say. >> ii echo back they wanted to parcel to be used as 100 percent affordable i'll say you need $58 million and step up and say it is not ours to acquire i know we don't have that here the economy for the parks recommended for those who want to put it on the list for fire rec and park didn't put it on the list no funding sources looking forward so i see where commissioner johnson said that so without overseeing two things it is hard to say we should be doing anything each one what we should allow the project i had a question from staffs point of view the ecology the habitat

letter if the successor michael ph.d given this potential species. >> when the environmental determination was made the understanding no rare species or endangered species this laser came in last week and forwarded to the environmental planning division owe i've not heard from them. >> let's suspected this belief and say hey a rare plant in the park on the parcel what happens then we were to find out. >> the approval action at the hearing will open up the time and frame to appeal the ceqa determination which is a more appropriate platform to get into the studies and details of those

species. >> for the supervisors. >> correct. >> i think this is a logical thing to pursue and mclaren park is a large park we're talking about they take out a good portion like the church and the uphill not like it as blank like on fulsome blank lots you have you know already sitting there on the other side of the street know i wish i could find something to help out the neighbors i'm struggling with that action what that should look like where we are with this. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> i think a long time ago we talked about the muralisting of leeland with important work by the planning department we solve

those end parcels will be logic to those streets this is not a problem that the documentation it include in the package for example, not showing the subdivisions of the parcel at large with that it is harder to judge i believe a weak point of what is in front of us there's no a site plan landscape plan that deals with the future of the path assuming the 5 homes are important there's nothing wrong with the design but how it is presented to us there will be a landscaped one will delineate how the buildings themselves meet the open space what did does a garden and elevation looking into the park look like it there go something

missing i feel that is somewhat difficult for us because we're not approving one building but and that's not a criticism but maybe a couple of drawings missing but a little bit flat in the this application not in the discredit of building being approvable but how 5 buildings in a neighborhood used to this as open space edge with the transition to the park who children and, etc. move to the neighborhood and all of a sudden we're having homes coming in that doesn't create the dialogue with the existing situation that's what is missing i'm questioning myself how to deal with that i can support the project but really like to see

it better rendered and a better plan that addresses this new 5 building in the larger neighborhood in the transition of parks. >> commissioner melgar. >> so i also think that it is appropriate to have housing on a lot like this i'm not sure that i'll feel uncomfortable with the issues that have been raised so i am wondering if you know coming off the hours of testimony on sharp park and question get into trouble if we don't do the right thing i'm wondering would we be better off waiting if we get feedback from the environmental division on that issue but i'm interested in seeing the design in particular

how the end buildings the two will be trapezoid lots relate to that path and fences are we having retaining walls or that impacts from r5u78d avenue down to the garden i'm not sure i asking can understand the impact so i think maybe i said support a motion to continue it. >> is that a motion. >> i make a motion to continue. >> i second that. >> secretary owen. >> i'm recommending february 2nd three weeks. >> just a ask to staff is that enough time are. >> what i heard you say some reverend in the environmental

plan, and, secondly, for commissioner moore's comments and your comments overall site plan showing the plan and the fences and the facades of the building and - >> good that's what i heard it is steep. >> i'll ask the project sponsor is three weeks time enough. >> and 3-d renderings from different angles. >> so jonas is there i'm concerned that three weeks is enough we need to get our packets 3 days in advance. >> i need to clarify the request a more comprehensive plan site showing some of the barriers or the property line how that design looks from the park okay. and second probably maybe a rendering from the side property conditions on the west

side on the traffic light angle how the facades meet the conditions; right? and what is the proposed 8. >> we're now looking at - >> the 16th of february. >> we'll need to get the drawings within week before that. >> so that - well say 10 days before that we'll need drawings from you by the 6. >> the renderings take more time we have to coordinate with the scomplarp. >> march second is fine. >> sxhiflz i'm torn on this one i think you've been responding to some of the concerns in the neighborhood? the build or don't kind of open

space. >> but i agree with some of the commenters i think that said we ignored but didn't pay attention in the materials to the design i feel the same way when you read through the material i don't get a great sense how this interacts with that space in leeland so that's cuisine the nexus i'm supportive of the housing on the site in terms of the scale but but thoughts into you know this is not a motion and a second vacant lot but something unique to the parcel especially the most westerly ones and get a sense of how they respond to that contact. >> we apologize our drawing documents didn't show that but supplemental in the request.

>> is that the intent. >> i'm sorry. >> to be clear what. >> the second. >> just to be clear that the planners are here and outlook with that. >> thank you. i think we understand and you'll contact the environmental planning thank you. >> any other commissioners before we call the vote no please call the question. >> commissioners on that motion with the direction commissioner hillis. >> commissioner johnson. >> no commissioner koppel. >> no commissioner melgar. >> commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioner moore and commissioner koppel that is placing us on item 10

van ness street a discretionary review. >> good afternoon scombhifks jonathan the item before you a request for discretionary review for the building permit application associated with the property project on van ness street which is located in the nct zones and 50 height and bulk

it will demolish a one story one thousand plus autopsy d.b.a. as oil changer and have a gross square feet mixed use building that includes two retail use and at the ground story and 28 units the proposed building will include approximately 16 foot accelerator penthouse above the roof and includes four below-market-rate housing onsite for the reason the packet didn't include the version of the plans i'm submitting those for your review additionally, a supplemental packet ways sent by the dr requester on january 6th forwarded troon and aim putting

the hard copies for your review since january 5th the planning department has not received additional public comment the dr requesters have expressed a number of issues with the proposed project with shadowing and privacy and impacts think light and air and consist of the characterization of the neighborhood and traffic impacts among others that are identified in the dr application since the property project is located in an mc-3 innovate subject to the guidelines following 5 discretionary review the rdt reviewed the project and the department provided a notice and the project applicant has revised those in light of the

items and reflected the terms the project minimize the stair penthouse proposed above roof the department finds it complies with the massing and form and scale is appropriate given the height and bulk limits the proposed project is consistent with the commercial character of the street finally the promotion project a fully code compliant not seeking entitlements from the planning in conform with the market octavia area plan as it appears no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the department finds the proposal is consistent with the planning code and recommendations that the commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as revised that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any

questions you may have. >> thank you. >> from the dr requester. >> dr requesters you'll have 5 minutes each. >> once you start speaking sfgovtv will put it on the tv. >> good evening. i'm the president of the site guide to those we're not familiar with us i'd like to give you a little bit of background we're a unique san franciscan institution it certifies the legacy business it

is nationally recognized as one of the best 200 and 50 bars in the united states and internationally known by travelers formed by my colleague i took over the business two. >> yes. at the request of his mother after he was killed today 50 employees a professionalable business an enormous amount of money to make that ada compliant why did i take that on when i was asked to do that i had not significant experience equip on a consumption side i realized this was beggar than any other business more than the business running the operation i sensed that had a distinction atmosphere in fact, a community

and neighborhood community of loyal customers that created an environment for san franciscans that can't afford their own backyard or rooftops i was willing to step in and restore it and have done that for a long time now it is a unique and distinction active organism it needs air and sunshine that's the problem if you look at like today, this is a beer garden the maine driving point for people to come and enjoy themselves and we have all hippies from the side 60s and the person that buys the first legal drink and hang out together and enjoy each

other and have regarding them everybody gets along. >> this is now what is proposed at one 98 van ness across the street and we're blow the building near the beer garden and it is as big as it looks if you look at the elevations not 50 feet or 55 feet to accommodate the commercial parts of it it actually starts counting 5 feet maybe above the ground and the part on top not including the slaerlt penthouse it is 10 feet higher than you expect to see in the city that that shadows

during the peak hours of operation not profitable in the winter it is foggy in the first quarter of year that has to rely on strong sales in the summer and what we tried to do in order to analyze what that project will really mean the property development we engaged an expert who is here will respond to questions to analyze the different alternatives we're not opposed to develop we like housing in fact, we ourselves are 18 tenants in affordable housing directly above this so we have no problem in them building and building housing we encourage that and like it it what we try to find a compromise a compromise that protects us

even though that had impact us but allows them to do what we do but not everything the problem we face is two you know we have a qualify active and a quantitative we have to have a beer garden otherwise without the beer garden we'll lose that we have a quantitative problem we run the numbers and have the differences on good weather and bad weather days and want to give more than thirty percent and maybe 44 percent according to the recent numbers what did we do we tried to analyze the shadow patterns depending on. >> sir, your time is up. >> you'll have a two minute

rebuttal. >> opening up for public comment for those in supports. >> there are two dr requesters actually. >> our second dr requester you have 5 minutes. >> good evening honorable commissioners wanting richards i'm an attorney i represent any parents ♪ matter their the property owners we've been in the spirit of commission prerogative engaging in negotiation with the developers as well the architect ♪ matter and mr. salvo has been cc on this communication i have a question this is not my main

area of legal practice mr. desafely was copied on - i don't know where the commissioners have received the drawings that was the proposal we will write a resolution if this is not subject to submission i want a continuance of this matter we can't possibly go forward what is a amicable resolution to my family's dr request i'm presenting them without those drawings being before you today >> they were not forwarded to the commission. >> in regards to the planter? >> okay.

>> would they normally be. >> what. >> the day before they needed to be; right? >> they can only be forwarded electronically or speed limit today as hard deposits. >> from the planning department received them yesterday. >> i don't know. >> the project sponsor may have them and it looks like he does so he'll be presenting the hard copies today this afternoon is fine. >> so if he can moderate with a resolution today, the dr as far as i'm concerned, and my reputation will be withdrawn to the extent that those drawings are not to be submitted and not to be finalized as the

architects submission to the board we will move forward with the dr and objecting to this i had 3 and a half minutes and i recommend no. you can't reserve our time i recommend you submit our concerns overseeing plans have not been seen by the planning commission so i'd like go forward with our presentation as planned. >> again my first request a continuance i believe an amicable is the right way to go, however, not to move forward then thank you. >> so i wc,e c i was this is

of oriented and out of the holidays we should have gained footing on the negotiation but at last we were not we are seeking to find some grounds for a.m. capable resolutions if we can't find the grounds i think any eir will be appropriate in this case because there is magnificent back filing and massive excavation and as shown there is no security against the force of gravity that is actually above the

building site this is proposed for excavation and development we have worked with a surveyor at a considerable expense almost $10,000 to establish the property from the proposal that is being forwarded by the earth and the developer is not september and not filed as conclusive this before significant concerns that the windows are actually obstructed by the railings of the property adjacent building which is completely out of step with city policy and city law so this is a consideration above and beyond the concern about excavation of the property both concerns raise considerable

reason for an eir under ceqa pursuant to california law the excavation concern is a greater moment under ceqa now a tension i don't want to overlook this is as we've heard already a matter where our building one 18 de bois is residential are the proposed building is commercial there for exempt from otherwise attend a residential permit application it is in actuality residential i think that the developers are laughing in the background that is great but just because your property only has commercial at

the base and most of condominium that raise concerns about what it means for the way and the profile of this building if 2, 3, 4 neighborhood when it is directly adjacent to residential properties thank you for your time. >> just a point of clarification our property is the property going up the hill. >> thank you, president richard. >> opening up for public comment for those that support the dr requesters and oppose the project as is (calling names). >> good evening my name is dan mitchel first time in front of of the commission in been a resident since 1980 and seen a

lot of changes some good and some not so good i decided to come down here i've been going to these guys for decades part of community a social part of mission a social part of san francisco and over the years i've come to realize not just san francisco but part of california that is part of u.s. and part of whole world i've been through the beer garden in the sun enjoying a beer or two and met people from all he over the world people come here for fisherman's wharf or some other designation this is designation it is part of san francisco as i look at the changes in the city i wonder what you have to deal with that everyday i guess part of planning commission job what project goes forward and how to

keep the city the same to move forward one way to do that is to deep the things that are uniquely san franciscan and in this case i'll say that is gift and the only reason we're talking about 24 business half of the appeal of that business been around for 40 years the community can get together and sit in the sun and talk to friends and meet coworkers and learn about the world and sing the praise of the city if you go out to a bar in san francisco you'll see their automobile changing 20 or thirty flat screens i've not seen before so to have something unique to the city and classic and social not trying to be a sports bar we should consider

how that building will effect the people that go there and personally as a customer sitting out in the sun on an occasional days is a big plus and please get that consideration thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi ladies and gentlemen, of the board i'm charles i'm a bartender i moved to san francisco on may 13, 2001, to make a life in the city the dream i moved into the residential hotel and within a few weeks ago got work in the station and had pocket money i took on two shifts when the events on 2001 all my work dried-up and afraid i'd have to move back to new york city but i

was able to work full-time as a cook and allowed me to meet the friends i have now and -- excuse-me. >> shared tables with stagehands and from the guardian and artist and from that spring ideas got inspired by the film festival and created a media show that brought together artists and sculptors and the plans for the 3 bands i quite the kitchen and returned i was invited as a bartender and now bernaartendinr 13 years - those folks still

sitting at the tables on sunday afternoon and sitting there creating their future endeavors my coworkers and we all need to make a living in the city we try to pursue our own goals and musicians or artists or you really don't care insofar as we see the sun shining we bartender have a good day and right now it is not all that sunny but when the springtime comes it's a good time we get to rolling and we everything that gift the backyard is our bread and butter i understand the vendors want to maximize we need did housing but protect this sports bar a major

factor of what makes it the great bar it is thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name isal john i'm a third generation san franciscan and the small business owner on market and franklin my concerns are randy this company it is clearly going to take away a magnificent amount of their livelihood to do this none will sit in a dark beer garden in san francisco we're not the place 72 back there when the shadows come in the late 60s if you haven't been there is this lovely experience and more and more unique not that many places to sit out in a public area under

the sun and talk to people if all over the world more and more unique everyday unfortunately, they seem to be the late last of the breed if a breeder business all of a sudden moved into next door and i have a decade left on any lease and want their business to not pass mine that will impact me and make might livelihood not feasible i'll compare to that their unique and the name of the bar and the spirit in our current times changing the nature the city into free spifrtd and open to whoever has the deepest pockets to do what they want. >> push us around and

especially us who care deeply about the city thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again or good evening commissioners i'm speaking to i on behalf of the cultural network we understand the dr we will also file the third c r i want to talk about other issues we have concerns about that project with and their has to do with with the loss of another auto shop i think you told the story not too long having to take your car to service because auto shops were leaving neighborhoods at high speed we've been looking at an autopsy related shop being

replaced by housing and then retail and retail pays 1250 an hour and the auto pay thirty or $40 an hour this is the gentrification problems while the shops are upscale the working-class is going down and down we're concerned about that. >> and this didn't off a replacement we want to see the respect the only i don't know how we'll do that having environmental impact commissioner vice president richards having to drive somewhere to get his car fixed i condominium any groceries have to expensive he drive across town so those are two honest

improvement from our perspective and this looks like on the map virtuosa minimal affordable housing project we're disappointed to see these kovrmd we're meeting with the developers and have a meeting tomorrow that looks positive we consider it makes a significant improvement in terms of what we're doing to keep the working-class this is not kufrnt one of the projects with a minimal offer that had displacement with the upscale residents we'd we'd to see a significant number on the affordable housing so for timelipid and hope you'll find a way to consider those points even if they're not part of central drs. >> thank you. any other

public commenters in support of project. >> speak into the microphone and it is to say it is landmark is underestimated there is no other place from any from all walks of life the only place you grab 20 people and have a birthday party my second point is just knowing having more retail use on the bottom is a place to make it more valuable i was in a lot of places that have storefronts they leave empty for years and years and like richard

said earlier they leave it empty knowing that will sit there and making that that extra bit - you know cost a shadow is unnecessary so thank you. >> thank you very much any other speakers in opposition to the - in support of dr. >> one more please. no more. >> anyone else okay project sponsor you have 10 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners i'm from martel on behalf of the project team for one 98 van ness and joined by our shadow expert and architect i'll be brief i want to take a dr response to be frank one of the most

interesting argument for the discretionary review for the requirement an increase no shadow a documents of the loss of business and closure i think the papers said provided in neither dr papers take off the two stories and then we'll be mitigated as i've provided the statutes calls out a high standard for a decision making to reduce the density for the housing project and there precisely in situations like this this it seems to me a string of information or string of cause and effect we don't know about but taking this guy's word on good faith that increased shadows will have an

effect we want to point out can i have the overhead? some of their shadows is self-imposed you see the trees. >> - >> the trees on van ness vermont and inside the project site heavy foliage across the street into the project on van ness you can see the large billiards and blocking the sunlight and provided on sunnyvale and this is an example there are sunny days the other point in terms of the prohibition against taking they're preferred alternative we saw those tables is other bars survived in san francisco

you know it is a fact of life sometimes, we have outside brunch and the marina - it seems they've been here for so long and the changes we were well aware the changes on the market octavia plan that was incredibly if not highly likely there will be a project built across the street all of van ness street was in the market octavia plan for the 5 foot height with the business building hard if a breeder dr appreciative that requires extraordinary circumstances other than the shadow studies is how do you find extraordinary circumstances if only their posture or how bad did business

will be and why closures is the natural okay. we have many eating places that survive why is this different from shadow when you provide umbrellas and have the existing conditions that are no longer under our control and i'm going to turn it over to our shadow expert mr. phillips that will explain his critique of the shadow analysis and the best way to view the shadow situation thank you. >> good evening good afternoon commissioner and commissioner vice president richards i'll adam from the design i was the preparer of the section ceqa shadow study that was prepared for the project north that analysis didn't include private open spaces as much as

the gifts i was retained by the property owner or project sponsor with a focus on the shading in fact, of the proposed project as the design is on the open space my analysis generally follows the same portfolios as the analysis for the city looking at the shading between one hour after sunrise to one hour over the sun goes down i've further shortened 2 as 9:00 a.m. that's not relevant data in the says similar to the studies i used the 3-d model of the project, the gift area and all the surrounding buildings and overall and freeway to get a comprehensive view of the shading conditions in the area and included all the trees that

are currently in place what i found is that the current shading conditions is a shadow load of 53 percent means 53 square feet hours of shadow versus the number of hours that the sunlight can fall in the park and applied the same standards to the generation and found the new shadow will equal 2 percent a 2 percent above a 53 shadow load for the park and additionally the new shadows will occur only after 5:00 p.m. in the summertime and in the spring and fall only new shadows after 3:00 p.m. no new impact a little bit of shadow will fall during the winter months the biggest impact will happen

around april 16th and on that date the shadow load will be 54 percent compared to the other shadow on that day the other thing i of the brought on to do an analysis or the peer review by the dr requester in my conclusion were generally that what was depict in the shadow study didn't match the solar angles for the shading at the time by example - as you can see the solar at 5:00 p.m. 621 the database shows a 39 point angle that is a profile

not reaching the guise park the shadow from the project will reach halfway into the place this is consistent and my opinion this shading as shown by the study were greatly combaethd from the shadow if it is currently designed a few other factors the model that was used including one of the largest trees that is intervening within the new project and open space as well as the fact to a third of the quarter from the cover by canopies that is depicted as on one interesting thing of not and this is in this diagram where all the shading impacts of the

various proposals from the dr requester were shown this line here was indicated as a line of the project shading at 5:00 p.m. on august 21st and these other lines all indicated the various setback versions according to the solar angles that are used by the city to determine this red line is where the actual shadow from the project as currently designed the land at any time so as you can see the shadows as shown before i this report don't conform to the standard shadowing goals that are used for a certain day and time i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> if there is any followup. >> thank you. >> hi david hopefully, he, do

this in the last 39 seconds. >> this is the plan of what we were talking about for the planters for mr. cruise and how to zoom if with that thing. >> the - >> baefks his issue some windows that face our property this property is along here and if i look at the drawings a window here, here and here if you don't mind i'll take an extra couple of seconds we lowered this planter and this planter here and we had to add two new planters to make up for the

stormwater retention we can't react the puc requires a concern amount of stormwater we spoke with mr. cruz that was tuesday i sent 24 out and in conversations that satisfied his concern and as he was satisfied the other thing he's concerned about potential underpinning and shoring against his property he completely understand that and wanted to assure him and everybody on the close session that is nothing new from mire experience we've done a lot of projects and saviors documents level any walls if necessary cracks or things like that that can be dealt with thank you. >> thank you

opening up for public comment for those in support of this project against the dr requesters (calling names). >> got it and (calling names) if your name has been called feel free. >> hi names a sonya i go to this business sometimes, i think that building housing is more important than drinking beer although i don't know that drinking beer is threatened by the housing at all i think we'll at all gotten drunk in a number of places even though test of fires against the housing sort

of had a approach he thought they they testified it is an interesting place that's true and 4 or 2 percent sunshine will destroy that as unique and valuable there are not a lot of beer gardens of that size that's exactly why the shadow will not have an impact and having new residents across the street will probably increase their business it is - i'm not sure exactly how many units we'll lose maybe 12 units i think that if we were looking at the idea of destroying 12 units to add sunshine that would seem obviously like a terrible idea

but the effect is really the same they own building shades shade the beer gasped i don't think anyone in the building will be convinced that's a good idea to move out and try to find housing somewhere else please vote for housing thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi laura clark and i've been to there mostly at night the shadows are really big i enjoy drinking and will guarantee to continue to go to the bar at night when the shadows will be thick i think that more people is good for business i also then it is not actually this commissions job to pick and

choose when www.are successful and to put that at a housing commission we're in a housing crisis yes, we're losing auto shops and for a city to become a transit city we'll have vision zero and walkable communities we'll have increased retail that's going to be what we'll see for the next few years that's a good thing i think that housing is definitely more important than all services i'll all for having retail become better paying jobs let's raise the minimum wage there is a great idea we're transitioning from an economy that was based on service jobs that were higher paying and we'll have to figure

out how to energy workers to make a good living that's not what that project is about it is about housing we need more of it and the beer will be okay thanks. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm stephen i live in the mission i work downtown i moved here in february from i'm a frairl fairly new resident to the city when i moved here it took me 4 months to find a place to live i ended up findings a place with a friend of mine i paid 2000 barely bigger my queen side bed i'm thirty years old i came to the city for a job and love the

city by that is changing and we need to respond to in change we can respond to the incredible growth and the number of people that live here and want to live here and $2,000 a month to share a place is isn't it true insanity i'm - i'm new to this this is my first time to show up but i'm surprised this is unclear that the request from the business to remove 14 unit and two below-market-rate housing as a result of taking off two floor is illegal according to the housing affordability act that is absurd we are talking about that it is clearly illegal in addition they're a give him

i've been to that place a number of times i started in 2012 and gone at day and night i sit under the umbrella the light is never an issue and two percent less than over the years is not going to effect they're busy and moreover i don't believe that gifts has the right to challenge that according to the rules of san francisco i'm not sure what the regulations is called but the shadow review only applies to public parks not businesses so this an, an overreach i think they've over reaching by challenging the number the shadows that will curae property vote for the housing and vote for this as it stand. >> thanks.

>> next speaker, please. >> hi i'm going to read from this i'm not a public speaker i'm rick a 5 year resident of san francisco i'm also a frequent patron i love this place when i heard about this i decided to come down it goes without saying we're in the middle of a housing crisis all the measures lick rent control to protect the vulnerable neighbors the only thing that works over time is build more housing the price in the market they're the kind of people that want to live in san francisco we need housing and we need houses now it is unconscious we allow special interests and people trying to maximize their

property value the shadow concerns i'm reiterating here are clearly overblown the alternatives given by the construction you know are not you know - not good as the previous speaker talked about their reduced the millennium of hours and the below-market-rate housing that hitter the vulnerable citizens so i strongly urge to to reject this and allow the project to move forward and provide the housing thanks. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jeff i live two blocks away from gifts i'm a patron and have been i've been there and sat underneath the umbrellas on a sunny afternoon

we are desperately in need of housing i have friends that have left the city not afford to raise their families as a neighbor and teacher it is small in the face of the 28 dwelling units in total and the instruction ruks /* reduction i and my friends will continue to go to give oguist if we. >> i like gift when i went i wished they didn't have the umbrellas they have umbrellas and seems like the people that were there were cool there so there's a little bit more concern about the shadows and

the business go resilient and i'm confident it will continue to thrive and also drawing your attention i think this project falls under the housing affordability act and illegal to agree to improve a project with less units than this one so keep in mind and yeah, we definitely desperately need housing so deny this. >> thank you, thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm aaron i've been going to drink at gifts for seven years one of the my favorite spots indeed, one of the only bars in san francisco this as my beer on tap and

housing shortage not having the patio will cause anyone to patronize gifts i noticed in the shadow study the additional shadow seems to be concentrated in the area where the bikes are and not where people enjoy the sun on a sunny day i encourage you to have the additional housing thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi i'm dana soma resident the first time in the planning commission i'll keep my comments 12rur7 short i of the there last night and wanted to respond to

one thing that one of the people on the other side of the issue said they talked about keeping san francisco open and welcoming we have to support the building of lots of more housing and especially below-market rate so i urge you to condition the building at 249 current height. >> any other speeches in support of project and in support of dr. >> good afternoon san francisco resident for well over 20 years i'm here to speak to support of the project to be approved the property i'm sorry to approve the proposal i believe all of us agree that housing is needed in every district in san francisco if

you're more housing we'll be satisfactory it is san francisco strishth zoning and regulations are in place and once the developer understand and respects them shouldn't have personal agenda while everyone has a right to in their opinion and keep in mind people have the right to invest money and time the business owner plays by the rules and move forward a step forward for more housing inventory no reason to hold them back the award of being able to replenish our goal would have it is a negative effect and slowing the amount of property in the city proper the majority of big developers are

taking over the land of san francisco building hundreds of units but what about the rest of the city this project if concerned should be approved in san francisco we don't need for $2.24 hours that had. time stay vacant the smaller development we're discussing to date will add liveable unit i'm sorry liveable unit and brick real families and neighbors to the area we will not only bring additional tax revenue to the city but additional revenue to the neighbors as well most passion or prejudice the money it will provide to san francisco resident additional options so

we can live in the neighborhood we desire. >> thank you for your time all dr requester you have two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners i think first of all, i'd like to move to continue this hearing i see two commissioners are no longer there this is a very, very important decide that needs tobacco made tonight and troubled by the family paid public members that made those detailed statement about information that was not disclosed until tonight hearing and introduce the engineer who actually did the shadow study thank you. >> you mentioned the to percent not true after 3:00 p.m.

and 3:30 in the spring and autumn the shadow will be indicated and all the 2 percent is nonsense we propose different oppositions and not about moving two stories we proposed option moving 10 percent of floor area only 7 percent at a third of top floor the one facing the - only two on the screen a reduction of 2 percent of the total area and two stories is exaggerated and about the trees the trees don't cast the shade in the beer gasped the beer garden garden is sunny they cast a shadow after 3:30 this is our prime time and submitted in the

application the sensitivity analysis on the business why we likely to lose 40 percent only 7 percent reduction on the floor area not two stories as they're saying that's all i have to say. >> thank you dr requester two you have two minutes. >> my points stand as stated earlier we've heard from the architect that he would stipulate to submission of the drawing he e-mailed to the gentleman yesterday if those are not accepted as concrete and certain as what is going to be built than i have significant concerns that i judge would like to raise in my last minute and a

half first of all, we've not gotten a response for the dr request equip and e-mail owe understand things railroad submitted to the commission what i understand to be the rules is that things not served on a dr requester should be stricken as a sanction i want to point that out there's been almost no verbal response today equip for mr. stepping outside the box beggars stimulation anything that should go taken as a synonyms to any argument we make and morph less than 3 feet between the windows and the railings of the development as proposed and that railing is

considered to a solid part of building with 3 feet under the san francisco law and number 6 finally one of the tenants in the lower unit that would suffer from the closeness of building the proximity is disabled and would effect her quality of life and finally the excavation a service area a likelihood. >> that portion the project is closed i'm sure the project sponsor two minute rebuttal. >> no need to apologize i want to sins the comments just to be clear efforts passed to reach through his father i can't speak to exact times and dates but i

know i apologize you feel that didn't happen we believe the effort were made to do so i also want to clarify i didn't make up the taking off the two stories but in the application not something i'll take lightly the proposal was made and the mr. cruz father said a 3 story by taken down to match the height of a building just to be clear i'm not making that up having the accountability act and the last thing i gave to you in a letter comments were submitted the online articles on the guys claims i'm drink wherever that makes it qualify active but not

- there is a following and as supporters said 24 as important contribution to the housing i urge you to deny that dr request thank you. >> thank you. okay finally this portion the hearing is closed i have one request for mr. desoto considering a mc-3 so the requirement for a rear yard is loss allowed to be on the second floor. >> 22.5 and that's correct and

one examine to members of the public every building permit is subject to the discretionary review by this commission as per the city charter. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards for chair richard for making that examine i'll start with hearing this today and all discretionary permits are discretionary i think there is really great points in the comment before the housing accountability acts we've had discussion the commission before on that state law and it's impact on our decision making powers here and what changes we can make the project so i actually and of the opinion that we are very constrained in our ability like to reduce the number of unit do

lots of things that may or may not be okay but be challenging to make the findings around the public health department with that said without the issues with the state law i'm supportive of this project i think that is in line with other development we've seen in this area i think that it works for this corner which is an martin luther king a higher density corner right here that can sort of take the height there and i think that there maybe design issues we can talk about in the project but i'll say here as commissioners up here tonight, i'm willing to support a project with two go less units we need

to start again one of the cases to make tough choices to be able to continue to build housing here one question that i have for maybe other commissioners and come back around he understand the dr requester number one that is the owners of yifts and fully understand they're proposed alternatives but the second dr requester i'm thoroughly confused no idea from the original packet as well as the information presented today that i guess their might be some sort of change to the plan or compromise sent by e-mail not to us and unfortunately, the dr requester number 2 you spent our time your testament not delineating exactly what you're

looking for so i'd like to ask staff if you can come up did you understand what it is that has been requested by the dr requester number 2 and do you have documents that were sent to you late that might commodity. >> in regards tattoos e-mail yesterday he was c, c ed within the project sponsor they had reached their agreement in terms of the size of planter the e-mail said to forward this to the commission i realize that was good and good information for the commission to have but not forwarded to commission in regards to that planet and in regards to the other items it is in there in your packet in the case report and the dr requests the case report on specific

issues i don't know if you want me to touch on. >> yeah. so. >> i think jonathan the question is related to the relationship between the one story portion the building and the railing with respect to the windows on their property and one question i have are the windows lot line and how much of the windows have blocked. >> that's on the ground floor. >> no on the second floor of the dr requesters property. >> the ground floor of the development? >> there's the one story portion the new development with the roof. >> because two is - okay. >> right. >> so, i mean in the case report they outlined issues of

privacy, but not specifically call out the window issue so this was something i believe that was two parties tndc's does that answer your question not really i'm not clear that disappeared in the original case file - let's ask the project sponsor what changes have you explain that thank you very much. >> yeah. i don't like to be confused. >> dave with sternberg.

>> talk both the mike. >> architects this view here this is mr. cruz property and goes backwards to any finger this is you knew building and the rear yard setback one level above grade and that is the garage that provides the rear terraces for the lowest units and the whole building wraps up around van ness street he has some setbacks and some property line walls there is 3 windows in question one window the further from the property a property line window and he asked early on that we address that window and we lowered the one planter adjacent to that window i can show you the diagram. >> lower it so that will not

block that window. >> correct uh-huh. and then mr. cruz wrote the letter and made specific requests that we lower other planters to relate to two other adjacent windows one is 45 degrees to our lot and the other is parallel to our lot so we lowered another longer piece of planter so those windows even though their a distances away from our building wall will have more light and that was in my understanding mr. cruz made a specific request and we made a specific restriction and unfortunately i'm not sure when his letter came in but we couldn't lower the planters quickly because we are subject

to the puc requirement 2 gets into engineering we had to check with the engineer to and add other planters to make sure that the engineering calculations for stormwater retention oars are called flow through planter meaning they retain water when that rains not huge amount of water into the sewer system it is retained and sits through sifts through the planters i can show you the diagram of the revised you have if you look at drawing - you look at our drawing a two point zero. >> and compare that to this drawing

you will see again this window here and this window here we lowered planters on a second ground of planter here to accommodate to those windows on a letter we received last week and went to the engineer to make sure we could do that that is a property line window and early on we lowered this planter all the planters were 5.6 and now 2 foot tall in order to satisfy the sfpuc question added this planter and added this planter that are 3 feet 6 at all to mitigate the calculations for the stormwater retention okay. thank you it sounds like with the revised planter

placement and size that you meet the stormwater retention requirement that works for your project he dwarth from the dr requester that is an amenable to his concerns. >> that's my understanding yes. >> fantastic thank you very much. >> okay so sounds like to me that's a much easier solution that i don't see any issues making that change to the project i want to focus on our question number one and you know obviously when you open up the project for discretionary review we can talk about you know almost anything in regards to the project so happy to entertain conversation on the pdr retail piece i will reiterate my submission before giving it up to other

commissioners there are a few alternatives that will help the concerns that are for like the beer garden that doesn't involve the unit and i don't think that is important to other ideas let's discuss them i i want to put that out there to make any position on the point. >> commissioner koppel. >> yeah. i had a question for project sponsor on this rear yard setback would the stormwater requirements was the the absolute minimum distances from the dr requester number 2 that you can ask. >> i don't understand the question. >> right now you have 22 feet 6 inches. >> i think that is 26 foot 6. >> is that right? >> oh, that's the rear yard that's 25 percent of the lot.

>> okay. so let's say for example, on the dr requester number one alternative closer to dr requester number two building is not possible. >> well the planning code is fairly straightforward about where they want rear yards and in general i don't think they would like that again, that's my opinion i'm not the planning departme department. >> it's required. >> good. >> thank you. >> great. >> where i'm land on this i get the fact it's a lesbian and i get it it's been around forever and yes or no. >> i'm sorry what. >> sir, you own the building

so i'm breathing a sigh of relief where i'm coming from it get the logic change something will be not having an effect on our business i i get it you gave up the bad weather index that includes rain and fog and storm we're talking about shade not rain and fog we're foot commissioner mar apples to apples and the other one i hate to say it to really get me to be in the trait and explore that more today and three years ago today that is foggy january 12th

and few that had a pattern of hay absolutely i can tell you day by day how the cells will effect our cash that will compel me to say hey, you have a point any were else in the world can be donated that's the reason this is the first time i hope if so i could be convinced to continue the discussion on this other than that as said this is speculative and not something i think that we can find exceptional or extraordinary given the fact we don't know so we'll be up against the legal requirement based on california law to have a finding that we're certain a real effect that will reach the element for the test i

get it where our coming from i wish i had more grand last year data to entertain discussion i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say i feel for you but not there. >> any other commissioners commissioner melgar. >> yeah. so i - this is a legacy business one that i think adds to the neighborhood and you know i'm a little bit as a loss to play with that, i on the issue of having sat in the beer garden other beer gardens around the mission to have it more than anything temperature so when the light goes down and all of a sudden it gets colder and there are ways to deal with that people have sweaters and all sorts of things that adds to the

cost of a legacy business so i see that there is an issue i don't know necessarily that will take out of a business but add to the costs i'm wondering in terms of the housing affordability act it seems like a whole floor is retail use. >> is that ground floor required to be retail in that district. >> for one 45 not identified corridor where retail is required but i'll check the zoning table. >> it is not van ness street at that location is for the required to have retails or one

45 - >> are the taking an additional 5 feet in the retail and they are. >> adding 15 foot ceiling height when their granted the height. >> yeah. maybe that's the problem not the housing i think we need housing might consider but i don't know. i think that the issue with the shadow is both temperature and light i think that i've been to beer gardens where 5:30 when people get out of work and start to have beer the lights go down it is cold so i think this the legitimate and i don't want to lose business and the jobs

requester retail uses are permitted on the ground floor. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask the city attorney is this somewhat so unusual normally shadows requirement duo deal with open spaces on the dollar prop k a limited number specifically located parks that deal with larger public benefits this is shadows on private business legacy business yes, but legacy is not expressed in shadow a bye product of legacy in the combination of filter light any question to the city attorney from everything extra carefully

an idea that we might be able to ask for a different packaging of rental units if ground floor residential is allowed would we ask for deputy director the retail that would lower the building and retain the unit count; however, it changes are we allowed to consider that. >> they'll increase the unit counts. >> it may or may not i don't know if other ordinances. >> you're asking me if you can consider the ground floor with residential. >> drop the performance the building given the building is considered residential over retail now saying if retail is moved in order to maintain the

unit count lower the building at the expense of retail and maintaining the unit count. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i'm defer to the city but in terms of - >> yes. i'm not going to opine on that wanders to the housing affordability act that commissioner johnson referenced earlier about the commission needs to make specific findings from the commission will reduce the density in a unit count that employs as long as the units count is to the reduceed you'll not have to make that decision. >> we're trying to maintain the unit count but green house that less square feet dedicated

to retail by lowering the building and keeping the unit count. >> i understand but you have to make the findings for the dr as usual. >> one thing i'll raise this residential is allowed certain from the ground floor in this location i would simply raise the argument not impossible but challenging to properly dine the residential units at the ground floor you'll have to create a setback or stoop or something. >> including we have the planter for rain waste compliance, etc. the building otherwise is code compliant not asking for any variances it didn't ask for

anything that is by reason of a full compliant project how can he build to the shadow and legacy business without a challenging of code compliant building i don't know how to do that. >> one comment i don't know what a 5 feet reduction will be for the beer garden i don't have no idea i tried to eye ball it and on sunset times for the dates in question the ranges the clock sun sets at the 8:30 an june 21st but only a portion the patio is shaded we need to change the project 5 feet may

not have any impact we're looking a continuance if you want to look at it that way. >> i think is unfair it to ask the project sponsor to change that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you just a couple of things yeah. i think that is creative to think about the ground floor residential but will not solve the problem that is a challenge to have ground floor residential we talked about privacy issues with the ground floor residential and less busy areas that is a challenge and the only way to mitigate to have streets and other setbacks that will raise off the ground probably 5 feet that will change the height and the other thing is the housing affordability act you can't change the zoning; right?

we can't say lop off the top floor the developer can build to the zoning height and can add nor unit and can't say anything. >> that's for the commercial we don't need the 5 feet. >> i'm saying in you put residential units on the ground floor you need to raise them off the ground to make them liveable between 3 and 5 feet multiple discussions on you know how you do that and that height is increased 5 feet off the street level you need it height first for ground floor residential. >> because the height requirement is still the same;

right? the developer can say i'll have more residential in my building and the housing affordability can't say you can't build the zones to build. >> 50 - and they, build 55 you couldn't legally do 5 stories of remain that will take you above 50 feet those are the challenges with a place like this. >> ceiling heights and all kinds of things. >> okay. we're getting to your point commissioner vice president richards no idea. >> ceiling heights i mean we've been up here on drs and here we're talking about what

will

>> commissioner nuru >> [inaudible] >> >> okay. i can't make a motion to only four of you can. >>[inaudible] [off mic] commissioner denmark >> director rahaim but i still put yourself in our position for a moment? >>[laughing] >>[cross-talking] [off mic] this is such a is a lot of sympathy for finding a way to understand the dr request on the other hand, we have never done that. we don't really quite know what it takes to do it. a little bit concerned just technically that the two shadow studies seem to be [inaudible] and not basically built on the same database could different assumptions and there will be 1.2 use as a reason to ask for

a continuance. because i have to trust both sort be one or the other which means it's none. so is it fair, given that two commissioners are not here today, including pres. fong to basically push this out say get together, to a proper shadow analysis based on the database that is the proof backgrounds department uses and work together and come up the same conclusions, whatever it is. i don't care either of you could be correct and use that as a premise for discussing this project again we >> commissioner one thing i will say commissioner phelps does so a lot of shadow work for a lot of projects. my understanding and maybe if we could adam made he could come up. my understanding is that indeed the shadow that he found does exist after 3:30 pm at certain times and after 35 three 3530 after sometimes it and cause occurs off on the

valencia street close to the valencia street side of that. i don't know if there is and maybe you can talk about a little bit about what the duration of that shadow time of year and time of day. that would help. >> normally we see it in a bell shaped curve. totally unable sunlight we have the project on and put a little bit of a slice on top of it could you show for each day with your how long in the duration from what time to work him. we don't have that with time information item if it was 10 min. in the fall or it it's an hour in the fall. i don't see that curve and and >> to be fair if we could do that part we don't typically do it for private open space and the was should we go down about the would help us to understand look at the layout of the beer garden and say that also bike rack not such a big and we don't have that information either. >> well it certainly possible to create a more robust study.

if anyone is familiar with the work that i do for section 295, you know we do a series of calculations and graphics moving throughout the entire year we literally put everything in 15 min. intervals. that calculation methodology was used to arrive at the numbers that i gave earlier with respect to providing backup documentation, etc. good that's all information. i on fort only do not i don't have my laptop but i don't have it here at the podium. but from memory, i recall that the duration of shading was between 90 min. and i think 120 min. at the biggest peak and that's where the mighty one square foot of shadow at the beginning of that stretch into a larger square footage. again, the challenge of dealing with shadows their dynamic overtime.

and so saying it there for now and have sometimes leads to the impression the entire part when tired your garden in this case is shrouded in charlotte for an hour nap. it is dynamic and change over time but certainly more information can be put together >> if i may, for how long of a year does that happen? >> i think in so far as i think it was only about six weeks of the year that there was absolute no shading but over the entire winter, there were periods of time that was like 5 ft.2 of shading during a day. again it gradually grows toward that sort of apex which was big fall in mid spring and that's what i quoted as the sort of 4% on the maximum day and then received a little bit in the summertime. that's just owing towards the location of the sun relative to the part. >> what is 4% name? what does it mean 4% more than i would normally be without the building or is there- >> yes. this is where as a practitioner i could totally going to the lengths of this but basically, the percentage is a

comparison between a theoretical amount of sunshine which is if you were to imagine and no building surrounded and so that's the denominator. if there is 100 ft.2 and an hour that is all son and that was a total and then to square feet which was in shade by the project, and that would be the 2% did so you are comparing it are relative the current shade towards the absolute standard of the total amount of theoretical sunlight which could fall on the open space. >> theoretically that's eight in the morning and are not open, who cares? >> that's why did not conduct the study until after 90 and was one open seven days a week he was i ditto the study alone but to match the business hours which i would normally do it was a public part. >> okay to interview started at nine you didn't account in that denominator, from the time the sun came up until he was until that nine injured >> than 4% is the additional

amount of shade that is thrown hypothetically by the building >> the net new shadow from the project. >> i'm sorry >> i just want to say clear is that i might you are saying, starting at 5:30 am, during those fawlty towers, which is >> during summer. prior to about 5:30 pm over the summertime hours, the shadow is moving towards zeitgeist but is not teaching until about that time. then >> 530 the maximum than? speedo that's what a person reaches. it goes beyond that as the sunsets were in the sky the shadows are cast longer. >> sold by 30 it starts and then it grows in them when it's added maximum effect 4% is that what you are saying? speedo

this is where it can get confusing the 4% is basically the percentage of the square-foot hours of shade throughout that entire day. take it from 9 am-one hour before sunset. that's not a snapshot of what percentage what zeitgeist is covered at that absolute maximum period of time. so again it's an attempt to show throughout the day and this is difficult because you're trying to capture@amicable rate period of time with a single number so this is how- >> the reason for that that's how we do the calculations for the parks. it's looking at the theoretical number of sunshine in a year and then saying how many sunshine hours are affected by that. it's a very complicated >> it's complicated. it's a business owner and my peak business was in the summer and in the fall after 5:30 pm [inaudible] then i would want to know like how it that congregated calculation juxtaposes without. i

understand he was all this data can be compared >> so what we had for her-a video that showed the clock was growing on the bottom and says that the they went on you saw where the sun hits and where it did not get it was really helpful. it had >> is covered but it's only 4% in the total overall. if the peak time so that something would really help us. >> i prepared something similar for transbay block one and for pier 70. >> i don't mean to throw water on this but those studies are quite extensive and expensive. they're done for very big project could be so i'm hearing from the dr requester can, was also i can >>[inaudible] [off mic] i'm wondering, dr requester if you had this which i wish we would've seen it or send it to us. >> well, you have it and i

showed one screen >> the video? >> >> no. it's not a video at some slides were showing >> is only one dale? >> is today's of the europe and also that study was put into the developers in december to bring the thing on the table into explained the different things we can spirit if you would bear with me for minute >> commissioner richards after step in here and make a comment out of turn. i really think it's inappropriate to ask that the project sponsor ask for provide information that's five figured it's not required for producing these videos and all these things for pier 70 and thing were done much larger projects is >> i appreciate the comments. we're outscoring his latest and same we have it for every 50 min. for the year. so to me there's a table somewhere that should draw on the data produces updated. that's right is coming from and i want them

to rebut it and say it across 100,000 hours and i would say >> well, this is not transbay block one. i completely get where you're coming from and i appreciate you stopping in. >> okay. >> is it in the massive undertaking the was is a substantial effort to produce a graphical animation throughout the day versus just having a table of numbers which it is a substantial additional costs. >> so on the screen i'm showing the shadow on september 21 at 4 pm. after this time is when it really matters for a pub. everything happens happens before is not relevant. for us, is the afternoon sumpter at 4 pm it looks like this. at 5 pm and looks like this. it gets dark until sunset. that's for september 21 >> the sunset on that day and what time? >> around 6:30 pm >> okay. trying to understand

how long the darkness is. >> well, it's from for >> until sunset >> okay. >> which is what matters >> so so sunset is between seven and nine on a day. per the official >> three hours. three hours out of 16. store percentage is not so much that it's three hours for the bar. >> >> okay. >> we took the 21st because it represents very well between april-april, may, and august september. those four months of fundamental for our business. we get this shadow takes all of the old garden the peak business hours. that is the whole point for us. and we propose fall our turns. some of them affecting only 10% of the area to mitigate that affect and that's in the last

-in this slide show before greeley only 7% >> thank you burmeister i guess question for my fellow commissioners,. rb entertaining residential on the ground floor to be book that were not? no. anybody else i will make sure that's close off as up path. we don't want to go that path. let's get on with things. there's nobody? okay good toward dealing with the project as is. commissioners? >> just to break the silence to give you an idea

>> commissioner antonini is not your >> because there is by the un musters a condition - excuse me - a motion to continue, only a majority vote would work in that sense for procedural matter to continue it otherwise would need for vote today can admit either take dr or not take your pick you can get for vote or three modes for attitudes the project will be approved. >> commissioner johnson >> someone's got to talk and i've got a nanny that needs to go home. i guess where i'm thinking the first floor residential residential the reason i'm scratching my head in essence the issue with a legacy business which i am sensitive even if i sound not i really am sensitive to that. i don't feel if that were a project that came to us i don't necessarily feel that is something i would be very

supportive of over the project that we have right now. so what i'm trying to get through in my mind is it worth it to have the project sponsor essentially have to go back and redo this entire project to consider ground floor or first floor residential and all the implications that would mean for parking, for everything else. is it worth it to get potentially what could be an minimal impact to the issue that zeitgeist has brought us which are real for the business but i don't know that they are going to get a significant- >> so my thought on that would be a completely get where you are common from instead of them having to the road project i like to shadow study. doesn't have to be animated that goes one for reduction in two 4 foot reduction 5 foot just to see what the impact if there's no impact why bother changing anything. but understanding back and try to figure out if

we need to want to change anything. that should be pretty easy. but some numbers in a computer and there we go. commissioner moore >> director rahaim are we allowed to consider the tale of a lower height than 15 feet in this area? i am just asking that because ground floor retail i think is not an issue. because we wanted to do other problems for light and air including that we have a garage and the requirements for the [inaudible] but having said that, what would happen if we lower the building taking the retail across her lower height >> there's minimum height is 14 feet >> correct. 14 feet. >> the code requirement? >> per 145 >> yes. a code requirement the was >>[cross-talking] [off mic] >> can you make an exception to that? >> you need a variance could.

now were getting into design issues. i mean, commissioners, look, i don't want to prejudge this but i would suggest to you that 5 feet is not going to make one hell of a lot of difference. >> happy to hear some insights from you? >> thank you. i agree with what dir. rahaim just a bit unnerving five egos can make much of a difference but i think asking us to go back to the beginning to a sickly redesign this just to accommodate what we again are where of the shadow back without doing an intensity that the analysis is one of your long process that extensive. the retail has been baked in. valencia corridor is all about ground floor retail and housing above and is very much fits that conception of what was in

the market ontario cohen ncd zombie i ask you to reconsider that. i again i think what you are saying is we do a little shadow analysis i don't know is can show all that much at the end of the day. cost money and time. i would much prefer the project be if you're inclined to do so if the vote to approve the project as is. thank you. commissioner johnson commissioner moore were you going to say think mr. johnson >> thank you good i will bite the bullet. i'm going to move to not take-take dr and approve the project with the changes suggested by the project sponsor the planters on the east -west side of the project. >> do i hear a second? >> do i hear a motion to

continue? if we can get a second one that will need a motion >> motion to continue >> second >> to what day? >> i guess it might be good to figure out why we are continuing it. the purpose of the continuance. >> to get it would give the project sponsor time to give us 54321 analysis and say there's a big impact. >> i would also like to point out the dr request or number to request the continuance because the drawings were not with us did i know it's a legality at this point because it's in the public record but i would allow us to just take care of that. >> the other two commissioners would give it a bit of a chance for [inaudible] it's a very difficult as i think everyone is trying to be fair to everybody and we don't have much expense in that kind of

questioning >> so then is akin to once we want a better shadow study? >> with increments 025 feet we can actually get rid of. >> just to clarify were looking for increments quantitative increments in terms of showing x number of square feet at this time, etc.? quantitative data? >> just like we saw was easy for us to see, they were the shadows it and for how long. >> okay. i guess there's two different-there's the quantitative data and then there's the graphical >> i think were much more graphically inclined. i can sit there and look at a table of numbers and get the full picture. we showed up there when he kind of went through was really helped get in other words the dr request or number two showed >> but that style of graphic >> yes. >> insofar as the intervals, i mean it's difficult to do hourly intervals for section 295 reporting but it sounds like what you're wanting is something of a