did we think from an urban design standpoint, two towers were preferable? yes, we did. there are other urban design guidelines in every project that we think are preferable. the question is, from a feasibility standpoint and a political standpoint, quite frankly that it makes sense to pursue a project which did not -- which was ultimately rejected by the project spon r sponsor. >> commissioner richards: okay. >> and i think to the point, i think it's fair to say that the number of units could be the same, but it's also -- i mean, it's simply a fact that it would be less square foot age. >> president hillis: do we know by how much? >> you're taking out less square footage out today and it would be less than in the proposal. >> commissioner richards: so i guess the question would be, what is the process for determining feasibility and where does it lie in the

planning code? i think somebody has to question, what kind of commission do we want to be? when this building gets built and i'm walking down main street, and i go in the courtyard at the bay crest, if they let me in, and i go around the building, i want to go wow, that was a decision that i'm proud of, and the current structure, the way it is, i'm not there yet. so how does that work? you know, i'm here for good urban design, good projects. i think the director mentioned the political thing. i think if theis were to get appealed to the board, that would go to the politics. i want to try to keep politics out of this decision. >> we do try to push -- udat is one function of the department that looks at things with a specific eye towards urban design. that's not the only thing that goes into a project. you know, i mentioned there is a pragmatic sense. even those feasibility is not

in our code, we do have to take it into account in a general sense. either there is a project that we want and support ultimately, although it may not be perfect, then we have to make that decision. >> commissioner richards: i think it would be more comfortable from a feasibility point of view if you knew it was much less feasible. i know there's a finger in the wind, here's this, here's that. if you really want to take feasibility, and we want to get a project built here. there's no question about it. we want to get a good project, i would rather see something rather than them telling me. >> well, commissioners, just keep in mind, this is part of how we have to work with applicants. there does have to be a certain amount of trust built up with the applicant, especially over a course of time. as david mentioned, david and udat, we do look at design, right, and they're looking at it from a pretty narrow

perspective. we could provide alternatives to an applicant and do try to push them to create a project that helps meet either more of a better urban design intent towards lesser in principle or push them to basically think outside of what they have basically been showing us. to a certain agree is once they've helped prove that they -- it's not feasible, and we do know certain things like adding additional elevators, for example, is something that ends up being very costly for a project, but do we need to see a profo forma that then gets factored into our decision? we have general ideas -- >> commissioner richards: very good. i want to hear what other commissioners feel. >> i think in addition to what david said, the constraint the site has being a slender, rectangular parcel, our design review direction started -- basically, it took shape based

upon what took place previously. the board of supervisors are previously approved an appeal by -- by the planning commission, which actually approved the project and directed the department or the project sponsor to study a couple of environmental issues, one of them being air quality. so that sponsor at the time decided not to move forward. when this sponsor picked up the project, the sponsor was aware that these issues still remained. so that was one of the key sort of issues that sort of drove this project, and when we began this project, you know, we made the assumption that okay, obviously, a two tower design would minimize, you know, any air circulation impacts, and so that's what we started with. but as the project progressed, we obtains information from the air quality consultant and from our environmental planning staff that ultimately, the proposal that was before us

would not have any significant impacts to air quality. in fact, limichael lee from ou air quality division is here, and he can explain that in further detail. the guidelines that the city uses, they are the most stringent, and because the project is in an exposure zone, the thresholds for, you know, toxic air contaminatants and that, they're at extremely throw thresholds. even with that here, they don't even come close to meeting those. that was why we decided to move forward with the two tower alternative that we were so in favor of in the beginning. >> president hillis: is the project sponsor here? to me, it's the impact. we're going to lose square

footage -- is mr. winslow here? jonas, can you hand that up and put that on the overhead? maybe you can walk-through -- this is where i'm having a hard time. if we can build something that opens up that middle section and gets the same number of units and same quantity of units, i think we should know that, because that would be the most friendly to the neighbor -- to me, i want to be a planning commission that actually builds housing. so if we're losing units, i think we have to know how many units we're losing. i don't think the issue is two more elevators or two more stairs. it's how many units you lose from that in what's then the best neighborly --

[inaudible] >> president hillis: but i think that's the most important thing of one of those buildings. [inaudible] >> so from our analysis, it not only reduced the gross square footage that was possible, so there's a smaller project, but because you're adding an additional elevator core and two additional staircases, it also reduces the efficiency, so the overall net that's available for the units is down significantly, and that's where we get into loss of units. it also means that 50% of the units in this configuration would be noncompliant for light exposure. >> president hillis: where would those units be? >> well, all of the units facing into the courtyard that's residual, and also the two bedroom units that's facing only onto the lot line would be noncompliant. >> president hillis: can sfgov go to the overhead for a

second? >> so in this case, all of these units and half of these units -- so all of the units on the second floor plan would not be compliant. these units would be facing just a 30 foot in a courtyard, and this unit would be facing just a lot line with this small -- again, in a courtyard, which would be noncompliant. [inaudible] >> commissioner richards: please. sorry. [inaudible] >> commissioner richards: can you speak into the mic? >> sorry. so this is the site plan. the floor plan you were looking at is this building right here, or this building. it's a mirror image. this is the middle. this is the 30 foot rear yard for that lot. this is the other 30 foot rear yard. that's 60 foot of width. that's more than the required rear yard.

this is street frontage. this is street frontage. this is the side that would require exception to exposure. this is the floor plan -- typical upper floor plan. >> president hillis: okay. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have been listening. i was not here at the march 29 meeting, and it's very interesting to hear a number of somewhat incongruent statements standing in the room, and i want to ask for clarification. the first one is, in the staff report on page three, for today, i see that the planning commission is supposed to grant an exception on lot mergers, which coincidentally, supports architect winslow's exposure comment he just made a few minutes ago. so there are two exceptions. one is a dwelling unit exposure, and on page three, we are also asked to grant a lot

merger, two very important considerations when it comes to looking at one tower, which assumes that the lot merger's granted, versus following through with the request for two buildings and the study of two buildings and to see if they'll work. again, i'm just speaking, i'm not asking -- >> oh, i just wanted to make a clarification that for this particular zoning district in the r.e.d. d.n.x., the lot mergers don't require an

exception. >> i think if we want to do

the -- existing and proposed future housing commission need to look at both sides of the equation. and that means, again -- and i'm quoting what planning told us today, financial feasibility is not a criteria in the planning code. that means if i want what i want, and i want it at a certain price, it may not be what i can get, and that's when the whole equation changes. and that raises the question whether the site is velable at the expectation that the -- developable at the expectation that the developer has in the current slot. i believe the current problems that are being presented to go by the 280 unit bay crest are as important for us to consider in terms of future liveability for people who have lived there since 1990. any of us could live there, by the way, and looking ahead for people who will be the future neighbors in a building that i personally believe has too much exposure to freeway, is next to

a large -- which future development is not known, and that is caltrans. caltrans is a state agency, and they may forever sit on their paint pots and not do anything, or they may all of a sudden say oh, my retirement requires that i sell the site and have somebody else, some retirement fund build a major building there, and then, the problem is basically pushed into the next parcel for those people who will be living in what is at this moment a nice building. but the building, as far as i'm concerns, with all the contradictions i've heard, doesn't quite fit. i want to go to -- and i am only sitting here, listening to what i've heard today, nothing

else. there was another alternative proposed where the developer couldn't bring forward what the department had asked. that wasn't satisfactory, only to conclude that the department recommends approval. those things don't quite stack up for me if i'm really pragmatic. i don't understand how you can ask for three negatives and then ask for approval. that means support from us. so i have many unanswered questions, particular to what was said today, particular to some of the issues that are clearly reported in the report and not met relative to what the developer asked, including what the commission said on march 29. and i know you were really struggling to find an answer, it just might not be what we've

seen today. >> commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: i think it's safe to say we all want housing on this site. i want housing on this site. we don't want to necessarily just chop units. i don't want to chop units. i very clearly backed those statements up with what i said at last time's hearing. i suggested a flipping of the building 180°. is that even possible, rotating? >> we had even proposed that idea early on in the preview process, and i'm going to let the -- that question be deferred to the project sponsor, i believe, because they have the better, more thoughtful answer. >> yeah. we did study that early on. the bay crest building has a fairly high podium, and the

challenge with flipping the orientation, if i just pull up this, this shows what would happen if the flipped orientation, so you can see the first three really four -- the first three floors would be essentially looking into just that 25 foot narrow space. it also -- yeah, it also means that we'd have to have a lot more lot line windows in the whole project. >> commissioner koppel: but it is technically possible. i mean, it would be legally allowed by the code. >> commissioner richards: would we need an exception? >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: something i'm still struggling with, the level of code compliance when the architect

said, well, the two buildings requires more exceptions because of the way the windows face and all that. can you comment on that? >> represent the question. >> commissioner richards: so i just want to understand. the current building requires how many requiremenunits to ge exception, the two buildings requires how many units to get an exception, and the flip version requires how many units to get an exception. >> a code complying rear yard requires no exposure exception. >> commissioner richards: so there'd only be one unit that would require -- >> one unit on a typical floor, and that would be the one that's facing an interior light well or side lot line rimpds richards got it. and that would be how many. number of floors times... >> president hillis: 18. >> commissioner richards: and

the current plan requires how many exceptions, mr. vu. >> 62 units, and to answer your question regarding what would change if we were to flip the building 180°, it would remain exactly the same because we use the property's boundaries to make that determination. >> commissioner richards: so if we flip the building, we'd have an eight -- >> president hillis: no, 62 lots. >> it would still remain 62. flipping the building 180° does not affect -- >> commissioner richards: okay. so 62 currently, and eight, so it's down 50 something. the question i have is miraculously, if caltrans sold me that lot next door, and i wanted to do an 85 foot building, and i'm going to put an 85 foot wall, and you're going to have your horseshoe facing the wall, wouldn't you

be here saying the same thing? >> we had about a 2.5 year relationship with caltrans to try to free up that site to try to assemble it as part of a bigger development on this site. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> these windows are now boarded up or braked over and there is no setback. if we were afforded the same opportunity of setting the building back off 5 feet to allow air into the windows of this unit's cat that would be a further reduction off of the 20,000 out be lost for losing the centre part of the building. >> when i met with the baycrest folks yesterday they were okay, the five that i met with with boarding up those windows to save the courtyard. >> where those five the owners? >> they are in the room today. >> but where they the owner of the windows in that column? >> yes. the only view they really get off this bedroom windows is on the side where the building would be. if you are looking at a wall, a 5-foot setback where you would have your window, basically.

>> that was one of the early concessions as part of this project and meeting with the neighbours and hearing them out. that was one of the early things. we don't want our lot line windows boarded up. that was the initial move was to move the building off the plot line by 5 feet to allow to preserve that. if something was said differently, then, you know, maybe the reviews have changed. >> okay. >> i apologize, i'm a little, you know, i met with him myself and i met with the developer on this for a couple days ago. i'm not getting a clear answer, and i kind of luck to the department more to give me an answer on this. if i want to maximize housing on the site, you talk about an amazing the impact. i think the impact is a bit overblown. just because that courtyard would be, if you had this entire parcel today and built that courtyard the way it would be now, it is a code compliant, everybody gets the right amount

in the over averaged or, you know, the exposure. i mean if we all did this project in these two parcels, we would build a courtyard that is blocked on every side of that parcel. but we have to respond to what's there. and so, you know, i think before i went down the path of minimizing that impact to baycrest by adding notches and openings which i don't believe are necessary for it to be code compliant or to even keep the units at baycrest co. compliant and havcomplaintand have the ex. i think our important neighbourly gesture. i like generally where that went by the question that remains unanswered and when i visited the folks there they told me, you can build the same number of units, which i think it defied logic on the 85-foot two tower alternative. you can build the same number of units.

whether that means rebuilding studios and two bedrooms, we have to compare apples to apples on this to have the same percentage of two bedrooms and one bedrooms and the same size units. the developers tell us they will lose units. which to me, is what affects these abilities and an additional elevator court is absorbable although costly into this. so to me, that is what i want to know. like how many units are we going to lose by being even more neighbourly and opening up that back corridor? i guess that's where i don't have a clear answer, which i would have expected that kind of analysis to have been done by any party here and verified. so that's why i'm having a hard time figuring this out. i generally like where the notches going. i'd like to see it comply with some of the plans and recommendations that it is bigger.

because i think, you know, i was out there, certainly the courtyard is going to be impacted. every week we face projects where we will impact neighbours. we are not promising that there won't be any impact but it is a large courtyard that we don't see that side of the courtyard, you know, in most developments around the city these days. you can look at an overhead of this neighbourhood and it goes back to the bay bridge and there's courtyards that are surrounded on all sides that are smaller where exposure is. i want to know, how many units would be sacrificed by a kind of being even more neighbourly >> commissioners, the only way to figure out if you could get an equal amount is to have a design competition on the side is a very challenging size. but when you're like generally at the pairing of building forums in the original plan, you do see that most buildings are trying to

deal with courtyards either turning them sideways to match adjoining properties, or a deal with them in a form that each of them has a courtyard. that is kind of like when you look at the plan as a complete open design piece, and as an adopted document, it is difficult but it can be done. look at the large courtyard surrounding the redevelopment project of the golden gate way. that is all courtyard and upper level terraces with buildings and notched with each other in order to create equal exposure for everybody. that is the same attempt with increased density here in the plan. and i think this building cactus by making it starts to break the pattern to the extent that it causes a reaction that we are hearing today. i mean, we couldn't stand this building offer a design competition and ask it be

designed with the idea of two towers on two separate lots and i think it can be done. and as to whether or not there is a cost increase, i cannot say. the construction cost and sliding up and down situation no matter what we do. and there is really no answer that we could resolve that. i would like to see an answer but i don't think i can drive what we do here today. >> i think it does drive, i mean, every week we grapple with how many units and we've talked about we have got it under the current zoning and we could build hundreds of thousands of units in the city, but if we keep saying, i don't think that's a good outcome, especially when i don't think, i do believe it is an impact for the neighbours but i think we can minimize that impact without eliminating 20 units. >> if i may finish my sentence, we also have a question, how come that and 84-foot height limit we have for nine floors?

that is a question many people have raised to me. i won't get into that but everybody wants more and more and the basic rule is how do you play by the rules and by the conditions that dictate the development of the site? and how many exceptions do you want to plan and at whose expense? and in the end, the exception we grabbed ultimately fall on us in terms of how we ultimately affect the quality of life of the projects. how will i feel when i walked down that street in a few years in the building is built and it's not coming out of the way i hope it would be. >> commissioner richards: oh, completely degree. if we understood that a total building design would not illuminate any unit count, i'd be much happier having that piece of information to make a decision then - 26 or the impact of zero or plus or - a few. we have a he said she said situation.

and so we can't set out here and say i will pick navy or i'll pick the architect for the budget sponsor and make a decision. because who is right? >> commissioner koppel: do you want to answer that? you could put the same number down. it's a question of... that's unlikely. you're losing square footage. there is no question. about 15 towers deep because you're taking a part of the building in the middle. i don't think there's any question. i think you end up with smaller units but you get the same numbers. and i guess, it is a question of how the commission wants to approach this, right? if you believe that the number of units is what's important, i understand that. that would be the way to go. >> it is a balance of the desi

design. one of those answers, we don't quite have the. i believe you are right. it is a lot of square footage. you just don't know what that translates into units. certainly a notch is a lot of units in, you know, we are kind of saying that would be good. we to tolerate thos tolerate thf units being lost. for good neighbourly urban design. >> commissioner koppel: i was just going to say something pretty similar. at the end of the day, it is a trade-off. the moves that we make to separate the tower causes other moves that, you know, the community might be against in terms of privacy and in terms of unit organization. every time we do a nip and tuck or, you know, command to the developer to do something along those lines, it spins off into another issue that, you know, is not going to be pleased. the relative to the range of, you know, alternate alternatives

that we've looked at, you know, we have kind of tried to push to explore, you know, this two towers scheme. regardless of how many actual units are being built at the end of the day. the fact that we have to grant an exception of some kind, given our narrow charge with the exposure rules, we are building more units than you could build currently in a baseline project, right? regardless of whatever scheme, we know that more units will be built. i think the question becomes, how many more do end up being built and then how do you appropriately mitigate the impact given the community's concerns with the adjacent buildings and then still provide for what is a viable development at the end of the day? it's a hard question. >> commissioner koppel: i do understand the fact that they are asking a requirement of a two tower design would incredibly increase the cost. i do for a fact understand you do need to be able to have an

extra elevator shaft and extra stairwells. is there a way, i am just asking, if there is a way to continue and expand the notch idea while potentially giving up zoning and heights? i don't think the neighbours are concerned with the height of the building. is just the fact that they are beer, there courtyard is being blocked. is there a way, while not making it a two building project, to kind of meet halfway? because again i'm not trying to get rid of any units, i'm trying to, you know, not find the sweet spot here. >> this is where the department has come forward with a compromise. the notches was our halfway point. i think, the original version provided by the developer, we didn't think you moved far enough. so that's why we recommended for the 45-foot gap rather than the 30-foot one to help, basically push for more and maximize more area into their.

>> any increase of height would require legislation, just to be clear. >> commissioner johnson: i have met with the project sponsor. i have met with the baycrest neighbourhoods. thank you so much for welcoming me into your home and to get to see the view of the courtyard that you are trying to protect. there are many issues that my fellow commissioners have brought up. ideally, we would love to have a two building design that didn't lose any units. we have to work with some of the material that we have and a couple of unknowns and make the best decisions from there. we can't make decisions based off of what another project sponsor might do or design should do in the future. we have a limited understanding of the feasibility beyond what the project sponsor tells us. and so the questions before us

are one, what is the impact on the neighbours, on baycrest and how can we mitigate those impacts? and the materials that we have to work with or around that, added to the environmental study and trying to find a neighbourly way to change the plans that were submitted which is what we've done. and then the second is to try to get as many minutes as possible. my biggest frustration with us but this conversation as we don't have the right tools to really understand feasibility. we kind of have to take it on the project sponsor process worried and that is not a great tool for us to make decisions. at the same time, if a project ultimately doesn't, isn't feasible, then we are making design decisions or decisions and, you know, in a vacuum. that's not the right way to make important land-use decisions.

so, i'm frustrated by this conversation. >> commissioner fong: believe it or not i think we're getting somewhere. we are moving a little bit. i would like to approve the housing project today. i'm not sure if we are going to. i have some reservations and i agree with some of the comments, many of the comments from the public. project sponsor is, speakers and commissioners and that. you know, i think there is a question of, and maybe it where we are in urbanization is the number of doors of units versus the number of bedrooms in this particular case might be direct to what we are suggesting. we need to maximize and get the same number of units. this location doesn't really serve the families as well. probably the classic resident as a single person or two people in want units. what happens if you try to make

them all studios or junior one bedrooms or even micro units, are we able to get a maximum number of doors there? commissioner more's all -- observation of golden gate way, your right, that is a tight space. somewhat like this where there are multiple towers and structures, but the way they levelled and put parts on upper levels and podiums and have walkways, it creates open space. i'm not sure if there is an opportunity to do that. that's when i wish i was an architect and how those kind of skills. i agree with commissioner johnson that it is not an absolute clear direction. if we have the right tools back and going back on commissioner richard's comments, i sometimes wish we had a developer on the staff or at least be able to build some nonbiased calculations factoring in

construction cost, et cetera. to have a nonbiased opinion. i also don't want to move the goal post here. i think the project sponsor, to your credit, we asked at the last commission that they give you a very specific study. you came back and studied the notch. and so i want to be careful we are not having a moving goalpost for you. i don't feel we are absolutely clearly there. like a lot of these projects, right now where we are in the city and these, you know, what are sort of secondary location lies, are we doing the best we can? and as a speaker says, we are smart people. we really are maximizing our intellectual power, creativity to maximize this sight. that said, i would love to get some housing and construction jobs started as soon as possible on this thing. i'm not sure where to go and i don't want to necessarily continue sending it back to the drawing board but i feel like there is a goo good conversatioo

get us closer with the ideas of sculpting salmon looking at smaller unit counts. i don't know what that does for zoning stuff. i think we are getting closer. i will leave it at that. >> commissioner richards: i want to get back to, i guess david winslow's reality. there's a message from david that says, the two unit building on the two building solution would be essentially closer to compliance which means 52 units down to 16 would need exception for exposure. hundred 44 dwelling units. at the same size that is proposed, 40 % are two bedrooms. same size. not cutting down. there's a distance between what the director said and what your drawings came up with in your e-mail and the pocket. the parking ratio principally permitted to townhomes and

complies with guidelines. twaddle buildings which enable two buildings in phasing. one building for consolidation. and then you drew it out for us. what i have here from the project sponsor is growth square foot of each one of the floors and sketch drawings. what you are saying is that you are sketch at the same number of two bedrooms on one bedrooms and studios of the same size. >> yeah,, roughly. they might have been in slightly different proportions. but i stand by my numbers. >> okay. >> and again, is a fairly rough feasibility. thing is could have been squished and squeezed. the attempt was to try and get an understanding of where we stood at our recommendation for opening up that cora door. add tand to be fair, to the pro. >> commissioner richards: last

time we i sat here, we did not have the benefit of mr winslow's analysis. we were relying completely on what the project sponsor was telling us was and wasn't feasible, in here all of a sudden, we have this new thing that really flows everything into question for me from your e-mail. i mean, i'm assuming mr winslow that you're credentialed and qualified and if you say that there is a hundred 44 units that are the same size, i believe it. if we want to go back into a verification of that, wait a week and wait two weeks to make a decision and say look, maybe the twaddle building solution is better because it is indeed the same. i'm okay with that. >> keep in mind, just to chime in on how that works typically with this, the point is into do their project. the point of mr winslow's exercise in refining the mass is to show that alternates can be

done so that we push the sponsor to kind of look in that direction. and/or help justify why they can't move in a certain direction. so i would be hesitant to rely on something that isn't fully vetted. and i second that. >> without the benefit of the sponsor and their team. it's not just a simple exercise of let me just get rooms and rearrange them into a box and slap them together. there's quite a lot of other things that end up coming into play when they're putting a building together regarding why kate d.b.i. codes and fire codes and all sorts of other things that we rely on the sponsor's expertise to kind of help merge all of that together and i get hesitant if we are going down this line of thinking. >> to my point, i think, you know, we owe it to ourselves to

actually understand that before we make a decision, rather than to get a project in here and get it out the door as fast as we can. i think giving this a few weeks to actually see the two project said -- side-by-side and what they look like, makes a lot of sense.

>> that is the problem. >> what gate you will lose a

couple more units on that -- >> it is getting too close to the two units. >> if i could make a clarification, the scenario that the department is recommending for approval is for a 45-foot notch on the top three floors, not five. >> just the notch have walkways or does it not have walkways? are those mandatory? >> yeah,, for circulation. you need the top floor it notched? i mean do didn't do you need -- i mean do you need the top -- >> we don't have to provide for another elevator car door. i just want to address this two tower concept, again, we are reasonable people. we really, really are. we've been studying this thing for four years. i'd, you know, we have floor

plans and we have diagrams. we have very well-paid architects on the team who have been with us for many years at this point. and definitively, we can tell you that if we are forced to move in this direction, this project does not move forward. and so we would not be here, fighting for another design if we could make this two tower concept work. we lose 20 % of the project, 25 % of the project and 20,000 square feet of space in this scenario. and yes, you may have a few less units that require the unit exposure variance, but i can, you know, if this was possible from our standpoint, we would absolutely do it. it is just not physically possible to build this building on the site. so that brings us to the notch idea which was proposed last time we were and here on march 29th. we've accommodated that request. we made a notch of the upper three floors of the building. this is the design that is they

are today. we have added a glass of rail on the top of the building as well to provide for more light and air through the space. and this is showing a 30-foot gap. the full width of the courtyard is 60 feet. this room is about 30 feet wide. this is a very big gap that we are talking about here. i recognize that the commission is offering a solution and therefore proposing a three level, 45-foot open gap as a neighbourly gesture to our neighbours. this is the impact. so it's a total loss of seven units. we are looking at the right column and 5,000 square feet of space. i can tell you, today, that i am not sure that this project gets built. because if that's where were you are at, and in the foreseeable future, i can tell you that we can build this 30-foot project. we start widening the gap going from the losing three units and

2500 square feet, 2800 square feet back to seven units and 5,000 square feet. that's where this thing breaks. we are literally at a breaking point and i can tell you that, for the foreseeable future, this thing stays an industrial building. so, you know, definitively, no way it does not work. the 30-foot proposal moves forward and we will do our best to make 45 work. if that is where we end up today, we want to build housing in the city and, you know, if it gets us to a place of a compromise, we are willing to put that forward to discuss. >> thank you. >> i would support a 45 foot notch over five floors. absolutely. like the director said. >> i was trying to get something that was more in keeping with -- >> that would essentially be a two building scheme that is connected. >> without having to do a separate elevator? >> that is right. i motion to do a 45-foot with

over five floor. >> a second. -- i second. >> did you want to speak? >> it gets us to the same place. the additional two floors is another 5,000 square feet of space that is gone. literally, the project doesn't move forward at that level. so we are talking about seven units. the department recommended three levels and 45 feet. we can do our best to try to make that project move forward. >> commissioner johnson? >> i would like to add according to the environmental studies, the addition of five floors does not get it a significant environmental impact to the

baycrest neighbours. i am just concerned about... adding that. >> there is a motion that has been seconded for a 45-foot with over five floors. >> you brought this up. again, i'm a little uncomfortable that we are winging it at this point. >> to be honest, i don't think it would change if you continue this project. i think we would be in the same position. so i am, trying to come to a solution that will move it onto the next level. >> rate. >> i don't feel comfortable. i second that motion and i think it is a viable suggestion and i think all of us are feeling the confusion and the pain, not as a

result of any one industry in, because the economics of the city and the cost to construction. i just want to throw it out there. this is just the reality and the toughness of san francisco and the cost of doing business in san francisco and the tight confines of space. i'm not sure, honestly, where we caught. i do not want to kill project and i would like to hear another opinion from someone else that confirms that project is dead on arrival if we approve it. i would love to approve something today. i don't want to drag this on but if we do continue on we should be specific about what we ask for. >> i would feel more comfortable if we did less than five. i don't want to try to take so much that we are killing the project. do you have an amendment to the motion? i am willing to go to the

planning staff recommendation. go for it 45 feet. >> i was not here on the 29th when you guys discussed this the first time. and i've been out of town for the last couple weeks. i read all of the e-mails. i am not comfortable, and i hear you that we would not get any play if we continued it. i personally might get some place. i'm not comfortable doing something that the developer is telling us will kill the project. i just don't know if that's true. you seem perfectly nice and credible i just don't know. i have no evidence to say yes, he is telling the truth. i also would like to move this forward but i just don't feel like the information i also re

read. i have lots of questions. i would like to have in front of me another analysis that says yes, this notice is not possibly feasible. and then i would feel more comfortable there, you know, saying okay, this is not, you know, doable a two tower scenario or, you know, the impact of making it five floors is not a big a deal as you are making it to be. i don't know i can make this decision. >> i'm sorry. >> commissioner -- commissioner johnson? >> i am just curious, director, what closer at the disposal at the planning event to see if we have the feasibility? if we look at the potential two tear design? if we were to take more time, could the department to get closer to helping us understand the feasibility?

>> you know, first of all, it is proprietary information that we cannot ask those project sponsor for. we would have to find a way to find our own way to do an analysis. we could do that i suppose. it would be, it would take some time. we have someone on staff who has some working knowledge of the financial issues. but, yeah, i would not expect it to be on the level of detail. that is just my us the cost -- off-the-cuff thought. we could do more layout versus the number of units on the size of units. we have the capability to do that. the financial thing is a little bit more difficult and it will take a little bit more time. >> yeah, i mean i think i agree with you. i know sometimes this process is not pretty from the outside and

we continue things and we ask questions, but i'm uncomfortable not having some of the answers to the questions. one being the winslow memo and i believe the answer is, you will lose significant numbers of units because you lose square footage. but then, you know, you threw up a number today of how many units from a 45-foot versus 30-foot. that goes down a floor. the number starts to get into the number we're talking about for the two tower alternative. i came here thinking the notch was good. it was a neighbourly gesture and a code compliant courtyard. i think what threw a wrench into it is no one could answer the question as to alternatives. do we get the same number of units? [please standby]