>> disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president hillis commissioner vice president richards commissioner fong

commissioner koppel commissioner melgar and commissioner moore. >> commissioners, that places you under your is consideration of items proposed for continuance number 1888 tennessee street large project authorization is proposed for continuance to april 27, 2017. commissioners further under our discretionary review calendar items 12 ab - 659 guerrero street discretionary review and variance staff is prop a one

week continuance commissioners sort of oddly enough 4 drs with filed during the notification period we received a 5 dr requester that was filed on valentine's day february 14th that dr requester is unable to attend today's hearing to afford that person due process i think we have at least continue is one week. >> i do know that the dr requesters are not in support of the continuance. >> 659 guerrero street any public comment on this item? the items proposed for continuance are the dr requesters here jonas do you know. >> i don't believe their present the request is coming from staff i believe in order to

afford the last dr filer the due diligence would be premature to hold to today. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners commissioner fong >> move to continue number one and items number 12 ab for one week second. >> thank you commissioners on probation officer motion to continue items as proposed commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> jonas i think as acting da i'll request for variance one week also. >> thank you acting zoning administrator. >> commissioners under our consent calendar commission.

there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. we have one item under content case 2 this is the baby diaper changing accommodations planning code amendment. >> there are no speaker cards. >> any public comment on item number 2 proposed to be approved by content seeing none, commissioner vice president richards. >> move to approve second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve item adoption a recommendation under the consent calendar commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to

zero. >> and places us under commission matters consideration of draft minutes any public comment on the draft minutes seeing none, commissioners commissioner moore. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you that on that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards. >> i wasn't here i'll not vote. >> you're absent didn't. >> i. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards commissioner president hillis thank you, commissioners commissioners, that item passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 4 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you so today thursday, february 16, 2017, is a national immigrant walk out day and a 3rd of this

commission - i wanted to acknowledge that commissioner moore and i came to work today because keep an eye on on you. >> (laughter). >> but want to you know just mark the contributions that immigrant have made to the physical you know made up of our city to the cultural history for the political context of our city that as been interpretation and also acknowledge that you know, i for one i am an immigrant and proud to be part of the body to build the city together. >> commissioner moore. >> i strongly agree with what commissioner melgar just said. >> next. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters.

>> item 5 director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners just one announcement today, i wanted to let you, you know the mayor had appointed me to be one of the city's abag the societies board committee that made up of members from all across the regional we have 53 by the mayor and 2 maintained by the board of supervisors he appointed me and each position has an additional emery rogers is any additional and the other appoints are the director of office of economic workforce development so our first meeting is this evening maybe once a month on thursday occasional i'll have to leave early but pleased to be part of that and being more involved in the regional matter for the last

couple of years. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> congratulations director rahaim i couldn't see a better person you get all the questions and maybe shape some of the answers (laughter). >> commissioner vice president richards i echo commissioner moore's sentiments do you know who the board appointees were. >> supervisor yee and kim. >> thank you. >> next item 6 review of past events of the wrfrdz and the board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon aaron starr manager, legislative affairs first on the land use was an ordinance supported by conservatism that allows the katdz in the ooermgz and mixed use you heard this last year and recommended approval with the modification to limit the ordinance to just the usc s l a supervisor kim wanted to limit

to the s l a zoning district that was continued for one week because of city attorney's office formatting errors in the ordinance this week less discussion with the committee members with the errors fixed and the changes are for the sli district they. >> send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> last on the land use was an ordinance on 950 passenger seat that was considered an september 17th last year and considered the entitlements for 950 market street that proposed ordinance motives the existing requirements in exchange for a unique affordable housing project to provideed by the city on one 80 jones street it was heard but commissioner koppel's and supervisor farrell expressed disappointment in the mohcd for not looking at the impacts more

thoroughly we voted to continue for more information not board this week staff conveyed the reflected one point one million dollars for the $300,000 for the t lgbtq and an additional seven hundred thousand for the gift for the city's affordable housing they confirmed the project sponsor cost estimate and one $.75 million was accurate the t dr was a minimum - however, supervisor peskin note the actual cost could be much higher and assumptions were revised all totaled they spend

one $.8 million than otherwise required during the hearing planning department staff sports the establishment of a vetting process for complicated ordinances staff welcomes this to aid the review as the board had concerns about the fiscal hearing and staff had struggled to evaluate this before during public comment the attorney for the project sponsor noted in addition to the public benefits provided the project sponsor was donating to the nonprofit the donations covers 2009 free art space and community training and public safety training and look at interpretative program on level two as it ended the committee voted to recommend the proposal to the full board

at this week's board meeting supervisor president london breed that requires more hotels and motels near the entertainment it passed it's first reading and heard the visible determination for the housing project on shot well, that the evidence will show an industrial building to construct a 9 story building including 20 unit for formally homeless seniors and vehicular parking i approved this last year and granted authorization for height increase that was the city's first 100 percent project on december 30th the intermission appealed this project to determination issued by the planning department the board appeal laced two hours the appellants claimed that was faulty bus the determination

relied on the eastern neighborhoods eir and that the eir claimed was out of data and the planning department staff explained they don't have expiration dates for the equally projects created by the stated in 2011 the appellant argued that the infill determination was inadequate it didn't identify the significant impacts from gentrification a member the mission group that appealed the market-rate and note the appellants the argument coveragely applied that staff noted that shot well created housing you without displacement of existing programs supervisor ronen had several speakers don't care offense the project will create vacancies and crime supervisor requested questioned

but to equality the project with undesirable outcome supervisor ronen took issue with the proposed height of 84 feet too tall have an acute hicks and supervisor ronen stated we needed to build taller and higher projects like cesar chavez that was valentine's day the board was not feeling the love with any of the speakers and voted 11 to zero for the environmental determination (laughter) and then finally on the agenda urging the planning commission to adopt the affordable housing this resolution was sponsored by all 11 supervisors so that passed unanimously and then introductions from last week, i didn't center available is a

ordnance sponsored by all the supervisors urging the planning commission to adopt the general plan for the family-friendly housing and second a ordinance will i the mayor and supervisor ronen that will amend the zoning map to amend the par controls eliminating the transit special use district and correcting height limits in the umu district this is part of the 2020 program that concludes my remarks. >> the board of appeals did meet one item of interest to the commission is that the denial of a sign permit for a hotel on superintendent gerrero submitted a change of copy in 2015 and gave them a response about the sign didn't meet our guidelines and early last year, we requested an early cancelation

and had already installed the sign they didn't provide the guidelines that we issued. >> notice of violation was not appealed it was appealed to the board of appeals there was some mixed opinions on the denial of the permit that the denial was upheld in a nut shell by default and policies penalties have been. >> cu it is $25,000 we're instructed the appellant to get a permit to rove the sign thank you. >> good afternoon tim frye one item from the historic preservation commission the item was also heard by the hpc cultural heritage assess community both the j.c. met to

discuss and brief on the legacy business program the program has been sort of in progress since june of last year and this was their opportunity to ask the department questions and the sophisticating about how progressing applications for the registry but others have been moving along we've discovered based on feedback from the commission and the heritage assets committee there are streamlines so we're approaching the department and office of the small business commission to provide greater technical assistance to small business to solicit the mayor or board of supervisors to make the application easier to fill out and provide the board of supervisors with an application and nomination tool kit to make that easier for supervisors to

nominate the legacy businesses and finally to increase our outreach activities taraval street the commerce and working with the investment neighborhoods programs in the mayor's office to the target legacy businesses throughout the city so bans those recommendations the department and the sophisticating will work together to come up with a viable plan increasing the number of applications that are reviewed and approved over time at this point approximately i believe around 70 legacy businesses that have been recorded and about 59 of the businesses have applied for some sort of financial stipend through the presently fund more as and move forward that concludes my presentation. unless you have a question.

>> commissioner vice president richards as questions for mr. starr they recommended the board of supervisors adopt the family-friendly housing are we supposed to come up with that. >> we have a draft the board cannot initiate the plan they're requesting you do that they're in contact with the board. >> we'll note hear that. >> should be yeah. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to general comment not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i had the one speaker card. >> one speaker card georgia

swedish. >> good afternoon. i sent the e-mail and want to thank mr. sanchez about the project on fulsome beautiful gorgeous building have to admire the work it was 4 unit and two legally i didn't see the second one is there but it is not marketed that way that's why i'll hear again to talk about 317 b-7 i hope the loophole you posed i heard that the conversation of family-friendly mr. starr you have to initiate and dealing with 317 i hope you deal with that you know i'm enumerated oak wood and carl losses and duncan and 26 last week and i just hope

that you do - it seems like a micro issue they turn into macro in terms of housing whether that is airbnb or their condo and who occupies them and that is my point do you see the letter to the editor about the teachers the article about that woman because that's the kind of thing those unite the plus family-friendly housing 317 b-7 and thank you for responding to any i'm mr. sanchez parently it cost my attention open homes in the chronicle for one 80 fremont one the amenity was instrumental 3 housing unit and 60 feet for the structural support i thought that was

interesting i've not seen that listed as an amenity you can't comment on that but i thought wow. you know wow. no way i'm looking forward to hearing those pounding of the things again you know the piles please 317 b-7 and thank you >> thank you, ms. swishing seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards how ms. mohan left she was working on 317 and what items we want to work on that this year this is a discussion will family-friendly housing demolition so ms. swedish it is no process and probably reviewing that at some point in the future. >> thanks commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to your regular calendar for item 7 the fisher 2017 fy

2017-2019 proposed department budget and work program. your final review and protection of a recommendation for approval. >> thank you john rahaim planning department we asking for your action on the budget which we are required to submit to the mayor by february 21st we had a hearing two weeks ago two years ago also (laughter) two weeks ago on the budget deborah our deputy director administration went over the details of the budget with you we'll not go over those but a number of issues that were raised or questions by a couple of commissioners, i want to respond to those primarily referring to the short memo with our packet i think the most

important thing to remind the overall vision 75 percent of the department work is fixed work plan that is primarily the work we respond to the development latex applications and the environmental review applications the work of planning division and the planning division and the zoning and enrollment along with part of citywide planning compromising of 65 percent of the work and the other 25 percent resides in the citywide planning with the long-term planning that is really the purpose for that presentation we had a few months ago we talked about the 5 year work program what are the major policy issues we're addressing and fined on page 4 i'm not going into the details but online and being

more transparent about the goal the major initiative from retail to transportation to resiliency and waterfront and overall housing a huge policy issue separate from that i think this was a question that articulated commissioner johnson said what the overall direction it is reflected on page 3 of the memo over the last two or three years focus on those 4 areas in our budget and overall sense one is beefing up the project function and get rid of of the backlog and dealing with important up to date issues i know housing is one that is clearing at the forefront and will be probably until the for social process and

the four aspects the work are growing we need to make sure we fund those appropriate and i think that is kind of on overarching issue we want to make sure that is not just a one year program but for several years as we move forward that's an overall view how we see the four initiatives combined with the citywide work place is how i want to characterize the right pa of our work flap that is more global warming, if you will, not fixed based on project plaques and environmental applications with that, i'd like to ask deborah to summarize the budget itself and one substantial change she'll talk about with that, i'm going to turn it over to deborah. >> good afternoon,

commissioners deborah to review the budget with you today as the correct bherngz here two weeks ago and feels like two years for some of us it has been a busy two weeks we do have a couple of changes to ask you today good news we've received additional fund from special funds the impact fees and the transit center funding for two projects and a grant received national oceanic n o a the resiliency work we'll get as well these are the numbers everything else is exactly the same as a we've proposed two weeks ago with a couple of technical changes since then i'll point out it is the same with exception of those 3 items

were an overall budgeted of 52 point one million dollars whoops go to the changes and a little bit more in detail on the positions again, if today's presentation. >> so looking at the overall budget we are looking $52.1 million for 2017-2018 as compared to 52 plus millions our fee revenues the same projections those will be decreasing from the current year of $44 million to the projected budget in 2017-2018 of 40.2.2 and the two items the one that is one 875 and the development impact fees are up to one $.4 million plus one other not is in the resolution that i sent a draft of after the

publication of the resolution draft our fiscal year 2018-2019 number changes because of a technical adjustment in the budget it is $3.4 million for 2018-2019 if adjusts automatically and it will change most likely next year we we come back to finalize the 2018-2019 we're proposing one resolution you recommend. >> on the expenditure side we as you can see that our new revenue fund is going mostly into the project line that is

the one time project a small amount of grant services we put into the non-personnel line it includes contracts so - on slide 5 which jonas is distributing right now hopefully it is easier to read than the screen and this list we'll have two projects in the transit center by the impact fees and matthew will be talking about this after we finish here today and we have $3.8 million now we're looking at for the rail yard and benefit study the acronym is r a b and funding to continue the work that we've been doing in planning around

caltrans and high speed rail to the city to the center that is currently slated in 2017-2018 and, depending on how from the programming continues in the future years we may see additional funding in out years once the decisions are made in the process we see one one hundred through these of streetscaping that's slated to both fiscal years and the 200 grant as the director mentions we're doing a lot of work throughout the city with resiliency and the sea level rise and this grant is one that traditionally has been given to regional efforts as we develop the proposal we will have an even broader fraction for the

resiliency for the area. >> moving on we always talk about traditions i want to review what we discussed last week excuse me - two weeks ago no new additions and requested by the mayor for all depends we are repurposing some vacant positions one for the bic and two for development agreements when we had presented and when we had created the resolution draft the budget system had not reflected that we had been planning to delete one position and we decided to repurpose it so the fte count but using one more management and monitoring

the change is that the undoing and deletion had not processed through ms. showing in the budget so the fte count for 2017-2018 is 2.38 as opposed to to the 232.8 that was node in the draft resolution two weeks ago. >> as the director noted earlier most of expenses this work program overview lets you know where the staff puts at a later date efforts we reviewed it previously this helps to explain our focus the offer all organization is bit division currently planning citywide and environmental zoning and administration which we have listed here.

>> and to remind you of the details we included the housing breakdown within the division and again, have current planning the large divisions, with progressing the application reviewing the plaques and permit and then citywide with a variety of activities split into the core fixed up and the general going on work as well as the planning initiatives so those are the major initiatives that were mentions a few minutes and i believe that has been brought you to a few opportunity to come up i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> as you know the

environmental planning as well as zoning are also in that more fixed area of what staff activists are designated for and then we wanted to remind you this is a process that will continue we'll rest for 10 minutes and start over again in july but here at the commission today, we went to a historic preservation commission and recommended this body recommend our budget to be submitted as we proposed to the mayor's office so the budget is due on february 21st in the mayor's office and june 1st to the board of supervisors and we should have been an entire final city budget by the end of july.

>> so with that, i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you open up quickly to public comment. any public comment on the proposed budget one speaker card georgia swedish. >> hi sorry when i was here two weeks ago when commissioner vice president richards was not here and talked about the budget i brought up the action item memo and so here's the copies for you it is sometime had to be summer of 2015 and commissioner vice president richards talked about the r d g to be determined in summer of 2015 i ielth i didn't

look online to read the changes i had a great conversation with jocelyn and hope that happens this year bus 2014 is a long time will be a long time in december and here's an example why i think you need to deal with them can i have the overhead, please? this is perhaps an extreme example but not that much this is a two buildings on castro and that's the rear yard that's a lot of glass i just experienced sometime like that open valentine's day weather wise the windows and doors were wide open i was like watching a play i didn't know what the lighting was like i thought that was in the 15 row center and whether that makes me a advisor or after - regardless this is a

design issue that hopefully, will happen this year when the redo the residential design guidelines thank you to the budget people i wouldn't want to do a budget and look forward to working on the r d g this year thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, commissioner vice president richards. >> one quick comment director rahaim in - in the private industry that is a great memo in the private industry we do planning as tell you may be able to augment this this is what we targeted and end did you up we and waiting for the past year or two really help us. >> sure. >> great. >> i'll be happy to do that. >> anyone left i guess the other thing just a

comment i walked on the terrace with my dogs and saw from the member of the public i think the garages to the windows were left in the front much over 90 percent it is like a glass box so that's something that staff probably will be taking up at some point in the r d g. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i'd like to thank the staff for the initial information on the budget and the work plan it answered a lot of my questions from last week to rerap what i'm interested in was to understand how the stacking and the budget dollars around the work program will attribute to the overall long term goal of the department and the city so last week, we saw our presentation about the work plan and budget it was you know my

comments were this is great work and appreciate the details but as a commissioner i didn't feel that was the information i needed to give up and down on the budget so be able to say this is good or not good this is different and the additional information is helpful and in the future that would be great to dig into the work plan and understand the initiatives what are the - so each work plan item has a title and subject but eventually what are we going for to simplify our efforts or trying to support more building in the city, because we're trying to simplify the general plan or the code i think that would be great it it will see how buckets of how pushing the city forward and not another initiative or idea and that will

help to prioritize this work plan and economic cycle that go up and down and more and less dollars do play with for staffing and, etc. so for new thank you staff we appreciate the initial. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> one follow-up question i've not looked at the annual report but commissioner johnson a lot of the initiative were - we'll be seeing that. >> yeah. based on the fiscal year so i think we're probably a little bit behind if last year but coming out soon i'm sorry, i do know the exact timeframe. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm appreciative of what was presented it was not just numbers but we hear from the department year in in and out

we're in the middle of this required to be observe haven't the approach of the budget how it is described grammatical reflects that we know what is happening in the last election the challenges itself to prop 68 with ongoing discussions the affordable housing and the nature of how ballot initiatives shape it or don't shape that on and on we know the dynamics to which the current budget is so i assume we are - >> it is it is an action item so. >> an action item. >> i move to approve. >> great. >> second. >> if i could remind you those minor corrections that was mentioned.

>> thank you for mentioning that. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the recommendations for approval as amended by staff commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> commissioners, that places you under item 8 i did say that for case for case inter-department plan implementation committee ipic) report. informational presentation. >> good afternoon. i'm matt of planning department staff before you i'm here before you every year to talk about the report and the implementation plan excuse me - the interagency committee what i'll do i know a couple of members are new talk about the

implementation team at the planning department we'll talk about the epic committee how we go through and do our budget every year and touch on highlights of the area plans we are charged with implementing so the implementation team and the citywide consensus of the planning department was created roughly about 7 years ago when we were finishing up the major area plans mosaic and eastern neighborhoods we had completed rincon hill and the purpose of the team is to look after other aspects of the area plans we didn't area plans prior to that we had the zoning and then our apparatus for the environmental review in the review of the plan of the actual development projects but not had sort of a dedicated team to look at after

the other aspects namely the community benefits and infrastructure and with those plans we've done for the last seven years or so we've included or generally included impact fees specific to that geographyy that's the tool to see our implementation plans make that through it was created this is a committee an supergreen agency not just the planning department and they're charged with helping us implement actual infrastructure projects that help us program and think of strategizing what projects are best and coordinate on enter ac with the community i don't have a slide i should for the other aspects of the process that is

our community - seniors advisory committee and the community engagement the counter to the ipic they look after policy so we have two cac market octavia and for the area plans we don't have cacs we have more of an 50kd like the visitacion valley or work with other agencies on project specific delivering rincon hill and the transit and balboa park i should back up and say we're charged with 6 area plans eastern neighborhoods which in and of itself is 5 area plans market octavia, balboa park, visitacion valley, transit center and rincon hill. >> so the ipic has essentially

two work products the ipic report we forward and working on is more a background document mini plan and the mini capital plans ipic looks project that impact fees revenue venues and many views takes a broader view not just those which impact fees are used but you will projects that peace officer to the plan that help to address the need created by new growth and those - when he looked at the muni capital plans any kind of project we knew of either be it founded agency or the community to see the funding gap and look at that nearly and those

projects address or looked at when we were creating the plans kind of game how on the other hand, we do what we originally promised so i'm going to quickly go through this next slide essentially to say ouric pick process we look at always do a promotion and with revenue stream and look to see from the new revenue extreme is higher or lower and adjust and look at the expenditure plan from the previous year to adjust up and down based on the new revenue and take to the agencies and the cac so the community for their input for the process and in the end a new expenditure plan we ask the ipic to endorse it and the cacs to endorse those are it those projects in the next fiscal year are budgeted through

the budget process for which we're in the middle of and then we start again in the next year. >> and our spending - so for each of the 5 planning area 5 or 5 funding categories we look at transit, complete streets and recreation and childcare and additional money for administration i say generally slight differences in the categories between the to plans and had kind of made those more across the plans to implement two years ago we redid the nexus for the area plan as a full year excuse me - on the citywide basis rather than looking at it on a plan by plan basis we did previously. >> and just to give you some

quick highlights so through this next fiscal year we looked collectively to - completion of the fiscal year we think we'll collect roughly 200 and $60 million you might notice a lot of that is from transit center and projected the big projects paying the impact fees and this year could be their role over into next fiscal year we'll see that sum in the next 5 year cycle the next 5 year cycle we expect one and $65 million from fyi to 22 that might be hind based on the transit center now i'll quickly go through the 6 areas and give you highlights market octavia we're looking in our impact fees programming

we're looking to fund roughly 26 projects market octavia we look to have collected about $26.3 million in the next through this fiscal year and about $430 million in the next 5 years for a total of $59 million for the in terms of what with this the universal gap for market octavia we look at it from the original projects this analysts suggests we're in pretty good shape $2.5 million gap and shall i say this didn't include the hub of market octavia so that's not yet factored into this some of the things to fund in the next 5 years we're participating in enhancing the high speed rail service with $5.2 million will continue to fund upper market and the

pedestrian improvements for $7.4 million and this year added money into one of the major rehabilitation park projects within the boundary of market octavia had a hayward park and looking to fund thirty projects through impact fees expect to collect $77.9 million for this fiscal year for a total of about one and 61 million dollars through the next 5 years we do - we've always said with the emeralds working with the community and brought it before the board of supervisors and the legislation that the infrastructure projects for which we thought would serve the new growth by the eastern neighborhoods are, in fact, those will cover 1/3rd of it in

fact, we do the analysis this year and see about the same that we are we have a need based on the original plan of $400 million we're able to cover through impact fees of about 200 and $88 million leaving a gap of one and $80 million for the eastern neighborhoods pr eastern neighborhoods a couple of things you, you remember about eastern neighborhoods we have a moh with the other agencies that got them committed we will put of revenue aside for prior projects like complete streets putting 85 percent for the howard excuse me - the folsom and howard street projects in south eastern soma

and other parts we've put 16th street of 22 fillmore through the mission and showcase square has burn a provided project that is now fully funded costs $70 million i think we're prop e in cover 1/3rd of the cost and this year for eastern neighborhoods impact fees we're contributing about $5.5 million towards the rehabilitation of garfield apocalyptic two in the eastern neighborhoods rec and park are looking to do a nice job on the rehabilitation and asked for additional money to do more than just bring it back up to the level of service to do something special with that. >> rincon hill this is one of the first plan areas with impact fees we - this is a fairly easy plan

area to get our heads around on so many opportunities and fixed number of infrastructure improvements similar we expect the fees to cover half or more than half this is the case one park in rincon hill and one park now this year fossil fuel funded and go out to bid next year and carding in category one and two and still trying to figuring out which one to move forward in rincon hill visitacion valley visitacion valley also one of the earlier impact fees geographyly based not a planned area but encompassed executive park and schlage lock and sunnydale hope

sf so this project because they're a few opportunity size e sites not a lot of spent in visitacion valley the one project was the visitacion valley library which i think we participated in spent about 10 percent of this new library so we're now kind of out in the community - not an area plan in and of itself we've been out in the community trying to prioritize the map we provided you in the report are actually projects that we are still contemplating and working with the agency partners and with the community to prioritize i - balboa park this is has as an impact fee we anticipate very little revenue nevertheless, this is an area because it is the hub of a lot of transportation facilities that has a fairly robust need which

is why you'll see a large gap without a lot of impact fees. >> then finally transit center in transit center - so impact fees are you know very important but just one part of full picture of the transit center we have because as i mentioned previously 3 major projects in the transit center will pay most of fees this year or early next year so we don't have any money in the costers for transit center but expect a fairly large amount early next year to working with the partners to see who gets what for the streetscape and so forth so next as we do sorry.

>> the next steps as i mentioned so the we're in the middle of the budget system and the budget process a are implementing agency partners are adding those projects fyi 18 and 19 to implement those pruth and go through the process next year as was do we look at what we have for the years going forward that concludes my report. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. schmidt opening up for public comment seeing none, commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess one question as i look at those numbers and putting ♪ context of what things costs today some seem rather small to are the few weeks index to inflation

>> yes. >> how does construction costs indexes. >> i could tell you the index is based on partially based on construction that is a higher rate for example, we've been indexing our fees rates per year. >> other one the double park number is sobering what we collect versus what we want to spend where is the rest of money get made up from. >> balboa park is i think is i mean yeah - it kind of depends on the project balboa park i think they because they are part of a larger sort of transit system and a lot of the projects there are fund that are available that might not be available in the other planned areas. >> so it will be made up.

>> not necessarily but it is - yeah. >> so. >> money to be leveraged. >> that's right. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> great work i wish we had more the details at the fingertips i want to see the project we continued because we were asking about what are the open space connections to mclaren park i see a trail proposal to bring the making are together with the micro that is a great idea we're supporting those larger ideas and we're making decisions the other question i want to i couldn't why is treasure island not part of this particular set of discussions. >> so those are our area plans some of our anymore development agreement projects we don't

include usually those projects usually have their own bed of improvements and improvement plans and phase plans here we're dealing with multiple property owners where we use the impact fees to collect from multiple property owners we're the ones that are looking at it on, on ongoing basis. >> a great explanation and somehow i wish the large plans would have a public accounting of how the planned since their concurring in a long time not implemented and have active cacs it would be helpful to know about them. >> thank you anyway. >> thank you. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you for the presentation so my questions are similar to commissioner moore's he thought about that project on lee land that we saw a month

ago so my question when there are opportunities sites we've been you know an area plan how does that get back you know to us in terms of the analysis of a planner for this individual project so if you know i mean does that - what's the conversation and my next question was if there's an opportunity site that's just adjacent so what i was open the gray theatre that was started with the historic designation that is not within the area plan but like a block away from how - wait the thinking in terms of incorporating is there not a

mechanism. >> well, so the our current team will be looking at the area plans for you know compliance generally with the area plans and the land use policies that went into that in terms of the infrastructure our team is focused on there are a couple of things there is a mechanism by which they can pursue instead of paying their fees to do improvements around their areas not around their area so it comes with their development we call them in kind agreement so this is sometimes happen so in case the participate will work with us with an application process and take to the ipic and agrees and in kind agreements and instead of paying their fees we think about the improvement in terms of our overall priorities in the projects that

are more merit tuesday for spending the impact fees does that answer your question? >> so in the case of the leeland i don't remember that coming up as a possibility that that developer can pay for example, a fee for the community next door for example. >> matt remember that that is a cluster of single-family homes. >> if they're within the visitacion valley they'll pay their fees those fees will be going on into the bucket to figure out, which projects to spend it open we do community meetings ones or twice a year and look at the projects the trail would be one it might be that the ipic community thinks another project that has more merit there is more timely to

implement they're contributing by paying their fees. >> i guess. >> more direct communication it seems to me the proposals is come out for this specific project specifically cares about that the trail and the - so a direct connection might have help out in terms of the communication around the project. >> the thing we've been asked to do the process that matt has done to try to get well ahead of so to plan for the community improvements well in advanced a couple layers of progress to get to - rightly or wrongly makes it less nimble vp the project can approach us rather than paying our impact fees we want to build a trail for example, that could happen in that case to the best of my knowledge not happened

and so the second question when there is something light outside of the area plan. >> asian-american you mean oh, be if you're two- your not necessarily contributing in some cases we can spend outside of the boundary in terms of infrastructure but i think there is that kind of tension in the area plans that the fees there's that boundary on on the one hand you pay improvements you come and pay if you're outside it is different. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you for this report last year, it was super helpful the way it was laid out i want to highlight a couple of things i think that to i think

commissioner melgar was starting to touch on this point a little bit i think this is really helpful for the commissioners to see i'll make the point which is not here you know we don't know necessarily what projects are in one place funded with other dollars particularly transportation only a small portion of those improvements are funded by transit impact fees a lot of things come from grant or general fund dollars or other revenues sometimes that is challenging to keep track of the improvement in the planned areas we start getting flagging flack or individuals thinking how are we seeing the schedule of development with other improvements in the neighborhood

be it open space or transit it didn't answer this question and sort of makes the commission to have elephant memories so it is a point of for the staff that make a note not in the picture and maybe in the future weighed last week find ways to add that in a memo or talk about here are the improvements in the neighborhood you know workout the annual budget or something would be with the city budget that would be helpful and then i think in terms of i saw obviously one of the the elephant in the room the impact fees are not designed to be 100 percent of the improvements needed in a neighborhood to a greater or lesser degree funding them some of them have pretty good you know 50 or 60 percent

and in other areas a barely a third i don't know what we can do that that in the neighborhood the improvements are necessary outpacing the dollars in development areas themselves grow uply not that big and height and things that are limiting our ability in the fees we can get but some sort of discussion maybe in the future ipic reports by the planned areas that would be great for the future and have an idea what is thought it is not as if the dollars that are not non-impact fees are not identified somewhere like an actual gap that may not be anywhere that would be helpful and finally on

my soapbox about childcare not surprisingly to me but still a little bit unfortunate that for the planned area childcare impact fees not all of them they have different plans the majority of the dollars were unprogrammed and i understand that that the way the childcare impact fees they go into a fund that is administrative code by lyft and grant program out to operators so they can use the dollars in the open space or expand assess so i i get it this is more of and not for the planning department but a general commentary i hope we can do something about it, it is a nice idea but we need a plan for growth having the funds available for operators that are

non-golf to assess that guaranteeing that i want to see a way for planning where those fees will go rather than in the corner and maybe used someday sort of the message that the ipic report sends every other category maybe on this improvement or this and childcare millions of dollars for the program. >> so the unprogrammed you're right with haiti's but you can do it through in kind agreements we had one of the firin kinds f childcare on third street. >> it is more of a statement it is eye opening to see the line items for the dollars set aside more of us let's get together and siege about

childcare and not leaving it up to the nonprofits or operators how they're going to go. >> if i may one the things we changed in the project descriptions we commute what we know full budget how much it is coming from ipic and a discussion about delivery to give us a sense whether the project is fully funded or not maybe not just comprehensive. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> is the report and the slides that you gave on the website. >> it is right now it is right now attached to your - but not yet on our website but probably before the end of the month. >> can you tell us how to find that that would be great. >> sure. >> any other commissioners or

questions. >> thank you very much. >> just for your benefit presentations that are here actually get added to your website so presentations that people may have missed can access them on your website. >> commissioners items 9 ab for 953 treat avenue conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider request for variance. >> good afternoon members of the board and zoning administrator planning department staff the item before you is a request for variance conditional use authorization for the sections 303 and 843 to demolish a one story single-family residences and allow two new 4 story residential buildings for a

total of 6 dwelling units on the project site requesting a variance to address the planning code requirements for the planning code section and frontage at the treat that is a one story single-family residences and four story murray approximately 10 thousand plus square feet with 6, 7, 8 unit and bicycle parishes it is a between consisting of 4 two bedrooms planning commission resolution requires that any residential or mixed use that is a memoranda between 25 and 75 thousands of non-residential use or between 25 and 75 dwelling

units will require a large project authorization and provide information that shall be considered we the planning commission in the deliberations and treat is a residential project for 6 dwelling units and square feet for the residential use because the project is less than 25 units the are not only project is not a project for the they recalled consecutively that is not stoubt the mission zoning controls the project site falls within the ongoing map 2020 a collaboration for the community between community-based organizations and the san francisco ethics commission to preserve affordable housing and bring economic stability to the mission the goal to retain and atrocious low 0 moderate community and artists and nonprofits in order to

strengthen and preserve the skooefk the city agrees an equitable approach by limiting or pretending housing development has had and about have negative effects on low and moderate households map 2020 is to manage the change and apply an economic lens to future expected growth to date the department has correspondence with the proposed project some has expressed opposition to the project specifically the historic discretion of the single-family residences that is not historic all have been included in the pathway and the correspondence that came in has been printed for the planning commission consideration the department recommended approval as the project is

consistent about the general plan and planning code in the pros and cons the department says it includes the demolition of an existing structure as well as replacement market-rate housing on balance complies with the policies and procedures of the general plan that result in a net gain of 5 dwelling units no tenants will be a displaced with the project the project is located within the residential uses their permit, the project is consistent with the character and providing the massing and scale although the structure is more than 50 years old a review of the historic evaluation ruled the existing building is not a historic landmark the project complies with the applicable planning code and the project is seeking variances from the replace active that

concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> project sponsor 10 minutes. >> thank you for thank you for having me. i'm sorry - i'm the owner and developer here with my architect jeff we started this project with extensive neighborhood outreach find mo' magic that works for the neighborhood and existed to present a project with magnificent neighborhoods support you'll see this is rare in san francisco in a neighborhood really is supportive of the demo building and replacement with the unit the view has been to clean up the area this will help the street be nicer for families to live on it's been a long complex process as most of the projects working with plan 4018 to narrow this

down to full support and the neighborhood can get behind we've working or worked diligently we did a historic preservation commission review and hired turnball one of the representative if you have questions and it is deemed not historical this was also concurrent with another review in 2005 by the previous owners two brothers jim and ernie were the project sponsors and demoed the building it was historic just others did an achieve review with the turnball report the key takeaways are a good project with true residential

support gone through two historic california reviews it is taking a small falling apart single-family home and replacing that with adding needed residential space in the area and it will help clean up the neighborhoods and streets i'm going to turn it over to jeff now. >> thanks i'm jeff gibson with the aethsd working on the project i'm explain a little bit about the building and describe the too small variances required we've been working with esmeralda she's been exemplar and a great planner give us great guidance we've dialed in the unit and the reduced parking and the localities of the proximately before the project can go forward the historic ceqa review that was the cats x and

non-resource in march of 2016 and justin over saw that it gave us space to plan a demo structure that is pretty run down not serving a purpose of housing at this time and so we go worked on the design with david and the team through the fall a series of meetings and conversation with david and honed the design it honed we take advantage of the unusual triangle site that is challenging because of the triangle shape with the back half corner cut off from the railroad running through that and david will lead us how to treat the flatiron corner of the

building and served by december or january we got into the design you see could i i think that is a great project i'm biased i'm the architect but a beautiful building and interesting things in respectfully the context but most at all it is i think the city needs we're providing fixed family-sized units and interesting to hear you're going to have a greater conversation not only a single-family dwelling but a table for people to gathered around and space for outside and is there a washer and dryer the ways that we will and that's what we contained on with the unit design additionally those are transit ordinary we have 6 bike parking spaces and their assessable i'll explain that we have a variance

in a minute but 6 bicycle parks and only two parks walk to mission street perfect transit-oriented housing each unit has a great outside space we thought we wouldn't be able to fit it but we tweaked it every unit has a usable outside space that activates and enlieflgz the street with blockages and other localities and again, a nice block i think that will attribute well to the block we talked with the neighbors we looked at the property and thought about a single larger 9 unit building on the parcel but when you look at the scale of the street it is 25 foot to 35 foot individuals residential buildings each has one to 3 units and so that's

where the idea of two buildings on one lot we wanted the buildings to look at the similarity but read as two contributing buildings to the streetscape so that's sort of how that design came about like i said a triangle site it is part of what led to the dynamic quality and why we're asking for a small vaurndz let me briefly described those. >> great. >> so the planning code has two conflicting requirement one umu zoning potential active uses and empowering and additionally

a requirement for one bike parking per unit it can't be within the unit you can't take the bike into our living room the biking has to be assessable from the street a stoop or walk up to the building we ended up basically providing a bike room in the buildings there so they're like the small bike rooms not an active use this is a dead zone the small box for bikes not taking the majority of facade and not killing the design but making sure those bikes are not blocking the streets but secured we felt last week pursuing a variance for the unsufficient active uses was a better use to bike parking a choice we made so that's one seeking we're seeking that specifically base the difficulty of operating on a

triangle lot and additionally no streets has an active uses they have residential garages and historic spaces the other small variance one instance on the second floor of the building we have two bay windows that are a little bit closer together to each other than typically allowed and in area it is if you trace out the bay window shaped per the section those two 45 degree angle envelopes should be two feet apart from each other in this case only 9 inches this is through the redesign particularly was of the challenges the triangle as you

approach that o oblique corner that is also something that will be contextual they have bay windows not separated or are too close to the corner including treat street those are the variances making that small variances overall i'll be here if you have questions about the project. >> just a quick conclusion this is talk about opposition we want to shed light to that opposition pretty much orchestrated by one man 2005 was the plan sponsored that demoed the property and come to close it and he's brought think on a preservationist trend so used one of the commercial tenants to

oppose this project want to shed light on that and happy to go into more details but you understand who's in opposition. >> thank you. we'll opening it up for public comment i've got two speaker cards (calling names). >> feel free to line up on the screen side of the room. you've got 3 minutes. >> engage commissioners my name is catherine an architectural historian in private practice under san francisco for the last 17 years i'm speaking for my friends on treat grassroots pro bono group

in opposition to the proposed demolition of the residents on treat avenue we disagree with the feels that the categorical exemption by the planning department last april concluded i'll use the overhead. >> this one and thirty-year-old structure is not a historic resource as you may know article 31 of the administrative code didn't allow an appeal of the categorical appeal this is why we're here today, i think somewhat unfortunate that is how it goes we're asking you not to approve the variance before you but urge you to reject the proposed project in the current form and request a redesign to retain it and incorporate it into a future project your position is spelled

out in my letter and briefly summarize the key points it is a historic resource that was built in 1887 and quality in the register not because of a convenient last year housing but is significant for association with john center a pioneer builder is owned it during the earthquake he have others in the mission those events have been documented by the planning department and historic statement in the 5 m and treat it is determined to be a resource on more than two and through the survey process of 2010 the building was assigned a status code of c 1920

s. >> which states that is individually eligible and assigned a 7 m for people politically for the research the point anyone that evaluated the building with a financial motivate said this is otherwise not the case there was a proposal in 2007 to develop the site and retain the building this is not the project before you. >> but we show this to see it is possible it is not our intention to block the development on this site we favor infill development and meaningful planning we that there is - here to do both and prefer one for the historic house i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is lucky a

member of friends of 953 and want to say that san francisco has an opportunity to there's a lot of changes in san francisco we have an opportunity to not only preserve this cottage but also seek and build condo on the property itself i don't know why he didn't tell you that he has space to build condos and it would be a lot for san francisco from the cottage was diminished it is unique to the mission and san francisco itself that's all thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm here representing not only myself by a neighbor that couldn't be present today i'll read here letter she asked

me to whom it may concern we have - my husband and i are in full support of treat avenue the building is in poor shape that detracks from the neighborhood and attracts unwptd right across from the children's park a new building will go a long way to clean up the area san francisco as you may know is suffering from a housing shortage lauren and zachary treat avenue i no longer live on the street i was the previous owner and the 17 years at 823 treat i too as we live there became a difficult to walk my kids to the park and because this building

has been an eyesore and like she said attracts vacant 51cy i'm in support of the as a form and want to and i'm in support of project. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning. i work in the area so i drive up and down the street a lot it is a great block but a block that needs clean up especially the delipidated building and think a project like this one with beautify the area and we're spelling in need of new housing in san francisco i appreciate that will provide the homes for families obviously a thoughtful design and like not cookie cutter and

the two are much context of the street that would be helpful to the neighborhood i'd like to see approve the demolition and approve the. >> thank you good afternoon. i'm james i was raised in san francisco to the mission district i attended the university of california and berkley and was a history major i'll give you two perspectives sold to the buyer it is a wreck no foundation right on the ground as to references of john center who is actually, the founder of mission district never lived in the building he was the area going

back to the give you a little bit of background gold rush days was aware of an i don't think so were raised to sell to the minors and he was a very wealthy i didn't man never lived in the building from my research at san francisco library and the banning craft library that was used by his workers that attended the vegetation gardens in the and, of course, it was a big plus to have the reenforces go the landed or land that made the other for variable the building has been broken into it would take hundreds of thousands of dollars to

retroactive it was in had different times i think it would a great improvement and by the way, i've crawled under the buildings this building need to go thank you. >> thank you in depth. >> next speaker, please. >> i've lived on the block and 2 two years across the street i know the gentleman when he was involved with inc. for children's toys this building this building has no function it is delipidated i worked as a construction working for years no foundation to that bad boy the electrical is in bad shape

the tenant - the - none has spent serious resources to repair the building it is in terrible shape has been overgrown anticipate people that sleep in the bushes and drive up use it a restroom and do their and go away the building has people breaking into it, it is a constant problem to the neighborhood i prefer to have that building removed and the long term neighbors of the same feeling they're of removing it went to the preplanted meeting they held a year ago all in favor of the buildings no neighborhood that lived there are here in the room to that. >> if you have my questions.

>> we may we'll call you up if we have questions thank you for your testimony any more public comment on 953 treat avenue if we have questions we'll ask you all right public comment is closed. on this item and opening to commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a couple of sfwhagsz like that don't we need the support i didn't see that support that would be helpful to read the turn report in the entire outlet. >> thanks the report is not required and the staff can address whether or not we received one it is a report that is if you seek the building is

unturn down u sound they're seeking the conditional use authorization. >> we have a demolition of residential so a we understand no function and the building is substandard in the way it is by the applicant we have that. >> we we have but not required under the code. >> is required whether there is

a finding that the project sponsor this is in fact, unsound that is not what is presented here so the report is not required. >> public comment has stated that the building is not able but not seek to have an administrator review the project with a finding that is unsound. >> for the purposes of the assumptions it is a sound building. >> i'm confused of how that is interpreted but i'll let that stand its own a question we have a number of questions regarding how this particular building meets the site and setting it is proposed i like the idea of the units, however, the adding of unit simply on its own looking at those situations of where it is built so we've had other projects along the right-of-way we're uncertain where that ultimately will go and other circumstances wife talked about it would be great a public open space indeed a public open space an amenity that ties the neighborhood rather than a right-of-way that is the possibility in the future i

believe that the building is very aggressive how that basically built almost against the edge of the right-of-way the previous building has a lot of space around it then i think it creates a more in the where the residential versus the 100 percent lot coverage of an industrial building the question i'm asking that the site plan for a building i think the design a long time ago i know the building is plunder think an architect website took the townhomes and arranged them against the side of industrial building with a lot of green space along the unit that plan residences the old building with the pdr space on the front door

and set four unit on top of the pdr space i think in that area is not is in putting the smaller unit on the lower floors and two stories on the upper floor with

private rooftops if i read it correctly are i find that amazing the space in many of the unit is not sufficiently designed had you look at those floor plans there is a lot of space dedicated to functions and get more units or a different type of footprint i want to direct your attention to for example, the idea about the bicycle storage i'm sure from the garage were differently you could provide bike space part of garage no requirement i think in nuke they have to be in a separate room the thing in the north building when you looking at drawings 8.201 the bike room for the first building has tandem bicycle parking take out to get one in the back of the room not the ideal informative bike parking and in closing the entire room into a separate room with a separate door is against the objective efficient space

for the architect i have a question the ground floor unit in the morris building if i read it correctly in bedroom one you are at grade with your window at grade level when really the bedroom be 3 feet above the sidewalk i know your sergeant under the canopy

but i still believe that has issues of privacy and code interpretation to be desired to evaluate the ground floor bedroom above area that's a point if you want to talk about that i appreciate our information. >> sure. >> so we've set the window back from the student the planter is to be integrated into the streetscape and provide the active uses at the ground floor of umu so the residential use an active use if we raised the floor level 3 feet not used to fit four stories of residential development above that within the 40 foot height so we're keeping overseeing units basically at as also, they have a direct block access to the family-friendly future. >> i have a question because the thought bedroom with the diagonal or bicycle door open is

kind of an awkward design and none in the bedroom didn't want to come out and open the door and next to the window that is a problem with the same plan i want to get to the questions on far side on the brow of the building you're putting a room at the most important corner of the building i find this surprising as the building is a residential building i find the triangle portion of building to be the garbage room rather unusual i'm not not as concerned about the bay windows as in the purview of the zoning administrator i find the building a little bit too busy some good ideas but i believe the unit to where we or are too large speaking to a market not exist ♪ particularly area i think they speak generally to a market of housing it is not necessary at the core mission we're trying to resolve i call with combaeblt of

unit size and wanted to talk about that and not happy about the explanation but let that stand >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess first blocked on this wyoming's one to add housing i'm like what we thought we saw in a project in corona height commissioner moore we've seen those reports given to us with the connecticut i think on san bruno the board upheld with the reports kind of gets us over the line and if not required give us to us anyways. >> i guess a question for the lead the 2005, 2006. >> plan. >> plan that incorporated the existing building can you

explain to us. >> i understand will be the plan i'm not sure who owned the building at that time, maybe mr. hunter and mr. hines offered a historic evaluation found it was not historically significant despite that a plan under his ownership that residences the building i think that is a fantastic preservation planning solution the building as served as affordable housing until the last tenant was - so it is affordable housing right now and so that will be retained and then the new structure will be built between the existing. >> what was the square footage. >> i'm sorry i don't know. >> do you have a the plan. >> yes. >> okay. >> just want to understand the viability of keeping the

structure historic programming and that counts so - >> so the blue rectangle represents the new construction and i believe that was for four units of new housing. >> you know the square footage. >> i'm sorry, i don't. >> so the structure is built on the existing cottage. >> so the gray square at the far right the existing cottage in the triangle part of lot that

is where that is now in the historic location and then there is the greenery introduced around it and a separation between the new construction and the form of what appears to be a patio between the historic housing and the construction. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i have another renderings of it which didn't answer your question about the historic - about the square footage. >> i finally found do internet not provided by anyone but the historic building and the new construction as you can see on the left to the rear. >> i guess a question for staff we've gotten a letter from mike if san francisco heritage he was citing some things i

don't know about, about the director but the california environmental quality act under second and the card quote will not are fairly argued the property may have had a significant environmental impact that is a preparation for the eir that reflects go bold preference and doubts the favor of the environmental review but will trigger from the record contains contrary evidence about the litigation of the inverse impacts that is required in the departments 2010 and eligibility for the california registry in the for themtion the question the housing should be built on the does the question is the alternatives that which understanding where the building

is historic or not providing alternatives for the programming abatement in terms of footage and everything awhile trying to keep the building, sir. >> yeah. i addressed i'll defer to the city attorney to discuss the ceqa and the historic fees i can note in the survey information there was an error in the original reading that was provided so there was never a 3 t s assigned to the property actually a 7 n in the historic resource code in addition information and study what was listed on the website was under the soma it was not correct or the dualing information. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i can address the standard of that is applied not decision

making regarding whether this is a historic resource the heritage letter i've not seen but, but it is incorrect standard of review is no a fair argument test there are cases that have been published in several years that all state that when our making the disconnection or whether or not sometimes are a historic resource before the question of the impacts just whether or not the building is a historic resource that is actually looked at under the substantial evidence standard so from the city has substantial evidence to support it's finding that the building is not a historic resource than this decision stands even if there is evidence and substantial evidence that the building is a historic resource that's exact issue came up in a case where the local historic preservation commission made a finding that the building was not an historic resource they found their staff

recommendation in the evidence in the record. >> then historic preservation commission experts filed testimony appealed that and made an argument that also has substantial evidence that was a historic resource and the california courageously said in this instance not a fair argument the city would rely on their experts as long as substantial evidence in the record support the determinations they've made that was correct so here even if there is expert opinion based on facts that is substantial evidence in the city choose they can rely on their own substantial evidence in the record showing that the building is not a historic resource so that's really a question you know the determination that we're face to face here by the planning department this body you know has sufficient evidence

to make - if they've had sufficient information to make a determination he wanted to correct that. >> standard thank you. >> i too like commissioner moore really should have asked for the full site to really understand that - i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> i appreciate the prosecuti explanation from the deputy city attorney and whether or not this is a historic resource including but not limited to i was convinced we the staff report and my own humble understanding the ceqa we made that determination and need further work and furthermore looking at the project you know this is definitely as a director rahaim

an opportunity site there maybe have been looks like maybe other projects that theed for the continental but not feel that accounting for the continental their outlined in the - in the context of map 2020 references to us wanting to have higher bedroom units counts size and looking at opportunity sites citywide so really have to say that i support this project i don't support continuance or any future work we look at the cottage all and all we've made and determination of historical significance and even above that looked at you know what will this project gain the city what do we get from demolishing allowing this property to be demolished and from where i citi

think we stand to gape a great benefit from utilizing fully eliminating this opportunity site i think the project is good from that perspective and make a couple of comments about family-friendlyness with the site i appreciate there are higher bedroom unit count size and right now i appreciate that the new construction costs money that is no necessarily going to increase market-rate housing when it first opposite side we'll look it decades to come and some we'll be enjoying because there is a 2, 3, 4 bedroom unit house in this neighborhood this is till when we looked at the history of things we've been approving that is hard to come by approving the one bedroom and two bedrooms it is challenging but i think that

exposure said it best more to single-family homes than bedroom count size and particularly base a walk up building in the building code and such they're allowed to do that with the building not necessarily have to have an elevator a number of things will the layout should be looked at if we make that statement of family-friendly i like the project sponsor to come up and have a couple of questions about this project. >> thank you. >> so the first thing it is an oddly shaped lot with the right triangle so you have two garage spaces for the entire project and i'd like to start off by asking you why who are the 4 that looks like one you know two cars. >> right so the two garage spots each as a single fairly tight

spot around the car with space for one bike parking the car parking will not create not determined to go with this and that unit but sold separately as the normal planning we don't know which unit some off-street parking but i don't know how that works first come first served the four-bedroom unit may take the park not determined one of the things that helped with the hours more or less affordable not capital a affordable but if you're a transit-oriented person with your list and car you can save one hundred thousand dollars by not having a parking.

>> i don't fully accept that argument if you're not providing parking people want to pay for spots first come first served but better served by reconfiguring the spaces to have more common area we say that is family-friendly but the law outs in the building no common areas spaces for let's say a cargo bike your sort of taking up a lot of real estate for two cars that didn't cover the building if you say that all of those are multiple bedroom unit places where presumingly if someone wants a car they can make arguments i am looking at this and don't see the need for the

two garage that concludes my remarks and other ways to work with mta maybe a loading don but that's a major problem taking up that garage parking and leads to other design issues are the awkward biking that didn't fit on the right hand side you have it in john rahaim things to make room for as you said a tight spot for two cars i think that is a trade off that in my mind as a planning commissioner when i think boo who is it serving i don't know that is something that commissioners i'm willing to support but other than that i think that some of the variances you're going for makes sense in the context of designing a project and you know you know on balance i appreciate where this

project is going and . >> thanks commissioner melgar. >> thank you so i'm not going to repeat some of the comments that commissioner johnson and commissioner moore have made i agree with some of the design issues you've raised i guess my you know my issue is that to the comments of the presentation of our planner as to the map 2020 goals and he guess i will challenge us particularly to our director who has been so involved in the map 2020 if we have a neighborhood that is mostly zoned for smaller buildings like this one under 10 units that are not going to you know contribute to some of those larger goals as this project is

geared towards the market that is not support those goals and there asking. a variance you know two variances i agree are small so what do we get out of if in terms of of the map 2020 gospels what are we getting out of the building and if most of mission is going for the smaller buildings by one thousand sites how will replenishment them so even though you know aside from design issues i have no problem but wondering whereas on a larger how will we do this you know those are the kinds of buildings we'll see that don't contribute so lemon state that i do philosophical don't believe that building housing that is market-rate i think that a e

sidewalks but just providing housing in and of itself is enough to address the housing crisis we have >> commissioner i appreciate those comments clearly this is below the threshold i'll offer two things not the zoning per say that is creating the projects but the size of the lot; right? bigger lots that have bigger units and just to i think the two things that struck us is number one it is providing larger units or bedrooms the neighbors are interested in, and, secondly, a might have project provides taxis for eastern neighborhoods it pays into the eastern neighborhoods impact fees and there is could have many discusses about the

parking itself and point of discussion the map 2020 a big point of discussion but adding to the housing stock is important but understand there are different points of view on that. >> exposucommissioner moore. >> towards the family living and four bedrooms since we unfortunately don't have codified director of policy and tying a family to an appropriate size family to this particular type of building we could all be approving here a large party pad the reason i'm tail waging the dog saying that the roof deck in the advance of ground floor open space for all the other families is solely dedicated for the use of the house building on the fourth floor i found that somewhat

unusual because this is basically allowing one apartment in those buildings to basically use the entire roof service for their own personal use i find that disingenuous when this independence the family-sized housing over aggressive how it sits on the site the building creates a bad example how we want to use the open space and the right-of-way for the citywide amenities the facade to the side of the project is basically an o pack facade if you look at the rendering on drawing 8303 and building while a building could happen needs to be responsive to a different way of modulating

the building. >> i cannot support that. >> can i ask a question of the staff from the right-of-way it is still a rare right-of-way or how. >> that parcel remains to mystery if you all recall we reviewed this is the mere image of this along the block and at this time staff contacted the southern pacific railroad and the community assessors records it is specific how, however, they lost a quiet lawsuit and don't claim ownership we've since contacted the real estate division in the process of pulling the report as commissioner moore recommend to identify the owner and the future plans but the research thus far indicates that owner

and across street on the park side not owned by owned by the city and that's buck and the needles. >> when was that acquired. >> i believe in the 90s by the rec and park department. >> okay. thank you. >> i mean - you know if you have additional information. >> so one thing we know there are a serious of easements across the reenforces for the back of other buildings so we would - if you want a park full of driveways but i'm not sure that will 0 happen. >> so the garage assess. >> there's garages and roll up doors of 0 that to the warehouse next door to us and the

facilities so maybe a landscape design do pull that altogether for the - >> thank you. >> i mean, i think we do face one an interesting building that is there a cottage and i appreciate kind of the debate about the significance of that you know, i too thought is there a way to safe it and build around a given the configuration of the lot and the configuration of the house and how the entry showed an example it is nearly a lot smaller developer that will be on here compared to what is property the facade of the building is interesting kind of but probable about it and end up with some sort of façadism on this site i don't think we'll do it justice and give it the balance we face here every week about the density and increasing

the number of units you know given kind of the debate where their affordable or master it is unbalanced to me i'm supportive off the projects in you know not looking at anywhere how that building can be used i agree with many of the comments made by my fellow commissioners the design a little bit business i like localities of it but comes together maybe the prospective on the one elevation but supportive of project commissioner moore. >> aside from the right-of-way currently on the i'm not clear of what it will be in the

xerosis the industrialization of the right-of-way will diminish and that means you cocoa reenvision the shared space for cars to grow, however, how you treat the entire right-of-way could be a mix of pedestrian and bicycle and open space localities that indeed allows new residential buildings to have a fully back size and this is an opportunity which i think we're not seeing here i think that is what we have encouraged in other situations in projects that at least over the years that i have seen and missing that act of responsive of the building and in are we looking at the larger preservation on the ground floor open space diminishes that all open space on top of roof by two parties but under the current

configuration i think that is not responsive to those challenges or ideas. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess a question for the architect given commissioner moore's comments would you be amenable to making changes to the project so we can get going. >> we are and i mention and critic comments are appreciated i'm going to show one rendering through the elevation of rear of the building here there's a portion of the wall of the sort of railroad facing wall that touches the property line o obliquely along the edge we're showing rear windows they are expensive but a substantial portion of part of building facing the public right-of-way large windows and terraces and

terrace at different levels that setback the building and there are a pretty actually and engaging it sets away from the park but a lot of eyes on the park and pretty well friendly i agree that the proper wall condition is not ideal not the majority we're trying to animate that but with the obtaining o oblique and if we don't use the skinny end of the lot we might as well not build there not like we can segment 5 feet there is nothing left at the corner so sort of where we got to regarding the roof terrace the private use allows the yards for families we've done that many times in san francisco and simplifies the exit one exit

from the roof terrace belongs solely to the upper market unit we're not wasting additional square footage which will result in a lee a lot more bedrooms we are definitely open to suggestions and changes. >> thanks a i'll make a motion to approve the project with taking considerations that some of the commissioners raised the design working with staff on that. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. i'd like to see the building without the parking i think much better as some sort of common space yeah, the ability to reconfigure the bike parking and other things don't see that is necessary here particularly given the other variances there's a second on my motion. >> i'll second. >> you may want to delineate.

>> we'll delineate. >> leave it up to the fellow commissioners. >> sounds good. >> can i request ask the classifications did that include the assess not roof deck that commissioner moore brought up before. >> is that conducted. >> it's - >> okay. >> mr. seiu crepe can you help me out. >> here's what i'm hearing the roof deck is one of the open space for the dwelling units having an open area with the top one a and the amount of roof area on the remainder of the building didn't support the open space obligation if you were to entertain a motion for removing the park for example, that allows the ground floor or other

areas some flex to basically she thought around basically hit upon what commissioner moore was expressions in the residential design guidelines the other pieces in terms of the the design the fade i guess for what we heard for the busyness and i'm confident we can work to tone that do you think that's kind of what i'm hearing so far. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say the parking so the straw pole here and i'm fine with the parking we tried to didn't think what a family is a family unit i know for myself as a family of 5 no way i'll not have and not be without a car the balance of two

parking spaces. >> works. >> i'm aubrey abrakasa memorable. >> when i saw the plans i was excited it was a great ratio great ratio. >> so the reason why i made the argument not that i don't believe parking for all units i accept the argument that the 4 bedrooms maybe you want to come in and purchase those and in a two bedrooms 50 thousand for a parking spaces, however, because the lot a oddly sized that's where i feel a design compromise no elevator a walk up and no other common space in the building even the hallways i like the fact more of the square footage is used for the actual

living space for the apartment on the floor rather than random rooms and open hallways because there is a need for actual common space somewhere in the building a odd like lot we have to make compositions where is the spaced for that mail room and foyer and the only plays place is the garage spots in the center of the building right next to the garage door so a need for a car and might not be families that would want to purchase that parking space it is more it is a right triangle so you know there's got to be design compromises that are

made. >> in a way not specifically the parking usual but you advise list if if we find another way no a thorn in your side but you're suggesting i like what our suggesting that is a very important thought to consider. >> especially is building with no elevators i understand it didn't need one i get it it is improbable but nothing and then you're asking people to have a 3 story walk up i'm sorry. >> if we find a different way specifically adverse to the public speaker but if not add parking. >> sure. sure.

>> how do you are interpret the roof deck. >> the two roof decks in the upper market two units are the entire roof area all to the roof that didn't tell>> correct. for example, the commission can recommend reducing the size 80 square feet per unit and in terms of the access to the other commonly common areas the other areas are footed for courtyard and the balconies on the second floor. >> the besides left what is on the ground floor together about the size of the small balconies no comparison to the possibility of a large roof deck that is

used by all that is a separate set of code issues we have all kinds of thanks maybe an elevator i don't know what i said earlier i started my opening comments as an inequality and having a hard time for the reasons this building is too onsite no other way to give small balconies and huge roof deck to parties including the issues of parking fifrsz and enough money to have enough money the guy gets - i think there is a number of questions relative to our intent to approve family housing and

larger units are not prove or disprove answered in the way this building is designed not enough from my perspective to send it home but an intent to approve the project from the commission want to do that but a reconsidering about the basic principles i e the ground floor assess for all roof deck that maybe assessable to one of the - family per building yet on the size similar to what the others are getting has to be more equity in the drawings. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. i hate doing that i don't like designing projects at the commission hearings it is starting to sounds like things

need to be different about the building and hopefully actually easy our conversations conversations with future buildings like this and like to ask the project sponsor to have a short continuance to rethink this for access it can be large but acceptable to all the units >> objective not our preference to continue the project we rather resolve them here we're sxhofbl o comfortable reducing the size of roof deck making them common use it is great no idea will have wasted space throughout the building and code issues and i think that honestly private outdoor space will be used more than a common space we're definitely confront reducing the size to two hundred

square feet you know whatever i don't want it to be small but not feel like a usable yard but happy to address the stockholder issues these can be handled other staff level i'm not sure those are - >> i'm putting a blanket over it but. >> if i can point out from the roof deck was common it would be a different project. >> using an elevator would be one building versus two buildings. >> it sounds like the commission is leaning towards wanting rather than the individual walk up residential unit but a lobby you have a a point. >> one of the facility issues we're note hearing consensus i

think that there is good issues that have been brought up maybe consensus on common space or utility space or unit some refinement of the design to make that a little bit less busy there are no though we want more open space but less likely i don't know if so is on those that necessarily you but those issues we can give directions to staff and hopefully get resolved i'd like to see this happen i don't think there is anything terribly significant but schematics. >> one of the things i like they're separate units and all the place i lived in were two or three flats and maybe a poach

educate a place for passages or whatever the true kitten store and . >> commissioner johnson. >> i'm anti continuance most of time i feel like this is where it is going i'll support it today, i see where commissioner moore is going my mind the roof is there pashd or private open space or used as nothing that is still there and don't necessarily eyes and ears and go agree with changing the situation of the elevators and all the things you need for that be an open space and having common open space somewhere moving the parking spaces to it is successful and actually useful for the units then i think you have a project and i think it is very

supportable. >> commissioner moore. >> that building needs to have a - the reason i'm saying on all levels i think the building is too aggressive whether you looked at the arrangement of bathrooms and the office of the bedrooms and the master bedroom i've not heard that before and the garbage room dominating the ground floor at the end of the building so a living building i have to go to the end of the street for the bedroom there are certain intention i like the idea of independent unit and i have no problem but needs to be a more tightly designed building and that is what i would be looking for. >> so commissioners, if i'm hearing you in terms of a broader consensus we might explore number one refining the

design simplify it and making it less quiet and improving the entryway to you allow for more approve the privacy but maintain the independent assess of the - >> 3 units and 3 explore the feasibility of common open space within the building and/or potentially reducing the roof deck as a condition is that. >> yes. >> the common open space was deemed to be a redesign of the entire - >> it has to be on the empowering that's why i separates the two uses from the ground floor.

>> there is a motion that has been seconded. >> i want to commissioner vice president richards are you okay with that delineation of the ordinances. >> yes. >> >> commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that project but the project sponsor to continue working with staff on the design roof deck and treatment is that fair? >> yeah. i think delineated by mr. seiu crepucrasucray. >> those are summarized by commissioner johnson and the ground interior comments by commissioner vice president richards and myself. >> we want to talk about both

we're talking about both. >> okay. we need to distinguish that how the motion is made ground floor ground floor ground floor make sure that is properly expressed that was a champ where it lies and the skilled response can make that a bedroom. >> for clarity the external and internal commissioner woo ho commissioner vice president fung commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 zero. >> zoning administrator, what say you? >> on the variance, close the public hearing and and noting the lot size and configuration and footnote even if the garages are converted to bicycle parking that requires a variance. >> the commission will take a lunch break and be back here we

to the commission i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under the discretionary review calendar on items 10 ab for c e cases 462 prentiss street this as mandatory discretionary review and requests for varia e variance. >> okay there we go. >> good afternoon commissioners - and zoning administrator sanchez before you a discretionary review and variance applications the proposed project is so construct a new 3 story thirty

foot single-family residences on a availability lot measures 22 square foot with three bedrooms and 2 on-street parking the project is triangle between is there any public comment? sins and you can't remember boo in the bernal heights the surrounding neighborhood residential and sdriend in earthal styles an is block the context contains two-story residential structures with 3 structures located on the assessor's block and at corner locates as call the roll. >> promoted the project is not meanwhile the planning code or the residential design guidelines from may 2015 to february 2016 department staff worked to rise the original designs to comply that the planning code and meet the

residential design guidelines staff brought this to the residential design team for review four times at the request of the project sponsor in january of 2016 a code complied project was composed and the project sponsor, please. >> refused as required to setback the third floor 15 feet and proposed only a 10 foot setback since the project sponsor elected to not follow the requirement specified by the rdt the project has been brought before the planning commission as a staff initiate discretionary review upon filing the discretionary review application in 2016 the project sponsor alternated did code compliant project achieved in january and submitted a variance application as well this plan was updated no

november of 2016 and is what is before the commission and zoning administrator a review the current plan didn't comply with the planning code and seeking assistances for forefront setback and rear yard and mass reduction 311 notification was conducted for the building permit into december 19, 2016, through january 2015 the department has no public comment and no additional requests for discretionary review have been filed exempt from ceqa review and the categorical exemption and the residential design team reviewed it and reiterateed their position from previous rdt meeting the rdt doesn't support

any of the variances requested and supports the code compliant project as previously submitted with the 15 setback and third floor this is the departments recommendation you take discretionary review and approve with modifications specifically the project should be revised so be fully compliant to the planning code and in addition setback the level 15 feet to meet the residential design guidelines the basis for the recommendation is first of all, the project site a vacant then the project sponsor has provided a code compliant project and needs make one last modifications to meet the residential design guidelines and lastly the project sponsor had been previously urban welling inform consider reduced parking in order to add living

area in the project. >> that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> commissioners this is a staff initiated discretionary review should take public comment in support of dr and opposed to the project and hear from the dr requester and any questions to excuse me - the project sponsor should get rebuttal. >> we'll open up for public comment those in support of staff initiated dr opposed to the project as present any public comment seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes of presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners and zoning administrator i'm - my husband and i alex are the property owners of 462 prentiss street and spent seven

years in bernal heights we're hoping to put in equity today, we will to be able to design a home that makes the goals one we love to move both and grow old a family can grow old in storage and three bedrooms it has been challenging balancing between the shorter lot size in the neighborhood the city codes and the residential design guidelines though we readily made changes to the design want to put up here i think quickly to remove the fourth store and putting in a sargent at the rear. >> can we get that, please - >> sfgovtv go to the cam. >> changing the front entry

question couldn't meet the last request without a compromise our on or about is not within the residential design guidelines but with rdt strike application of 15 setback at the third floor the rdt indicated there was some discretions commodity we we loud for 3 smaller bedrooms this is important for families living and provided signatures of support from 5 of our abutting neighborhoods that look at our residential design guidelines and they supported it we're confident with this compromise the neighbors will be even more supportive when the rdt rejected it we removed one the bedrooms to the main level to provide for the 10 foot setback at the third floor and minimize the visualized and satisfy the guidelines that

gives us us a plan b but again we were told that rdt was firm with the setback as a requirement to redesign or face a mandatory discretionary review with this challenge we contemplated other options we knew that 15 feet will force a two bedroom design we were told my compromise to the 15 feet has to be addressed by the planning commission we've seen the rear yard variances and we realize some of the compliment initiation to our neighborhood with respect to fairness that was serious considerations preserve our right to enjoy our properties as the neighbors do we felt those variances should be considered in terms of

overall faster than and in a large context than come appliances and san francisco needs more housing should develop vacant lots into homes and more homes designed to keep families here and old building like us we find a vacant lot and add housing stock we believe that the proposed project is reasonable in scale designed for more than family living and that the variances for rear yard are in line with the neighbors that get to enjoy the benefits but not have to comply with stricter codes and after reaching out and meeting the majority of our neighbors on the block and

across the street they agree with your support we hope to move forward to achieve our goals for more family-friendly hours i sent a letter with block maps and is variance application except for missing the variance for the mass reduction we are from the setbacks are approved need a variance of 15 and a half square feet to offset the additional costs. >> in summary we feel the project as proposed provide not only ourselves by the city with family-friendly homes and respectfully ask your support and approve our project with no modifications. >> thank you public testimony in support of project. >> seeing none, public comment

is closed. >> should be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal. >> question haven't said anything to rebut. >> do the staff - i guess no. >> okay. so additional 2 minutes if you want. >> i have one comment to kimberly said about not wanting to make my motivations for parking and with the bernal heights special use district code it is required to is there anything else to come before this committee side by side parking spaces and we couldn't make modifications by reducing the parking. >> okay. thank you. >> so that's end this portion of the hearing; correct? jonas and move to commissioners questioning that would be helpful in the zoning administrator what is before you

and what's before us i think we can kind of lean into our territory but that would be helpful to understand what is being asked of you at this point. >> they're seeking several variances to grant the variance the commission it be more restrifkt but if i'm not inclined to support that the commission can override and in my position i see they have a code compliant position they can move forward what they had a dispute been themselves and the residential design guidelines team i don't know they needed to rise the project to require 5 variances and why not brought it here specifically for the

setback of the upper level be it 10 or 15 feet it is demonstrated that the fact they submitted it and there's justification and that's my position so i'm happy to hear your generally not post of the variances that leads to the what 10 or 15 setback on the top floor. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the applicant describing their story but you, however, a code compliant project on this 25 by 70 can be done and design a reasonable project and it is the residential design team professional obligation to basically uphold those rules that applies to that territory

we're not here to give exceptions although a personal nature of your story and make decisions but bring it both the middle ground we looking at the regulations this guidelines guides us and beyond that commissioner sanchez summarized with he's the one that interprets above and beyond of what we decide how the modifications are or not acceptable the only one that can do that with that said, i don't see any reason the observation of the residential design guidelines team is not adequate we are dealing with 10 foot garage doors versus 12 and ample evidence that cars can be properly misdemeanor of moved in

and out and to - we have had all the tools to port the the residential design team remedies i move to take dr and approve the project are modifications as spelled out by the residential design team. >> second. >> schoshgs. >> thank you very much and just quibble we have staff go over what the modifications are sounds like the original project was a 15 foot setback. >> that's the only modification we are left asking for the rest of the project as we've been working with the project sponsors over time they modified from the first proposal which was 4 stories to meet all the design asks as well as the code requirements so the very last project that is in your

packet our recommended version on january 2016 is code compliant and they proposed a 10 foot setback we're asking for 15 per rdt requests does that make sense? >> do the setback show the 10 or 15 foot sexual battery i'm sorry, i of the a little bit confused and so there was a project that came through the rdt with code compliant rdt asked for an additional 15 from 10 to 15 feet>> correct. >> the project sponsor felt that would limit their ability for bedrooms and had wraep not want to do that to agree to that they went back and i guess knowing they'll have to have a

mandatory dr required additional variances with the garage door opening and opinion. >> that's where i now get confused so what is is it the exact modifications we're asking for a 5 foot setback on the project with a variance. >> without the variance. >> so without the variance are we back to the original project. >> correct. >> with the 5 foot setback. >> correct. >> just the 15 feet setback sorry commissioner melgar. >> so i'm having a hard time just because we don't dr. the drawings in front of us oh. >> you should have two sets of drawings. >> not with the additional 5 feet. >> that's what i'm having trouble visibly the layout third

floor master bedroom and second bedroom he guess they moved the first bedroom to the lower floor with the bedroom and pushing back is the configuration of the master bedroom and the second bedroom and the two bathrooms. >> i guess that's my question he had like i have - i'm responsive to the you know desire to have a family-friendly house and all that stuff is it possible to change the design and still have two bedrooms and two bathrooms on the third floor if it is there is no problem. >> that's the point of disagreement the rdt felt they could reconfigure the floor plan to have a viable project and the project sponsors argued they

couldn't that's why they choose to come here before the commission they didn't want to alter the progeny further. >> i see button team felt last week they could get bedrooms and two bathrooms even with the 5 foot set ba foot. >> i don't know they felt to get a second became but. >> maybe hear from the project sponsors. >> do you want to address that i am not there is. >> sure. >> we never submitted additional plans with the 15 feet we had the amount with the architect and not viable for the family could be another kind of larger overlarge master bedroom or a master bedroom and office but with the stair commissioner

borden and that additional setback at the rear it was impossible to get to two bedrooms up there that's where we are at. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> we have two submittal drawings one labeled modification setback third floor 15 feet and holding in my hand. >> correct. >> did that reflect the 5 additional feet. >> no, we never got a version that showed a 15 foot setback. >> we have the variance and with the no variance with the recommended from staff to reduce. >> so it is 5 feet so they're not inclined to grant the variance i guess a question for the project sponsor if you did what would it look like. >> what the top floor looks

like. >> yeah. >> would set of drawings should i be looking at. >> the non-variance. >> you can lose 5 feet. >> you should by looking at the i can't think 2015. >> that's our starting point with the additional 5 feet will do. >> so looking at if you come

up the stairs from the first level i need to be able to maneuver around the side setback we drew out the sketches around the size between a reasonable master room had a master closet for storage and being able to have two things in the bathroom the second area was would have to be that is all a really small bedroom and maybe fit another bathroom it would be difficult or have a shared bathroom, not a master bathroom one option. >> can i ask the zoning administrator was the option pursued for a rear yard variance

that comes to the adjacent property line to make up for some of the loss to the front to accommodate the two bedroom and or shown to you in the future would you be amenable i don't know if two bedrooms you've got a fairly large walk-in closet if you show to the deserve you can't fit two bedrooms up there is that an option to rear yard and. >> certainly in the additional 5 foot setback on the upper market level but i don't know they looked at the configuring stairs provide additional space with new construction; right? everything is on the table we'll

be happy to ask the residential design guidelines for an additional variance but have shipment a code compliant and not respond to the rdt are the comments and demonstrated it is not feasible. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay. so now that i clearly understand is going on i will actually pose to the commissioners although i generally agree with the residential design team and the suggestions i think the 5 foot setback does privilege interest there from a three bedrooms to a two bedrooms it is challenging with the upper market level given the bernal heights for this not not planning code but have two parking spaces i don't really see how we have a similar lay out. >> if i may that was an option i discussed with the project

sponsors they could seek a variance that might be supportable but if not to reduce the number of car parking spaces that he originally proposed 3 parking spaces and that's a requirement for bernal a higher parking requirement the option to substitute bicycle parking for automobile parking and need an variance there are options for dealing with the parking. >> i understand i mean in an ideal world i'd like to find a way to reconfigure the building to center all the living spaces with the 5 foot setback but love other commissioners to think about that this is helpful that's where i don't like to redesign entire buildings and

not worth it for 5 feet we're talking about the multiple variances i can port the project as proposed but i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but the parking they maintain they're living space commissioner moore. >> i like to go to the original submitted set of drawings and briefly go over what zero 5 second floor the proposed bedroom it is 16 feet plus followed by a 6.9 foot closet followed by the next bedroom being 12 foot 2 very generous dimensions the question without the drawing in front of you there is a tiny wooden deck with the rest of the roof being described as a non-opted out roof if i read

that correct; is that correct. >> i see the applicant nodding then at the edge of the building a tall parapet we only needs a railing a tall parapet makes that easy to use the roof as balcony and the location of parapet when is it is a modest thing off the bedroom unit there is a simile ambiguity that leaves room for interpretation and not having a permit for so with that said, i believe there is plenty of room to one take the entire parapet offer off and

make a small balcony and delineated the rdt plenty of room there and basically, what we're doing every place else we believe something didn't jell here. >> is that an amended motion. >> the parapet. >> i would suggest that we take the parapet off put a proper railing around the balcony as it is required but bring the building back further to what the rdts is asking for a your amending your motion. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> with that. >> i think the other thing two parking spaces is competitive we'll deal with parking in

general we're looking at parking with 3 spaces is ridiculous 2 is substantive we i'll be happy to chat about cutting a parking spot because the parking is 5 hundred and 40 square feet but takes off 25 square feet i'm fine with the amended motion. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i've not spoken about a dr like this in months i agree with the exception commissioner moore makes a great point the sloping down the roof deck on picture 5 says a smaller deck and sloping down to non-usable roof space and zero 8 it looks like it is all flat a small piece of code as part of wood deck but reads as if the entire space is usable which 0 i

have no problem but there has to be a compromise that's fine to have a railing around what we're labeling and to me that constitutes a setback from the property so we don't need to punish an additional 5 feet but definitely on the top level on the parking spaces you know, i still think it is problematic to have two parking spaces i'd like to see one that gives us more visible space but at minimum i think i like commissioner moore to consider the motion with just putting a railing around the deck without the additional setback and talk about the parking space spreadsheet spot and have a compromise here i i don't think to cut out the living area put

the railing around the roof deck and take out the parapet no need for an additional setback. >> to the can i ask of the rdt considered the parapet in the smaller roof deck. >> no i don't think they discussed that as a potential solution as you're describing. >> in general i mean, i agree with commissioner moore it seems odd a small deck but that is fairly large parapet around that but also i'm trying to envision the design i'm not. >> one of the facility issues if we did this as a solution to

and perhaps the da can weigh in on this as well they could come back at the planning information center and make that a roof deck and get to approved at the counter a further review unless this is specifically for a dr wanted a condition of approval make sure that is checked at the planning information center by rukdz in certain circumstances could be approved at the counter and a parapet that permitted to be that size that's one reason we didn't adjust that it is as of right kind of general practice permit at the planning information center. >> okay. >> can i ask the project sponsor about that roof what the thinking is behind that submittal roof deck. >> there's a few things that

the bernal heights district code we had to work with and given our original design didn't have a setback at third level because we needed to setback that residential design guidelines it became what it is but then - if we don't pull in with a smaller deck we have to do something else. >> i don't understand what you're describing i'm sorry. >> i thought if we had a deck out there that had been counted towards space. >> a deck didn't count that didn't count asthmas. >> okay. okay never mind regarding the parapet that's the architect designed it to look more like a single wall from the street last week, a taller wall

for to make it hide the third level. >> commissioner moore. >> i think the drawing in 10 they want to use the entire thing bus under normal circumstances when you build a non-occupiable roof, however, the drawing on zero 8 clearing shows no railing around the what is identified as the deck the intent of having it is clearly here we believe that it is the building has to do one or the other make a small balcony or the side provides the accessibility didn't see the small balcony and the setback of the building beyond or it does and i think having the parapet

above the second floor is the proper design a mute point we can only do one or the on that is taking the building 5 feet back and eliminate the parapet or come to an agreement in some cases i don't have the street cross section to determine that we've taken the buildings at 124 there are exceptions we have to use other setback for the floor but i cannot tell the vibrator from the sidewalks and so it becomes something at this moment not resolveable i'm compromise 12 foot 5 but not 10 feet we've never done that.

>> you can get our space and add the bedrooms on the top floor and regardless of width of the street not having the parapet reduces the viability right now a three or four foot parapet coming out to the end of the roof line so having railing around what is stated as usedable deck space make those changes. >> there's a motion not that motion is that the new motion. >> that's the revised motion as the setback being 12 foot 5

and putting in railings around that and dropping the parapet altogether. >> commissioners just to clarify the 12.5 measure from the front building wall. >> just for further clarify we are talking about an open or transparent railing so. >> i'll have the architect decide that. >> for clarity not a solid participa parapet parapet. >> on the right side the building whatever the architect feels is correct for me i'm not determining that but it is - it is what it is. >> yeah. commissioners the parapet is removed the railing will be setback from the be building edge and as long as the

building meshes with the larger. >> with the architecture of the building and the railing will follow the owl of the building. >> we're setting the railing in then. >> yes. >> how far. >> to the end of the deck. >> no deck shown. >> the original proposed set of drawings is zero. >> that's january 2016 plans? >> it is the original plan but i think january plan didn't modify that. >> it says wood deck and measurements. >> do you want to comment on that at all. >> something on the overhead that would be helpful. >> explain what is happening. >> maybe on the overhead.

>> i got you on page 5 so that small balcony that be land that's what you're talking about i get it. >> we're talking about two different things. >> got you. >> so commissioners. >> i want to comment on that if this is preferred to the 5 foot kind of what staff is recommending. >> page 5. >> page 5 yeah. >> page 5 the new plans with the variance.

>> with the variance being denied. >> i know, i know you a tiny little step up here. >> does that make sense? >> we got it. >> we got it. >> i just wanted to give them a chance to comment on that we can call the question. >> the motion to take doctor and approve the project. >> go ahead sorry. >> i was looking at the

setback in the master bedroom only 12 foot setback then the roof and master bedroom we can't lose the bathroom we have stairs behind that if you move that the bathroom might be lost. >> we're trying to balance our needs for additional space and kind of what we traditionally do on the third floor setback in this type of neighborhood where your adjacent property owners and the neighbor tint to be two floors over a garage a compromise 2 and a half feet recommended less than what our recommend the parapet wall move

forward back. >> are we good commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and approve the project based on the plans generated january 26th as amended to require 12 and a half setback on the top floor but allowing and removing the parapet but allowing a railing around the deck. >> on that motion community college commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis commissioners, that item passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> on the variance close the

public hearing. >> commissioners on item 11 at 11058 mississippi street this is a discretionary review. >> the item before you a pubically initialed discretionary review but permits construct a 4 story residents on a vacant lot on 11058 mississippi street an up sloping lot on the side of mississippi street the residence will be 40 feet in height and 55 in depth with the last 12 feet two stories of decks of the third and fourth and on the roof two parking spaces and two bicycle parking

spaces the dr requesters concerns lives at the 11058 mississippi street and the massing of the residence will limit access to light and cast shadows on the property and that the proposed project will block the cottage on telegraph hill the building is compatible in sail with the mid block open space and the massing was articulated at the rear to impact the adjacent neighbors with that, the rdt didn't find any exceptional or extraordinary as proposed in the across private property not in the purview of the planning

department but the lots have frontage open a public street the planning department has received some public comment from the neighbor at 1056 mississippi regarding light and air and later questions with the project engineering the project sponsor revised the north elevation to address those concerns and addressing the engineer project that is with that said, the did not find that consist with the residential design guidelines a. >> dr requester 5 minutes. >> good afternoon

my name is elaine i'm a requester my property is two units in the front and back both houses take up lot width the present plans will cut off the cottage you should all have documents reflecting my description to a pathway think 11058 mississippi street that the pathway to the rear cottage and alternating lived in a rental cottage since 1981 has its own street address on a sanborn map and permits described my property as two

units and sent photographs of it is a city recognition of developers on 11058 mississippi street recognized the easement in the first two designs they presented in 2015 and allows the access however, the courage approved plans denied the access to the cottage is imperative and not give up that preserving the existing housing is a priority of city policy i building that keeping the counsel from land law falls within your purview my son and attorney we have one meeting with the developers agent last week and the architect and the lawyer at the meeting we were offered did following options raising our front house to allow

for passage to the cottage, selling our property to the developer and two different designs for using the pathway mostly on the property yesterday afternoon we saw that preservers the parking with the easement not had a chance to digest it or check it for code compliant the current approved plan will violate our plans since a new proposal on the table the plans that were approved will not be the final plan we're in the he will stages of negotiation and need more time for dial and communication therefore we're requesting a one most continuance during which time we hope to come a an acceptable agreement thank you.

>> any public comment 90 in support of dr requester. >> seeing none. >> okay. >> now is the time. >> in support of dr and against the project or - yeah. >> i need to distribute put those right there. >> yes. >> why it works. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is max i'm a resident at 11058 mississippi street where i've lived with my mom since 1981 i'm san bruno a handout the

first page how the proposed plans block our cottages access to the street as you can see maybe bring that up on the projector as you can see our current access which is represent by the brick steps here will be blocked by the retaining wall from the corridor that leads up to the street that access is what we're insisting on i want to address the written response they say our building encroaches their property line - our house was built in 1902 and each encroaches over the property line that is there in 1964 every house including the house to the south encroaches

over our property line that is not pertinent to the issue the easement and establish no passage to the cottage through the basement of the front house no pedestrian access at the front the basement just a garage door the boarding on page 3 is 5 feet 2 inches high the basement needs to be excavated to have clearance that's why the county plans will render our union in the rear totally inassessable yesterday the - we are not architect we need to have dialogue with the architect going in the right direction and we need more time

essentially to review the proposal to reach an agreement with the developer on paper as you can see such restrictions would require the planning department to approve that all over again, we're requesting a one moss month continuance so we can reach a solution acceptable to all parties lastly the car stacker pit an accelerator pit relates to the function one and 15 that car pit is 3 and a half feet between our function we want a separate guarantee that is a admitting measures are put in place - >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> addition speakers. >> sir, are you part of the project team.

>> i'm one of the next door neighbors. >> not a dr filer. >> no good afternoon, commissioners my name is jim a native san franciscan and lived on north side of 11058 mississippi street for 35 years the 11058 mississippi street has a special circumstance due to the 10 feet excavation asbestos laid in soil we have a problem with the underpinning my next door foundation our contractors are excavating and shoring and underpinning the work of a structural engineer the impact should be surveyed before and after work we don't want a construction function nightmare

they've tried to meet with the developers and tried to contact the owner with no response the owner lives in okay. okay out of state and want to workout building issues i received recent correspondence from the architect and the attorney from the project and need more time to review the information and workout armies with the owner also the large sign notice of public hearing was posted a few days later and the rains came in fell off i'd like to request a thirty day continuance that would be helpful thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment opposed to the project. >> seeing none, project

sponsor you have 5 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners stephen i'm the architect for the project sponsor let's see i think that the thing i want to 200 underscore no problems with the building per say with the building design and tint that was a 3 level rh-33 unit building after review by the rdt that we had to lose a unit reductions in the rare and endangered side and front and this is the resulting building and the neighbors have not exclaimed about the design per say that issues are the tunnel

mainly the proposal i made not before you will harm the neighbors property and not jermaine in other words, to counter the proclaim the project will significantly rise how they get access on their property anything they do on their property with the koeblg is on a permit - (microphone feedback). >> will be on a permit their property so but the point i'd like to make that access that has been claimed has been provided for the walkway and have access to it there were saviors privacy issues as you can see in the

access to the back that anyone will have to go up the stairs the late proposal i guess they presented that shows the stairs can be on their property and work just as well to access it anyway to the other issues around construction are all valid and normally dealt with with 9 construction i did project sponsor intend to make as many assurances to make sure that complies with the code in terms of excavation i guess that's all i have as a result not support a continuance at this time what is before you is a building design whether i can

take any questions. >> anyone wish to comment in favor of the project seeing none, dr requester a two minute rebuttal. >> the latest plan shows a stall to access the come this came in yesterday afternoon however, access to the stairway is if 11058 mississippi street not from the font house

therefore the connection between the two is necessary that is environmental and for you to just whether or not we'll be back here with changes in the plans because i think hopefully, we'll be able to come to a negotiated agreement anyway i don't have a rebuttal for all the issues raised except i think that is a false thing to say that you know our access is going to be entirely on our property take into account this will be revisited in some shape or form by this commission again once the plans go through planning thank you. >> thank you project sponsor you have two

minutes. >> i think all i'd like to say with the commission approves the project the planning commission signs off on the building still a number of code compliant hurdles not related to the planning department that will amount to basically constructing stairs on grade possibly or special meeting with the fire department about code access across the property and loves legal questions and civil actions between the party how to accomplish it and the last resort i want to make a point what is before you is nrelevant

>> can i coyote project sponsor to bring the drawings and show wave drawings they get access to the back part of cottage and the modification and i did bring what they brought a private communication. >> explain that show us in the current drawings i'd like to underscore as the arithmetic of this lot tends to be mississippi my scope of work does not extend to the neighbors to do. >> under the drawings we have do you show access to your site to get to the back comb. >> no only the potential right here sorry - >> at this point. >> what is this drawing we are

looking at. >> so. >> is that 80.20. >> it is the walkway. >> what drawings can you tell us the number. >> the sheet i'm sorry. >> one. >> one so starts here there is an entry rdt requested i have to open to the localities. >> that is on your lot. >> yes. it is we are. >> relevant. >> the project sponsor is acknowledging they can access that in some way the issue is one a tricky code issue not a planning code issue. >> i see the drawings labeled.

>> 82 point i have the one in front of me. >> you have it upside down. >> it is the second architectural drawing. >> i have that second architectural drawing open. >> correct. >> you know actually, i think that let me sorry - >> you have to put that upside down. >> that's possibly a little bit better the 3-d this is the slide is sidewalk; right? you go under the building it is daytime and because of gray we have to go up to the widening

stair this turns it is where the existing stairs interest could be a landing but didn't address the privacy and security issues of having the neighbors come into into the property and walk around the windows at the ground level the suggestion i people's which is to excavate and have the access this way but they turn on to the property their parallel you have that would i don't have this is a different project than that project. >> and he didn't get the copy of what was handed. >> i think that is your drawing. >> can you put that on the overhead. >> yeah. yeah. yeah

so there yeah. this is the same version modified from that sort of line the vertical gate all on 11058 mississippi street and not part of this permit like i said this is the proper permit - >> the points their alluding to this is not fully vetted by - (microphone feedback). >> it has there could be issues probably from my experience workable and then the legal issues there has to be an agreement between the parties to allow the access on 11058 mississippi street so it creates a solution by privacy and

security by having a gate. >> so under this scenario you'll not day light into the back of your building. >> the person that the two parties will be sharing. >> a little bit shorter. >> they'll go past their house up the stairs like they traditionally do and this impacting this project security and privacy. >> and again, it is not something that the planning commission will come back and see it is something fire department. >> unless dr'd. >> well, they're dring it we'll not come back again. >> okay thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> so you think that as viable solution you showed on the screen you're giving up something the dr requester has

the responsibility to get into that backyard and give it more time so that it is vetted and take dr and approve that hopefully on the consent calendar. >> or - the dr requester can - if you come up with a amicable solution we can withdraw. >> i propose to continue this for one month. >> commissioner moore. >> i think that is a good i building that an amicable solution can come in front of us i think the project raise a couple of issues that is a basic thing you can't see the focus is a workable building, however, legally the access workout is way, way beyond our own expertise we're party that the applicant comes in the dr i

can't get to my place anymore that needs to be resolved first in a manner that is acceptable to both and then the project on its own merit comes before us with a simple approval i'd like to talk about prior to us kind of saying that is on the access between the two properties i think there are a couple of issues i want to at least have that chance if you want me to precedes i'll do that i think the building is an interesting idea i'm concerned that the roof-deck the cage on top of the building has problems a circle last year stair in an open well given drainage and creating a proper entry it is

only the upper market unit as benefit of that particular stair in the in the long run they can close it in a manner currently we're not approving and the other thing a subtle point drawing a-1 i believe that on the elevation where we have a sloped roof form kind of making it the more ventura last year, it pronounced the feeling of a taller building than that actually is and i find that a little bit problematic and like to have the architect reexamine that that didn't work for me many nice aspects about the building a general dined units

there are definitely a fine building but the subtle's i want to raise additional questions. >> okay jonas. >> on that motion then commissioners to continue this matter to march - just had the date - >> march 16. >> 2015. >> commissioner vice president fung schoshgs commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore. >> may i ask from the continuance pertains to the assess. >> they've heard your comments but. >> but not part of motion. >> the motion is just to continue. >> with a great connect your comments are on the record. >> commissioners we've heard your questions and we can be provided for that at the next

>> commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 13198 valencia street a discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioner president hillis and members of the commission anthony planning department staff the item before you is request for a discretionary review associated with the proposed project on 198 valencia street in the zones and a 50 height and bulk district the project would demolish the

one and 77 square feet automobile business and conduct a 5 story 55 feet tall, 3 thousand plus gross squatter mixed use building with 6 thousand 200 and 5 to 69 square feet at the ground story and 28 arrang residential units includes a penthouse above the roof on january 12, 2017, they were continued to the thursday, february 16, 2017, hearing and requesting the continuance the commission requested additional shadow analysis be provided to quantify the shading effects of the proposed proposed property

on 198 valencia street the project sponsor has provided a shadow analysis which has been constituent in your pathway the shoed was conducted by prevision design and follows the methodology for a shadow analysis under the planning code proposed projects not modify since the hearings on january 12th but include the box modifications agreed to by the project sponsor and the second dr requester o duo bother avenue on january 6th the permit application was submitted to reflect the rear yard of the lot reduced to a height of 2 feet below the deck since january 12th the department has no opposition or support for the

project the department finds the proposal is consistent with the plaid and the market octavia area plan and recommends that the commission take discretionary review and approve the building permit application subject to the following conditions first at the two planners one and 14 square feet and 44 square feet located in the rear yard along the western perimeter not be permitted to steady 2 feet above the platform level as consistent with the packets and second that no rail be permitted on the planter boarding the adjacent property that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> if i could note that this was overflow room heard on

january 12th and after hearing and public comment is closed. considered that to today and commissioner president hillis you were absent i have been prepared to take action. >> so because that is the second time can we do 5 minutes for each party and one minute public comment. >> generally, we go 3 and one, if you want to give them 5 for rebuttal so dr requester will have 5 minutes and fold public comment in support of dr requester followed by the project sponsor 5 minutes in either support.

>> are the slides shown on your - >> they'll come up. >> commissioners, thank you for giving us the opportunity i'm the daughter of the owner of the project we're here because the issue we spent months trying to understand the issue we anticipate that the building will as currently designed jeopardizes the legacy business we're asking you to take

discretionary review requiring two design changes we believe are fair and reasonable first is to reduce the overall height and bulk district of the building the second is to transform the parapet from a transparent railing lastly you asked us two things to better understand the impact on the sales second you want to understand the benefit of a 5 feet height reduction last week, we submit the testimony of the impact on the sales the shadowing in the late afternoon between april is impacting you are peak sales as the study submitted by the developer the building shades us i've given time - this transforms the garden in a non-sunny garden and 65 percent of sales occurring

between 4:30 and 9:00 p.m. therefore the condition active method by the smflt didn't measure the impacts you're going data we're able to isolate the variable and show that sunlight has a significant impact on the sales we lost sales an non-sunny non-rainy days i hope you'll recognize there is an opportunity for a win-win solution the 28 rental unit can be preserved and minimum missing the shading this is my second the three the 5 foot reduction is a - the flight shows an exhibit from the study no new shading is represented in the middle the yellow is the building casts

shadow with a 5 foot reduction as you can see a 10 foot gain in sunlight needed not orange arrows on june 21st due to this i selected june 21st the summer soltice and the sun is the highest in the sky that means as illustrated every other day of the peak seasons will have sunlight that are greater than grandchildren that depth the benefit is contemporary a picture of the visitation my third point other changes that can further phase the sunlight the 3rd of december the folks said that will yield a reduction that has a design on the right is an illustration of an alternative code-compliant option this alternative jeedz 3 and a

half feet of reduced impact duce to the transparent of parapet this is the exact railing is proposed for a building close by on fulsome this dreements demonstrates of the doted line it is combining the 5 feet because the parapet design this variance will result in 16 feet in all the peek cases again, it is our ask to take dr for the overall 8 and a half foot reduction and second to require the design change to the parapet more transparent railing we've spent a lot of time trying to develop and propose the solution win-win we believe this option is a fair compromise to both sides it allows for the hours we need to be developed and preserving

historic institutions so for many people all over the world represents the unique spirit of san francisco thank you for your time today. >> thank you there's a second dr requester you have 5 minutes. >> honorable president i'm representing my parents who are the dr requesters number two on de bois avenue we have worked with the developer to reach a stipulation that been incorporated into the conditions on the application without what are you the dr i'd like to point out that if the plans as conditioned were sent

by this commission then we will have no further dispute however, i'm aware of the dr requester number one objections and because of that i feel i must stay strong in persisting often the dr to the extent those proposals may result in a change as i articulated they january 12th hearing in the matter there is a disability woman that occupies one of the units interest tenant occupied units on 1020 de bois we're concerned about the wellness with physical and mental to the extent that there was a revision in the building structure so the windows were before i could in

rather than stained having the development as proposed it could affect the quality of life of the occupant of building with that, thank you for your time. >> thank you, sir. >> open up for public comment testimony you'll have one minute those folks that want to speak in support of the dr requester opposed to the project or in support of changes requested by the dr requester i have one speaker card but if this year others that wish to speak feel free to line up on the screen side of the room. and speak in any order. >> go ahead, sir. >> i've enjoyed the site i'm here in so forth of dr you know i'm typically here wanting more hours but sensitive to the

shading created by the proposed building that dr will create an opportunity to accommodate the housing and the sunlight thank you very much. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> hi commissioners i'm reading a letter on behalf of the ben president of the san francisco bar owner alliance i'm writing on behalf of a group of three hundred folks to ask you do everything you can this is one the most important bars in san francisco hands down we're terrified the new development on that valencia street will be destroyed that has brought a lot of enjoyment we must defend this to make us proud to be in san francisco we hope you'll do your

best thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi thank you for your time as a citizen concerned with gentrification i've seen this situation at a luxury part time building goes up inform destroy the community assets that is ridiculous no negotiation with x-chromesomes from the developer side i've lived here and provided - did building will be 33 thousand quiet with a 10 and a half foot ceiling no element to cut the ceiling and provide a luxurious high evaluated ceiling making the parapet another was to compromise and support the community looking forward on this building without compromises precisely the problem with the development without acknowledging taking

them as you may know the developer didn't need to do anything illegal but you have the power to - >> that's it. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you for letting us speak i'm a tenant of the residence above the site guys known as the hotel my concern for new development a specific shading will be effecting the sight guys and generate revenue the proposed unit has only 4 units of affordable housing while the sight goose hotels average rent seven hundred plus rent the developers in the city takes places that are struggling when owners have lots and 17 units of affordable housing will be taken

as any development come in that will most likely happen and not sustain the businesses as residential hotels thank you for your time we all love site guys that was envariable to san francisco. >> hello ladies and gentlemen, i'm in support of sight guys we made money and don't have to stress about rent and when was cold and very few will be hearty enough to go out into the yard that is rough i worked two days last month and spring comes and the sun shines i make my money the neighborhood gets the use of beer garden in the backyard and

lemon you've heard it again and again we're an institution it is important to us and to our community and just please help protect our way of life our livelihood i should say have a nice day. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you my name is i disconnect a bartender two years ago when the house i was living in only one place i could afford at the bar and it enabled me to stay in san francisco i've been working as sight guys for 17 years and ever winter i have to save motorbike to make it through the winter that is clear that yard is our livelihood i'd like to mention

the sky city plan escape it is all we've got the view is above and to the west and laura said it best had a great presentation but in the september that's our view you know the lights come up and the sky a blue and purple and pink and, yes siege introduce the trees trees are part of ambiance. >> thank you, thank you. >> hi, my name is josh the person that is standing at the end of the line represents a group they're also well known for trying to get people placed on the board of the sierra club they got money and one offered

$400 and their - i'm in favor of building homes but not corporations and companies that construct challenging and telling us what to do i i don't like lobbyists them they're here to help me and 90 and they went out of their way and treated proould interrupt the was of sight guys. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm angela scott and here to read a laser from black heart tattoo a shop approved the construction at the northwest corner of van ness that blocks

our sunlight as well we feel a larger structure across the way of the oil changers will affect the impact of our business in a number of ways a new structure greater than the building will cast the shadows on east van ness and shade will hurt our business and block the sunlight of sight guys and lastly that section of the street didn't need another commercial space there are vacant commercial spaces in the neighborhood. >> thank you, ms. scott. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you commission i current work a black guys in the kitchen and recently had a chance to look at the plan for

the proposed building generally speaking doesn't know what i was looking but mainly no area for this i have those told when i asked about that that thing they added after the fact so my point things are at and changed normally i have no problem with the changes that are with plans already done thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for hearing us daniel a san francisco resident i'll read an excerpt if stephan i'm sure everyone on the commission enjoys their farther sidewalk cafeteria and sunlight is an important issue that is a significant amount of revenue

for merchant in the afternoon hours that is a draw that can make a site difference thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm susan on employee a 23-year-old full-time students and here on behalf of jeremy and every person my name is jeremy fish there will be consequences with the change being that certain time will be take from the guys and we request the right decision with sunlight versus a few more condos san francisco deserves to drink bore in the sun and more or less with his entire letter the public will be upset if there won't be anywhere setback

in the backyard of black guys. >> good afternoon to you guys he's writing on the cultural associations in support of the guys they might the attempt that the new housing development on van ness on the iconic outdoor patio it is hard to say in a town where fewer and fewer footballs they stands out by difference patrons that offer affordable drinks and the shading will will absolutely impact this place where the community organizers mingle as one so few outdoor spaces we are concerned about the impacts that

significant shading will have on the quiz into the customer experience he and not the economic viability thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i'm jack, i why the executive vice president of good vibrations and on vaevent for 40 years as a musician and community proportionality and producer been in the city for decades that is mark twain said the coldest was the summer in san francisco goes to the site guys to have fun and plan the next endeavor also as a business person in sharing legacy status you know, i hate to see like an

inherent part of business i you know being affected to the detriment of the sun garden did such a part of site guys and also the community member neighbors about 20 years ago there was a huge fire in the building that near and friend of mine nearly died thank you your time is up. >> i'm a regular at site guys and living and working on to the best of your ability and market and taking clients to the site guys not a place - this mix is for all ages our clients going back to have a glen eagle park or german beer.

>> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm adams of prevision design i'll walk you through an analysis the study as presented in your packet represents the quantitative analysis that is typical study as prepared in section 295 of the planning code with a 5 feet reduced height alternative

perhaps you canned see that but i'll run introduce the rules the pursuant to the methodologies the study found the beer garner has a 22 point plus sexuality sunlights the project built would contribute on an annual basis that shadow ours on 3:30 in the spring and fall and no new shadow over the winter months and the dates with ma'am, shadow on april 26th and august 16th that allows for over 4 point of the available sunlight for that day as prior discussion a 5 feet height reduction was discussed and analyzed the reduction of the shadow by .3 percent over

the project as proposed the dates of shading i shading will remain the same but reduces by 10 minutes so the graphics presented here as the same as your packet and shows the shadow moving through space starting around 5:30 p.m. near the ends of the day one item of note in interpretation on those graphics one of the things those graphics don't do a good job is the rate of shadowing the shadows are lettingly and at the pace of one degree per minute around 5:00 p.m. >> and by 7:00 p.m. their accelerating and legit of 3 feet

per minute in context it was pointed out a 10 foot space in terms of sunlight that will be added by removing the 5 feet that 5:30 will equal 10 minutes of additional sun enjoyed by the patrons of site guys until the shading will catch up a couple of other items in the commission brief from the dr requester that i want to clarify one it was stated that umbrellas were factored into the shading analysis they were not it is also a question about the selection of boundaries i want to clarify that the area that was looked at was a portion of the beer garden that was 0 that to the sky so question about why the area under the canopy was not included in the presumption

was the top of canopy not occupied by patrons therefore no new shadows will be relevant to the patrons at site guys if there are further questions i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you for your time. >> david i'm the architect for the project good evening to put a glass parapet in the front is doable but requires some more expensive roofing system for building code issues i really don't know what else to say except i'm here if you want any questions or comments or clarifications on the drawings thanks. >> great, thank you, sir.

>> is there any public comment on this item? in support of project proposed to the dr. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> question for the project sponsor that shadow so you have the report? >> okay so if i look at page 52 for example, and see the purple lines shows one side of the line with reduction we have had will you talk about in terms of men's. >> just explain that. >> with the diagram. >> let me get that page you said 52. >> yes. as an example. >> would that be diagram. >> c one 8. >> c one 8 - okay.

>> here we go. >> as you can see the did i architectural. >> i saw that projected you had that a minute ago. >> theerlg whatever reason not going full screen. >> we will have a paper copy. >> okay. >> what's your question. >> great is the purple from top to right that's the additional non-shaded area based

on the platform reduction. >> can you explain on this one what part wouldn't be shaded by the additional 5 walk us through that. >> the purple line show us a theoretical one everything is gray shows at this point on 355 december 21st everything is shaded no net new impact. >> can you take me to a page that showed me the difference. >> the page with the blue owl in the space. >> what page is that this b-1 .9, page 38. >> 38. >> here we go

38 to point out with your finger. >> what are we looking at. >> so this right here would be the leading edge of the shadow the project as proposed uh-huh. >> versus this would be the leading edge of the shadow of the 5 foot reduction basically with the purple lines represents the further point in time. >> with the 5 feet reduction can you help me out how fast does the shadow move. >> i quoted around the summer soltice you'll expect that there will be variance i don't go through and calculate the shadows but looking at minute by manipulate and every 15 men's how far is the shadow traveling

from one interval to the next. >> and it gets faster as the sun lowers an acceleration. >> the dr requester had it in their brief talked about the 4 feet parapet it becomes 9 feet about we're talking about would that arriving make that how far will the purple line go back. >> a rule of thump look at being 5 feet and roughly a proporti proportional distances 3 and a half feet if i - that will be a further reduction in height with that said, that accelerator penthouse some of the shadows cast doesn't reach this because it captured by the back the

solid parapet wall a therefore some additional shadow that is cast throats transparent parapet which - not entirely but a rule of thumb. >> and talked about the roof garden closer to the uphill neighbors or facing the projected project the right-hand side would that do anything. >> well in general anything that reduces the height of the building or effectively sets it back i'm not the earth can't speak to the variance design possible changes but is a general rule of thumb lower and further away those are things that don't change really change the program and the project i think -

>> again that's more proper question for the project architect. >> so a question for the dr requester. >> so i think the 3 biggest things we have were the 5 foot reductions the parapet and the roof deck those are easy seemingly easy without redesigning the project. >> with a code compliant options we presented you today are the ones reasonable that are 2 out of 3 so the 5 foot overall reduction the transparent parapet and than as in the original testimony we identified that under the code for rear gardens that is code compliant from the back position to the van ness side that will meet the requirements. >> those are the 3 bs the big

clanks. >> i'm requesting the first 2 i know one is a large ask but i'm illustrating the option. >> please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, sternberg please. we're down to potentially a workable solution doing a transparent or parapet wall with light through it and potentially switch to the roof deck to maybe a different configuration what are your thoughts. >> i think again putting the grass parapet probably could be can you think easily. >> great. >> that's one thing. >> and i think that the last hearing there was substantial discussion amongst the

commissioners that to reduce that commercial to 10 foot would not be beneficial as to my memory some of the commissioners felt that that would be two beg of a compromise to that commercial space really bring it down too much for it to work well all over the place for in my opinion i agree with that and again anything can be done that will intunlt affect the value and the design the commercial space. >> okay. and the roof deck moving that around. >> i think their proposal is not moving around the roof deck right now our rear yard is to the west and their third

proposal is reorienting the building so that the rear yard is to the north. >> and i have the diagram. >> i get it, i just misread that i was thinking the rear yard not the rear roof. >> my bad i'll let other commissioners weigh in those two items seemingly without changing the scope of the project the only thing we can pull on you heard the project sponsor is okay with the railing and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say i can support those two things rather have a lively retail corner cluster of businesses rather than vacancies in the environment and i think that is really tough so a balance so not change the project but those two things are viable. >> i agree with confirmation

and the architect those compromise the spaces but a fair trade off with that kind of making some compromises to the guys garden clearing more shade by agree that makes the retail use a little bit less viable but i'm comfort. >> commissioners the ground floor height ceiling is 14 feet so we request they go my lower needs a variance and currently the proposal is not seek me variances we have the power to change it here. >> no go to the zoning administrator. >> so from the commission wanted to do that what action should go we take her as regards to the dr. >> i would likely suggest that you continue the hearing the owner applied for a variance and

have scott ruling basically to address the ground floor height issue. >> you can take dr and make the approval continuity. >> commissioner johnson. >> for the record he strongly highlight agree for one thing thank you to staff for illustrating that i remember that from the original hearing they required height was 14 or 15 feet so the area was to account for that requirement i think a variance for that if we wanted to push for that the variance would have to be you know apply for it and come back for a cough i have reasons he strongly agree with that so one i don't agree with the brand new

construction 15 van ness is challenging in a predator status so seems my case liking it is not the guys have been successful this is a challenging corner for retail i do everything you can to innovate create substandard issues but the 5 feet drop from the building of 5 feet will really get us anything that would make me think that is this is worth a trade off in relaxation and height of the building i agree that is possible to have a code compliant building with a roof deck that is move forward or other changes with the characteristics making the parapet clear material anything that can help to reduce the impacts but reducing the height

by making the first floor residential use or retail space is not a good trade off and not accept the project like that and commissioners just to weigh in as a thought in looking at the section that is provided to you the retailed space is 15 feet they'll gain a slight reduction by one point and an additional 2 feet made up on the floor to floor heights looking at an educational level we last week, a gracious floor height but 10 feet 4 inches and getting getting the inches off the level could result in the reduction on the second are third and fifth

levels a thought. >> what is the total. >> 3 feet you'll put 14 feet at the ground floor and reduce the height of the four floors i want the architect to opine depends on the type of construction whether or not we, get the reduction in the floor plans. >> commissioner johnson do you want the architect to speak. >> i just given the shadow studies 5 feet is not much and the 3 foot is less if they can reduce the floor to floor height that's a good compromise we're taking the steps but not fool ourselves thinking that 3 feet will solve major problems. >> go ahead. >> okay good evening right now it is true because of

where the height data was taken the floor are 10 foot floor to floor and designed buildings 10 foot if we did 8 foot floor to floor it is onerous we take 6 inches off and make that 8 foot. >> that is 9 feet 10 inches. >> i'm sorry, i said 8 not 9 foot 10 inches onerous that makes the unit not marketable and close to 8 foot ceilings with the soundproofing and 10 foot is the minimum that leaves us with a ceiling that is kind of marketable and not o profess with that said, there are four floors of 4 inches so 16 inches

total can be taken off the height of the building as i'm not willing to talk about the 10 inches i can't support a major change and anything less than i'm sure will enagenda goodwill but impacts what is preserved on guys i don't think you can do other than moving the roof deck and changing the appellant. >> commissioner moore. >> i believe that mr. sternberg makes the 3 units is correct the units are quite deep given there is an industrial sites the units have access to light depends on the ceiling heights nothing really fancy or eloquent but that but direct my

question towards director rahaim and mr. sucray i don't believe and said that for a long time and allowed to be proven differently that 14 or 15 floors of retail promises the successful occupational retail use too many 15 foot spaces for all the reasons they create for - in my cases stay vacant for a long time the way their constructed in high rents not producing we hoped they lived in a corridor as this one i'm wondering only asking the question as to whether or not a lower retail height would be okay and that is where perhaps flex

flies for us to modified modify the project. >> can i- >> yes. i want to director to and . >> commissioners, i understand the point i hear you're absolutely correct becoming increasing concerned the retail space i think that has to do with with the change of nature the retail ate slowing the restaurant growth with that said, that particular corner i think i mentioned that that corner a very, very traffic corner with de bois getting to the freeway and he concerned about the idea that can become a residential on the ground floor i don't think that is residential character. >> so if so not residential then it raises the question what

can go there that will be remarkably successful and i think of our analysis of the health issues that retail it rooeshl successful and argue it is more communication all i i get it the point that is more challenging i'm- i struggle to think of what other uses that would be successful if if so a lower height but one can do where the facade appears to be higher on the outside but stepped unites the floor above i think you've done elsewhere a notch in the floor the unit

height is at the 9 or 10 foot floor from floor and the means the retail space is not 14 feet but depth from the facade that is where the ceiling drops. >> you know if. >> as a corner of clay and van ness had the same height distribution the facade appears higher and then has an internal drop and still achieves the same thing of what we're trying to do but not diminished the quality of the space. >> just to be clear still requires a variance but the commission can say could say for a certain adopt a height ceiling

drop. >> i get the argument i don't feel this is a 15 foot requirement relatively new under our planning code we did did market octavia plan we all know a diversity of retail height sizes you know sometimes, it takes smaller sizes makes that quirkier and given this location i don't feel with a 10 foot retail that is not our typical restaurant going into that given that coupled with the parapet i think that is 10 feet helps the peak times for the guys i'd like to error in the existing businesses than theoretical new retail establishment that maybe in the new building so - i

don't feel confection i make a motion, however, the project sponsor finds it necessary and the parapet railing i like that item. >> just to be clear i mean the railing to be clear not necessarily mean that is glass want to make sure that i'll agree glass will create more shadows with our professional opinion whatever it best thank you. >> there is a motion that has been seconded commissioners to take dr and reduce the height of the building by 5 feet and require that the railing to be o pack. >> sure 5 feet, however, they figure out transparent. >> excuse me - >> we have the modified project as well for the neighbors up the

street. >> i will include that condition that staff. >> staff recommend very good commissioner vice president fung commissioner johnson no commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner johnson voting against. >> commissioners that put us on item 1468 richardson avenue discretionary review. >> commissioners the the item before you is an abbreviated discretionary review for you are 3 discretionary review building applications to constrict a vertical roof deck with a single-family residences on 68 richardson avenue that requires a rear yard variance for a lot

25 feet in depth and requires a rear yard of 10 feet that was granted in 2016 an appeal filed on august 2016 and the variance was uphold by the board of appeals on october 2016 with the condition the roof deck parapet be orchid a rehearing request was appealed and the rdt reviewed that for the following changes in response to the concerns by the dr requesters a setback the roof deck 5 feet from the stair assess with the incorporation they support the project and finds the proposal didn't create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances for the lot open space of the building the roof-deck rails have been converted to a privacy

translucent glass the dr requesters concerns the light to the private and effects on noise from the roof decks and effect of the roof deck think private addition that will be cast open is neighbors yard to date the department has no additional letters of support or opposition he did not recommends approval. >> thank you dr requesters you each have 5 minutes if you plan to take them individually or as a group - do you want to comment on that. >> commission prediction we'll take them together and use the time efficiently. >> you have 15 minutes go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is carmen

i own 2541 to 47 chestnut immediately behind the property on 68 richardson avenue in the 40 years i've lived on chestnut i've not appealed but the addition of a third floor bus a roof deck to 68 richardson avenue doubles the mass of that building creating structure that will loom over my properties so at the time will in effect wall in my home only 3 feet and a couple of inches plus one notch setback segregates 68 richardson avenue from my building. >> overhead please. as you can see. >> ma'am, you need to speak into the mike. >> sorry this is the 8 foot notchback this is my buildings right here and this is the very narrow 3 foot area between us

this constitutes my backyard so it is very tight the buildings are so tight they fit like puzzle pieces i open my shuttles only patiently by the way, they can a lot into look into my bedrooms i bought my property that the building code will protect my notch i will have a wall directly opposite my bred so required code required window that's what i'm talking about straight directly up now i do understand the desire for a second bedroom on 68 richardson avenue so if they

have to add a third floor bedroom why not keep the kifrnt notch my tenants can retain loyalty and have the use of my window my biggest concern the party technical with a hot tube and roof deck loud voices all the noise will carry into all the bedrooms all our bedrooms facing the back that is a huge invasion of my privacy and the tenants privacy this construction project at 68 richardson avenue has proposed encourages short-term rentals and did not add to the housing supply please amend that by roving the roof deck and maintaining the notch please

don't let this project destroy the neighborhood. >> good evening, commissioners i'd like to review a history of the building 19 thirty this part of marina was destroyed on ramps and golden gate bridge in 39 they built richardson drive and determined lots that can be sold off they developed the homes on chestnut and in 1940 a 20 by 20 foot two-story house at the back of this property it was on the same lot and because that was on the same lot that he provided an 8 foot setback if you look at the highlight as you can see this is the permit to build i'll read it maintain and skip to the one maintain not less than 8 feet

between buildings where living occupancy is in the course of both buildings if you look this is that 8 foot that was the original requirement to build the building now let's talk about the project my clients building 3 stories at the front and two at the back at the back two bedrooms one window froptsz 68 richardson avenue and the only bedroom fronts this notch you'll hear something about moving the bars i told the client to take down the bars because of safety concerns but the project sponsor wants to infill in notch because this is where they're as a matter of law stairs to the third floor and what is driving this project the stairs to the third floor to the roof are being installed in the

same notch area so the project sponsor adding additional floor an additional floor but to the roof deck having to build those stairs my clients northerners infilling the no such and the roof decks and it is a very small roof deck steel one block away from the biggest park in the world do you need to build a roof deck in doing so, the roof deck is driving infilling this notch not the bedroom on the third floor that is infilling the roof deck if you don't have the roof deck than this bedroom what about maintained and people what credit or have their bedrooms this bedroom roves part of the housing

>> good afternoon we live on chestnut let me explain how the properties connect if you i can imagine the hours shoe and bedroom windows and picture a roof deck with a hot tube and fire pit invited inside of that courtyard we're on chestnut and richardson is at the other he said 20 feet apart close myself and my neighbors got time off to file no compromise on this position please keep in mind and in summary a few things of a party's deck you exceeds this with young children that voiced issues my family realized the scope of the project and the impact on the daily lives we got

involved with the - i found the wife she used foul language and said we'll get bulldozed by the planning department they'll sell their home to a developer that will get the project approved and rent that out the carters were not joking they moved that he built a house and didn't couldn't wait to get out of 68 richardson avenue they have a family was never the case if any family makes a compromise he ask the roof deck be removed their esteeming rare in the neighborhood as you can see in pictures flattened around the block we are area we live the roof deck and fire pits makes that space desirable for airbnb

either way we'll hear noise and music that only has to travel a few feet into the bedrooms and homes i'm pleading with that panel are we families sacrifice our right to privacy so one couple can make their property more desirable. >> none of us in the marina have use for outdoor space there is a 3 housing unit acre park in the presidio and we're only a few blocks from the bay and beach we sold our house and came up to san francisco to raise our children and wouldn't have done that from the back of my house my 12-year-old sleeps will be seeing people in a party deck and a hot tub if you want to

increase the size of property but don't put a party deck you know what chestnut is like and i can imagine the people that will be using that late at night please don't allow this thank you. >> my name is james i live on chestnut next door neighbors to 68 richardson avenue i first became aware of this in september, i.e., was surprised that in my neighbors didn't communicate and they - given we live closely 5 feet changes in the discretionary review this project will have a significantly adverse affect on the quality of life of chestnut with respect to envacation of privacy the roof decks and the

third floor will look into my bedrooms deep indicted light and air in the backyard despite a large tree that will negatively impacting the impact of my garden to have sufficient light to grow o issues as discussed the attorney mr. - made the comments of negative impact on the changes of our light and privacy that should be in the tape this project impacts several houses only to the benefit of one home a compromise can be achieved has been alluded to the elimination of the roof deck will diminish the loss of privacy and the loyalty in my backyard and achieve the goal to

obtain additional bedroom space i encourage that that type of compromise be act waited. >> thank you ryan patterson on behalf of the folks that is an irish history between the appropriates if you look at the overhead as mr. radulovich late outs their permitted back in 1940 my client is permitted first and 68 richardson avenue following with conditions imposed because of it's very narrow gap between the two buildings the 8 foot notch this provides light and air and egress for that sole required bedrooms on my clients property once the lots are split we're

looking new owners trying to undo the status quo by the city's mandate if 1940, 1941 i'm sure the project sponsors have tell you about the variance appeals we went through they got to keep their variance unfortunately - >> and the variance is not what we're talking about the variance allows them to apply for the permit didn't aggregate our authority to protect the neighbors in a common sense context the solution is a common sense solution if you take away the roof deck you don't need the stairs that fill in this notch you protect the neighborhoods privacy you protect the quiet tranquility of this common rear yard open space

files developed from sound bounces introduce the air and you don't have to fill in that 8 foot notch that can stay as it has been preserving loyalty against the sole mandate bedroom window my clients property we ask that you impose those conditions we would like to have it denied altogether but if not keep the notch and extend to the third floor as well. >> thank you. >> so open this up to public comment in support of dr requester and opposed to the project. >> hello, i'm here to read a

letter on behalf of the michael and laura sullivan that live on chestnut street we've lived on 254 is chestnut street for 3 empowers and enjoyed our up to the time you are master bedroom backed up to the backyard the only source of light into that bedroom super the backyard as the low buildings enable the sun to shine in we'll losses natural light and ventilation our source of light will be become a light shift. >> we'll not be able to see sky and the ability for airflow through the window will be compromised diminishing the appreciation and value of our part time as good neighbors we've not waerptd this massive intrusion into our lives currently our bedroom looks into the kitchen of 68 richardson

avenue and shuttles on the windows our neighbors leave tare lights on all the time if 68 richardson avenue is permitted to bump out the second floor there will be potentially even more intrusion into our bedroom the addition of third floor and the roof decks as we understand a hot tub will greatly diminish the enjoyment of the part time we will receive less privacy with greater noise from the deck we can often hear the occupant of the house playing drums and screaming foul language at the television during sporting events we can't mingle what will happen we share custody of the michaels 8-year-old daughter and concerned that the roof deck to 68 richardson avenue will

infringe on the enjoyment we have for her sincerely >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, project sponsor 10 minutes. >> immigration commissioners david silverman on behalf of the project sponsors karen carter and bryan carter this is a might have addition to a 5 had and 98 square feet single-family this is the third public hearing including two hearings at the board of appeals which unanimously rejected the argument put forth by the dr requesters who are the same

people here tonight as you may know the dr requesters have the burden of proving there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in this case that a precondition to chang or denying the project in my opinion they've failed in that effort. >> quickly i want to go over a photo where the project sponsor house the 8 hundred 98 secret how's that is the building 25 hundred square feet

this is this thing tree in the backyard 24 hundred square feet and this is 23 hundred square feet on the corner also blocked by the tree here's a photograph of the tree right here this is the project sponsor, this is mr. rubbing steps outside the box backyard with the tree this provides a buffer between his house and he is project sponsor houses this is an area of 25 feet deep between his house and is project sponsors house the house on the corner further away about 40 or 50 feet away blocked by the same tree you tell me where is the

interference of privacy or light and air here's another view of the project sponsors house on 68 richardson avenue of the the pink square that's the richardson house this is an apartment building adding on addition will be where the roof is right here it is worked out noting as the gentleman brought up prior to the board of appeals hearing mr. diesel hired a contractor to remove iron bars from the windows on the property line she focused on in her comments