requiring developers who are going to build to those great heights to dedicate land for affordable housing, to build on-site units for moderate income housing, to pay jobs housing linkage fees much higher if they had not just had the value of their land incompetent crease by three, four or five times. how much money do we need and how many sites do we need? i haven't heard yet factualexaw we're going to identify the sites or getting the sites that we need to build the affordable housing for folks that we need housing to match jobs, they'll say we need housing to match the wages of those jobs across the whole range of wages so that we have those sites, and we can have those sites either through land dedication, or if your staff goes out and actually surveys those sites and then identifies them, and then you as a city creates a

right of first refusal so they don't turnover and become more market rate housing or commercial development, and we never get a chance to build the housing. and those of us who sat through the eastern neighborhoods, we saw how that worked out. we had lots of great plans. the planning staff presented great hopes and aspirations how we were going to reach a housing balance and look at us now, so it's time for us to look seriously at housing and funding and the great richness that we're going to create through this plan. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> first of all, i'm generally in support of you moving this plan forward. it's got a lot of good aspects and deserves to move forward. there's two sites that i'm working on where there's

details of the plan that i think are really in danger of endangering the housing development on those sites. the first is a provision in the plan that -- [ please stand by ]. >> -- if you're in a situation where you've got two meritorious project, give yourselves some flexiblity to provide an exception in that circumstance. the second site that i've been looking at, working with, is a very recent client who's got a

site on bryant street in the 600 block of bryant street near fifth. when i was called, i was oh, that's on the muo district or residential or 3 dr or housing. we looked at the map and it's not zoned muo. there's a small area of the plan right along bryant street that's orange. that means wmuo. i think what they told me is the impetus for that may have been pdr preservation, but since the passage of prop x, the pdr preservation is already sort of baked into the plan. there's a number of sites here that could provide housing opportunities. i think it would make much more

sense for them to be zoned muo so this is an opportunity on the block for those sites to be built. i believe the eir has adequate capacity to make that change without the eir to be recirculated. that's all i have again. please move the plan forward, but please ask your staff to look at those two issues so there is actual implementation of some of the housing production that's so desperately needed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. todd david on behalf of the hack again. so i guess i want to talk a little bit about how all these pieces fit together 'cause it feels like perhaps this -- the central soma plan is now to blame for all of the bay area's woes on jobs housing and everything that's wrong in the bay area can be boyliled down what's wrong in the central soma plan, so let's have a

little bit of a conversation about that. so yes, the jobs housing balance is screwed up in the bay area, no doubt about it, but does that mean that we should stop creating dense jobs in areas that are well served by transit? i don't think so. i think we should look at how this plan fits into an overall plan of the city and the bay area. we have a whole west side of san francisco that we can add a whole bunch of housing to for people to live in who work in central soma, and the west side of san francisco has not done its part in adding housing to the city. the other thing is that if we are going to talk about changing, like, let's move to more housing, less commercial in central soma. it's certainly an option. are we going to give up the $2 billion of benefits to the neighborhood? the $2 billion in77 again7

again777777777777777 where we can add an additional 10,000 square feet of housing, right? those are the things that we need to do, but what i would say is let's not say this is a bad idea because the west side hasn't been building housing. let's build housing on the west side and let's make sure that jobs are where there is density and great transit, and we also need to make sure regionally that the peninsula, east bay, marin, that they're also building housing, so this fits

into an overall bay area plan. you know, the other thing we can do is if people want more affordable housing, i want it, too. let's get some more affordable housing in more places in soma. so height and density and all that stuff, you know, it's generally good if you want affordable housing. [ inaudible ] >> welcome. >> oh, thank you so much. mr. hillis, commissioners, and your colleagues and members of the public, my name is ancia hartig, and i have the honor of being the california's

historical director and ceo. i want to thank the commission for the thoughtful and meaningful development process. the meetings of billion 30 stakeholder groups, numerous public workshops and meeting held identifying the plan associated with this planning effort. chs is a nonprofit public history organization. we've been in forgiving since 1871, and we wholeheartedly endorse the plan to see neighborhood sustainablity, and the plan that strives to articulate many of the socioeconomic, socio equity factors that contribute to making vibrant communities and neighborhoods. my review of the public benefits package provides further insight on the community's priorities and the planning department's efforts in defining the components of what just is a sustainable neighborhood in giving the very

real and serious concerns over housing and mobility, it is so important that over 70% of the proposed $2.18 billion in public benefits be devoted to public housing and transportation. as we know, a sustainable neighborhood means affordable and vibrant places to leave. it also means how to get there and move around and be safe, and also of course that the public benefits package realizes other key components: job retention, sustainable, infrastructure, parks and recreation, school and child care and cultural preservation. the cultural preservation said aside from the public benefits package is about 1.8 of the total 2 billion. we are deeply pleased that 20 million is slated for the old mint restoration project, and funding this restoration is just what a cfd is designed to do. the city's contribution of this 20 million is critical to the

future restoration project and is less than 1% of the total package. as you may know in 2016, the city and county of san francisco selected chs as its lead community partner to develop this asset into restoring this vital 1874 landmark. our work is underway, and we're deeply grateful to all of you as we think about dreaming of a new chs, one that embraces consulture and history and a place where individual families and communities connect and share diverse california and san francisco stories perspectives and conversations. and i have a letter for the clerk from myself and michael san giacomo, our board chair. thank you so much for listening to my comments. >> thank you. any additional public comments? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm kathrin pet i satis, and i

architectural historan. the mint is a civic treasure, a community asset, an under o utilized an chor. by way of background in 2002, the city was in the process of buying the old mint from the federal government for $1. doing their due diligence, the city commissioned a historic structure report for the building. i cowrote it, and i've been following the mint very closely ever since. in 2016, as you just heart from ancia hartig, the county and city formed a partnership for a long-term vision for the mint.

the vision sees the mint as a gathering and cultural place. key to the partnership and the mint's restoration is the city's 20 million commitment, 1% of the overall benefit of the central soma plan, and it was recently brought to my attention that there's over three times that amount of money, between 60 and $70 million which remains unprogrammed. i would argue that the mint deserve an even greater allocation of funds. the community facilities district law was designed to support projects and public infrastructure just like this. i urge you to ensure that these long promptsed city dollars remain allocated for the mint's restoration and reuse, to make it open and accessible for all san franciscans. and i just want to say the mint is the kind of monument that

will ever be built again. it's been under utilized since 1937, when the new mint was built in the duboce neighborhood. in the late 60's, the building was a candidate for demolition, seriously considered by the city, and in 1972, president nixon transferred the mint from the gsa back to the treasury department with a mandate that the building be used for public use and enjoyment. our city has an incredible opportunity that's on the verge of becoming a reality, and i'd love to do anything i can to help you make it happen. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any additional public comment on the central soma plan? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. >> first of all, i want to acknowledge all the community

and parties that came out today and have been involved in the process all along, starting with the mayor's office of housing, office of economic workforce development, jane kim's office and her staff, toddco, soma filipino united players, connie forbes with good jobs for all, southern filipino center, united local 2 as well as the building and construction trades council, the mb's hack. it's quite a diverse community we have in this small little 17-block area. but we all have a joyvoice her so my take on what's going on here, this is the most important comment here is that this is one of the only remaining areas in town that still allows office development. we are allowed to build as much residential in this -- in this plan, but also, right outside this plan, so according to me,

i think the office development should be taking the lead in this plan. we are never trying to displace anybody. we hear about housing projects issues, community public input on these housing issues every thursday, so it is very on our radar, but this small area is one we need to take advantage of in regards to office production. this will, again, bring $2 billion in public benefits, and i'm looking at the list of developers: alexandria, kilroy, h and s, mnc, all have had a graed record of developing projects here in san francisco, and they do the things that we like to see. they don't land bampg their projects. they get entitlements, and they build them. they pay prevailing wages.

they employ local kroos and people to build these projects. please don't overlook that because the commercial office industry here in san francisco isn't stale, and this is a good opportunity for us to invest a little more in the office environment, particularly with the near completion of the transit center along with the central subway and the near proximity of b.a.r.t. public transportation on market street and also caltrans. again, i think i tried to sum it all up there in a couple brief sentences, but you know, this is a unique opportunity. $2 billion of benefits, i do not think we should hold this up at all. again, the supervisors will be hearing the rest of this, and they can make more amendments then, but as far as i'm concerned, i think we should move it forward today with

those kinds of recommendations. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you. so i hear what you're saying, commissioner koppel. this is an appropriate place for offices. i agree. i do think we kwo look at -- could look at ways to increase housing in this area. i don't recall ever hearing about western soma. >> that plan allowed for -- steven, correct me if i am wrong, but it created that zone along that area to not allow housing to encourage pdr and job uses there. >> mm-hmm. >> this is my favorite part of the job, when i correct the director. so actually, that area --

there's no housing at all, and the proposal has evolved over time was to maintain the pdr-ness of it but allow new commercial developments, but with prop x, basically, the pdr would be required, any way. i'm going to go shrilink back my chair. >> go ahead. you're fired. >> after that, we might want to look at that, and also, the 150-foot buffer between high-rises, that's also an interesting thing to look at. those are ways that i think it's a little bit -- the most painless ways to increase housing within this very small 17 square foot block. so i do think -- i've only heard it twice of the 11 times that you've been here, so i think it's better than last time i heard it, or maybe i

just heard it better. but i thank you very much for all the work you've put into it, and thank you to everyone in the public for weighing in. i think this is good, and i would like to see a little more housing if we can fit it in within the existing plan. >> commissioner richards? >> every time i met with mr. wertheim, i come away being sold on the plan, and mr. wertheim says, are we at 100% yet, and i say yeah, we're at 65, 70. and then, i go home and get a good night's sleep, and then i hear from the community, and they sold me on their ideas, too. i don't know that a lot of competes with what we've already gone on the table, but it's a big puzzle to me.

i want to kind of get down into an excel spreadsheet. it seems the 2.1 billion is a big number. we've got all these big chunks of hundreds of millions, but i don't understand how 300 million gets divided up or 20 million for the mint. by the way, i think 20 million for the mint's too low. i really do. we'll sit here another three years, and it'll deteriorate further, and we'll add 10 million more to the cost of rehabilitation. i think 30 million is a good place to start. mr. wertheim, public benefit, we might want to modify what we're asking for in terms of fees, but just like the people we were taking down the fees for, public construction costs are going up.

we're going to get less in the end, and i want to know what that's all about. i get the whole -- when we did the housing element, and we did the jobs housing presentation -- twice. i get the whole thing, and i know the director said how many housing units are we entitled to that haven't been built yet? >> about 35,000. >> 35,000, that's a big number. and i get that mr. david wants to upzone the west side, and i get that mr. weiner wants upzone, but as much as we can fit more housing in this plan area, i'm supportive of it. i know -- i saw the director out in the hallway, and we were talking about eir's and how

long they take, and my god if we want to add another 20,000 units, what would it take? oh, another eir and another five years. it just gets be windshielderwi because everything takes so long, but i'm for anything we can do inform get that going. a lot of people said they often talked about the job housing fit, and the ami. where would all this money come from to get the workers who make the kind of money that can't afford new construction or what we've currently got -- where would we get that money from? can we borrow some of the benefits money to do that? is it again, moving pieces of the puzzle back around? this is what i really want to understand, and i do like the

idea of the job housing fit. it's not the number of units, it's can people afford them, and if they can't afford them, where are they going to be living? this is the whole thing. are they going to be living in antioch in their single-family home, so i just don't understand that, and i'd like to do that. somebody also talked about taking some of this money and investing it in the future rather than realizing the benefit today, so land banking. hey, let's take some money, buy some land and wait for things to crash and build some affordable housing when nobody's working. that's what i did in 2009. rent controlled housing purchase is another good way i think to stablize the communities, and i would definitely be interested on that ex-set spreadsheet to see how much money we have to do that. i see some of the income

stablization spreadsheets that go out, hey, we've got this much money, and $6 million, and i look at the balance in the account, and oh, 7 or $8 million, and oh, we've saved six units. it's a good start, but it's not enough. hotels versus housing. we've got nine hotels being proposed. i don't know how many rooms each one. maybe a couple of those become housing sites rather than hotel sites? it's just a way to get more housing. and maybe it's affordable housing for the people that actually work in the plan area. i said to the director out in the hallway, hey, on the eastern neighborhood eir, we sat here years later, and we competed the number of housing units we built, the number of pdr jobs went down, and the office didn't quite get built. we can borrow from one category to the next. maybe we can do that in the

future here if we see some thing's not going according to plan, and we seem to have passed all the legal gauntlets here. i'm not sure that it's actually two housing structures going up. it could be two office structures, so -- and it probably is. >> one of each. >> one of each. maybe we can bend the rules a little bit to get the project working in the way we want it to be. >> commissioner fong? >> thank you. my thoughts are somewhat similar. i think this is a green light go because it's -- was created and taking eight years to get to this point. i think that times are

different than eight years ago or even five years. one things in san francisco is we are reekting. we are a reactionary city, and i want to make sure we are far enough in this plan to have the area be self-sufficient as far as the neighborhood office housing ratio, even tran sis ratio, so i'm going to be in support of it and want to keep going. obviously hear from all the community. i think it's great that everyone's starting to come out on this, but i'm going to try to be a little bit biased of help trying to meet the mayor's initiative of housing and put a little bit more pressure on the housing piece. >> commissioner moore? >> my tendency who also to put a little bit more pressure on the housing piece. we are basically reaping the benefits of what we've done earlier. we may not create a perfect balance, but one that's more tilted towards housing.

in that case, i would echo what they have said, including a critical element which we have never tried, to try to create a job-housing fit. i think i would really like to get a feel for what that means. i had always assumed, and wrongly so, that we had put the discussion about partial support for the mint already onto the 5-m project because the 5-m project is much closer, almost adjacent to the central soma plan. >> about a million, i think. >> mr. wilson, can you remind us of what exactly the contribution is that 5-m is making? we always wanted 5-m to be part of central soma, but we clearly discussed it in the course of it. >> it was for an elevator -- it was around a million bucks.

yeah, that sounds about right. it was not in the magnitude that we're talking about here. >> okay. i'm sorry to hear that. in any case, i do believe that in the larger part of this quadrant of the city, there's a really instrumental element connecting new and old in a way that hardly any other than this building can. i appreciate the work. it's very thorough. it has been challenged, and i hope that the current community engagement will formalize itself into a cac or whatever's required and lead into ultimately implementing a project that has a thorough massaging every step along the way which many of the good projects in san francisco do. >> so one, thank you for everyone who came out and who's been involved in shaping this plan from the beginning.

i know it's been as long kind of time in the making, but i think it's worth it, and to city staff for all their diligence in putting this together. i think there's a -- we should keep on the pace that we're on and keep moving this forward. i think there's some questions that still remain. certainly, this issue of how much housing versus how much office is one that we've heard before and keep hearing as we move down this path, whether it's the march 1st initiation hearing or beyond that. we take kind of a more focused look on that than we've done in the past. i mean, i think -- i agree we've got to stop looking at it as kind of a balance within a district. it's two fine grains to look at. this is not just a city or neighborhood or a city problem, it's a regional issue. i agree with mr. david and the comments he brought up. we've got to look at kind of how much office is not built

citywide and entitled and how much residential is not built and entitled citywide, but balancing this kind of within the soma neighborhood just doesn't make any sense to me. i know we've had that discussion before, but maybe again at a higher level it's worth having because the city and the reason have invested a significant amount of infrastructure in this neighborhood which kind of the regional office market takes advantage of and workers take advantage of, and we can't ignore that. you know, just kind of assuming how's -- i mean, office is going to be built down the peninsula somewhere else, i don't think is good and it's not good for the environment. it's not good regional planning. but i'm not -- i still am not settled as to is this the right kind of balance between office and housing, so it would be good to take another look at that and maybe we have somewhat of a housing discussion.

you know, mr. elberling and todd brought up in order to get the housing percentage at a much higher level, it relies somewhat wishful thinking on a large citywide bond. i don't think we can do that, but we can assume that in this plan or wait for that to happen. we want to move that forward and certainly encourage that tri type of citywide effort. and then just on housing stability and displacement, it would be a good idea to take a deeper diechb. does it -- in trying to stablize the housing that's there. so i'd like to see -- and perhaps it's during the march 1st hearing, kind of how much is housing and office, and then perhaps another hearing within this time scheduled, too, on

the remainder of public benefits. certainly, the mint has been brought up in -- i think it was this weekend, i walked by the mint yet again, and people are right. it is -- it's kind of a civic disgrace of what we've done in kind of relying on 5-m or something to fix -- the mint, i think is just bad planning and thinking. if this were a private property owner, we'd be calling him in and having hearings on this. yet it's the city that owns it. it's sad to be a member of kind of the city family, and that's, you know, one of our most important historic assets and that's how we treat it. you know, i think the planning of what to do with the mint and how to program that is going in the right direction, not just the museum but really kind of a center of this neighborhood, but i mean we need to ensure if the city's not going to put the money behind it that we

allocate more than $20 million, and we try to do it relatively quickly to get that building renovated because it's just sad, the state that it's in, and i think it's critical that, you know, we do something with that facility. i think we're on a good trajectory and would like to see it continue on the pace that it's currently on. commissioner richard? >> so one of the things that i recall -- must be a couple of things that we brought up in december. we were pretending we were in a restaurant, and we had a meenoo, and we had this benefit was this much, so i envision as we move forward, all of these come in to us. you give us a recommendation on

this is a good tradeoff for this, and they come to the commission, we sharpen orpencils and we listen to the public again, and we make a recommendation on kind of how we want that money to be allocated. i'm not thinking it's good night nig nig night -- going to be enormously off of what we're on right now. i would like to do that. i think some of the other things that some of the other folks said, mr. marty, mr. cohen, the folks from the soma group, put a price on what it is that you're asking for and let us know so that we can really understand what the tradeoffs are, and we can try to make as best decision as we can, because we're going to make a recommendation to the board and i think that's where the action is going to be but at least some of that work would be done here beforehand. >> i just want to thank everyone for coming out. i think what i heard today are some of the more thoughtful comments that we've heard in this room in a long time, and i

really appreciate it, and it really was an incredibly diverse set of comments and requests. there was an advocate for just about everything on steve's meenoo on the $2 million public benefit list, so we have the right list put together. whether we have the right proportions, that's the question. when you divvy up that $2 million, you add something, and you take something away. the toddco plan, as you acknowledged, president hillis, it creates some great things, but it does rely on some things outside of central soma proper. i think we'd all be interested in sort of adding money to the pot if we can, but it does rely on additional funding that would be generated outside of the plan and outside of the public benefits from development. i just want to reinforce that the housing, you know, outside of central soma and transbay,

which is largely built out, there is virtually nowhere else in the city that we can build a lot of office. so in very rough numbers, in ten years, we've approved 60,000 housing units and built 25. so -- and we have close to another 10,000 in our pipeline right now, and some of those are big projects that you know about: india basin, the old pg&e site, those kind of large sites, so there's a number of large housing developments that are coming on-line in the next year or two that will improve the balance, and i think that will continue on as we move forward, and we can bring that up when we talk about some of the specifics that you requested in coming hearings. just a couple of comments on some of the urban design proposals in the plan. the 150 foot -- 115 foot spacing between towers is a number that we have used in a

number of plan areas, rincon hill being one, and we can look at it, but it really is based on kind of a thoughtful look at kind of light and air into high-rises, and i just want to make sure that if we do reduce that, i would be cautious about it because it's something that we've used in a number of places, and one of the advantages that we have over places like manhattan is that we do have some breathing room, if you will, around towers, and i think we think it's important to keep that when we can, but we're happy to give you more analysis to that as we move forward. and i just want to close by saying that we will continue on some of these aspects. we -- march 1st, we are proposing for your initiation, but we can use that as a time for discussing some of these items in more detail, in particularly, the jobs housing balance question. >> thank you. commissioner moore?

>> thank you, commissioner for reflecting on the jobs housing situation. i think it's important to look back on that downtown plan of how that actually arose and really understand it more, not just as a plan separation but as a three dimentional plan as things go up in terms of lights 1k3 streetscapes on the sidewalks, so i think it would be worth looking at some three dimentional plans to bring back to the commission, and i think you're gravitating towards keeping it that way. there are other ways of doing that, tower shaping, etcetera, so there could be other opportunities to talk about that. >> all right. thank you. so thanks again for an informative hearing, and we'll be back here march 1st when we encourage kind of dialogue to continue the details of the plan between community members who are interested in this and

city staff, and we'll be back march 1st with an initiation, which is kind of the first legislative step, but also another hearing on the housing component and the jobs first housing issue. all right. thank you very much. >> commissioners, that'll place us on item 12. [ please stand by ]

>> resulting with the use inconsistent with active use requirements of planning code section 145.1, which requires uses within the first 25 feet of buildings on the ground floor. the project was originally approved by the planning department in july, 2014, at which time it was permitted by the code. in december, 2014, the requirement for conditional use authorization became effective. since the subject permit was not issued until after the date of ordinance, the project requires conditional use permit. the department has received two public comment letters from the community member and ocean avenue association expressing concern related to the level of

upkeep and maintenance of the facility. after analyzing all aspects, we recommend disapproval. the project is not necessarily desirable for or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in that it eliminates an active ground floor tenant space and does not comply with the planning code. the project sponsor is present and has a short presentation with an alternate for the site, which staff has not had a chance to review. i'm available for any questions and this concludes our presentation. >> thank you very much. project sponsor?

>> good afternoon. i'm kent gaskins with jll. i wanteded to start out saying after much conversation with the planner and myself and the people at jll and the bank, the way it stands, we're not able to legalize the space. we can't change the way -- it's an atm vestibule. we cannot make it more -- it's not wide enough to put a bank in. so the existing location. i want to make you aware of something that the bank is looking at. it's an advanced center. it would replace the existing atms and vestibule, but it's still with the exception of a security guard an unmanned

space. it uses the entire space, but it's unmanned. there is no additional staff that's there. this is new. it's new for the bank. they're rolling these out. they do have one that's been permitted at san francisco at market and fremont, 425 market street. i realize that construction has been subject to complete near the end of march and it should be opening shortly thereafter. i do not know where else they're planning to open these. the bank estimates that the same amount of transactions will occur if they put the advanced center in. the one thing i wanted to mention, i do know that the current lease expires at the end of 2019.

if we do have to close the space and shutter it, i'm not aware if we can get out of the loose early. if not, the space would be vacant for two years, almost two years. that's it. >> thank you very much. we'll open this item up to public comment. any public comment on 1600 ocean? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: i like the idea of the banking storefront. >> commissioner melger: this is my neighborhood and i spend a lot of time on this block. i understand the security issues, especially, like, at night, because there is nobody there and you have to use your card to go in and out. it feels sketchy, to be going in

to use the a.t.m. at the same time, i'm worried about this little space being vacant for two years. so this is where there was a fire, remember, a couple of years ago, that burned all the storefront. it's a block that is a transition block, just further up, you have the whole foods, the newer, taller commercial spaces. and then on the -- just two more blocks, you have the target, the mini target. but it's that whole commercial corridor has suffered from a lot of vacancies. the cvs went under and new it's a big, vacant space. and so if you look at the picture that's included in our packet, just like two doors down, there's that golden point s

spa. i think there's a planning violation because the windows are always closed. you can't look into it. and so, you know, i worry about that commercial block. and i worry that disallowing this a.t.m., even though it has problems, for two years -- and i'm wondering whatley way do we have? is it possible for us to just let them go until the end of the lease? is there no way to do that? if we -- do we have to take action today on this? even though it is not what is ideal, it's better than having it vacant, given that all the storefronts are difficult to create that commercial corridor. >> the commission can put a time limit on the conditional use authorization. understanding that the lease is

until 2019, end of next year, you could, obviously, recommend approval or adopt a motion of intent to approve. we'll come back again at a future hearing and then if the commission is ameanable, we can have approval only for a certain amount of time frame and this will help to rectify the enforcement issue. that's the issue, that it's not there legally, so we have to move it forward somehow, either move it forward with enforcement proceedings, as we normally would. or allow it, basically. >> commissioner melger: so would it be possible for us to act on what -- the motion that is on -- in our packets today, disapprove

or defer enforcement until the end of -- no? >> not typically. since -- and i might have planner kwiatkowska come up -- >> if you approve it for a two-year time frame, it's the same thing. >> commissioner melger: we can put it on the consent item? >> yes. the motion before you is only for disapproval. so you can direct staff to create a motion, include a time limit for the motion. and then we'll bring it back forward for the commission. and since it seems not super controversial, put it on the consent calendar. >> commissioner melger: i would be inclined to do that. i wouldn't want to make it worse, you know, for this particular block. >> i would be supportive of

that. >> vice president richards: so supporting the use of the whole space -- >> commissioner melger: no. i would be supportive keeping the a.t.m. as-is until the end of their lease, which is 2019. and then we move and disapprove that use. >> commissioner moore: we can only rely on your personal experience with the space because the department's recommendation is what it is, but your judgment on this very specific functioning of this block is what matters here. >> vice president richards: my only thought on it is that a large space is better than blank a.t.m.s. i will defer to your judgment.

whatever you make a motion on, i'll support. >> the reason why -- this seems a little more experimental to me. they -- the sponsor said it's been tried in one other place, you know, downtown. this is sort of out in the boonies neighborhood. there's a chase, a full-service chase, right across the street. across from the whole foods, there's a full-service wells fargo that we approved a couple of months ago. i don't know if it will be worth it to expand it to the more experimental thing. right now, it's one a.t.m. but it is used quite a bit. i would like to make a motion that we direct staff to put together a motion of approval that we look at later on until the end of their lease. >> vice president richards:

sure. second. >> president hillis: if we wanted to, you can include in the motion an option for them to explore this remote banking concept and that way it gives them enough leeway for us to work with them if they choose to work in this direction. >> commissioner melger: if they want to make the investment, but i would not require it. >> there's been a motion seconded to motion of intent to approve this matter with the condition that it cease operation in two years or at the end of its lease and that means this will have to be continued for at least two weeks. february 15 is canceled, so continue it to february 22. on that motion, commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner melger: aye.

>> president hillis: aye. >> that passes 6-0. and that moves us to 2017-00199ocua, 863 carolina street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, linda ajello-hoagland. this is for existing vacant, single-family dwelling and construction of a three-story over basement structure with two dwelling units. the subject property is located in the showplace square

neighborhood. it was constructed in 1907. properties in the immediate vicinity consist of residential homes, of varied height, design and construction dates. the block face is characterized by two- to three-story buildings of mixed architectural style the buildings vary from single-family to small, multifamily buildings. the existing structure is 400 square feet. it contains no bedrooms and has one bathroom and it's 16 feet in height. the proposed structure would provide two dwelling units with one and two bedrooms with 1,242 square feet. and 2,276 square feet respe respective respectively. 38 feet, 7 inches is the proposed height, 15-foot

setback. the department has received 11 written comments in opposition to the project, in regards to the building height and neighborhood compatibility. staff has received three telephone calls requesting copies of plans, with one of the said callers expressing concern about the height. additional comments were received shortly before the hearing indicating that the structure, existing structure, is an earthquake shack. based on the historic research prepared by left coast architectural dated december, 2016, it was determined that the existing structure does not meet the characteristics of an earthquake shack, that being in the dimensional size and the locations of the window and door openings. with that, staff recommends approval of this conditional use authorization request as noted in the executive summary.

it will remove a unit and result in a net gain of one university i. follow tenants will be replaced, as the structure is vacant. there will be no significant impact of local streets and the muni system. rh-2 allows a maximum of two dwelling units on this lot. the district is intended to accommodate a greater density than what exists on the site and several of the properties reflect this ability to accommodate maximum density. although the structure is more than 50 years old, review of the historic resource association. the proposed project meets all areas of the planning code.

this concludes our presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners, thank you for the moment to find that my file is not opening. 863 carolina is not an

earthquake shack. it's far larger than any earthquake shacks that were listed or built at the time of the refugee housing. if you want to hear more about that later, we have an expert on the subject, as he owned the last one discovered in the city and can comment -- so i'd like to walk through what we've proposed at 863 carolina. what you will see is a building really appropriate for this site. it slopes up steeply from the street to what we're building on is the platform of the existing home, which is set significantly above street level. the street at this point is very wide. it's 95 feet wide. here at the back, there's an extension. in our first meetings with the

neighbors, we were -- the thought expressed is that they want to protect privacy and light at the rear. so we pulled back the existing structure from the line of the existing structure to meet the two adjacent homes. we have this immensely wide portion in front of us and a very varied neighborhood character. we have the russian church down here with the fully flat front. we have this one square bay on a shingled building that is not of historical contest. and so what we've tried to do with this site is to create two modest-sized units that will provide good family housing for

mr. rothland and his family, with this type of approach. we've responded to the request of the planning staff to articulate the facade. we've pulled this portion of the facade back up at the top. an open screen to further provide architectural interests and line up with the roof line at each level. so we have a strong line here and strong line here, compleme t complementing the adjacent buildings, very much in the way that the residential design guidelines characterize the streetscape. following those guidelines to set the upper floors back. our upper floor is not just set

ba back, it's set on the pedestal of the existing topography. so this image, you can see the potential buildable area in these spaces and at the back. you can see what we've done with it. to try to scale it appropriately for the site. there's a larger building adjacent behind us on wisconsin. this has four floors. you see garage 1, 2, 3, 4, and then a fifth level of occupancy. that's not what we're doing diagonally behind this. we have a garage level with no habitability there because of the grade. to be able to excavate