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 grade all

the way back would create so much more expense that it would not be -- we would not be able to afford to build a house like this at this site. so we're trying to accommodate the needs for this family for the housing and the -- what would be an appropriate use of the -- if we can zoom in, please. hello? well, lets go to site lines. this is a 95-foot-wide street. >> you can zoom in up on top. >> i think we'll move along from there. we have a pedestrian in the middle of the street. we have the 30-degree-angle site line seeing up to this second floor. from across the street, you're seeing all the way beyond the top floor and the rooftop features that we've proposed.

i would like to bring mr. rockland forward to say a few words and then i will finish up my remarks. >> can you hand in the site line drawing, please? >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time. i am -- i lived in san francisco for almost 30 years. my -- i met my wife here. i raised two kids that went to bay and my little daughter is here. i fell in love with san francisco. i always live an american dream. i finally can afford possibly a

house in san francisco. and it's, in my view, when we finally got a lot, we specifically fell in love with portera hills. it's a nice community to raise a kid. we asked steven sutra to design our home, who in my view has a great heritage to the city and makes a beautiful architecture. one more thing. the way i view it, the upper unit would be about 2,200 square feet. and it's two units. the lower unit would be occupied by my mother, who is sitting here. so i'm looking forward to

building this home. thank you. >> can go back to overhead, please. what mr. sutro has done, he's here if you have any questions about the architecture, but you can see from the floor plans that are before you, it's very practical housing. the second unit is not hidden away or a sham unit in any sense. it's a very practical response to getting quality family housing at this location. the intention of the -- we have an elevator in there that goes to the -- goes to the roof. the hope is that the grandmother will be able to go by the elevator to the roof and use that. she's mobility-limited, as many elders are, as we all will be someday. and future occupants of this

house will have access to senior-accessible unit on the first living level. and access to quality outdoor space by way of that elevator. i think that the rocklands intend to have that available for rental when it's no longer occupied by the grandmother and they expect it to provide a strong support for there being able to remain there for the rest of their lives. >> thank you. we'll open this up for public comment. i have a bunch of speaker cards. line up and you can speak in any order. america menard, christina gardener, megan smith. go ahead, sir, if you would like

to speak, or whoever. >> in the original -- in the application for dwelling removal, it is stated that they want four-story buildings, there are many of them in that residential neighborhood. and i'm only aware of one or two in the immediate several blocks of this residential neighborhood. and, of course, one is -- i'm sorry, is it not showing? >> there you go. >> it's all that i'm aware of

within blocks of me. i live directly across the street from the proposed development. and that is what he's referring to. and so there's one other building that's about four stories high as well within a few blocks. at any rate, the plan when it's shown looks at the height of the building as presented from the pavement. and because of setbacks you don't see in these photographs or plans how really, really high it is. and so that block has one- and two-story height. that is looking up the street. and, of course, the lot they're talking about is behind that big pole. and since we live across the street, looking at that site

line page that you just received, when i look across the street from where i live, this is what i see. oops. this is a rough estimation. this is garage, first floor, second floor, third floor, and then a roof deck and elevator housing, mechanical housing, on top this is what i will see from across the street. and this is the reality of the situation, how high it is. and how massive it is. is my time up? >> you have 30 seconds. >> at any rate, i would propose that the commissioners respectfully, that this massive development be reduced in height. at least take off the idea of a

rooftop deck, which seems to be across the neighborhood. hopefully not. and to reduce it by one floor. that -- that the roof line. >> thank you very much. >> now your time is up. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm mark menardi. thank you for listening to us. i'm concerned about this lot development because, this is a very narrow lot and it's in an historic district. if there has been a determination made that the house that's being leveled is not an earthquake shack or at least fits the legal definition, it is in the historic district.

[please stand by]

>> i was born and raised on potrero hill at 951 carolina street, and i now live half a block away from my original home. the massive homes are being built in my neighborhood and existing middle class residents are being forced out of the neighborhood and changing the diversity of our neighborhood. in accordance with the san francisco residential guidelines, an area designed with character, design building are supposed to be compatible architecturally. this is what has been specified as being inappropriate, and it's a two story home with a third story and an additional fourth recess. i think it's been pointed out by my neighbors, and it looks

completely different than what is proposed in the guidelines. you've seen pictures. this is -- this is what our block looks like, so you can see they're all two story structures, and this is what's being proposed. we were told by linda that the building is 4400 square feet, so my question is, is this a luxury home, or is it affordable housing that they're proposing? is it a family how'use? the guidelines for the potrero

area is it should be small scale residential zoning to protect the character of potrero hill. the plan does include a larger than required back yard but there are several decks that enjoy the back yard also, so we see the back space, so there is really no need for an additional roof deck for the grandmother because she has a back yard and a deck off the lower story. my suggestion for this property would be to eliminate the fourth story and roof deck and keep in line with the other structures in the area so it's not our own -- [ inaudible ]. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is julie jackson, i live at 898 carolina street, down just a few houses so that i didn't get the original notification of this project happening. so i've lived there since 1995. potrero hill is a great place to raise a family. i also live there with my children and my family, and i think we need to take a minute and really confirm that 823 carolina street does not have historic significance as it's specifically mentioned, and what the archives that are now held at the san francisco public library, a book called hope chest, this book is the primary reference on earthquake shacks, and because -- sorry -- because it's not listed -- it's listed as a cottage of unknown heritage, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have significance, it just means that the study has not yet been

done specifically on that and many other historic cottages. so i think that it's too soon to really authorize the demolition of a property that we might have historic significance, and i think we need to take a minute to confirm that actually this property does not have that historic significance. the other thing is i do feel like the proposed project is out of scale with the neighborhood. the site line diagram that was shown earlier did not include the roof penthouse, what they're calling a penthouse. the planning code does have an exception to allow additional height for above the height limit for certain conditions. an elevator penthouse isment to include elevator equipment. > it's not meant to include another floor for the elevator. it talks about that exemption

does not include things that are occupied or anything beyond elevator equipment, so here, we have an elevate i don't remember going up ten to 15 feet above the height limit, and it's creating an excesstive bulk. the other funny thing about site lines when you're on a hill is oftentimes, you're not standing on the ground looking at a building up like you're in a flat situation, that this is not on the top of the hill. there's several properties that will be impacted by such a large thing on top of this as this roof deck. so in -- in closing, i would just -- i think this property has been here for a long time. i will be excited to see something happen there. it's kind of a hole in the neighborhood; however, i don't think we should -- we should be -- not take the time to make sure we're losing a historic resource that could be moved, could be somehow incorporated into the project. i have a letter submitted by

the bernal history project, and also, i know the victorian alliance is also very interested in determining the historic significance. thank you. >> would you hand that letter in, please. just leave it right there. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my house is at 855 carolina street, which is next door to the hazen residence, and one of the reasons that i'm concerned with this house is there's southern exposure of the sun and the way it comes around the hill, and that essentially would just take out whatever sun light that i do have going into my back yard, of which i have this very elaborate guard that i'm growing right now. and on the other hand, as you look out from this, there is a very sharp curve because of the way southern heights comes up

and wraps around and carolina comes up where cars have to make a very sharp turn. and that's a traffic situation that even though there's not much traffic, you have to be very careful up there, and it does -- and it does -- will cutoff views from that particular area. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is kratcathy pagen, an was born and raised on carrie line astree -- care owe line -- carolina street. we're active in the community. most recently working with our neighbors to did .

i and many neighbors are growing alarms at the constant threat of our neighborhood, what was always charming maximum homes built by the working class in the early 1900's are being threatened by others moving in. the recent spate of proposed four story home in our neighborhoods of conconsisting the vast majority of two story homes is threatening to cause ever lasting degradiation to the existing homes in our neighborhood. the 900 to 100 block west side which is the site of another proposed four story home, has 26% three story, and no four story homes. the 7 to 800 block east side,

which is the site of 863 carolina, 12 is three story, 3% or one four story building. as you can see, this is a neighborhood of predominantly two story homes. having challenged numerous proposed four story structures over the last several years, i believe that the planning department does not appropriately give way to the residential design guideline criteria, although it is mandated to do so by law. i and so many of my neighbors continue to question how virtually every four story home proposed throu approved through the planning department process when our neighborhood is vastly two story homes. on numerous occasions, city planners have told me that the area's zoned to 40 feet, period, end of discussion. this leads me to believe that the spirit and dwent of the rdg -- intent of the rdg are not being met. i ask that you hear my concerns

and many neighbors who have voiced their concerns in writing or at this hearing and require the developer and building sponsor to modify their plans. that will still allow for increase in housing area, but ensure that we retain the character of our neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. thank you for having us here. my name is megan smith and i'm here representing the vic tore i can't be alliance. we voted last night to oppose any demolition of what we believe is an earthquake shack. we don't believe that anyone should take the word of the developer that it's not, we think that we should actually investigate and determine. the letter that is being referred to is written by john blackburn is the actual earthquake guy. he maintains the list of the

earthquake history project. this particular property has been on the list the refugee shack survey done in 1998, so it's easily googleable for anyone to find, and i don't think there's been enough time to determine this. as i said, the victorian alliance just voted last night to oppose the demolition. i know last night, there was an earthquake in my neighborhood, n noe street. i don't know the appropriate word for it, but i would like this commission to take the time to make this determination and continue the decision or whatever the appropriate word is in order to find out whether or not this is an earthquake shack or not, and the victorian alliance will be writing a letter in opposition to the demolition. >> thank you, miss smith. >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> first, i would like to thank the planning commission and the planning department for their hard work. i am a member of the san francisco victorian alliance, and i wanted to just quickly share with you guys some site pictures and history of this site. so this right here is the current aerial of the site map. you can see where the site is, and then, you can see where the water reservoir is, and i'm going to put up a picture from 1932. this is a picture from 1932 of

carolina street. you can -- here's a picture of today, just of that same picture, and then, got a picture for you guys of what carolina near 22nd looked like in 1929, so you can see various earthquake shacks that are there on the far right-hand side and how they've been modified, the south view. this is one more picture of carolina street then and now. this is from 1932, and this is today. you can see the various earthquake shacks and victorians that were built there and how they were no longer there. this is one of the remaining historical assets of this area. there's been some talk around kind of what the definitive view of an earthquake shock is. this is a picture.

so the upper right hand corner is san francisco landmark 171. this is actually a miss torquely listed building for the city by planning commission resolution -- i think it was 9953, and you can see how it's been modified from what the historical classic earthquake shack looks like. the point that i want to make after quickly showing you those pictures is 1863 is one of the remaining earthquake shacks in this area, and it's currently listed by the planning department as a category c nonhistorical building, and i think there needs to be more further investigation to that. currently, i think the estimate is roughly 59,000 to rehabilitate the earthquake shack. that is far below cost that's legalizing an illegal planning. maybe it's some kind of

building the building and putting this in the set back or something, but further consideration needs to be made where this historical asset's gone, because once it's gone, it's gone. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. chris gardner, carolina street. i would like to speak to the residential design guidelines in terms of their being addressed for this project, the information that came through in your pact, a -- packet, and jonas, could you hand these to the commissioners for -- as exhibits. in the packet, under the housing element section, there is a -- a review by the planner

that says furthermore, the proposed new construction conforms to the residential design guidelines and is appropriate in terms of material, scale, proportions and massing for the surrounding neighborhood. i would like to talk about the fact that potrero hill is historical and it is extraordinary and exceptional, and the [ inaudible ]. >> you just need to speak into the mic. sorry. >> this is the cadence of the neighborhood, and the residential design guidelines in the design principle, the design of the building scale and form to be compatible with

that have surrounding buildings in order to preserve neighborhood character. this is a design principle that is one of the four in the residential design guidelines and also repeated in the housing element component of the planning department's guidances. the building scale should design the scale of the building to be compatible with the height and depth of surrounding buildings, and i encourage you to look at this -- the cadence of this, where you've got t roof, you've got flat roof, and you've got peaked roof, and coming here to katrina's house, and that is the line of sight to the skyline on this 800 block of the strip of potrero hill. and the overlay -- overlay of the new building would be such

that it would sit in this location, and this is to scale, and you can see that it is a whole story above the roof line of everything else, as well as the apertenances that take up a significant square footage in the building. so we would like you to reduce the height of this building. >> thank you, miss gardner. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner questions and comments. so, i mean, i'm happy to start on this. well, just a question on the -- i guess the earthquake shackedness of this property, to the staff.

so remind me of what you all kind of looked at and concluded on this. >> as part of the his tortoric evaluation that was submitted, an evaluation was submitted by left coast architectural history, our analysis team reviewed that as part of that analysis, and in that analysis from left coast, it was determined that the structure was not a historic earthquake shack. it didn't meet the dimentional point requirements, even with the additions, there were showing dimensions for a sweeping porch. >> in any of the information that was provided today or leading up to this hearing, did you all have a chance to review or do you think it's necessary to review? skbr i -- i mean, i'm not a

historic preservationist, so i have to rely on the information that was provided by the professionals, which left coast architectural history would be, so i -- i'm not qualified as a nonarchitectural his -- historyian. >> i think it's a bit jarring the way it's designed here. i don't have an issue necessarily with the architecture, but -- as a stand-alone building, but i just don't think it responds conceptually. i don't necessarily have a problem with the height, per se. i think the elevator penthouse and essentially, the roof deck, although it's hard to see from the street should go on this project. i don't think it's necessary to bring that elevator roof deck to the top floor, but even things like the third floor of the building, which is, like,

the bedroom floor for the -- for the new residents, it's set back. there is there's a terrace there, which emphasizes the building with the kind of the overhang. it's a little bit thick, that overhang, and just a large window on the first floor of -- of the first living floor. i just think it makes the building read bulkier and bigger. i think when you boil is down program atcally -- and we get this a lot. this is a legitimate two unit building. it's not a unit to stand behind the garage, which is what we've seen before. if we're going to have a two unit building, there's got to be room for two units, and i think this does program atcally

put in two units. it would be knenice to have th plans read as two units. i think we're interpreting some of the things built around this neighborhood as large single-family homes. it was interesting. i was up there recently, and it's a pretty eclectic mix of architecture, so while we hear there's not a lot of four story buildings, yeah, there's probably not a ton of them, but they're definitely there. i think the fact that it's two units, you know, would -- would make me amenable to a four story building. i just think it could be designed in a way that's a bit more respectful of the directly adjacent structures which are two floors and single-family homes and just make it feel

better on that street. so that's where i'm headed. be good to hear from other commissioners. and again, i don't hear the program or the size of it. i'd get rid of the elevator penthouse and kind of kick this back for a little more effort on the design to make it respectful of the buildings adjacent to it. but i think if we lop off a floor, we're at a large single-family home instead of a legitimate two unit building which i think is appropriate here. commissioner richards. >> so i'm a little bit confused. i'm really concerned about the historic preservation aspect of this. i'm trying to do research on this. i got the historic resource determination. i tried to google that book to find where is this cottage listed, if it's truly a refugee shack or refugee cottage, where is it listed?

so somebody finally handed in a portion of her book that shows 863 carolina street that says backing bungalow of unknown origin. and then, it talks about type a cottage, started investigating type a and b, and some were 14 by 18. so this is a cottage. we don't know the origin of it, but is there a process where somebody could say, yeah, it's bigger than an average cottage, but is it an a and a b put together, and this is what i'm concerned about is what do we have here? jane croix was kind of the expert on these cottages, and it's in her book, and there's something to this, but i don't know what. >> i was going to say commissioners, if i could

respond. >> sure. >> so my background is as a preservation planner specifically in this area of the city. staff used -- we have a document that outlines basically four types in general dimensions the earthquake shacks, and particularly when a property is being proposed for demolition, we will require historic resource evaluation, so in addition to this standard dimensions, you're typically looking for evidence of things like the original signing, original pink color, or they a are -- they were all painted forest green. we're looking to see if they were coupled together, which oftentimes, they were. they would couple the two shacks together, add a shack onto the back of the house. so from what i understand in terms of talking with the preservation planner who did the review, this would -- this

did not yield and staff agreed with the consultant determination that this was not a typical earthquake shack or earthquake shack by the definition that we currently have within our file. >> okay. and the reason why i was suspicious of it is there are earthquake shacks in my neighborhood that is listed in this cottages of unknown heritage. jane may have done a drive by, and that's my concern here, what do we have here? >> keep in mind, it might be an old building from the time frame, and potrero hill particularly had lots of older farmhouses and older structures that would have been of the same vintage of a typical shack or -- >> and one last question on this for the person from the victorian alliance in the back, please. can you come up? you handed in some -- you handed in a packet with photographs. what i'm trying to understand is how do you connect the

photograph of the earthquake shack to the one that you're saying is sitting on the subject property? >> so those photographs were sufficie just site pictures. i wasn't able to get a picture of the actual earthquake shack, but i was trying to demonstrate to the commissioners the various vicinity ajs of the earthquake shacks, and unfortunately, i was not able to give you a picture of this, but again, i'm just going to take you guys back to -- so the upper left-hand corner, that is an asset to san francisco for an earthquake shack. >> so i guess mr. -- thank you. >> mr. sucre, if we were to demolish that one on the upper left, staff would go through the same type of review, knowing there were only three or four types of floor plans, and they would jigger --

[ inaudible ] -- >> for example, in the plans shown there, it's pretty evident that the same basic form and dimension of the shack is evident even though they've added kind of the bay window on the front and they've changed the -- that same piece that kind of same gable form is pretty evident in the landmark example and likely was one of the rationales as why it was given landmark designation. it's typical of what we do when we do evaluations where we've had the camps, the earthquake camps. often times from that area, the refugee camps were established and then owners and neighbors were allowed to take them with them, and so you see them kind of popping up in random locations in the city as usually additions onto other

houses and so we have a process for examining that. >> okay. i could support commissioner hillis's -- what he outlined was acceptable to him on this project. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> could you repeat what you said? >> president hillis: i'm generally amenable to the project. i think the design of it just didn't really take into account where it sat on the block in adjacent to the two smaller buildings, so i mean i'd recommend kind of sending it back and working with the residential design team, taking off the -- the -- the -- you know, the roof top penthouse and just working on the -- the front of this building so it doesn't read as bulky and large, and you know also acc t accentuate the two entries. you've got the entry to the

unit as going up to -- kind of an initial internal stair. >> commissioner moore: let me take a crack at what you said. i think there were quite a few thoughts in there for that marriage to be thought about. the building raises a couple of other questions for me. it's not as much as where is the entrance to the unit. this is very european. you enter on one level. the garage level is not occupied, and you go up the vestibule to the two units. that is not as much of an issue for me, but i do not understand how two units in a residential building have the elevator basically end up in the inner part of each of these two units. that is not commonly done. the first elevator stop is on the unit of the mother, and it ends in the middle of the living room to go further up.

the elevator stops in the dining area, and then you go up one more level and you end up in the bedroom. it's all the same elevator with two different parties basically riding through each other's space to get to their respective units and then go up to the roof. that's a highly unusual arrangement because mostly, you have elevators coming through a vestibule which is a neutral area because there's no guarantee that this family would forever live in this building together. so that's number one. and the elevator unfortunately reduces the light well to the adjoining building to about 75%, and i believe that the elevator encroaches a little bit too much into that light well. that causes particularly privacy problems on level one where there is an indication for a common terrace with the stair which goes up stairs

being fully glazed, that you would look from the stair into the adjoining light rail and windows beyond. i think that is a big privacy issue and really doesn't work. as you go up and the building gets taller, obviously, by taking a light well only at 75% reduction, you're impacting the availability of light to the adjoining building, particularly because this building is taller. i personally believe that a couple of other questions -- i'm not sure if the architect is here. when the exiting stair from the roof deck comes to the roof deck, mostly when you exit, there has to be a landing before you go down. you don't open the door and just basically fall down the stairs. there has to be a landing off that door, and there's no indication that the surface of the elevator is separate -- you're agreeing with me -- that the surface on the elevator is really at a different level

because of water intrusion. you're not going to have water from the roof run right into the elevator -- at least your drawing doesn't show that. this is a little code issue. it's okay. i'm just talking to the commission. thank you. i don't think we allow fire pits on roof -- residential roof decks. perhaps mr. sucre, you can speak to that. there's a bunch of small questions that i have with the way that the plan's laid out, and it was kind of addressed earlier of how these units work with each other to ultimately be two independent functioning units regardless of who lives in there. it it's modality of what commissioner hillis raised. yes, i think the massing is a

little bit jarring because it is quite tall, and it does not really blend in a way that we would like it to blend. at a minimum, i would takeoff the roof deck and elevator access to the roof deck in order to constrain it a little bit more. and then, i think picking up on what you suggested, that staff works a little bit more with finishes and the materials would probably be something i would support, as well. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel. >> i'm kind of taking in all the comments, and i don't know if i'm ready to support the motion just yet. i would be amenable to taking off the elevator shack on the top, eliminating the roof deck altogether and working with the staff to kind of lessen the massing, especially on that top floor, seeing as the top two stories do have the majority of

the square footage that would kind of make those two units a little more equal on the square footage. i'm okay with the entrances on the ground floor, but again, because of the existing building being unsound, no displacement, and the two units, i'm okay with it. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: i guess question for commissioner moore. are you concerned that this would turn into a dumping space? >> commissioner moore: this is not how it's done when you potentially have two separate parties living in one building. you come to a vestibule, and i would encourage having a separate light well, and resolving that issue in that

way. >> vice president richards: and i think the bedroom on the second floor proposed floor plan, i guess it's the master of 15, 10 and 3/8 inches by 2033 feet. it's an over 500 square foot bedroom. it's huge, so i would direct staff to actually kind of bring the massing in, creating a little bit more compatiblity with the neighbors' buildings. so i'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the c with the conditions that the penthouse and the roof deck come off, the elevator is redesigned so that it becomes two independent places where the elevator actually drops off the passengers, and it's pulled back from the light well so that the light well's matching. >> so in other words, what i was going to say is having a matching light well, right? relocate the elevator and ensure that there's an appropriate vestibule on the

interior for the elevator. >> vice president richards: for living -- for two units, please. >> thank you for the opportunity to respond. on the elevator question, we've explored different ways of exiting that elevator in a way to create that vest besiibule you're talking about. we've found that there are small scale that require a key like you have a key to your house to allow you to get off on that floor. the idea is that this should be as accessible of dwelling as we can make it for seniors, for people with disabilities for people who have an ability to handle stairs. i think it's a real plus to housing the stock to create that, and to take the size necessary for a vestibule

outside of the elevator in each one of these floors is just too much living space to give up. >> that's a very good point, and i'll just make sure that staff -- the elevator that's used is a key component so that you can't have somebody going into somebody else's unit when they're not supposed to. i'll take that off. >> second. >> you had work on the facade? >> yes. so just to help clarify this a little bit in terms of -- so you want to reduce the massing on the street or is it more the fourth floor massing, because i think the hard part that's a little deceiving with the current design is that it has like a two story expression at the street face itself and then because it has this recessed balcony at the front, it seems a little deceiving with that heavy overhang, so in one sense it's almost easier and honest to keep a full three story

massing at the street face, which keeps in line with the existing building to a certain degree, but i don't know -- i just want to make sure -- >> president hillis: i leave that up to you and the residential design team. >> so we'll work with the residential design team. >> president hillis: look at the context of the adjacent building. i gueet there's larger buildin in this neighborhood, but we also have to respond to the immediate context. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion and second to approve this conditional use permit as amended to eliminate the penthouse and roof deck, to ensure that the elevator is keyed and entrances on appropriate floors, to provide a matching light well, reduce the massing and continue working on the facade with staff and the residential design team. on that motion.

[ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passed unanimously 5-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 14, 2230 third street. this is a large project authorization. >> good afternoon, president hillis and members of the commission. the project before you is requesting a large authorization for the demolition of a 5600 square foot light industrial building and the negate construction of a six story 4934 square foot

mixed use building that includes approximately 2,987 square feet of ground floor retail sales and service use and -- [ inaudible ] -- the proposed project would also include a 2,450 square foot ground floor garage where 15 accessible automobile spaces, 14 bicycle spaces and 3,360 square feet of roof top common open space. the project is located at an interior lot between 19th and 20th street in the dogpatch. the subject parcel has 80 linear feet of frontage along third street and is developed with a light industrial building that was constructed in 1946 and has been vacant since sept 2016. the immediate context

surrounding the project is mixed in character and includes a wide range of building types. heights and uses typically found in the urban mixed use district. there is a combination of commercial, mixed sexual and mixed commercial live work buildings on the surrounding block facing third street that range from one to six stories in height. adjacent to the property at 1601 is improved with a 13,851 two story former industrial building that is currently operating as a nighttime entertainment and restaurant uses. the property directly to the south contains an approximately 5,000 square foot two story light industrial building that is currently used as an artist's live-work space, according to city records. other properties that comprise the neighborhood include multifamily residential, public, pdr and small scale

neighborhood commercial transit oriented uses that cluster along 22nd street, with a wide third street median that includes the lifeline for the line. [ please stand by ]. >> -- that are otherwise restricted under section 483, however, to correct an erratum in your report, should a future office related use that is greater than 25,000 square feet occupy a portion or all of the

building, under code section 321, the tenant would be required to obtain an office development allocation from the commission. to date, the department has received one e-mail communication from a neighbor that inquired about the permitted uses for the project which has not received any communication in support of or objection to the project. however, the sponsor has hosted several meetings with the dogpatch neighborhood association, and they will share with you the out come of those meetings during their presentation. after analyzing all aspects of the project, the department staff finds that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and the central waterfront area plan. the project fully complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code and is not seeking any exceptions. it will add 2,987 feet of commercial and retail use, and

39,000 impair feet of medical and laboratory uses in an area that encourages these types of uses. the project is compatible with the existing historical neighborhood character. it proposes an appropriate massing form and scale for the subject lots and has a quality design in a will complement the rapidly changing environments in its central waterfront environment. the project complies with the first source housing hiring program, and finally, the project will fully utilize the eastern areas area plan controls and will pay the appropriate area impact development fees. based upon these findings and those described in the draft motion, which staff is proposing a modification to reflect the finding of condition of approval for the potential requirement to obtain an office development allocation in the future, department staff recommends approval of the large project authorization which conditions as amended. the project sponsor is present

and has prepared a presentation but this concludes staff's presentation, and i am available for questions. >> all right. thank you mr. vu. project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. hi name is mark de-34 ata, and my firm here is lbe certified firm with san francisco. we were -- we started this project almost five years ago. been working on it ever since. we've done a lot of work, seen and unseen within the community. we have he prepared a quick presentation showing a little bit of the -- what we tried to do with the project. so on-site -- currently on-site is the leal's tires, if you know that neighborhood. the project sponsor is the original owner of leal's tires, tom ryan, who's here today. we've worked with him a long time, and we're excited to push

this from his old business to new, so we've worked a lot with the udat team as well as the dogpatch neighborhood association to present to you a five or six story building. the arrangement is in such that it can be either a single occupant on a floor or two occupants on each floor. we set back the grount floor about 5 feet -- or set it back 5 feet for the neighborhood and giving more of the sidewalk -- sidewalk width. the storefront on the ground level is also additionally made higher at 21 feet high to again show that it's a commercial building. across the street, you'll find that the materials that we use is very similar to the materials across the street with the copper kind of

teracotta panel system that we are using on our building. we source all of the products, so we do know that it's available, and in short, that's our presentation. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. any public comment on this item? >> sue hester. i've been paying attention to office buildings in this city for a long time, and basically have not a concern about the architecture, but a concern about the conditions that you put on the project. i'm a little cynical about people claiming uses, and this use is claimed to be