we would love to see how far we can get in six months and possibly be back in front of you that quickly. we do ask that you will continue the manner and process the application in accord dance with the code. >> you are asking for continuance on this? >> in addition to asking you to process the application as required bylaw. it could be six months, nine months, however much time you think to finish the eir. [bell ringing] >> normally we take it in a little bit more truncated way and we do a project, so i would like to take up the matter of

continuance and kind of limit debate on the project if that is the case and then we can do that. if you want one minute to say something. >> we had two minutes of -- >> h ss fine. >> president hillis, that is about the only decision that you can make today. >> president hillis: or disapprove. >> we don't know what to do because the staff won't process our application. >> let's hear the matter of continuance here. i get your point that we can't approve it. we will take public testimony on the matter of continuance first and limit that to one minute if folks want to comment on that. any public comment on continuing this? we are going to take up the item of continuance first. we get the issue. >> janice velos, i live at 2131

bush street. i have been involved with the neighborhood as president of the western district association. i am speaking for myself. i have never heard a subject of the eir being suggested as a way to describe what the project willil. are we asking for a continuance of this project as it is described? i'm not sure. >> >> president hillis: , we could take direction to ask for more information on the project, but yeah, we are asking -- the project sponsor is asking. >> continuance in how it is described. >> president hillis: the eir analyzes the project described. >> we have a few speaker that is are going to speak once.

if you are going to allow people to speak twice. so if we have people come up to the cntinuance will the same people be allowed to talk a second time? >> president hillis: yes. >> great. >> president hillis: right now we are just taking tu up the mar of continuance. >> my name is bill campbell and i have been a volunteer on this project since the beginning and i would like to emphasize we were hold in te ppa we must do eir before any other consideration is handled by the planning department, so it was a big shock when in july of 2017 we were told that under no circumstancings would they continue to process our application as it stood. seems patently unfair to me that

we are told one thing and invest add lot of time and money in a project that gan in 2012 to not be able to finish the process as outlined bylaw. >> presi hilli thank you. would anyone else like to speak? >> michael ro rossey. i live in san francisco. i think tha they have been an excellent addition in the area and i ask you to direct the planning department to process our application. >> president hillis: thank you mr. rossey. any additional comments?

welcome. >> my name is jimmyro st. dom st. dom. >> i have watched the parish evolved and things have disappeared that had great value, buildings and all, but what we have is something we cherish and it could be a benefit to the community if it says and you continue on looking at the application as it stands, so i hope that you could do that and just continue to look at it. other buildings have been taken away and other things have been put in their place and they are functioning and doing well, so that is all i wanted to say. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> deacon molly kohli knee neil.

i have been associated with the church since 2001. just to comment on two of the ministries i oversee. in the catholichurch there are three types of clergy, the t deacon is placed in then. parish but not to be seen there but has a responsibility to the community. you are the president of the parish but you are supposed to be out in the community. i have been fortunate since 2001 to be the coordinator of o county jail ministry. we have 17 parishioners who twice a week go into the county jail. we go to pod c it's for some of the most psychiatrically i'll patients that you see on the street and we have a service

with them on the anyone welcome. >> president hillis: thank you your time is up. the intent of this public testimony period is on the matter of continuance. >> any additional comments on the matter of continuance? seeing none. >> commissioner moore: the planning commission works with the department preparing extensive reports for us to emerge ourselves in the subject matter and it is their advisory to us which guides how we look at a project. how we conclude is our own decision but they are indeed the ones who give the material that we are obligated to study. i ask mr. william there seems to be a conflict of interpretation of what happened and could you help us ground ourselves in the subject matter including

commenting on the issue of this being advisement to be continu continued. >> commissioner i admit this is an unusual situation. this has been in ant out of the department in different forms for several year. the departt i it's initial form, my recollection whether it's a proposal to do an addition on the existing school building and on the front facade and we expressed strong reserves about it because of the historic nature of this building. subsequently the church wanted to demo that same building and we expressed ccern for that as well. we have been in an awkward position where a process to demolish a fairly large resource. it's unusual for us to support a

fairly large resource being demolishes. the reason this is in front of you today is because the project sponsor has asked you and he is corre a you whether you want to consider allowing the project to move forward. the reason tat we agreed to bring it to you today is because we felt that we would likely be in the same place two years from now after doing eir and spending frankly hundreds of thousands of dollars doing it and we would likely still recommend that the school building not be demolis demolished. it waseall r -- because we were at an impasse over the state of this building, we wanted to bring it to you to see if you would consider a future project that included the demolition of this building and therefore we should proceed with an eir. it is an unusual situation but

could not come to agreement for plans on this site. >> what adds to the unusualness of this too is you've got a pretty big site. it's not just the church, there is parking lots and another building. it's a pretty open block that this program could fit in on some other site, so i would support continuance, but the department is urging you and i would go along with it to kind of consider this entire site. i know that the issue came up that the fees were too expensive to do and kind of a project for the other site. i would encourage you to look at the other side and whether it's using orhe program that you are going to do on the demo building or something else. i think the department is trying to save time and resources to send a message that we may want to look at this block in it's entirety.

i think the church does great work and we are a planning department and the zoning we have to figure out what this lot is going to look like tcomm ourate y program and fit into the city. >> just a clarification about the process, if we deny this today would the project sponsor be able to come back with a new application tomorrow with every other scenario maybe except for this one or another scenario except for this one and would they have to go through eir. >> to demolish the building they have to go through an eir. >> if we deny this today that is off the table. they can't form submit the same project? >> i believe it's a time frame but eir could take longer than a

year probably. >> could they submi a project on the parking lotom absolutely. >> commissioner fong: i think it's a very unusual situation i will support a continuance in that it's a full block essentially and as i was looking at it more closely this week it's an exciting opportunity site for a bunch of different things to happen to keep the church healthy and provide housing or whatever it might be. there is a school nearby and it's not fully the west side, but close to the west side so i am supportive of a continuance and there may be a plan c and d. that is a motion to continue. >> commissioner moore: the only thing we should ask is giving guidance why to continue

otherwises the waiting for the same thing to come back again, normally we add what we are expecting. i heard commissioner phenomenon to look at the block and other uses and basically if i hear you correctly it was instructions to bracket out the demolition of the dishorri historic building,? >> commissioner fong: my direction which she started with was to explore all opportunities and state density bonus, other types of uses and see what is the most plausible scenario. i don't know what that is, but my instruction could be to explore all those.

>> commissioner melgar: thank you commissioner moore, i want to e ritte reiterate i was reade for denial but will go with what the commission says and will do so that the historic commission is important to me and it's part of the fabric of the community. i will go with a continu contind you changed my mind, but exploring the options that do not include the demolition of this important historic resource is what we are going for. >> commissioner moore: is that in support of director william providing us that the destruction would have to trigger an eir but adaptive resource would not. >> depending on the extent of the alterations it's very

postpossible an eir would not be needed depending on how the plan might change. >> it's a full block, so housing may fit in this building and not require it's demolition, we don't know. we are kind of piecemealing this project with just bringing this one aspect forward and i get we are kind of caught in this pre sequa but we want to see a project that covers entire block and fits your program and covers other things maybe housing on the site. i think to continue to do good work and potentially more. >> commissioner moore: the struggle with parking and when the congregation comes and

struggles with parking. there has to be a give and take, most parking lots don't have the land they used to in the past and thatdesourcan b -- look at the creativity of how to address it. >> president hillis: jonas a motion and a second. >> very good commissioners on that motion and second. [roll call] so moved that passes

>> good afternoon welcome back to the san francisco planning commission. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during those proceedings and before speaker for the commission, please announce your name for the report. record. this is for 2013.0152cua. you have continued this matter a couple of times to this date. having that you have heard this before, you will limit public testimony. >> president hillis: five minute presentation and one minute

public testimony. i feel like we are all family and know each other at this point and we are a family that fights during the holiday. [laughter] >> good afternoon doug bood department staff. the request fo before you is the demolition of two strre and when first presented you -- residential building containing 144 dwelling units,ate and common open space and 17720 square foot basement. upon deliberation continued the item and directed the department

t-- on may 10, 2018 the commission reconvened to consider the department's analysis of these two alternatives that included variations of the sen that notch and double tower massing. upon receiving public testimony and deliberation the commission determined it did not have the information necessary to assess the design for two 84-foot towers. exhibit a in your packet includes plans which illustrate that in 84-foot tall, two tower mass could contain approximately 148 dwelling units or -- of

rental space by beginning 43-foot courtyard beginning on the fourth floor. the determinthe prose poseel iny measured the height for beale street and when brought into compliance would limit. [. [reading] ing] the project upon sor submittal in repons to the commission was received the same day this memorandum was published so the departnt unable to review it and provide comparison and analysis, so i will ask depraved wins low the department's principal architect to address the commission.

>> david winslow staff architect. as doug said the information at the time the commission packets were published were incomplete and there was no time for staff to review and analyze before publishing, since then they have reviewed, compared and agreed on some of the data, the area of the split building screa schemee to both sides assessment and we can discuss further where we differ but it's minor. this scheme yields approximately 92,000 square feet of net rentable. we have not completely analyzed the comparison of proposed project because we have not had the time nor the final plans and the assumption of the final proposal having that come in

late afternoon yesterday. i did perform a calculation on a scheme corrected for height of the proposal with a 30-foot wide by two-story notch in the mid lot and that yielded about 123444 square feet gross floor area using some of the same adjustments and assumption on my part 80% efficiency that yielded 96,500 net rentable for the project sponsor's proposal at the last time our understanding of what the proposal was. two comparable numbers 92,965. this is proximate, but i think pretty close to accuracy for the purposes of your deliberation. i will turn to presentation over to the project sponsor, and i

have tables of numbers should one want to delve in and diagrams that can bound some of those assumion. thank. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor. could you go to computer sfgov? there you go. >> good afternoon. ross stackus. reiteration o of -- i am standig here for -- during these prior

hearings we have discussed single building massing which doesn't -- our neighbors and we are here today to present a compromise in the form of a partially split building with a 45 wide separation across the project. the scheme only appeared to appear favorably when making several apples to oranges comparisons failing to provide adequate space, limiting five foot setback, adding elevators, stairs and skin. once we adjusted for these

differences the scheme is 10% smaller. to focus on the most obvious difference, partial split with average unit side of 765 square feet. we believe a fully split building with units this side could only satisfy the two bedroom requirement by creating interior layouts that are too narrow in other. adjusting for this is 124 unit. we need to ensure that the nonrentable area is comparable to our proposal. would need to add additional space on each floor --

indiscernible. on the more qualitative level the split building keep introduces numerous units that have challengedabilit this is a two bedroom and includes bedrooms and living room less than 10 feet in width. these are inferior in our sche scheme. we note that the stacks of units would have hampered livability. furthermore, the split building scheme contains twice the number of elevators and stand and making it harder to rent and more expensive to build. if we just the split building scheme -- when compared to our

partial split building proposal. the split building contains 13 fewer unit. we also wish to highlight that from an urban form perspective it isn't nearly as problematic. the courtyard is open to the north making it a fully client rear yard. from the urban forum perspective is the lot to the the south. we agree courtyard would make sense if ours was an interior block building. the caltrance is firm on allowing the sale of any portion of it. indiscernible. this condition renders our

parcel essentially street fronting. [bell ringing] all this is why we are here today. a partially split building with towers and two courds. indiscernible. we earnestly seek your approval for this proposal today. >> president hillis: thank you very much. we will open it up to public comment. i will call some names and please sign up on the screen side of the room. dan, you can start if you want. >> henry kleinhens. i am here to thank david winslow

and -- for the fine work they did to try to create a fine structure. i support the two-tower plan as proposed by the planning commission. we obviously have never had a chance to see what the tidewater plant is. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker please. >> i am cecilia. this is the third time we have come here before you and some of us more than that. i want to thank you for your time. you have heard our comments and know how important our courtyard is to us and why we are fighting so hard to keep it open. the planning department has come up with a design that does not require closing off the

courtyard and would provide for 148 unit. this seems like the ideal design. it gives us more housing and it respects our open space. the bay credit association supports a project on this site that conforms with the planning department design. thank you. >> for me this isn't about bay crest although i am a resident there. i just wanted to recap. i hope that you will deny any request for something other than a two-tower or two building design. it s liks the planning

department has determined that is more code client, has more units and complies with the ren-hill plan that was somehow forgotten about in the sponsor's proposal. second and the key thing the bay bridge is not just a street front fo for us in san francisco and we have one chance though do this right. this building is going to be there for 150 years or more hopefully but built in a block composition will block the bridge from an entire neighborhood. >> president hillis: thank you. >> hi my name is linda and i am a resident at the bay crest.

i hope you under the desire to maintain the livability at our home. the current design for the project next door will devastate our light and air and we understand that we need toe additional housing in the city and we are really very much behind that, but we need to know that it shouldn't be at our expense and this developer needs to learn how to be a good neighbor before they continue. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> some of you may be aware i am a licensed professional land surveyor and i am familiar with area calculation. i routinely have to examine engineering and architectural plans before i can stake them on

the ground to make sure that they are correct. the project sponsor was wrong in their numbers ant the building height to begin with. i analyzed m w low's documentation and he was correct. they angro now. one of the slides they showed the string dimensions are wrong and you can't come up with that area. this is just a terrible design and they are wrong all the way around. mr. wins low has proven beyond any doubt there is no suffering of quality of life in his design and also this is basically at this point this is a conceptual argue. argument where we are talking about how big is the bucket. >> thank you sir your time is up. >> i have lived in bay credit for 25 years now and i strongly

support construction in the area and probably no building in the city has absorbed more units th bay crest. thithisject is about blocking air and light and jeopardizing the vegetation in our courtyard that insulated or absorbs the pollution. i am unclear the compromise this presented. 's litss than they agreed to during the last meeting. in the last meeting they agreed to cut out 45 feet and four floors and now they are saying three floor. >> hi, i a -- indiscernible. with more than 35 years

experience in engineering and math and a phd in physics and engineer and anticorruption activist. the planning commission should deny the project brought before your attention because it is evident it doesn't follow the codes. the codes and requirements for the bay bridge security zone. the project is located in an area that is not suitable to have housing. it is your duty to protect the citizens and you against future accountabilities in case of earthquake many lives and buildings would be destroyed due to the proximity, and the marked structure of the soil and high loading. >> thank you ma'am your time is

up. >> president hillis: next speaker please. >> my name is judy hutchinson. why is the developer coming back with threery 45-foot notch when they were specifically asked the last time to say four story 45-foot notch so i feel like another slap in the face. i live in a building that is -- this is a court yard that i look at and the two side courtyards are gone, so we are just talking about the middle courtyard now. my kids would be in here except they are in school. they wrote a letter each of them. a couple things they said was that appreciate last time the people came and spoke about the good things they did. they are conflating the issue. this is a building going up and will block a lot of light and

air and are all the good deeds made on the backs of other. [bell ringing] >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioner, nice to see you again. we are here today again because this is a challenging parcel and we are here back again today because what you do as a planning commission you did a very good job the last couple of hearing. you asked a lot of questions and put alternative ideas forth and once you became of the two building design you saw another possibility, a workable solution. each of you understanding what is at stake here and it's evident to me that you see a path forward regardless of what the sponsor is saying about financial viability.

i appeal to each of you and build a design that we can all be proud of that will maximize housing and maintain livability at bay crest and consider the future residents of 430 main that are not aware that too will have hints to air and light. thank you very much. >> i was watching the hearings last time and i was incensed by the arrogant bullies by the project sponsor and that is why i got involved. you havi have a couple of point. if the trend is to encourage more people to give in single family homes to live in mid and high-rise buildings then

sacrificing livability for one group of high-rise dwellers for the profit of developers sends the wrong message. the evidence is irrefutable. a two-tower design can be done with more unit. please don't let them bully you. i was absolutely incensed watching that. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker please. >> fred sanchez and i own the unit 622 at 201 harl 201 harris. a couple points i am for the greater good of everybody in the building and i happen to live in one of the courtyards that will just be gone and air and light will be impacted greatly, but i am willing to compromise so that

the majority of the people get to keep the courtyard in the center. i think that is a good compromise and i urge you to think of one point as the deputy chief of the san francisco fire department. someone mentioned the collapse zone on the bay bridge. that is a point. if the bridge comes down, we don't know which way it will go and if this building is in that collapse zone, that needs to be known because we would all be horrified if that building was jeopardized in the event of an earthquake. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> steven boss. i was here last week asking if we are not going to allow building in the areas where are zoned for buildings like this,

where are we going to la allow buildings. i want to return to director ram's statement that we have zone capacity for 1,000 some unit.

>> throughout the process of negotiations, unfortunately there are times when not everybody does get on the same page. it does not mean people were negotiated in bad faith. it means the priorities couldn't align enough to get us to a place where everybody is happy. that's unfortunate. you're the ones that have to vote on it, though, so it's tougher on you than it is on me. the other aspect that just observing this conversation now through three hearings, i think there's legitimate concerns that have been continuously expressed by the homeowners at the building next door. we talk about who gets to decide who lives in san francisco all the time. i for one do not believe we should get to choose or neighbors and i would be frustrated if you decided to deny a project because the neighbors next door don't like it. >> next speaker, please.

>> hi. i'm marlene smith. i'm a homeowner. i spoke last time. i want to convey i strongly support what winslow submitted to you in the memo that was i strongly oppose tidewater's proposal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, he i please. if othersld lik to speak, line up. >> i'm a board member of the san francisco homeless policy committee, board member of the shelter monitoring committee and a board of adviser chair of concern. i want to call attention to the 250 people that the per year for the last eight years that could have been housed in a structure there and how not having that structure built reverberates down causing more people to be out on the street homeless. the $9 billion this city relies

upon is being affected by this. please vote in support. >> thank you. ms. montez. >> i had something i was going to read, but i just want to respond that tidewater was asked in our last meeting to go back and do a cost analysis of a 45 foot cutout with 4 floors and a 45 foot cutout, five floors. one of the last things that craig young said in the last meeting was an answer to the question that you guys asked, and that was, can you support a 45-foot and 4 floor cutout? he said, one word, yes. i'm not sure why tidewater would come back and poke us in the eye again with 45 foot and 30 foot cutouts, but it seems that they

have not been open and honest with us since the very beginning. they still have a project that they want what they want, i guess, is what the term is used. but i disapprove this, and i think we should be considering the two-tower design as known as the winslow design. i thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tina king and i own one unit at the bay crest. all this time, i'm puzzled with the question that, why tidewater's profit will be our issue here. that's just -- it should not be what we have an impact by.

that's what i can say. thank you. >> thank you, ms. king. gustavo. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it took us four years to get your attention and the attention of tidewater to bring a two-tower design in front of you. now they pulled this game at the last minute, and they present basically the block building that we've discussed in our very first hearing. so they're wasting everybody's time here. this is anafront to the time and everything that everybody has done here throughout the two hearings that we've got here, they went as far as agreeing with commissioner fong's question. do you agree with 45-4. they said yes. they jumped on it. you wanted to see the two-tower design. that's what we came here to discuss, and no one is having the time to talk about it. mr. winslow already talked about his design. we know it's a better design.

it's close to code compliant. it has the same number of two bedrooms. it has everything we need and there is one thing more. the comty sports it. this is a win win situation for everyone, commissioners. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. williams. >> thank you. steve williams. when we were here last time you said how many units would we lose by be neighborly to bay crest. we want to build more housing and maximize units. you said if the two building complex works, why are we talking about anything else? we met with david winslow and the facts are the two building concept creates more units, not fewer, creates more square footage, not less, is more code compliant with fewer exceptions, and is more compliant with the urban design guidelines. so, you know, the concept is represented by the project sponsor eliminates units and eliminates affordable units.

so vote for this project is actually against housing and against affordable housing. you know, the project spencer said we've never seen these two tower designs. that was a lie. they were presented with this same design more than a year ago. that's a fact. it was presented to them by staff. so there's no choice here but two towers. >> any additional public comment on this item? we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore. >> i'm disappointed that what we asked for is not in front of me. when i opened my package, i was looking for the side by side in sketch form comparison, and i was open to accept or not accept it doesn't work. i do not have that material in front of me, but i feel like it's the end of last time's

meeting where we're seeing a drawing with a notch which is indeed not what we had in principle agreed to as fall back position should thewo tows not work. now, not only is the notch -- the notch has grown to 40 feet. however, harunk? depth to 3 floors. i'm not quite sure what i'm asked to do here today because the material that i had requested is not in front of me. i am not prepared to really judge one way or the other, other than saying what is in front of me is not what i had nk you.or. t so i -- i mean, i think i know more about this project than i know about many, having visited the site a couple times and talked to neighbors as well as the developer. i think we're closer than the rhetoric rehear from all sides. i mean, i talk on the phone

today. he had a great suggestion. fill in the bottom between the two towers, which is a great i think and w had the same conversation. that's really the -- it's ry the notch, you know, without -- without the bridges. so i mean, i think we're at this kind of, is it a notch or two towers? we're really talking about the size of the notch and whether there is ridges across the notch or not and there's two staircases on one side or not. i appreciate the discussion because i think it's gotten to the point where we're there. i asked mr. winslow in the back about it. i think you generally agree. we're kind of -- if you fill in the bottom of a two-tower alternative which we should because we shouldn't leave open space on the podium. that really is not useful open space. we're at the notch. you know, it's how high that building comes up and whether

you have courtyards across it. in looking at mr. winslow's design, there's problems with it, too. i mean, we've got -- i argued with them about t he's got a two bedroom that's awkwardly set back with 25 by 30 foot courtyard. we're kind of trading that for some imposition on the 60 by 111 foot court yard. he has the two bedroom starting to encroach on the bay crest main courtyard. it's not right at the plot property line. it's coming in some feet. it's lower, but it's coming in on the sides to almosting 45 feet. so i think we're a lot closer than what i'm hearing from people, whether it's the two tower design or the notch. i think both are kind of morphing into the same project. so not to belabor this so long, i'm supportive of a project and maximizing housing. i would support a project that i think is a four-floor notch, 45

feet wide. i think it basically gets you the same cutout that you would get from a two tower alternative that's either filled in or not filled in. you've got bridges across, which undstand the neighbors don't particularly like, but given the size of your courtyard, again, bay crest could build a wall right there and you're still at code compliance. you would need no exceptions for that courtyard. you're asking us to kind of take into account a proposal that has a 25 by 30 foot on a property lineat could be built up and that could be the end of building there. so i think we've tried hard to make this a better project for the neighbors. i think we've succeeded. you've all succeeded. we've succeeded. again, i think we're closer than what the dialogue here would suppose, and i would be supportive of what's bay crest folks told us they would do before, which i they they did it with pressure from the commissions, which is a 45-foot

notch, four stories in the building. i would also support any amendment to the planning code that will allow to you get back that height on the one side to convert the height differently because i think losing that floor doesn't do anything for an urban, you know -- where we are. it doesn't add to the street life or subtract from the street life. i would be supportive of a 45-foot four story notch. commissioner moore. >> i just want to react to your height discussion. the height on -- i think any wall design building can work with it because what you lose on top, you have more room to catch up on the bottom. the side is lower. that's where you get that

additional volume you need. so there's no loss of anything. >> i think people realize the code was interpretle incorrectly. nobody raised the building like this building is one story. nobody was a gas that the building was tall on the side. tis a product of the code. we altered it to be one story shorter whether it's a two tower or non two tower alternative. i forget which side it's on because how you measure height within the building. i'm not going back to that discussion we had a long time ago about raising the height to 200 feet. it's just this one story that was lost on here. commissioner melgar. >> so i'm confused about these drawings. forgive me. there have been so many

different proposals for the design, i just want to make sure that i understand what it is that's being proposed. so i see that there's now a courtyard on the proposed building. >> that's the notch. >> that's the notch. but it is a terrace. right? this is a terrace now? and i'm looking at the very last slide of the presentation, and i'm having a hard time -- this is the back of this. >> will you throw up the last two pages of the -- >> the last slide. >> the last two. >> i understand this is the bay crest side. >> go to the one before. >> this is the other side. >> that's basing the bay bridge. >> so there's a terrace on the other side of this railing. >> right. >> and so it could look down on

this terrace. so it will be looking down on that terrace. that's what -- >> is that correct? that a terrace on the top that? go back one again. just the next one. >> the next -- >> so if you went down -- i mean, so you offer that the last tearing four stories down, so if we took that one story down, what would be on the top of that? >> that would be the same terrace. >> so there would be a terrace on the top? okay. >> okay. >> so if there was four stories, it would be one story down. >> i get it. thank you. >> let me clarify something. because there's a split in heights that occurs in the mid lot, we want to be clear about wh we're taking this four story notch from. so in other words, if i could draw it in --

>> it's one story lower than the one bgroposed. >> technically, you might say their scheme as proposed is only a two-story notch because the notch doesn't occur from the front most notch. >> i think we're talkin talng fm the height of the building -- we were looking at this before from the height of the building, the full floor. it's four stories from the tallest point. they're proposing three stories now. us and the neighbors recognize e wer a proposal before by us, which was accepted of a four story from the -- before the building got reduced on the one side. commissioner moore. >> wel'm definitely interested in pursuing a full he have calfation of that approach. i don't believe that's the material in front of me today depicts this two level of where i can approve it. these are descriptions by verbal commitments although last time

they were rejected as not penciling out, even with 30 feet and 3 stories, itid pencil out. now we're at 40 feet and 4 stories. if it's gotten longer, i do not know. i'vet like principley just sitting as a commissioner, i never have and never will approve anything which is just a verbal description of a scheme. i believe we're obligated to have fully dimensions and fully rendered drawings in front of us to support it. i'm all for a project, and reiteration of what is being verbally described today, that is, 40 feet and 4 stories would be what i would need to do in order to support it. it would require also like the three-dimensional, et cetera, et cetera. i don't think that we have the ability to just, by word, negotiate an outcome. this needs to be through a document, and i make a motion to

continue this until the architects and his developer has time to render it out using this new approach to design this project. >> second. >> i'm not going to support the motion. i mean, i think if you look in these plans right here, instead of level 0 to 4 to 6 of the fully -- 0 to 4 to 5. so what we'll have is the top floor -- we have the plans that are what is being proposed for a three story notch from the top floor. i think we're just amending it by reducing it by a floor. commissioner koppel. >> i'm more than confident on voting on this today and looking at the 4th floor notch at 45 feet and i'm more than confident that i know what we're voting on. >> commissioner moore. >> that would require then also

that the building heights are properly expressed with one floor coming off on the side. >> yeah. i mean, that has to be the case. that's the code. that's in the plans, too. >> i'm just still personally concerned that drawings, which have not been put on the record for the public to see, is not a way that we should be doing our work because if we're doing this for one, we should be prepared to do that for anybody else who wants to negotiate an outcome at the 11th hour. i cannot break my own position on that, and i will not. i just can't. even if i support a modified position on this project, i cannot do it. >> commissioner johnson. >> we have spent a good amount of time and conversation about this project, and looking at the plan, sitting at the table with neighbors, i really appreciate your c