arcades and movie theaters the number are difficult to pencil out the didn't work so i did not know that i think this is a chipping away of warehouse i think i can work with this you know legislation i think small it is a small footprint to try to deal with that and like i said, i looked at those numbers you know for many years so i do know i can live with that. >> i remember being on the board of san francisco heritage and seeing the plans to we worked through those numbers as well i can voltage for commissioner melgar. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much yeah. i agree i agree with commissioner hillis and don't see this legislation is necessarily there are many instances 2, 3, 4

showplace square we had specific projects go to the board or commission or da or some sort of agreement and in terms of the specifics of the why in all of this i agree with commissioner melgar the numbers are daunting and bringing it up to code and bringing it up to you know good mrnsz facing all it stuff new stuff costs money you have to find a way to finance that i understand where we are going this is limiting and i also think this because this project there is only that building if one were to come out of the woodwork some crazy thing we missed and a problem we have the tools to work around to towards

compromising the thing so move to approve with modifications i think i would have gone another way but it works we have ways to deal with that. >> do i hear and second. >> one follow-up question i'm not sure i understand the project has to come under the legislation does the project needs to come back for a cu for the conversion and not just the case i get it back here for a - >> if you were to pass from the legislation were to pass it would be exempt up to 50 percent of pdr space i don't know what the application is if it is larger than 50 percent no longer

exempt from the cu requirement so it depends on how much they're proposing to have. >> if they were to limit town hall 49 thousand per our recommendation. >> they're exempt and which means they don't need a cu to convert. >> they don't my understanding but the office allocation so the 20 thousand. >> 25 thousand. >> 321. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. diego is correct not needing a cu to comply with that section of the planning code that are proposed other triggers for a conditional use are the office allocation depends on the office use. >> if you're currently you have a building one and 50 thousand square feet of pdr

under prop x the problem is we've not had a prop x project before us and not sure yet but if you're a project that has 50 thousand square feet of pdr currently and your demoing pdr space would apply if you're converting if you're demoing that 50 thought square feet of pdr is there the ability to not replace i mean prop x says you have to replace 50 percent; correct? so not an ability to not replace them. >> that's this will create the one exemption. >> but not with the cu it is an active right. >> that's correct. >> you do if you're a historic building have a conversion that requires a cu. >> uh-huh.

>> and if not just being exempt from the blanket requirement. >> it gives you the ability and the broads ability to look at totally what you know what is happening. >> you're saying i'll split up the replacement right now prop x you must get a cu. >> only prop x says you need a cu. >> are you done. >> yeah. >> you're trying to amend the motion. >> i made a motion that was seconded so i'm trying to understand. >> i'm trying to understand prop i think part of issue we've not had a prop x project you've got a a project that is demoing pdr 50 thousand square feet you'll replace what you need to replace under proposer x don't

otherwise need to cu will be needed a prop x. >> you'll need one to get certified. >> peter. >> i was going to ask peter you're shaking your head i want to make sure we have all the facts you're causing a breeze you'll mess up my hair (laughter). >> not shaking my head i was adjusting my collar. >> oh, was i shaking my head i think a number of factual thing if we could get them right i'm what commissioner hillis i'm not sure we've not had a prop x and we're my understanding reading through the motion is that that would remember the cu and i'm unclear whether or not it comes

back to you if they convert 49 thousand square feet that's part one and part 2 can be done by 10 years every decade empty our building essentially and correct one other thing they don't dr. a problem of needing to have an outside footprint no outside footprint in prop x it was removed this is a matter of interior conversion that is not on the table. >> city attorney mirena burns prop x is silent as to conversion whether or not there is a replacement spacing onsite or offsite so i would advise that is actually not proficient by this ordinance to do offsite. >> not prohibited by present as required not only required it was intentionally removed to

satisfy scenarios like this no, not trap a building in terms of donor certain things yeah, so they don't dr. to do a think increased footprint i want to as far as i know the madison square garden is so it is a massive gentrifying transformation in the building people going come into to make the music shows, etc. this is now basically we want to convert the rest of the building to upscale offices on one of the most working-class buildings in the city. >> i guess a question i've been in the armory and it is strikes me there are office in that they line the mission street side they were used as officers for the military; right? >> we currently use them for

production. >> their accessory the basement is pdr the basement is where actively. >> nothing there. >> spacely used for the production. >> so how many square feet is the actual accessory offices do you know i think about 10 or 50 thousand square feet something like that that is based on a large footprint of the basement and other floors being used for production purposes so you're allowed to have a small portion of the building for office as accessory office to the primary pdr use. >> yeah. >> i guess a thought to the motion maker we're taken place additional amendments maybe to bring down the square footage not allow to reoccur so we have a one time pass and can finance the building and move forward

but make that less than 49 so make it require an office allocation or cu. >> commissioner moore ass. >> the uncertainty of prop x leaves us without tools to understand what is implied yofbt jofbt following up to see if the project to react to the specific location one of the building and what i am well aware of obviously the cost of the armory as a historic building as a historic building will not kind of be solved by allocating this particular use but will be like having a historic building and needing to use it in a contemporary way and maintain to the historic building jofbt as a generic to center the historic

preservation commission look at this and give us advice i think that one of you talked that the next 10 years, etc. we don't remember what you're next generation of commissioners will do i'll be more comfortable with a project specific owl i would have preferred to have sfmade or pdr speak to the the subject property matter this is abstract and policy ordinary happens to be more theoretical but i'm personally not prepared with additional information to get this out of here this is my feeling i've not heard any convincing argument i need to decide today. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> thank you. >> i see ms. april is up here that's good i definitely - is

the supervisor amenable to other methods of assisting this future project like this legislation is a step before we've not seen a real prop x we're talking about exemption for prop x. >> i'd like i can't speak to the project itself this is 2k3w50i9d by desire to what you to assist the historic buildings i wish what had been reviewed by hpc prior to the planning commission because of schedule it wasn't and so this legislation does not necessarily speak to a specific project although a project that is impacted by - this legislation and proposition x

i also wanted to weigh in on the discussion i understood you were having a discussion about the application of the conditional use so prop x has the conditional use as well as the replacement requirement so perhaps we need to clarify that the exemptions are related to the replacement requirements of one to 1.75 and .25 we continue to apply a conditional use requirement in this case of historic buildings that want to convert 50 percent or 49, 99 which are the less eerie understand an office conversions would also trigger a prop m allocation and will go to our commission in the future as well so if we apply the conditional

use requirement i can take into consideration the pdr replacement i'm sorry the pdr loss being considered you know and have that full discussion as it relates to a particular project that legislation is not endeared towards weighing like on either side on a particular project but an attempt to address how to convert into historic buildings of very high criteria nationally registered buildings. >> okay so just because i feel like - this the way it is written the motion and our case report their we're exempting this conditional use r cu requirement so the reason we see that as a cu from the project is included an office conversion 3 triggered

another cu requirement we'll be exempting it that requires a prop x. >> right i'll suggesting to break down and clarify that a cu requirement will be required in this case for conversions of buildings that are nationally registered. >> also this would be a modification. >> that was what you were saying rich. >> right. >> all right. this is a couple of things back to rich. >> sxhiflz. >> thank you for that clarification that i think with the hyphenate landmark designation that is fairly narrow with the cu requirement maybe good to get the historic preservation commission to weigh in on be reminded when a project comes back i think like this happens like in other districts i know that is sufficiently

limited in the projects would come back to us at this point yofbt with the motion. >> can i jump in one second to clarify it is i believe the legislation for locally designated landmarks isn't that correct. >> well lots of building many more buildings with with national than locally designated we have to make that clear i'm not sure what the legislation is referring to. >> the legislation is for buildings designated under article 10 as well as those listed on the national register. >> so even with those criteria diego you count iii buildings today. >> yes. in the zoning district and planning areas that's the geography. >> okay. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess interesting for me

is we want a project but prone with the project sponsor we can't have a project without the ability to center a tenant and not without the ability of the uses we're in a vicious cycle once we say yes, it will come back and say i've got a project that will keep up the building if we approve this we're philosophically approving a conversion it is hard to ghok a real project seeing the building that be saved this week i said reducing the amount to reduce the square footage amount there are offices there this year already office there they do support pdr. >> your 're reducing the amount of pdr to trigger. >> the amount of square footage period than any one of the 3 buildings can convert.

>> my only reaction the way that prop m you have to allocate anything into 25 and 50 with a small cap and anything larger don't have to - >> i can allocate as much as you want. >> it puts perimeters versus coming with a 49, 99 that's what i'm afraid of. >> commissioner moore. >> why not continue it project until we have a position clearer position from the historic preservation commission i do not they take the lead we can forward the questions have them discuss it and have certain confirmation about the severity what may or maternity happen

yoefblt we're a dual commission why not have them comment those are historic buildings particularly one is so small and paralleling so small it wouldn't apply. >> with - back to commissioner moore you without sounding terrible what type of discussion to you anticipate the historic preservation commission will have in terms of what they do what they're adding to the conversation you want to see other than more voices. >> very a broader physical understanding the building impact and may know about other pending applications or buildings to which i may apply and use the authority they have

in being really the commission for this aspect of our work to have a judgment one way or another and what is said here those people that have perhaps reasons we don't have that much pdr space and widdleding away. >> is there a timeline i'm looking at. >> january 19th. >> april i mentioned this came before us today because of scheduling is there anything bad if we postpone this to the end of january a hearing with hpc. >> and joint hearing. >> from the department we have give us enough time to continue this nail late january i can't

speak on behalf of the experience sponsor we were trying to have this reviewed under the 90 day timeframes if you decided to wait to consider i'll offer you can direct the hpc to consider thing as your deliberating here or if you want to go have it back we will - to you after hpc we will extend the time period for review and open to doing that. >> we will have to table this point and 90 days will expire about this two options one to ask the periphery to extend it and ask the hpc to separating sends the recommendations. >> i see.

>> i will be inclined to create any motion with a motion to continue to the end of january and extend the period so when it came back to use it will go out with approval or not because the other option all are parallel decision making and the hpc had recommend or not recommend i have a motion on the table. >> yes. jonas. >> did you withdraw that motion. >> no, i did not. >> commissioner melgar. >> so going back to commissioner vice president richards comments about decreasing the square footage that could be converted it i'm at a loss what that means in

terms of numbers for the building i want to be - one of the argument 24 allows for preservation of the structure in decreasing the resources without having standards i'm not sure like decreasing it but how much and what's the impact so - >> it makes it easy like to close this a little bit more while making decision. >> i supported prop explore it was the only commissioner here and my whole point existing offices in the building to the tune of 10 or 15 thousand feet that may not be able to be rented out and accessory office with pdr maybe go somewhere else so we don't center to do an allocation i feel like we're hamstringing not having a

project if we don't do this as to the continuance the whole fact of the hpc informs us we use that input who recommendation if serve this discussion the supervisors is willing to extend it no projects on the table we need more information i support a continuance. >> if i may commissioners, if this is accessory use can't be rent the actual use can be accessory to the use. >> it may come back as well i support a continuance. >> rich. >> okay. >> do i hear a motion. >> yes. >> no move to continue to make sure we can -

>> the soonest to continue to january 19th. >> the day after the hpc is hpc meets. >> january 18th. >> is that two soon. >> move to continue to january 19th. >> we can change it again, if it didn't make it on the hpc calendar. >> thank you commissioners to january 19th. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that item passes unanimously 7 to zero and - >> commissioners that commissioners, that places you on item 11 in file non-complying

planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners diego sanchez of staff the item before you is an ordinance that permits terrace in fill on a non-compliance structure that was designated as a significant building under c-3 it is proposed to allow the cliff hotel to in fill an existing terrace that was designated as category one go significant building and over it's sarah height and bulk limits theretofore no new area of bulk can be od'd added to the building the terrace locate within the entire coast guard not on a facade and not visual to the street those buildings are designated as significant in

the c-3 are luckily u bulk limits to in fill a terrace up to one thousand plus square feet any in fill requires a major alteration permit and subject to the historic preservation commission the departments recommendations to approve with modification the department recommendation is as follows: one delete finding two which does not an impact of the defining features and two restrict the changes to the cliff hotel and 3 the time limit on the planning code change again, the department supports the historic building to adapt as long as it didn't impact the resource, however, the department is - did not note had you useful this tailored ordinance has for the rest of the c-3 district how many

building this ordinance about impact they don't know and be able to take advantage the department limiting the ordinance further to recommend only impact the cellist hotel it was proposed by the hpc and will remove duplicative legislation the supervisor has reviewed the modifications and that concludes my remarks and available for questions. >> okay public comment straight it greg. >> no project sponsor. >> yes. unfortunately supervisor peskin office cannot make it today. >> any public comment on this item not seeing any, public comment is closed. autopsy commissioner moore that is uncanny those two projects are right after each other the specific buildings specific

proposal with a location and an enough research to understand what is inside i personally believe this building that i can support this and wish the other project p had simple specificity. >> move to approve second. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to to adapt for approval. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore. >> commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and commissioners item 12 at 3554 terryville street light conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners and commissioner

president fong elizabeth planning department staff this is for a conditional use authorization to merge the existing tenant space on terryville with the existing tenant space 3560 was previously occupied by at&t a limited restaurant adjacent space is opted out by an insurance tenant the request to combine the spaces and change the use for a full service restaurant d.b.a. as a cafe with onsite beer and wine sales the project sponsor is taking a type 41 sale beer and wine license to operate 11 and permit by the code the outside seating will be reviewed the property is located on the corner of 46 and terryville within the restaurant sub district this is an area where

eating and drinking establishment with restricted within the immediate proximity approximately 52 percent of commercial tenants contain the eating and drinking establishment that included the previous use and those establishments have been called out in the packing material the proposed restaurant will increase the frontage by 12 plus feet under 2 percent our there is has an enforcement option on the project which is listed in our packets i can discuss if you have questions to date the department has two communications in opposition to the proposal the communications discuss they're eating establishment within the neighborhood they're concerned about the addition of beer and wine and outdoor seating that

individual was going to speak but couldn't make that and has submitted an additional letter for your review are there are 21 communications for the project including a letter for the mayor's office of economic workforce development and 50 additional letters have come in since the packet and they're all here i'll pass them forward the restaurant is an independent neighborhood serving status that is locally owned two of the restaurants owners live in the outer and the proposed recently approved - the project sponsor plans to employ 20 people from the neighborhoods in order for it to proceed the board ms. granted the conditional use

authorization and the staff recommends prevail that creates job opportunities and fill a vacant storefront and the business owner this is a cultivated relationships with the neighborhood the neighborhood my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners and commissioner president fong just wanted to say a couple of words about our connections to the neighborhoods before talking about the projects i want to introduce myself ann as a, llc to open a cafe in the neighborhood the other two partners are brother-in-law and friend he's the father of a 7-year-old and sat on the board of directors in the cooperative

for 3 years one of the believers the rip tide in business i since 2004 i live with my wife and son my wife is a farther and my son a third grader i'm current employed in berkley it provides learning experiences for companies throughout the bayview i'm a volunteer - and in the united states marine at the time my wife and brother-in-law looked for a house we account afford and coexist the search took us to san francisco to a neighborhood i'm not familiar with the outer sunset district for the first 10 years i commuted to any yerba buena by the terryville train during my first week of living in the neighborhood i told any

brother-in-law to open up a coffee shop there were no cafes that offered x press drinks i thought about the possibility and shared this dream about david in 2015 david contact me a friend was going to sell his business david contacted me remembered me i let david know i was interested if i could do that with others our goal for streamline to get a great cup of coffee in a warm and inviting atmosphere we want to be a place where neighbors can meet other neighbors and a designation for visitors to san francisco and other parts of the city we want to be a place for local artists

can share their creative works the 3 of us have been involved in the art brent is an accomplished artist and david plaza places in local bands a consistent supporter for several years after the military i worked with musicians from the desire to create community space for artist part of our dna we are currently planning a show on december 16th with gallery that has (calling names) michael is a talented forecast that includes david boo i didn't and others celebrates he has currently an installation having him in our gallery will be an incredible honor and brent is

from the - for a punk band out the england we're honored to have him and more importantly facilitate and build on the community we've been part of for so many years i've been blessed where the block of my home this is the only neighborhood that provided a strong bond with the neighbors he thought my business to fascinate that same feeling my business partner and brother-in-law will be working full-time to maintain the relationships that will strength our community that will be a family business and i hope my son will be working there one day we intended i hiring within the neighborhood and know the transitional youth age between 16 and 24 have much higher rates

of unemployment we would like to partner with the san francisco department the department of children, youth and institutions that have workforce development programs to provide employment to the transitional age seeking employment and experience on a yearly a basis i work with interns and attest to the mentorship we're requesting a conversion from limited restaurant to a full restaurant and also request to stand into the adjacent space of terryville spreadsheet the reasons for those requests are based the desire to give our business the best chance of success in a competitive environment that is a limited restaurant a great space but not have much wall space the space at the other place will increase our seating

that is chilly and create a gallery we believe that the neighborhood will benefit from having having a greatly increased activity the last tenant was an insurance office that have the porn's of a vacant commercial space blinds always closed if we are approved we will be able to pair our food with the cheese and wines and beers which will compliment our foods and the coffee we're serving is from san francisco grounds finally our neighborhood is changing and our population is growing web the terryville is in need for the cafe since my portfolio the neighborhood a vibrant this is in part because of demographics but the fact that more people are obgyn under

financial roofs given the costs of housing and airbnb also 3 blocks from our location a residential building is built at the corner of 46 we believe the there's number of residents will have a need for more quality food and only within walking distance to the new development we want to meet that need and have our architect that wants to say a couple of words. >> you know this space actually used to be a restaurant before on the corner anothers 3516 and also the 3550 used to be a restaurant prior the two businesses on the 35 space that came after never got permits so basically you know the original restaurant lost it's

entitlements this part of city i came in here in 1961 this part of city was pool playlands and sutro and the eyes skating rink was vital this part of city needs revitalization those are significant in having a place of activity that is gone down over the last 40 or 50 years i encourage the activity of the commercial spaces to open up with some vital outlet if you can build a high-rise parking structure and bring down geary build high-rise buildings along golden gate park and let the traffic go towards bart there is an ideal situation i'm i want to

put that out there thank you. >> (laughter) okay anything else from the project sponsor. >> okay. we'll go ahead and open up for public comment any public comment on this item. >> coming up up to the mike please. thanks. >> thank you my name is ryan white i live on 47 and at street my lovely wife is on her way we're lucky enough to buy 0 house in august of 2015 it is exactly where i wanted to live for ages we're close to where mr. gargz and mr. willingly live

around the corner they're wonderful parents my son evan goes to school a half a mile away she's he's expressed interest in being a bar rests at the cafe i like this to happen in our neighborhood at the end of tara value a lot of boarded up buildings that used to be businesses spray paint on them i think - i don't see any harm in having a cafe in our neighborhood my wife, son and i are very excited about that and hope for approval to have this project come to

fruition thanks for listening i wholeheartedly support. >> okay. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> hello my name is shawn i live on terryville street about 3 units down from where this will be built and i wholeheartedly support it. >> i moved to it place about 12 years ago and known those 3 gentlemen if the beginning the whole neighborhood is like a family it will be great for the neighborhood thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> hello i'm available to answer any questions you may have defense attorney i can't i live on 48 my husband and i and daughters 22 to the outer sunset

in 2014 and take the l tara value to work everyday my daughter works at one of the shops on noriega so i would love to have coffee on terryville and on the way home to get diner the family below us they want to meet up at the restaurant and have lunch the neighborhood needs it i love the idea the streamline it is agricultural thank you. >> very cool any more public comment on this item okay public comment is closed. >> commissioner koppel. >> yeah. being a resident of the outer sunset i do any best to patronize my local businesses a long time fan and supporter of rip tide and i'm going to do my

best to see more people walking up and down before balboa in the noriega are terryville are your heading west going to the beach other places to see and go to so definitely in support of project. >> is that a motion. >> would you like to make a motion. >> i'll make a motion to approve our move to approve. >> although i'll say i have a friend that offered to give me. >> tour of sunset i see he's not done that i'll put this location on this tour. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that with conditions commissioner hillis. >> commissioner johnson second he i mean, i and commissioner koppel commissioner melgar and commissioner president fong

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and commissioners that places us on items 13 abc for cases for grant avenue salons and sutter street for the authorization. >> commissioner good afternoon with the department staff before you the request for approval for the downtown authorization height and bulk for a conditional use authorization for office use on floors 4 through 6 and for allocation of 29 thousand plus square feet office space in the limited office program includes the dpoogsz depiction of buildings and mixed use commercial building for the

basement of retail use and for proposed office use no stoops is proposed and off-street parking provided on highland's this preserves the conditions and says that the office is proposed at 3 new floor levels the site has 3 frontages and will line the ground floor with entry from each side a discrete office is assessable from the lobby on the frontage so satisfy the open space proposes to make improvements repaeflg with high quality and a feeding plaza are are moveable chairs between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on november 2nd, 2016, the historic preservation commission approved the major alternatives finds the construction consistent with

massing and composition and scales and colors and an ornamentedtion and in conform with the secretary of interior standard the commission is not taking action, an is negative declaration as these railroad adopted in 2008, the findings xhushtd the modifications didn't trigger the needs for additional environmental impact therefore the addendum is valid and no supplemental analyze it necessary since the publication 3 additional letters have been received i have copies for the distribution. >> the department recommends approval of this project because the ground floor design prioritized retail use in the upper floors were retail which

meets the goals for the downtown plan to preserve the upper retail use owe don't detractor from the retail it is balance and consistent with the objectives and policies of general plan and code that concludes my presentation. unless you have questions the managers and architects are here and can provide more details about the project. >> thank you project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm steve atkinson i was going to briefly describe the project marseille as taken care of of that to be comparable with the district and mayor gavin newsom approved by the hpc we want to thank the planning

department staff for their advice and assistance in developing the design we fully support the motions and conditions in our packets now david and john of mba architects will present we'll be available to answer any questions thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm david with m b h architects i'm the architect for this project and wanted to briefly go over the design elements of project and begin by underscoring the importance we've had the importance of the collaboration

that we've had with staff over the past 12 or 18 months on this particular project that has been very positive experience and i think we've established a trust we would like to building we've gained a partner in the process they were very structural early on in reviewing our basic design and we're very free with their comments and criticisms and i think that the design that you see before you today is the culmination of that interaction we have went to ar c and got feedback and i think that the refinements made between when we began and where we are today really resulted in a much stronger composition as far as the design is concerned i'd like to talk about the design

inspiration for this project in the historic neighborhood descriptive of km s we have worked hard to establish an infinity with the neighborhood and the neighboring buildings and the context but at the same time, we did not want to be intimating building a building of our time using propositions and the building of the neighborhood buildings but in a way that use current technology and building practices that i think we drew inspiration from the neighborhood one of the first phone calls was - we consulted to get a sense of context in which we're proposing this new

building she was helpful also in providing us guidance during the process in short the building is very simple in its receipt concrete moment frame and glass curtain wall and the terracotta trim appears on the third through 6 floors that element in and of itself is what ties we believe ties our building to the neighborhood northbound that the warm materials that are used and also the material itself is something that is consistent with other believes in the district this is a thai part design consisting of a base and shaft and capital the ground floor is and the grid is marked and demarcated by the

vertical cement oval cement columns with a steel framework that holds the elements and the location of the discriminate helps to reinforce the middle of the building speaks for itself and small sobriety at the ground floor to help to reinforce that at the top of the capital itself is comprised of an tension of the metals and the framework itself and capped with a light steel we call it the halo around the building that is our tip of hat to get more classic you know tops of building in this area. >> within the other things too

is that we're attempting to - this area and this location sutter and granted that frontages of the building harlan alley it is the back of the building what we're trying to do is bring the building to the i'm sorry bring the fronted of the building to harlan and create a sense of an entrance this is currently what we propose to interesting have exit and entrance to the upper levels with that, i think that we're approaching not only the building design but also the open space along harlan we plan to improve that area as well and kind of approached this is as an integrated design so i'll have john talk about the open space. >> good afternoon, everybody as david mentioned one of the

positive more goals was infinity i believe in this era it is unique the buildings have of they're like individual times capsules there are buildings from virtually every era of san francisco and have a real interesting dialogue that is building have with each other pr when you look at some of the buildings there are pauses between the building and within buildings some of the pauses have generated by alleys that he another word that david use was collaborative and i ivy on the collaboration with marseille and the planning department in general allows us to come to the conclusion that perhaps one of the most compelling pieces as an urban statement is the gesture this project will improve an alley that otherwise has little to no function other than a

garbage collection as david said as that the building turns the corner the management our client has reached it out the neighboring property owners along harlan alley to collectively begin to study a way in which that alley can be enhanced for the enjoyment of all of us here in the city when you look at those alleys whether claude their mystic an allure and appear but your restricted to enter whether it is security or a garbage that collects the garbage cans that are hanging out we're proposing to take the initiative to enhance the experience that pedestrians have as they travel

there union square and see this oasis and our plan to remove the existing asphalt and replace that with paving we're going to have bollards that will be put into place at the strategic times we understand there is a couple of restaurants that will be backing into this alley so at times tables and chairs those balance lard can - where fire and police and so on we're in the mix of identifying a design concept which will not only be conducive but operated by on a base that insures this

alley will center beverages and public art and landscaping that will all contribute to what we build like i said earlier, one of the most opm compelling piece of of the proposition before i today thank you for your time we are very grateful to marseille and mr. rahaim and the historic architects it has been a culmination of many hours of hard working folks i think you'll like and opening up for public comment not seeing any, public comment is closed. - whoops i'm sorry. >> i submitted a card yeah. >> good afternoon,

commissioners my name is katherine i'm architectural historian i'm here today to discuss the contents of the letter he were they i believe was handed out to you i'm sorry you have not had the benefit of reviewing that that was submitted yesterday so that's my fault i'm here to respectfully ask the commission to reject this and give a greatest level of security in any to the project on grant the reason for in request is that the project benefits from the entitlements gained by a previous proposal ways displaced in 2008, june 12, 2008, the public and the preservation commission and planning commission have not reviewed the substantial commentary with was made upon the proposal the current my name

is to use the addendum to the 2008 approved project is not appropriate here the current project differs from the 2008 project to warrant substantial supplemental environment analyze it defers in in my opinion 3 significant ways the use is different from 2008 that was a residential and office and retail the footprint is different that project involved the demolition of 1 building now looking 1922 the architectural expression is not - substantially different from 2008 the exterior treatment lacks the compatible with the market for the conservation district that was previously prufdz that is

sitting down a different project and in my professional opinion you can't rely on the addendum i request the 2008 staff report and comments be made available and more studies before this project gets approves and finally with all due respect my letter third page the current project to give us a visual how different the architect said this new project is simple in its receipt in its cushion wall he is right it could be designed on any corner in san francisco i hates to use the word iconic but

it is before us now and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> yeah. >> a quick question the letter from the harp was that distributed to us. >> oh, e-mailed to us. >> okay. okay. >> co-sponsor. >> i'm not sure who was on the commission in 2008, i was and at a time the commission spent an 1250er8d amount of time one recognizing this the one and most important corner in recognizing what the historic district is all about not only building next to each other but

were standing amongst the as to his fine itself because their particular case small and eclectic and he moving into downtown having said that, the amount of time we spent at a time taking a proposal and pushing that back and pushing that back and pushing it back simplified the commission will review the page submitted at a time and review the commenter presentation made for the building in which we all had questions adding height from the corner was a big issue has to do with with the adjoining uses and has to do with with the use of sidewalk progressing towards the dragon gate and on and on and on many discussions and ultimately proefbl 8 to six months or

longer the project was brought forward did all the things at the highest level of security in any between a historic district but looting a contemporary building it was something which the commission ultimately and unanimously approved i think everybody had rested themselves into the seriousness and thoroughness this was obviously based on an environmental review given that were changes in the particular location the building was torn down and today, we having unfortunately, one of those moments director rahaim i depolar this building that was approved before this commission was not brought forward we have to look at something today in all ways different use a larger building it is two buildings and

it does not meet from my observation any of the exceptions of the proper papers in the historic district the first time i looked at the it remind me of the architectureal language of the negotiation building by the 52 story new york times building i've sure you've seen but the more abstract it could be on any other corner i really felt that we're missing the point here if we spent that time at a time to really work so hard to make that happen he personally building this building is not remotely be what we tried to hold high and agree on i believe like using the simple requirement under

ceqa this project requires supplemental review because the change are so significant that we need to look at it with that extra lens and t in other words, to consider it today, i can't support that it is a significantly different project and doable it meets any of the criteria which is the basis of approval in 2008 a i offer and agree there was a lot of work it was a shame that project didn't happen, however, that project didn't happen we have one before us i think that i think is an attempt to activate that building i think that is a challenged building a multi elevation changes i remember don was in there and douglas original property i believe that allen martinez was a historian so i like to see

attempts to look at it as a hotel completely doing something different with that and like to see the building maximized i believe an antique vendor i think that is a significant and beautiful corner we supplement with the building across the street with the lemon is and the cafe has done a great job with a committee a huge point it is at activation of the alley and. >> and the back in the day within and to - maybe i'm in support of commissioner moore but i share the fraction that

was a lovely project we had and twoogd too bad that is before about us. >> commissioner hillis. >> so just a question on the you know relying on the 2000 eir. >> it was the 2000 was a negative impact for a 10 story residential building i have the report it was a 10 story building with retail on the no lower levels and i believe a parking facility. >> correct around 40 underground parking. >> if i may the reason that the environmental review officer decides this addendum was acceptable the building was a smaller square footage and believing in general while a slightly bigger footprint less than square footage than the previous and i think the other thing to

point out we're recommending approval in 2008, the historic preservation commission didn't exist so this distance in a local district they spent a lot of time in the last few months reviewing this project we were relying on the historic preservation commission kind of design review, if you will, to refine the building in a way they're confront with in a historic district. >> i think that was you urban design group i get it the eir environmental documents that was done not current but don't think what is important here the design of the building and how it fits into the context of the neighborhood it is an important neighborhood the building that is replacing i don't like how this was built and kind of mimic

the historic building i look to the holiness i'm sure you commented to that to help guide us on the design of the building i think from a massing and bulk staubt it works and fits in well i like the active retail along the alley i don't think the 2008 project is before us i have not seen the design of 24 project but i look to the historic preservation commission to the keeper of this historic district and you know, i see what is being done it in trying to keep this a modern looking building in keeping in context with the history strict. >> commissioner vice president richards and i guess a question for staff did the hpc render a decision on this does it go.

>> yes. on december 2nd a granltd the permit. >> project sponsor so we have an office in retail the prior project was for residential and retail why not graded residential. >> thank you, commissioner if i can start off by correcting one mistake that is exactly the same footprint the statement made by the witness is incorrect i think marseille will back up me a 6 story building not a 10 story building on our question the project approved in 2008, was two levels underground parking and two levels of retail and residential the project can be feasible to build that's why the building was sold the new

owners looked at the over and interested in the building you know with eave retails issues of the height of the upper building in in addition to the safety that is triggered in i go over and the additional costs triggered if you go over the 6 floors and other economic factors and the fact that quite frankly concerns of opposition to the 10 story building the height was an issue that's why we're come forward with the smaller project. >> commissioner moore. >> i like to ask staff could you explain to me how you read par tied into this i don't quite see it. >> should i come over there or. >> speak to that. >> can i have the overhead?

please thank you. >> sorry. >> okay never used this before how we used this the storefront level and second retail level will be the format of the because the shift. >> is the 34, 5 and 6 and where the parapet begins and the capital - >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a question on the retail use is it your intent to divide it up into upper floor retails i'm curious on the second and third floor. >> you envision tenants on the space. >> thank you, commissioner i'll try to answer that we don't

know what the tenant will be an ideal situation a ground floor arrangement took all the parts you had a hearing a couple weeks ago about the cultures of time third floor we'll doing everything we can to lease that i know that third floor for retail and non-office use or have to come back the answer not a tenant we don't know house those floors will be used in working with the staff we have a probability of multiple entrance and corner and an optional second entrance on the grant that serves a second retailer that for example, might take part of first floor up to a second floor and third floor. >> so. >> thank you. >> does that answer your question what you wanted. >> yeah. no i understand.

>> so i'm specialist supportive and move to approve. >> second. >> i have a question a few months ago there was a retail that actually had the name a large italian women's clothing the retail for that type of store. >> i may ask the representative to come up there is no tenant at this point we've been talking to different people so you know exactly how the retail will be build it to say determined this is highly visual and high ceilings space so we don't have a retailer in hand or

near at hand at this point. >> the reason why i'm saying that in one of the buildings the smaller building one of the two a small local retailer been around since the 1990 or something like that an openly technologist - this was month ago in the early san jose and been there forever and ever i asked them what happens to you guys basically being exited and it is very hard to see a traditional local business being displaced by a large move like

this without us taking notice the specialist of the historic district is complimented by smaller stores in the building for a long, long time and being displaced on the other hand, we know a discussion a few weeks ago the larger spaces are not utilized i'm trying to help including not just seeing larger retail use that may stay empty to come office opted out upstairs other places down the street that maybe the same. >> we are confused and maybe a confusion about the property a third floor and one small first story building not my understanding of the attended

and the tenant in the smaller building is not a long term tenant i don't know what the confusion is i don't believe that we believe in my long term business is being displaced everyone in the business ♪ building i believe has their own floor for 10 years and most of them took the leases with the understanding the property will be different >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> i'm sorry. >> i didn't push my button. >> commissioner johnson and i think you were refer to the obstacle underground i like this bus this project was prepared in 2008, substantially a different use but the same outcome both lots that be diminished so every use up there not an additional 7

or 8 years so i'm not southern this is that relevant here i won one thing i'd like to ask i'm supportive of the project i think that works and something that is necessary for the district commissioner hillis mention the project down the street the old women's used to be conversations about retail strategy in the union square and media question about the s m.d. like talk about to staff a little bit about the finding there i think i got it but my question not only is there a change slight changes that impact this prolong for looking at whether or not the analysis

still applies but also changes in how ceqa is applied and transportation now the nct and changes how we do analysis so could you go over what those changes were and how the department looks at whether or not the total outlet a summary why we're able to give a final negative declaration for this project property and also some of the changes how we analyzed the impacts. >> so i'm going to have to rely on the city attorney but speak to the addendum for in project to the previous negative declaration and so the ero felt because in not involving any

significant environmental effects or previously identified significant effects there was no substantial scanning and circumstances in which the project is undertaken and bound to be no new substantial importance at the adoption of the previous negative declaration so the ero fined an addendum to the document requests sufficient i don't have is a clear backward from 2008 to now where it is an los maybe the city attorney has a better perspective and deputy city attorney mirena burns. so this is the correct standard when we need to do an additional environmental review that will be triggered in new significant impacts we've not looked at

brought but the clanks in the project or substantial increases of severity of the impacts additionally if there were significant changes in the circumstances under which the project was undertaken that would trigger new environmental impact that's a reason for a environmental review or new information we couldn't have known at the time the original environmental review was dolphin shows an environmental review without the triggers ceqa didn't require us to do a environmental review this is the first trigger from the triggers have not been met we don't revisit the environmental review and with a projects some changes to the project description for example, the reduction in height and other changes that have been made it is appropriate to do an

amounted to the previous environmental review to update and sdrieb the changes now with regards to our questions if we're not required to do environmental review we don't go back and relook at the project under the new standards of methodologies ceqa didn't require we apply the new brt analysis unless we're reopening the transportation studies because it is my understanding where a project that is cannon as this commission knows to a project to be reduced in size and scope didn't trigger an environmental review because the impacts are substantially reduced. >> okay. that's help you mean that is general to understand it because understanding when those are triggered is absent multi

vaurnt the height and the old building had parking this one didn't i'm supportive of this. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess a question for project sponsor commissioner moore raise a good question about the existing tenants do you have a strategy how first right of refusal they're worried about business displacement. >> john can you address what the existing tenants they've known for a long time that's coming we were talking with one tenant in particular who wants to hold over her date we're trying to work with the individual tenants john the project sponsor will address that further. >> john managers representing the ownership the tenant base in the building are on a month lease some of them have been in the building quite a few of the but

aware living under the change that has been proposed sugar is the tenant you might be miss identifying as a open technologist and been in there for two years and took occupancy knowing that is a short-term lease wear open to help any tenants if they want to remain but at this point our focus on getting the entitlements so we can understand the project delivery and cost and then from there will flow our leasing strategy and decisions thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask the city attorney generally in considerations residential versus office has different degrees of dense outlet given the respective uses you don't

see that as a change in our interpretation of ceqa. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. 24 would have been considered in the addendum i'm not familiar with the documents of this project i'll recommend that the staff because a question regarding the specific environmental review that was conducted by generally this is or project sponsor may be able to speak to 224 information will be looked in the addendum. >> there is a motion that has been seconded shall i call the question? >> please. on that motion to approve with conditions commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore san francisco commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner moore voting against. >> commissioner is goinbreak.

>> i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you doesn't know how to silence them turn them off configuring on item 14 ab at fulsome street for a downtown project thoorgs and please note that on september 8, 2016, after hearing this matter continued to so september commissioner koppel and commissioner melgar you were not seated it was continued by a vote of 78 commissioner koppel

and commissioner melgar you must say i've reviewed the hearing and other materials and yes, i have and geography planning department staff this the item before you is a downtown project and laceration ton fulsome street that was continued as jonas said from september 8th at the hearing the close session directed the project sponsor to incorporate empower setbacks from the adjacent building current proposal the project sponsor will go into the daily detail, however, an i have no speaker cards separation if fulsome street and dowel place this project adds 12 stories with one six 5 feet and reduced the floor from floor height and relocated an penthouse that the

sponsor will speak to subsequent to the publication that he was revised to reduce the building along the fulton facade if 8 to 6 feet i've hundreds out a diagram that illustrates the reduction staff will modify it to match the project the project will require the budget and grouped level wind, however, the department supports the motions in your packet and recommends approval with conditions that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions and the sponsor will now make they are presentation. >> commissioners this is the second hearing for that matter we reduce the time for that 3

minutes for the project sponsor and one minute for the public you have 3 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm dementia with the swit didn't x company thank you for hearing this item before we came about you think september 8th and get our feedback we've been working as you sit here now with multiple representative of both of the hoa's to have amassing and project design more responsive to the liveability of the neighbors resident we made the modifications and the final page didn't include the final concession this is the distributed we agreed to reduce the project as they're by 5 thousand square feet we're happy to come to a binding after that

the with the neighbors and we will i'm going to turn it over to the project architect. >> thank you for the opportunity to come back and share our progress on the renovation we proposed the proposed addition more floor area and fewer floors that wraps up around the court and 4 as far as they are concerned, with floor to floor height through the dialogue at the hearing and substantially in hearings in workshops with the neighbors we understood marrow clearly the primary concern was building separation as illustrated in the sketch provided by the neighbors you see on the gene we looked at options that tried to balance the concerns from the neighborhood and providing functional office space

building on the sketch we approved in analyzing looking at the living spaces with the blue condo the blue building that was clearly designed that angles the living room spaces and has the most glass towards fulsome and stepped away our massing and we moved towards fulsome with light and air the in those in any massing we addressed the privacy concerns expressed by the significantly more office space towards blue the proposed addition to have approximately 54 plus setback and 60 feet from cowling place that is 82 and a half feet

in terms of building height the 5 story addition 5 nature difference the reduction from the floor to ceiling height the proposal is one and 65 and a half feet tall well within the joint - sir, your time is up. >> but the commissioners may have time later. >> opening it up for public comment i have some speaker cards (calling names) come on up you'll each have one minute. >> good afternoon. i'm xavier with the local 261 representing over 5 thousand members and we're here to support this project it is something for us to really when it comes 0 member

community and - it is something that you know we all unions have in common about supporting those kinds of projects and i call you to support this project and one last thing i'd like to comment as a personal comment about planned construction you you know, i work few years for that company and one other thing from the company the owner of company i don't care if you lose any money we do the work but i want to go back home in one piece one of those things. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> sir, your time is up. >> >> thank you, mr. flolz.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm of hanson brit representing the homeowners of sf blue and members of hoa are here in september we appeared in opposition about the backs impacts on the neighbors and since this time we've read worked with the project sponsor to rise those concerns we as i said a memorandum of understanding and they were by the project sponsor we now support the project as revised in light flower mart terms of settlement the key changes a reduction in the fulsome street sobriety by 6 feet a reduction in the height of the penthouse including the two accelerator not to stand o extends the roof and to replace with the facade and coordination on the sf blue and no usable

outdoor space equip on behalf of the roof deck. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners my name is adrian carpenters local 22 field representing i'm representing 3 three hundred capillaries into local 22 as well as you wouldn't o 50 or so standing up those are folks that want to go to work through the partnering with the swig company and our direct company park construction they'll have the opportunity to go to work on this job it is a smart urban design on the transit corridor that includes muni and bavrt and the new contributing terminal a lot of carpenter jobs about 200

and 50 construction jobs over an 18 period i'm glad to be back and appreciate our support open this project thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm here i'm a resident of 631 fulsome i'm oppose the approval of that project two-thirds of our units face fulsome and half of them gets the direct light in the afternoon the proposal has a magnificent feet that is significantly blocks and eliminates the access to the flight appearing to the planning

code allows us i have submitted proposals for your consideration providing a setback that brings into the one and 60 feet to the addition for fulsome and have released the project sponsor issues but our goal is maximizing the square footage i've been unsuccessful and give me in the circumstances and in the burden of proof is - >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> can i have the overhead? thank you. i only have a minute this is the compromise we appreciate them but the new design there are liable disregarding our light i didn't realize this i sent you the

design the new design improves that the penthouse blocks that it is defeated by the penthouse following their extra floor is the problem from the maximizing of the square footage when press it wasn't not going to fly we remember commissioner moore asked is this a must where the planning code provides them from saying this is not the rule we've proposed you know a couple of setback to be reasonable and keep much of their 15 or so thousand square feet we're not here in support we can't pay more legal bills and willing to have 50 people show up we're not willing to expedite. >> any additional speakers on this item seeing none, public

comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. >> although i read all the e-mails and understand the project is over the developer has done over the portions of the 15 units to reshape the project owe work with the neighbors they've what they've done and sometimes you can't make everyone happy i'm thinking this project is a good compromise within the ability to build within this envelope so i move. >> second. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask a question of the architect on the last change the reduction of 4 hundred and 60 reduction. >> yes. >> so that's taking out - can you put up a rendering of that. >> yeah. the rendering up

rendering on the screen here. >> yeah. that's the portion. >> where the shorter portion of the building is setback everything will be sobriety. >> it will push back 6 feet. >> in the portion that is bumped ought to be essentially flush with the new metal panel. >> with the shorter portion>> correct.; correct. >> why was that done i like the change in depth you have thought building what was that done to accommodate. >> i think outside the box was done to accommodate greater assess from the blue condominium that was a suggestion by the hoa. >> you're doing it on the bottom floor or once you hit that - >> no all 11 floors. >> from a design stand point is there an ability to do that at the upper floors i don't know

when that does to the design. >> it feels appropriate when you do it we're trying to connect both the top and bottom. >> i guessed this an ongoing negotiation but the design elements i don't really like it. >> understood. >> commissioner moore. >> i will being with that the building is less massive and i say the last straw in the compromise i agree just for the public i think the second reiteration of the building has gone through the - it was a reshaping of the building based on the initiatives pushing back that was priority with the neighborhood i believe what has

been reached as a compromise is something that is supportive i reject we're losing the notch on the building. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and commissioners that places us on items 15 ab for cases i've give it a minute for the room to clear.

>> okay commissioners item 15 ab for cases at kearny street conditional use authorization and at the zoning administrator will consider a request for a

variance good afternoon. commissioner president fong and members of the commission carli department staff the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to allow the construction of a building studying 35 feet in height to exceed 5 thousand square feet and the budget and length of 50 feet the the subject property let the record reflect with which the chinatown business district and 65 height and bulk district the project proposes the demolition of a commercial building and the construction of a 4 story mixed use and institutional spaces and a between on the fourth floor the project will allow for further development of programs and services which will be operated by a church the proposed institutional at the second story will connect to kearny via a pedestrian bridge

that provides assess to the church building it was a intended to be seniors in the church community the project sponsor is seeking a variance from the section 136 as a balconies steady the obstruction and from section as the ground floor ceiling height it less than 40 feet a rear yard modification so 60 feet of open space can be provided to date the department as many letters from community organization and residents in support of project the department has not correspondence in opposition and several of the correspondents were received after the packets were submit i've included them the department recommendations approval and buildings the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons the project replies a

vacant mixed use building that is for pedestrian ream and provide compatible use the project will allow the institution that is root wtsz the chinatown to capitalized without negatively impacting the neighborhood and provides one between intended for seniors the additional room will attack new members to chinatown for intergenerational interaction and it is compatible and in keeping with the chinatown residential design guidelines that meets all the planning and necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and great project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon or early

evening i'm sam and my colleague robert was here to present the project first thank you to carli for shepherd us through the process the many things of planning. >> sir go ahead and use the mike. >> sir if you could read into the microphone. >> cu and e e a that's where we are at that point and acknowledge the presence of project sponsors representative a great number of them are here if you could raise your hand so we prepared a two year part i'll talk about the background and history of the project sponsor the church will refer to it and bob will get into detail of the project so we'll begin by going to the project site

so the project site is located in the chinatown it is at the intersection of near the corner of washington - all right. at the corner of washington and kearny street where the the subject property is 7 to 8 to 9 kearny the bronze is adjacent to another church property an kearny that is here do you see that arrow? and the main church sanctuary around the corner at 720 washington street

this view i'd like to show you is taken from the corner of washington and kearny in the hilton showing the the subject property on kearny the building to the south kearny and around the corner for the universal church the original church building i would like you to notice a change in elevation washington square is towards kearny street and about a 12 foot change in elevation at this point it is i'd like to show you this diagram that represents the four levels of the interconnected properties one key building program item was to have access to the new building from the original building it happened that occurs we can

connect our second story to the first story if you see there's a pink for place represented we can connect from 720 washington and go to the 828 and to the new property the reason this is for the church has limited space in the original building serves wedding and funerals and other religious gathering and a direct level of access to that new building this is an overall the site seen from the city college building as you can see the project site adjacent building across the corner other 720 washington now a brief history of the church this is a view taken from

portsmouth square that is a mid century modern building was designed by the architect willie wong the building is - was consucted as you can see over a period of 10 years by the church members as was a labor of love they committed each member committed to work on after their normal daytime jobs and we understand one member tell me he didn't remember doing anything else but being at the church site this is the main sanctuary by the church members those too young women appropriate dressed appropriately for construction work they are in neither 90s the church wants them to be named for the construction of church

elderly >> and oh, then there is a woman on the right of this slide looking up, she actually dominated the building that was a great donation the church by the way, is on funds and have many bake sales this is known and cookies to concrete this project will enable the church to have continuity from many generations from the people that built the church and would like to retain and attract of the youth for the community for the future we take you back to those sites and i'm going to turn it over to bob i'll talk about the proposed project. >> thank you very much

the now we're take a look at the proposed building overlooking 9 chinatown new year's parade we should show the balcony it was with on landmarks it follows the intent of chinatown historic district design guidelines while relating at the same time to the middle i mid century back on the record church you saw sgen at the sidewalk the main industry faces the left oend edge it is recessed between show windows common to chinatown for the design guidelines the second floor level matches and connects by brej to the neighboring church building that is as sam mentioned this floor matches the sanctuary bringing

to together 12 feet above the sidewalk sin is second story is lower than 14 feet per the design guidelines the second story plague has been recessed to provide a visual allusion to a tall first story the second story accommodates the churches active service gathering the third story accommodates classroom studies for the youth it is balcony length was the balcony of fourth floor match the square edge ended balconies prominent throughout chinatown a design feature that might be added to the chinatown historic district design guidelines all balconies feature. continuity oriental railing

similar to the screening adjoining the back on the record on washington the fourth is the residential youth for church elderly its massing is setback 6 feet as the roof terrace similar to the top floor of the buddhist church and creates a code required residential setback coupled with another set back at the rear of 21 foot that costs indicates casts no shadows deferring to the lower height of the neighboring building it also voids conflict with that building encroaching court and finally the precast terracotta scaled to the next door contributory building all and all interpreted and incorporated

the historic district design guidelines without resorting to mimic the immediate neighbors if there's any questions we'll be happy to respond >> okay. thank you. >> opening it up for public comment any public comment? >> appreciate everyone standing up in support. >> any other public comment okay sure. >> great, thank you. >> any public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. and commissioner vice president richards >> move to approve thank you second. >> commissioner moore. >> i dare to say are more than fantastic i had the opportunity to visit it was was blown away i've been in the neighborhood for 40 years but only seen that as a building out of the corner of my eye but seeing in

incredible building i hope you have an opportunity to see that i'm happy to see that as continued in the tradition i heard the elderly speak about their own philosophy how they've built as an opportunity to continue the legacy he was touched by what i saw and heard and hope the community finds the ability to publish a book about this remark building. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you really quickly why the variance for those ground floor ceiling heights? >> right. >> so, i mean in terms of asking - >> i mean the project sponsor or zoning administrator. >> the minimum required ground floor to ceiling