six letters of support for this project, four of those letters received by staff after the staff report was turned in. that may provide you a copy of those.the department records

disapproval of this request and believes the project is unnecessary and/or undesirable for the following reasons. but it has been operating without a conditional use authorization since 2014 and brought to staff's attention by zoning violation. the use is not recognized as a neighborhood serving use in a form of the detail was proposed at this location 2011 per case number 2011 point 1.0 4c but this approved by commission. the subject site is under review for the demolition reconstruction of a new project. that concludes my presentation it on here happy to answer questions you may have today.

>> project sponsor, please >> good afternoon the president fung on commission did alexis pelosi plessy on behalf of the property owner. as paul kennedy mentioned were seeking a conditional use authorization to utilize the existing busy service on the property that the is only temporary as the property owner donald [inaudible], san francisco resident and vietnam veteran is completing for 14 unit building bottom of that entitlement is been in the works of two years. originally hoped the new developments would be processed quickly by the unfortunate that is not been the case has now been two years since applications were first filed. project has been heard by zoning administrator building permits have been submitted and were now anticipating final approval by the end of the year and so construction starts early next year. because of how long it's taken for the project to move forward don decided to rent the

existing building activism significant vacancy graffiti and windows among the site. because the pending development and short-term nature of the lease were fugitives interested. as a result done budgeted to guitar real estate local firm and masons sublease space to five other small local businesses including two nonprofits. the time don entered tivoli seems unaware that tenant requires a conditional use authorization. once was notified one was required he entered the process and we immediately began work with planning department staff to hear it. initially with the entitlement for the new building would be granted immediately or imminently taking the violation moved but obviously that has not happened. now unfortunately when this clear position of being. the violation to her about the entitlement to be completed and the issue of how we do that and the impact it has to the building at the tenets of the neighborhood. is what is the forget planning is recommended denial of the spell of the client on to evict all five tenants including two

nonprofits. we are recommending long without castro persons associated capital upper market cbd to see you be approved throughout the existing uses to continue until construction starts on the new project. construction is likely to start in early 2017 and all the local small businesses on site including the nonprofits know this and date with her occupancy and planning the relocation efforts around it. if visio is not granted existing users need to vacate the space will sit empty for the next 5-6 month. there's no way to get another tenant in the for construction of the new building stock. the term leases too short and you cannot attack we took tenant two years ago there's certainly no way he'll attract one that it was were done with income sensibly waiting permit issuance and resolution of dr five. the jars scheduled to be heard before this body on november 10. the building is vacant very concerned out vandalism graffiti like crying vacancy, etc. those issues putting

vacant storefronts up and down marketing an exact reason why don entered into the lease with conservatives do we understand the need for active use aftermarket entity the existing businesses do cater to local residents they do generate some traffic and provide activity on site what these long-term use is been on the division of the upper market entity on a temporary basis such as what we are proposing they work. in closing we join the thank todd kennedy auto clinic is staffed all their hard work on this project. we been trying to resolve this issue with the violation for quite some time and we appreciate the time to work with them to try to get the other project approved so we do not have to come before you today see you but at this point we are in a position where we cannot have the variance issued under the violation is cured as were doing this dance try to figure out the bath past path. grading the cu you help ensure the existing tenants which are local small businesses and nonprofits they in the building and the three corner is active in so to reduce crime and vagrancy and graffiti if you have any questions these let me know >> thank you. open up to

public comment. >> good afternoon. my name is lori the stack in i-m business owner of guitar out real estate. i'm here today to express to you trying to say in the state stay in the state composer they can clarify this up. in the community if i could just go over some notes of what we witnessed in the past. i originally purchased approach don in regards to occupying the space because i've seen the space empty for several years and the dilapidation and graffiti was all over the place. but as a small business owner i thought it might be a great opportunity for our company to start. she allowed us to occupy the plate space clean it up provide a service to the community. we provide not only seminars and educational seminars, but

festivals and involve the community in regards to really providing a service to those that occupy the neighborhood and surrounding areas. anyway, the daily task of being at 2201 market st., there's a tremendous amount of homeless individuals that occupy almost a daily. we are constantly working with the police department and with surrounding merchants to keep them away from the premises with drug infested and graffiti going on constantly. we feel it's the pros outweigh the negatives in regards to handling these types of situations and by having this business that's going that's ongoing in the community, and being there when certain things arrives prevents more

detriment to the neighborhood. so, i hope you'll consider this and if you have any questions or be happy to answer them. >> thank you any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. open up to commission could i do a one question for staff. that is, is there such a thing as a temporary see you or see you that is this type of use forever as it might change. >> commissioner president fong through you let me take a shot at that since i've been that with the city i've not heard of this, however, a temporary use authorization but i think with this - my colleague should answer that question. >> divine if so commission feels compelled to have a condition of such have a

return for reevaluation. >> okay. is that amenable to the project sponsors okay. >> city attorney. >> she's not sitting there. >> you'll have to city hall revoke the conditional use authorization so that will be - essential be another - you contact for reauthorization of review and revoke - >> in a year times or 9 months. >> whatever dates the attorneys. >> clarity thank you. >> were you able to hear that walked question. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. sorry in the back of hearing room repeat. >> a authorizing temporary conditional use permitted or one that sunsets on a particular date and general we're advised not - you'll

need to say have another process to revoke the issue but you certainly could issue the continental with the condition it be reviewed and - >> in a year or 2 years, 3 years maybe the project that is currently proposed not move forward. >> a year would be good. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i understand the project sponsor there's a pickle you guys are in but ask a different question in terms of - i'm not a little bit concerned about having the fees that are issued with the intent they'll be reviewed by a future commission intending the future commissioner commission low take another action to revoke or retract the fee in place for some amount of time i'm not sure i'm comfortable with that with the - so my question

is is that possible to revise the cu but delay the action for 6 months (laughter) i know it needs a variance i understand but i feel like that is easier than tying the hands of a future commission to go back and take - >> commissioner that be would challenging because it is a conquest in the enforcement so for your first point you could certainly - make a vblt that basically sends a message to the further commission if we approve this this is in place for a sincerity period of time and you can send that message to a future commission. >> let me tell you what will happen 2 years from now, 1 year from now well, it is actually until there is a poimentd it will come back to us and then have someone in

the public for whatever reason telling me us the discussion we had a year ago i've sxernd hearings the intent that a future commission will follow-up in the fortune and it didn't happen but if so it the easiest that's why i asked the question for january 2017 a scombhoer. >> it is ultimately the last name it issue there is a pending proposal for the sites by the project use for the current building and the current utilization of the site could, basically be superseded by a new application that is for housing that the ground floor use will not be able to be used as a states office this is counter to the ideas of upper market ncd and having

said that, there is a possibility to basically support the cu based on the current utilization of the site but not have the use basically automatically of the repeatable new building. >> new more tennis building. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. that approval will completely super he'd what is on the sites my understanding the proposed project preps that may come before you in the future may depiction. >> that's if i'm correct the use is to the side even if the site infinitives the ground floor use will be - >> not with the new building. >> divine clarify the project commissioners, on that motion before the commission. >> the project is not a conditional use it is

actually a straight building permit it is the discretionary review file and variance will have to come before the commission. >> i'm not even certain there is enough ground level commercial on the building there maybe residential i'm sorry i don't have that information but this use is essentially once this building is demolished and the new building. >> can we get clarity. >> project sponsor any clarity. >> yes. to clarify empowering retail and we've think working with the d t n a 0 specifically breaking it up with one large space or a number of smaller spaces and it is a variance this is required for backyard or rear yard that's not been issued because of the enforcement action so the building permit at 312 went out and that's

what is coming back before you. >> so does not come to the commission as a conditional use but we'll see it because of the dr. >> i'm unclear about our ability to not have a reality office in the state that shows describing as intended to be dividendable and the real estate office location will be highly inappropriate >> and it is retail use so if there were on those it needs an entirely new building. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. that's correct whatever entitlements for the prior construction okay. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i move to approve unfortunately commissioner vice president richards motion in front of you is for denial. >> the motion

and a continuance to september 29th maybe not need that long. >> we could put this on the consent calendar so maybe september 22nd the 22 would be - au >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you so i appreciate the clarification it is my understanding they're going to a building permit a cu saying office buildinguse is available and look at that and okay. you can put office use in the project and you'll never see that. >> right if we approve the cu and they vote for the project and - >> now projects. >> okay. >> so doesn't run with the land it runs with the building. >> that's what i'm hearing in the in the building. >> but a below market rate

building a fresh start reset. >> on the same land okay. >> can we community-based from the 15. >> do you have - >> i was suggesting the 22. >> of september. >> september okay. >> that way the packets the staff has a week to prepare. >> that would be great. >> that's my motion. >> agreeable to the seconder. >> none seconded it. >> on that motion - >> hi oh, (laughter) okay. i saw another name on that motion toto the motion of intent and continue to september 22nd consent calendar commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5

to zero and commissioners item 18 was a variance zoning administrator was going to consider separately during recess, however, a noticing problem the parties have been notified commissioners that places you in our discretionary review calendar for grand avenue and if there is anyone that is interested in items 20 ab those matters are being continued this is the last item today. >> good evening planning commission divine southwest team leader the the subject property is on brand view avenue the proposal is inclusive vertically to an existing residents that includes a

basement level two roof decks on the top level without alterations with one thousand plus square feet to an existing 2000 plus square feet the subject property is located on the east side of grand avenue between marina in the rh2 zoning district and two family story building occupies the property that slopes from the front to the rear with the rakers is abutting property facing into the street discretionary review is filed by a neighbor two residents north of the the subject property the residents rtd reviewed it and determined the proposal meets the standards of residential guidelines this proposal is appropriately scaled and the third floor addition is one story taller

than the context and setback 15 feet and not alternatively the two scales consistent with the expansion at the rear is pulled feet from the side property line and the property is on a disregard sloping lot and the massing is shaped to respond to the size project it didn't contain or create anything that be exceptional or extraordinary and the planning department shouldn't take the discretionary review p i want to bring one issue to the commission attention demolition concerns were raised by another resident not the dr filer but they wish they could take discretionary review and to gaud against the possibility of demolition with the commission they feel this is an better option they can

choose to do that and craft the department crafts it one to provide regular updates with the planning department via e-mail for the broken state to the subject planner and any revisions to the application covering the calculations should be recorded to the planner and this is over-the-counter that concludes my presentation. >> dr requester you have a 5-minute presentation. >> hello my name is cynthia weaver i submitted the discretionary review application but it was on behalf of the neighborhood not just myself i live on grand view avenue

live and own there and want to say before i get into the details i want to thank the commissioners for staying awake this paushgs. >> this is not late it is early. >> that's what i've heard i thought it - i was told it could go later thank you to the commissioner and the staff for their you assistance and coaching me and letting e let me know how to maneuver a lot of the neighborhoods go lined up behind me and pdsaid figure it out thank to everyone the problem as statistics the scale of the proposed development an grandview avenue i'm going to go through 3

it is out of scale with proportion to everything that is in the neighborhood. implications of this is that because it is so significantly larger than other single-family homes that a couple of things happen. one is that the hillside had the mazed approached as opposed to a stairstep approach. the top floor has a visual design of the art deco style homes so this would be like a the last of the painted ladies in a row with the stories higher than

the painted ladies. >>[timer dings] >>ma'am, ma'am your time is up but you do have a two-minute rebuttal and the commissioners will ask you questions.you have five minutes. >> is anyone here in support of the dr. not you, but the general public? >>no, they >>no, theyare working. >> let me start off with the mapping of the building. we feel this was appropriate with the staff report. this building, the front of it is existentially no different than the other buildings on the street including at the mapping

of the front of the building. if you look at the photograph, it is no different than any of the other buildings. it has a step down. so it has a vertical plane when you are looking up at it. you have two adjacent neighbors as well as a neighbor in the back. they do not approach the project including the [inaudible]. are other request was to make this

a historical restore. this is the most commonly designed home in the city. there is nothing in particular that is historic about this building except for the design and the structure[inaudible] and this was attached to the case report and she agreed with the board's decision which i feel is correct. the size of the building is referred to as this building being very big and the existing building being lovable. i'm aware the fact that the mission

is concerned with the fact that this is in fact a minority to district. when design was introduced to the neighborhood it was a multiunit building. but, the neighborhood once a unit buildingin the home. if the commission wants to make this into a double unit building that is fine but currently it is a single family home at their request. and, i just asked the chew it in support of us. >>thank you miss berkeley. any supportfor the project sponsor?

>>good afternoon commissioners, in the interest of time it doesn't seem like there is a whole lot to talk about here. in the interest of time, the second unit would be a two bedroom one bath unit if the commission desired we could also set the front deck back 5 feet for additional privacy for people in the front if that was a concern. i have some interesting photos if you feel that view is an issue. i don't think that view is an issue but if you read the application, you could be an issue. we verify that our roofline is still below everybody's top floor from their top floor the views will be pure. thank you. >>thank you. any additional support one part of the project

sponsor? okay, you have a two-minute rebuttal. two minutes. >>thank you. >>speak into the microphone please. >>sorry, it is taller than i am. in the implication section of this the decision that you are making in this area does set a precedence and it will allow the second story to be available for the homes in the area if people choose to do that. and, it would be more difficult for people to deny that going forward because they would already have an additional floor. other considerations, just because the code says that you can build to a certain height does not mean you get approved for that certain height. we also want to consider the historic implications for the neighborhoods. if we make this

change from an affordable neighborhood to a non-affordable neighborhood that will have lasting implications in that neighborhood's minds. one final statement is that your decision has major impact on the community and do not approve this just because you can approve this. thank you very much and i will be open for any questions also. >>thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes for a rebuttal. >> i just want to show than this photograph is also in the commissions and you will see

that this is a prettydojo style home and this would be at the request now as her house. >>thank you, this portion of the hearing is closed. commissioner more. >>i appreciate the --of people thinking about this project and i the think that the change in any building has particular implications in this particular case,i believe this project has done what it was designed to do. in an rh2 encouraged to increase units with an addition that is an extensive as this one. with the plan we

would like to see a unit that is equitable to the project. not just a basementunit. that is not acceptable we are not willing to entertain that. i think the idea is that while bringing up is the positive comment that i embrace that you said the front tier on the back floor and the front streets do not have tiers at the street side and taking into the architecture is a smart mode. i am in favor in support of the project and i would like to see what you are suggesting in types of units, and the style units and where it is. >>so you're suggesting dr? >>correct. that would be the proper direction of the

commissionright now. >>this is essentially what was presented originally to what the neighborhood. >>can you pull the mic down really quick? there is a lot of feedback. >>this was what was presented to the commission initially and the commission wanted two units most certainly and the type of units that it lodges and what is presented we can most certainly instruct staff to come up with two units that what you would call a more equal and that is to say that we could have the ground floor be part of the second floor and then have two top floors. similarly, the design of the

step which the building is already set back and that is the kind of design we normally have any way. >>can you go into detail what kind of units you will be using for the second units? just a rough idea. >>basically, if you look at the proportions, one of the bedrooms in the rear could be incorporated into[inaudible] so we can incorporate that into it. >>can you give us like 1000 ft.2 what we're trying to avoid

900 ft.2 and 1600 ft.2. >> what we are presenting is 850 ft.2. >>850 ft.2? >>850 ft.2, yeah. i am just trying to give you a comparison of what it is which is a very standard two-bedroom size. if we are talking about-- it would be more affordable than larger units. but if we are talking about and the commission would like to see than most certainly we can incorporate at least another-- >>let me comment that 800 ft.2 is basically so minimal that i am not really comfortablewith

sitting here without a drawing to look at the qualities of what we are getting. >>this is the reason that i was saying that we would be incorporating portions of the ground floor into it so become more like 1100 ft.2 or 1200 ft.2. >>so you are telling me that the new second unit would be larger than 900 ft.2. >>that is correct. >>okay. i hear you but i am a visual person. i like to see things. >>and, it will be in two floors. >>i am curiouswhat other commissioners have to say because i don't like to talk architecture and building plans withoutactually seeing them. >>commissioner? >>i am in agreement i like the second unit. it does not trouble me in this case that

the second unit is smaller than the first unit in the home. my mother has one and that's how we have her unit. this lays out and steps down to a hill which lays out something in the lower unit. a piece in the upper unit i think would be awkward here. i think you still have a fairly modest 850 ft.2 above and 1200 ft.2 home below. kind of as far as diverse housing types go and if they work, i think this one works. >>commissioner, one of these

units would be providing a four-bedroom unit which is very hard to find in the city. >>i don't think that taking a unit from the first floor and adding it to the basement unit is not necessary. i am comfortable with what you have presented in a smaller-- you are right. i mean granted we have seen smaller single-family homes. we could move to take dr with the modification shown with a unit on the ground floor and stepping back that top deck in the front. >>yeah, on the top. >>by 5 feet was it? >>yeah. >>commissioner? >>that was my motion >>second >>i'm good.

>>commissioner? >>thank you that is something that the commissioner asked for in previous projects. i want to make things easy so i am in support of the motion but i would like to say that i would be in support of suspending the basement unit into the second floor. it looks like f you go above the proposed basement floor plan there is space in the proposed first floor plan and an extra room or bedroom or something. but, if we are okay with the unit as is, i will be okay with it as well. the only thing that i will ask is that oh nevermind, the back deck is only 700 ft.2. nevermind, i am good. >>if nothing further commissioners, there has been a motion and a second to approve this matter with this modification of adding an additional 5 feet and that

second unit. with that we can take the roll. >>[roll call vote] >>so moved commissioners the motion passes 5:0. commissioners that leaves us with general public comment and i have the general public comment speaker cards. >>anyone for general public comment? ? not seeing any so the meeting is adjourned p . >>[gavel]. >> it seems like everyone in san

francisco is talking about housing san francisco housing prizes are among the highest it tops anyone million dollars and rent rise unfortunately, this is not the first time housing has been in the news thought california the cost of a home has made headline the medium prices for a house in the the $207,000 in california it is more than twice that amount and the laura u bay area is higher it's more than doubled the states so while more than half of the americans can afford the medium fewer in california and quarter in the bayer and now fewer than a 6th of san franciscans can afford it so why it housing in san francisco so go cheven condition tharz the

obviously a high demand to live here the city is known for cultural diversities that attacks new residents and the credible opportunity our city diverse and will daytime committee grows jobs as a result we estimate the number of jobs is at ann an all-time 0 hive of 6 hundred thousand in the 80 the population was 6 hundred and 75 thousand now, it's grown steadily and quickly the recent estimate is 8 hundred and 40 thousand the highest in the city's history and it's not only san francisco it is greek the bay area has $2 million for residents and jobs then in the 80 and the growth is expected to continue by the year 20403.9

million people unfortunately, our housing supply does not keep up with the demand i might not realize the majority of construction is housing that's been suspended for years due to the 2008 recession while population is increasing the housing is only increasing that i 9 percent if we don't pursues housing the cost of housing about only increase how do we plan the regional allocation identifies the total number of housing unit by affordable level to support the new residents san francisco incorporates it into the housing elements that guides the housing policies the arena data places it in the investment plans for the growth throughout