mixed use. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. all right. we'll close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to have a clarification on the use designation on the rear lot, mr. dean or mr. -- >> the zoning map does clarify that it's rh-1 is, lot 007-b. that is staff's understanding. all of the tools and resources that staff uses to indicate its uses indicate it's rh-1. >> commissioner moore: where does the historic information that has been handed out to the gentleman, second d.r. requester. >> commissioners, david lindsey, department staff. i'm just looking at this the first time. this is a 1959 document. the zoning that's on the zoning

map is -- is since that date, so i'm assuming that the rh -- the residential zoning supersedes this, but i -- i would have to do that -- we would have to do that research. >> commissioner moore: i would like verification on that just to -- in particular because the project itself, while residential, i think it's a good idea in this area for me it personally leaves a lot of questions unanswered. i would agree with one of the d.r. requesters that the building in its current configuration has some information to better understand it is very aggressive. i'm wondering why we are requesting a 15 foot ground floor height fore the commercial portion with when all other more tracircumstanti traditional stores in this area have another retail clearance. this is really unusually and

create the proportionality of the building which i find really ugly. the first question i had is the question we raised a few months ago on another project. this is a site which can potentially go beyond its declared density. i believe that the rear lot properly designed could hold potentially three town house units of narrower widths but over depth by which the unit size on the inside looks to be very good. on the front, i believe that lowering the retail portion and perhaps leaving it open to the sky and creating what is not just a sidewalk and a drive with a roll up door, which is absolutely annoying for the people who live above when the 15 foot door goes up and down, it is noisy and makes that whole house shake. it's not just quite thought

through, and i would say that a shared space with an ability to look into the rear of the property was slightly more density in the rear could be a much better solution. we talked about that with the church property where we had five oversized units. i believe the units in the rear of the property, as far as the lot width are concerned are far larger than what the average units around there are doing, so i question that. i believe there's a lot of ambiguity. habits die hard. i have to believe that while this area in front of the rear unit is designated as fire lane, with the garage door closed, it will be useful parking. that is kind of like, unfortunately, the way people do things, that there could be a red fire lap and a hydrant, and people park no matter what.

it's reasonable to assume that people may need parking. buildings at this time are not designed with parking spaces, and that's why i believe the way that rear buildings are cited leave a lot open for interpretation even if it's currently lined as if you can't park there. i would like to see verification with two question

jardines. we have two lots and three

buildings. are they taking a lot split? >> yes. the rear lot is proposed for a subdivision, which is actually that's required -- the easements have already been recorded and included in your packets, and the city fire marshall and the director of dbi have signed off on those easements, so they're required to -- >> vice president richards: sure, sure. should we -- i think this is extraordinarily exception skbral the way this lot is configured. the question i have is could a building support it,

the director won't support it. the zoning administrator -- >> vice president richards: we'd still have three units, we'd have a bigger, weirder shaped lot with maybe no need fon an easement, but you still have a building that contains three units. >> you're talking about leaving the rear lot undeveloped. >> vice president richards: no, i'm talking about rezoning it nc-2 or rezoning it so the lots can be combined rather than split so you actually have the ability, i believe, without any hocus-pocus or bending the

planning code rules to still put three units on that lot. >> i believe you could merge the lots, right, and subdivide, and i don't know whether you would even have to have the rezoning. you can have a single lot that spans two different zoning -- >> vice president richards: so, and i think -- 'cause i think the easement's causing a lot of problems for me, and that, and pushing the buildings in the back. i think we need to look at this through a different lens. >> the -- i reference the zoning map before. the line between the nc district and the rh-1 district, it goes through the middle of these three lots. >> vice president richards: okay. >> i can show you the map again. you go over the line into the rh-1, you're limited to a single house. >> vice president richards: which is why i said, we've had people in your firm come in and request, any member of the public can request a rezoning of the lot, and i think what the commission direction that

you're already proposing through units with a subdivided lot, we could probably get around something that works with a rezoning of the back lot with a different way to reconfigure the building without the easement. >> well -- >> vice president richards: that's where i'm coming from. >> i appreciate your comments, i just don't think in terms of t the -- of increasing the density. >> president hillis: he didn't say increase the density. >> vice president richards: it's still three units the on nc portions, how many units is he allowed? on the rh, you're allowed one. so you're allowed four, and you're building three. >> no, there's three on leland and there's two additional on the rear, so we're five. >> vice president richards: okay. and if the whole thing was rezoned nc, you'd still be allowed more than four. >> we'd have to do the math.

>> vice president richards: i don't think we're ready to actually make a decision today. the other thing is i don't see 3-d drawings. this thing is almost impossible for me to try to figure out how it looks from the various angles. one of the d.r. requesters got up and marked it up. i really want to see 3-d drawings and then from the air to see, but i encourage you to go back and maximizing the midblock open space, not having the easement because you have the lot configured a different way, and trying to get as many units or more in. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: the project design, it's a level lot, and it has a grade difference in the rear of the property from front to back about 3 feet plus, i think that should be taken into consideration and appropriately dealt with in what we're seeing

here. at the moment that is not expressed in the drawings here, and it looks like a flat lot. you could do something here, but we need to see it. >> president hillis: so just on the easement, what is the -- is it fire that's requiring that? we've had -- let me ask staff first. you could -- >> correct, yeah. so the easement required coordination between the fire department, the department of building inspection and the project sponsor, and the city actually had to -- and the project sponsor can speak more to this -- it to be beneficiary to ensure that the easement would provide permanent access. >> president hillis: is the easement for -- to get your car back there, 'cause normally fire can't get through, it's not wide enough to get a fire truck. >> no, fire department can get through. that's why they had the easement. and also, the ladder. they have to have enough man hour to push and lift it

through, and they have a smaller truck. >> president hillis: but typically, we see fire truck east to 20 feet. if you have a fire lane in public space, it's not -- >> well, that's at the request of fire department. they want us to have that. that's what they requested in a preapp meeting. >> president hillis: but see, you had a meeting with us before where there's homes behind, and we don't have this big opening for a fire truck. >> well, that's what they requesting us -- on preapp meeting, we had that, so they want us to have it -- >> president hillis: are they requiring it or they just think it's a good idea. >> no. fire department forced us to create that opening so there would be no opening and just access for fire department. also, they want us to put the fire hose, run a fire -- undergroundwater goes on back there. >> president hillis: right, sure. i would imagine there's goes to be an easement and a way to get a hose back there, no doubt. but to get a truck back there,

that just doesn't seem like something we've encountered before. so i think we need to explore more with staff this project, you know, whatever the vehicle is to merge the two lots or not merge the two lots or do a zoning change or not do a zoning change. i don't have a problem with the density, and i didn't hear a ton of folks who did. granted, there could be a building in that midblock space, but it's kind of the way this lot is configured. it's a private lot. we're looking for housing. there's going to be some impact to the neighbors with a building there, but can we minimize it by designing it better, getting rid of the easement, getting rid of the parking in the back and having them access through a more

i guess, i want to acknowledge the other speaker, as well. this -- a good project here can lift this block up, and it can be contagious for the next block and the next block. i'm going to make a motion to continue this that alternatives be explored with the fire department that do not require an easement or an access, still maximizing the number of units by pulling the building as far to the leland side of the lot as possible. also, i think more -- i would love to see -- we need to see 3-d drawings, and also, i'd

love to see a material palate of exactly what you're going to be proposing for this building, because this could be a good turning point for this block. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to see attention paid to the feet clearance in the back of the lot, and also the requirement from the fire department which pushes this thing in kind of an awkward dimension. >> president hillis: all right. is there a second to commissioner richards' motion? >> second. >> clerk: would you like to pick a date specific? your next open agenda is may 3rd. >> okay. may 3rd. >> clerk: commissioners, there is a motion and a second to continue the item to may 3rd.

[ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. places you on item 17, record number 2016-014684, drp at 2622 to 2624 greenwich street, request for discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm david lindsey, department staff. before i begin, i'm going to mention that this discretionary review request was withdrawn around 1:15 this afternoon. i have the letter here. but because the -- at the last hearing, the commission gave direction on other aspects of the project that weren't related to the d.r., i thought i should give a brief presentation. the plans that you have in your packets reflect the revisions that were made to reflect the commission's direction.

so -- and they also satisfied the d.r. requester enough to withdraw her d.r. >> president hillis: they've addressed the concerns you heard at commission the last time, also. >> right. the commission had some concerns regarding the layout of the units and the design of the units, and the sponsor has addressed that. >> president hillis: let's see. is there any questions on there or does anybody want more detail on the changes being proposed? the d.r. was withdrawn. i don't know if anybody wants to comment publicly on this item. no, so everybody's left. >> if you wish to review the project as revised, you should -- you should take d.r. and approve the project with revisions. >> president hillis: and that was what the d.r. requester was

expecting, given that they've withdrawn this? >> well, the -- the d.r. requesters issues were a little different from what the planning commission's issues were with the project, so if you wish to put the commission's -- if you wish to put the revisions into place, you would need to take d.r. to do that. >> president hillis: all right. sorry. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: we had asked for a second unit, and the pay the plans are depicted on a-1 shows the existing situation with a completely different unit, square footage tbd. it does not mentioned revised plan shows a unit that is not completely separate as is required. it is actually as a stair now to the upper floor from the garage to the mud room, which is the entry corridor for the second unit, and that in itself does not work. so you see that, mr. lindsey?

>> are we looking at greenwich? >> commissioner moore: we are looking at what i think is greenwich -- no, i'm on the wrong building. sorry. my sheets got -- my sheets got turned around. i am so sorry. >> clerk: commissioners, if i could -- sorry, interrupt. at the last time we heard this hearing, president hillis was absent, and commissioner johnson was not yet appointed to this commission. in order to proceed, please acknowledge you reviewed the materials from the previous hearing. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. commissioner moore, do you have questions on this? >> commissioner moore: no. >> president hillis: so does someone want to make a motion and take d.r. as advised? commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: move to take d.r. and approve the project as revised.

>> second. >> clerk: commissioners, there is a motion and a second. one second...to take d.r. and approve the project as revised. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. >> president hillis: all right. >> clerk: places you on item 18. record number 2016-014004 drp at 2865 vallejo street, a request for discretionary review. >> good evening again, commissioners. david lindsey, department staff. the project at 2865 vallejo street includes interior renovations, a horizontal addition at the rear, and a new partial fourth story to be constructed above the three

story single-family house. the subject property is on the south side of vallejo street between baker and broderick in the cow hollow neighborhood. it occupies a streeply up sloping lot measuring 25 feet wide by 136.5 feet deep. the zoning is rh-1(d) for detached. the main front wall of the house is set back 39 feet from the main property line with a single story -- [please stand by for captioner switch]

concerns raised in the application are summarized as follows. >> inconsistent with the design guidelines. the project is out of scale with neighbouring buildings and would block views and violate privacy of neighbouring buildings and the project if approved would create a dangerous precedent for the neighbourhood. the residential developer considered the questions considered in the dr request and found that the four storey is appropriately set back from the house which is itself set back almost 40 feet from the street. it should be more visible from the lay out of the city.

it was noted that the four storey is -- to reinforce the nature of the site. the planning recommends that dr not approve the project as proposed. >> all right. welcome. you have five minutes. >> thank you. to be clear, there were 7 designers who signed the application. they are listed in the application. it was several of the neighbours. we are curious as to how much time we have. >> there is one dealer. there were 7 neighbours listed on it. >> you needed to file 7. >> 5 minutes. for the project sponsors. >> i will take two and three and turn it over.

>> we will take public comment. they cannot speak as signatories. >> i will proceed the best i can. you have five minutes. >> thank you for your time and service. i am here to request that you approve the project contrary to what you heard, it is a fifth storey edition on a four storey building they first storey is a full storey garage that goes to the back of the hill. three storeys over a full a non-attached garage. we disagree with the conclusions. we believe the upper floor addition will be massively visible from the street and that the project failed to comply to the design pertaining to the street. i am dismayed by the lack of clarity and the deflection at

hand. the lack of judgment from the upheld -- and ignored the effect on the street neighbours on the streets. contrary to the assertions, the project does not comply with the guidelines, why did the cha file an objection and state the project should not be approved as drawn. i will show you a sketch here. the front of the street. the project is set back. the 12 storey glass is so large that it would be highly visible and disruptive. these guidelines require a proposal to respect the patterns. and i quote, the neighbourhood is characterized. they require a design that is consistent and consistent to the

building style. and strong repetition of consistent roof line calls for a similar design for new construction and alteration. this towering glass box addition would be an architecture aberration in our community. it does not require a variance. it is at variance with the neighbou neighbourhood. i would li >> we have here -- pull the microphone, we have five people who want to speak tonight. the fact that -- am i going to understand them to limit them not to speak. >> the dr requires this is the time you have to speak. i am john cruz.

this is what they plan to build. my focus is the structure here, the town hall neighbourhood design guidelines in respect of the scale of the building and the new block roof line. page 37 of the guidelines entitled scale contains this image over there, it shows something is out of proportion to the neighbours. this is a poster child for an up scale building. it violates the guidelines. there was a rendering to support the claim that it was visible from the street. it is inaccurate and misleading. it is just false. and this is the correct rendering. this is a direct view of the street too. it is the very best case and

look -- the situation is worse as you move down the street from anything other than an angle. they said in the response to the request that the rendering was incorrect and presented an exhibit d. it supports the version of what i drew. check out in the picture, how much taller the building is. it is a full storey -- more than a full storey taller. and provided multiple other analogies to show the rendering is correct. it will tell the scene from any

angle. this is a five storey house. and that was the subject of a multi-year construction project that was completed years ago. >> that is your time. you have a two minute rebuttal. >> we are taking public comment from those in support of the dr. >> [indiscernible] >> you are part of the dr. before you said they were dr

requesters. if we have one dr, we have one dr. two minutes public comment. in support of the dr. i mean technically, you will get five minutes. separate dr requesters, we will make a change to allow people to speak for two minutes. those are the rules. >> i am lorraine. i resided at 2878 for 35 years. i am a native born san francisco. for 15 years i lived in singapore. adding a fifth floor to this home would be visibly and physically incompatible with the

other homes on the south side of the street. in addition expanding the height of the home could have a negative impact on the homes on broadway behind it. they are adjacent and they would -- this would block the light and views of possibly larry elson's home. i hope they received their notices. the character of the neighbourhood should be respected as well as the neighbourhood design guidelines. to would be unfortunate to allow this project to set a precedent. >> i am a neighbour on the west

side. i would like to mention what is the effect on the light, the ambient light. when i walk out the back side of my house, there is a living level and bedroom level, and the third floor. it is critical to what this drawing would do. when i walk out in the garden, right now there is a 36 foot wall because of the houses against each other. this is 20 feet up to here. you see how high that is.

we will add 12 feet. by that time, i get no light or sky view. the other thing is when i go to the third floor where i have the partial build out, these two houses were built very interestingly designed ways. i have been there 16 years. what they did is they made a little -- i look out that partial build out on the flat area. they did a 7 foot inset. and then they slant it down to a fake roof and shingle on it back to the side of the wall. that happens to give a divide visually between their front wall because they started further back up the property. i start on the street. they are looking right into my window except that we have a

little wall. if they turn around and put another 12 foot -- in there. the windows facing west -- 20 feet from my window. on the top floor. it would be above that. . >> thank you. >> we have come together to oppose the project. we are opposed to construction. this had to be something special. the architects state it would not block the view of the neighbours. they forget the other neighbours. the brown family who could not be there and they submitted

complaints about this. and their concerns should not be casually dismissed. there are guidelines. one thing is the hallmark of san francisco. there should be no exceptions. also, it is already a four storey house. fight claims it is a three storey house with a garage. this is the subject of millions of dollars -- a lot of construction over the past decade. every four years, closer to five or six, it starts and stops. it is a pristine house. essentially a brand new house and no way is it described as a fixer upper. for whatever they gain it will be short-lived. everyone else there do the same thing...

that will do nothing for the neighbourhood for the population density. >> additional public comment in support of the dr? none. the project sponsor. you have five minutes. the commissioners. >> i am lewis butler. i am going to go out of order with my presentation and deal with a precedent first. this is something i hear about a lot. the project does not establish a precedent. everyone of the houses on the block is different. everyone has to be addressed in a specific way. i will show you that. precedent is used in a uniform way. it is a difficult thing about

the concept in san francisco in the neighbourhood like here. here is the context all are behind the great wall of broadway. the houses are above 40 feet. some extend to the northern property line. the context of the block is anyone in the shadow of the broadway houses -- it is not a bad thing. it is what it is. the lot is sloping. really of the subject property is a natural shape that is what -- that is the actual kind of valley and we are in the dip of the valley. if you look at the overall context of the neighbourhood, we are in a low spot. you don't see that when you are walking outside the house. that is the case. if you look at the next slide, this is another view showing a wall of the broadway houses.

believe me those people on broadway know how to find me. if they had a complaint they would let me know. the subject property is here. you can see there are similar additions here, here, here, and very few can be seen -- ours can be seen less than all of them. what we will talk about is the use of section 261. again, in development. you can see it was developed on a two-third, one-third different styles. you have the type of development that was talked about the most, the set back. you have the houses right on the street. and then you have the plain right here. this slope plain is important because we can't have in front of our house, we can add behind the house. these houses cannot add anywhere. we can add because of section

261. it will be demonstrated in a second. and these last five houses are hard on the street. this block is difficult. the slope is difficult. you get combinations of houses that exceed the height. and actually go into the yard. we are lucky, it is compliant as it is. we are adding the vertical addition, that is the right way to fit in. i know vertical additions are not the right way to fit in. these are correct perspectives. we use technology that loses correct perspectives. we double-check them. we don't want to be caught portraying something that is not right. you notice the penthouse on the drawing on the right does not exceed the getes house. that is the perspective. you see the addition barely shows above the roof. on the facade.

and here it is a non-issue. the houses are right on the street. you can't see what we are doing at all. a context of what it is like in the back. these are taken from the level -- our addition is in the sub basement from the broadway houses. just for an example, that is a basement. that is a basement. that is a sub basement. we are down in here. the height difference here is important. the next graphic. this is the one that basically -- the building department definition of story count. actually by building permit definition, this is categorized as the basement. we are three storeys in the basement and you have the garage, the one place where the garbage sneaks up to the rest of the house. it creates the five storey situation. it is a small aspect of the back that allows an elevator to go up three storeys. basically we have a three storey

of the basement house. behind the garage. i will skip this and you know the addition. this is interesting graphic. in march, there are issues. in june, it is worse. this is particularly interesting, the profiles are houses up and down the block. this is the actual height limit that applies. we are the property with the green addition. you can see the height limit. you can see where the other houses on the block sit. >> thank you. public comment in support of the project? seeing none. thank you. >> it is a five storey addition or it is not. it goes five storeys up.

two storeys over. there is an attached garage. you can see it is over. we ask for a conference. we asked for -- this is a new outreach in the community. unfortunately with the initial meetings held, either it was ignored. nothing happened. the board member left the board and dropped the matter. as you can see it is suggested the project not be approved. this is their checklist. it is no up and down the line. it is in your file. this is a 49 foot house. a 40 yard neighbourhood. thank you. >> i would like to put more quota on the issue of whether the rendering is correct. it is not correct. i think that there is an easy

way to reself. with poles or with a 3d drawing. one quick image shows in their rendering you can see the it is below the chimney. the chimney that exist there is 6 feet tall. the same set back and perspective. in fact there is a 4 foot railing at the same spot. you are going to see the rail g railing. thank you. 25 seconds. >> okay. well, i just say that this project either be rejected or continued pending verification of the materials they provided. and i think that that is our presentation. >> project sponsor.

2 minutes. >> as everyone knows the project to get to this point, the design guidelines [indiscernible] and has been through the rdt many times. the people know what is correct or incorrect about the project. i will put the rendering back. the maximum impact. he and i talked. bob said nothing is the answer to the problem. my approach recently and i made this a few days ago, i decided i would -- and keith had the reaction, the neighbour to the answer, nothing is the answer. it is hard to establish a dialogue is nothing is what you have to work with. a week ago i thought you settled

it. the neighbours together had been affect on one another and we talked a lot. we resolved it. it was a very effective dynamic way to end. short of not being here at all. in this case, i am trying to be creative and understand the nuances on the block and how to build correctly and the opposition has said to me nothing is the answer. the project adds a bedroom to a two bedroom house. it is not large. it is not larger than the context of the neighbourhood. i think it deals with that slip plain situation we have. the project also only affects one neighbour. and that is to the west. he rejected my overtures to try to figure out a compromise. >> all right. thank you. we will close this portion.

the commissioners comments and questions. >> one question. you listed the questions. does anyone from the broadway side which typically when you have the situations it is someone from the rear of the yard especially on the uphill side would be affected mostly. >> i think it was pointed out 8 feet above does not effect the people, they would be looking down to a different roof line. >> if it was in consideration because the direct complaint is coming from the west. from keith. to bring it in for narrow or give him a little more cushion to the front door. there is that tall wall.

i asked the neighbour to the west. removing the third floor to the east. >> that was specifically what i suggested three days ago when i opened communications and did not receive anything, any positive feedback. >> there was some consideration. it was a setback in the previous architect made attempts to cushion some of the wall effect. >> i would be open to that. it doesn't take much. that is what i was trying to get to. >> this particular block in san francisco had more construction on it in the past 25 years than any other part of the city. i think that is kind of the normal, it seems when there is turn over or a new owner, they take pride in putting their own sample on their homes.

it is a beautiful block. >> between the visualization from [indiscernible] by the dr. you are claiming that you are saying that using different tools, i am not sure what your point is, including the high level -- if i sit on the pavement i will not see it. if i stand 6 foot tall i will see it. if i am in the front yard of the adjoining street i will -- can you explain that more clearly and the interpretation of what you can see. >> you can see in the section, this is a person standing on the north side of the street looking at the project. we have city surveys of the

property. we have computers that input all this data. we have worked it over many times. this is exactly what you see. what you see in the alternative rendering and i am sure there will be an argument from their side is that the viewpoint of the person is elevated. the minute you elevate the viewpoint, that will break... >> this is a drawing section. your elevation, your photographic front elevations, do they take the same point of view? >> yes, consistently down the block, all three that you saw. that is the same position of where the person is standing. >> mathematically so. >> commissioner? >> this is not our typical ground floor. the house is pretty large to begin it.

comparatively, the new addition is small and modest compared to the size of the houses in the neighbourhood. the houses are a setback. the only way to expand is go up. i think the addition is well hidden from the street level. and it does have 15 foot fence. >> 19. >> and that looking at that site section b drawing, the entire house is literally stepping up the hill. i just see the addition as being too much seeing it is at the back house. taking into account that the height different betweens broadway, typically we get a dr from the rear yard neighbour. and then in the packet it says

under the commission dr, the project would not be referred to the commission if the project does not meet extraordinary circumstances. that's correct. >> on rendering. it was showed that it can be a reference point. >> yes. >> can you explain that -- the rendering showed -- it shows your building, your addition -- at least a foot. you are seated right now in the left rendering, it shows a chimney that goes to the gutter of the house behind. the right rendering we take the chimney down. >> that chimney is in the same

place. >> i don't think that is correct. the only way to resolve that is have all parties and surveyors get in the same room. we don't mess around when it comes to surveys and heights and perspectives. >> that is 17 feet back. >> i think that is an issue. >> it was indicated that was in the same location as the front yard addition. >> all right. i get it. thank you. i think it is not where the -- the commissioner, i think the impact is mostly to the gentleman within the house to

the west. what was your offer to try to mitigate the impact? i don't think this is an extraordinary case. i don't see why it takes -- offer something neighbourly to the person to the west because of the way your house is set back and comes forward to mitigate that. what was the proposal >> 6 months of the year, it seems to me that we could render to almost 0 if we set the wall back 18 inches from the west side. >> a foot is a bad building detail. >> to be neighbourly to the person to the west. >> why not take him up in the offer and sit down and make sure we have the data and we come to an agreement whether it is 18

inches or whatever. why not be neighbourly that way. >> if i felt like it was -- i would have, it was not presented that way. it was presented as a baby roof deck. storey poles. that is not an attractive offer. for me, i would like to go to the affected person and deal with the person. i think the storey poles, i have to reiterate this project really affects one person. the person on the east is not affected. i talked to her. she is fine. i don't think the storey poles -- is the correct resolution to the problem. i will take that. commissioner. >> i was -- i would like to it

worked out in a comprehensive way. i would like to see eye-to-eye. i changes to the street are significant. i work a lot of projects in the streets. i see the slow transformation. these are smaller than the broadway houses when you look. one broadway lot is about 3 buildings. there is a different dynamic on the broadway folks. but across the street do have a lot to do with each other. and it affects the way the street is. i would like to have a better

understanding. we cannot say it has to be visible. i would like to have a better feeling that everybody understands you see and don't see. >> i stand behind my comments and i would support it. approve the project with the offer of 18 inch additional set back on the side. >> i would be supportive of the motion. if i heard more from the dr request where they wanted to go and there are a lot of proposals to mitigate the concerns. it was why. i would like to -- 18 inches.

the motion. >> i am supporting the motion. i am not -- i didn't hear from the dr. i have a motion that they had a proposal. >> i support the motion if we just found out via the technology whatever, 10-15 inches, the offer to mitigate the shadow. if it is 2 feet, 1 foot. minimize the impact to the neighbour to the west. let's take you up on that. i think working with staff on whatever that is... . >> the shadow study and it comes to 45 minutes a day between 10 and 11 a.m. for five months of the year between march and september. and it is a very minimal. it is a minimal