appropriate project in this particular corridor. it is a corner location. it has attributes of multi-use and the form that is missing in the corridor. i have experienced over the year as a neighbor being very responsive with a very strong voice of their own of what they find desirable in the development and completion of the corridor, so i believe that what we're trying to do here is beneficial to the process of bringing a good project, an appropriate project, forward in its time. so i'd move to approve with modifications that the department is read into the record. >> second. >> president hillis: mr. sanchez, if i could just ask you a question on this. seems like all we're doing, all we're being asked, and i want to clarify and have you state on the record is allowing the additional five feet on the ground floor. there was a member of the public that talked about ten feet. >> it's five feet. >> president hillis: okay, five feet only on the ground floor. actually, the allowance of a restaurant or a bar would basically remain the same as it

is today, except you would not be allowed to do it on the upper floors without a c.u. >> yes, let me give you a graphic. this is today and this is as proposed. >> president hillis: still be permitted on the ground floor, conditional use on the second floor? >> above, yeah. >> president hillis: currently on the third floor and above they are not permitted, that would be a conditional use, so more leniency on the upper floors, the second, more restrictive on the second. >> yes. >> president hillis: same on the first floor. the members of the public, we hear your concerns also. there isn't a proposal. maybe you have more knowledge of a coming proposal that may have a restaurant or use on the upper floors. sounds like that's the case, and i would urge you to continue to talk to the potential project

sponsor, but i do hear your concerns, but those are the changes that we're looking at here for the use on the upper floors that's retail or a bar, they would have to come back here and, you know, we'd hear the specific issues if it was on the floors above the first floor. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: it's a bit unusual, we have a vacant lot basically and we're rezoning to continue a conversation on maybe what's better appropriate. i think it's the first time, at least since i've been sitting on this commission, that we've had this kind of advancement without a project. i do -- i was generally not supportive of it, but with recommendation number two, i think we need to take a look at this. it's a one-off. let's make sure we get the appropriate controls in place for all n.c.d.s, and i think the staff is well positioned to do that, so i will support it now. >> and i talked to the supervisor about that recommendation that was in there. we are all for looking at all of

lombard street in the future, because we do know that there are a number of vacant lots there, large vacant lots, that have been under discussion for purchase, and we do believe that there probably do need to be changes to lombard in the future, so we completely agree with that and would be happy to work with the department and the commission and the neighbors for certain on any rezoning or new planning code for that corridor. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner moore? >> looking back at the history from supervisor farrell and today, the neighborhood concerns have always been first and foremost in us looking at it, because residential is so closely interwoven with the corridor. >> president hillis: all right, jonas, we have a motion and a second. >> secretary: indeed we do with staff's recommended modifications. [ roll call ]

motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 11, liquor stores in the north beach, planning code amendment. >> president hillis: all right, mr. sanchez? >> good afternoon again. today i'll be presenting an ordinance to amend the planning code to allow temporary relocation of a liquor store in n.c.d. however, first i'd like to provide supervisor peskin's office time to present. >> president hillis: welcome. >> i promised i would make this really quick. thank you for putting this item on the agenda today, because we're trying to work on an expedited timeline given the circumstances of the fire that has for the second time displaced long-time north beach

resident, the proprietor of quaint liquors, somebody who's repeatedly come back to the site of his original store, neighborhood-serving retail spot, location, they serve spirits and liquors. ordinarily i would not be up here advocating for a liquor store, but i think we spent the better part of a year working on n.c.d. controls for the north beach neighborhood, and i think we have with your help and your input provided something that is really good. it really reflects what the needs and the requests of the neighborhood are. in this case we are trying to get him within a new location of the fire that displaced him at 659 union street and the building owner is actually here, was here for the early item, so if he wants to say anything, too, that would be great, but we're just trying to make sure that he has the ability to move into this new location.

he starts paying rent very soon. we've been working with the new property owner for the temporary relocation to make sure he has his permits in place and anything else he needs. his intent is to go back into the building at 659 union street and he has been wonderful in trying to help facilitate that, as well. as we speak is working with the architect to prepare designs to bring that building back to life. so, i really -- we are happy with the modifications the planning staff have put together and we are fine with approving those and hope to just get this out to land use and the board as quickly as possible. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you. >> commissioners, the department supports allowing a longstanding retail use displaced by fire continue an operation in north beach. also supports amending entitlement and abandonment regulations on a temporary basis to facilitate this. staff is proposing the following

modifications, which are technical in nature and made to assure that the processes and expectations involved to relocate and return to the original site are clear. the first one is to clarify the entitlement process to exempt the relocated liquor store from neighborhood notice and any development impact fees, to require the temporarily relocated liquor store to retain all acquired site permits for the temporary site, and to note in the s.u.d. that the temporary he row case does not terminate any pre-existing authorized use chart. and the last modification is to add language to clarify that a temporarily relocated store not returning to its march 17, 2018, location by march 17, 2021, or three years afterwards, shall immediately assure conditional use authorization, conduct neighborhood notice, and be

subject to impact fees. in essence, if they don't return, they'd be subject to the land use controls at the temporary or now-permanent site. that concludes my presentation and i'm here for questions. thank you. >> president hillis: excuse me. thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner moore? >> isn't the building -- isn't the operation an historic business? >> we are working with regina to make sure he gets his legacy business registration, but we have submitted a letter of nomination which should be in your packet, as well. >> for all intents and purposes, even if not officially recognized as legacy business, it is a legacy business because it has been there for so long, and anybody who lives in the general five-mile vicinity would know right there, because in times when there were much fewer

stores in the city, where you could buy certain types of wines and certain kinds of other things, this was a police you went to. so i'm in full support and move that we approve for the modifications as proposed by the department. >> second. >> president hillis: yep, nothing further. we have a motion and a second. >> secretary: very good, commissioners, on the motion to approve this -- >> president hillis: close public comment on that item, sir. >> i got to go, but i like to do is order you implement the orders i acquire. >> president hillis: thank you. >> secretary: on that motion to approve this matter with staff modifications -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on item 12. 2018-001018cua, 1963 ocean

avenue, conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. kathleen campbell, planning department staff. the proposal is a conditional use authorization requesting to amend the conditions of approval number nine under motion number 19271, which restricts the hours open to the public from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. specifically, the proposals to modify the conditions approval number nine, the subject establishment is limited to the following hours of operation, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. the tobacco paraphernalia establishment retail use, happy vape was pursuant to the california environmental act and motion number 19271, which included e-cigarette sales at the ground floor and esteemed floor hookah lounge. the space measures 1,334 square

feet at the ground floor and 1,054 at the basement level. the operator intends to relocate the hookah lounge to the ground floor and provide e-cigarette sales at the basement level. the established hookah lounge is not restricted to use size or regulation by the planning code. no liquor license is being sought with the conditional use authorization. per the business plan for happy vape, no one under the age of 18 will be allowed. this is made clear through a sign on the entrance door and a checking of identification. e-cigarette smoking or vaping and consuming flavored hookah vapor containing nicotine is not allowed inside commercial establishments within san francisco or within 15 feet of entrances of commercial establishments. since publication of this case report, the department's one

phone call in opposition. the department is generally in support of the project and recommends approval with conditions. for the following reasons, the health code prohibits nicotine flavored smoking within a commercial establishment. proposition "e" was passed under ordinance number 140-17 article 19-q of the health code, which prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco products. the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code and promotes a locally owned business and contributes to the commercial diversity of ocean avenue neighborhood transit district. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. project sponsor?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i've been a consultant with happy vape since its first c.u.a. we're revisiting you because they have to adjust their business model. the hours of operation limiting them to 10:00 is not conducive to the hookah lounge concept. i have a list here of six other establishments, which i'll give you. four of them, i believe, are open until 2:00 a.m. and two of them are open until 3:00 a.m., so level playing field, we're asking that we expand the hours from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. i'm with blake hee, who will tell you a little bit about his business and some of the outreach that was conducted for the project. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we were here four years ago and got approval from the planning commission. due to proposition "e" last

year, we had to adjust our business model to focus more on the hookah component of the business due to proposition "e." we want to work harder and smarter to survive on ocean avenue, that desperately needs a business on our block, 1900 block of ocean avenue. we have a lot of vacancies, we have a lot of desolate at night. being open to 2:00 a.m. will help the community, more eyes and more ears on the block. so it would help the community. we have done quite a bit of outreach with the ocean avenue c.b.d., with the -- reverend gordon of the church, and neighboring action and also all the neighbors, commercial neighbors around and the residential neighbors around. we also have a list of

petitions, people supporting our project of the hookah lounge. it's all in your file. we've done everything we could to talk to everybody, and we have a lot of support for our project and we'd like for you to approve this expansion of hours for us. thank you. >> one other thing, maybe the people in the audience who are in support of this, maybe raise your hand. i mean, i don't want to have everybody march up here. i think we've got it, so for time constraints maybe a few can come up, maybe a minute or so and let you know that these are visible operators, they participate in the community, and they are trying to connect with all the other neighbors in the community and they've done that over a period of time with no adverse impacts, so i can't see why we can't grant this today. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. we will open this item up for public comment, if there's any.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ron lee. i've been working in the community for decades, and, you know, when i see something like this, you know, and the neighborhood is so quiet at night, i think ocean avenue has a, you know, is very quiet in the evening, and it really needs some activity, and some activity will attract, you know, businesses through some of the stores that open late and things like that. i think it's good for the community, so i'm here to support, you know, for the later hours, because it's good for the community and builds up the tax base for san francisco, and it's all good for everybody. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. lee. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. my name is neil ballard of the ocean avenue association. i'll just read a letter that we submitted in support of this

proposal. so, in november of 2017, the board of directors of the ocean avenue association passed a motion in support of happy vape's application to extend its hours. happy vape operators, blake hee and ronald shea, have been visibly involved in the ocean avenue business community since establishing their business, and the effort to adapt to the changing legislation of their industry is commendable, so we'd like to encourage the commission to support happy vape's proposal. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. ballard. next speaker, please. >> hello, president hillis and commissioners. my name is ronald shea, i'm the manager at happy vape on ocean avenue, 1963. so i just wanted to speak today in case you guys were wondering, this is what a hookah looks like. should i place it on the -- no? okay. essentially, we'll be doing steam-zone hookah, a non-nicotine version of hookah.

according to the health department it's approved and considered an okay product to actually sell. we're just looking to see whether or not we could open that up. we have a lot of community support. we've gone to the ocean avenue association and gone to all of our neighbors to make sure they were all okay with us and they want us to open up to 2:00 in the morning to provide more of a presence in the area, since it seems like there's a lot of complaints regularly at the association when we go to that nighttimes have a little bit more criminal activity from the bars down the street and things like that, so we want to make sure we are there with our cameras and people to show we are actually also present on that side of ocean avenue. is there a market for it? yes. there definitely is. i've actually been asked by numerous customers when will the hookah lounge be able to come up in open of operation and the main thing is the hours so we can compete with all the other hookah lounges that exist, so in closing, i wish you would approve the expansion of hours, and thank you very much.

>> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mike. i'm also someone that grew up in the neighborhood. i lived on grenada since i was, like, 8 years old. you know, moved around. and throughout my time, you know, and i went to balboa high, so throughout my time in the neighborhood, random people late at night, homeless people, homelessness, everything, has always been a problem with that neighborhood. so with that being said, the fact that, you know, in that block and even on ocean avenue as a general statement, that retail establishments have all been on a decline, more service-based restaurants have been opening, and they close typically at 9:30. so between the period of 9:30

and when they reopen again, it's really desolate. it's like a really, really scary place sometimes if you're just, you know, a person that's not very familiar with the neighborhood walking around. you wouldn't want to. so i really feel like especially in that sector of it, like there's a lot of homeless people across the street, you know, hanging around at the 7-eleven. even right next to them sometimes. so, you know, with them being open, it promotes less homelessness in that area and it does provide, you know, the eyes and more traffic. and it also i feel like it complements what's going on in that sector right now, too, with the bars. some of the billiards, other places that are now, you know, open up for later times. and, you know, with the proposition "e" being passed, they have to readjust their business in order to even stay open, let alone being a part of the community. if they can't be open, they can't even, you know, stay in the community. so with all of the problems that

we have in san francisco, and we go down even smaller into the community-based size, i think, you know, they are very valuable, valuable part of the community and part of san francisco. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is lee and i live in the neighborhood, and i go down ocean avenue quite a lot. and to create a business, a lot more walking traffic, especially at night. even more traffic, more people walking, i think it's better safety for the people riding on the muni, so i fully support that. thank you. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. any additional public comment? >> indication on the extension

of the hourly taverns must not apply to legalize or implement or readmit or readvise the law to allow the establishment to have a legal right to extend the hours of alcohol produced because as long as they are there, the more alcohol they acquire, and they could be jeopardizing the lives of themselves or others, and it is important that we must instill the law of order. the law of order is highly important. we cannot let the people have their way, because if if we do, then we continue to defeat the purpose of why it's important for change. change is important in order for us to acquire what we intend to acquire, so the indication of that extension of the tavern, bar and nightclubs, so we are going to vote on that as a no, and that's an order, because it

defeats the purpose. and if we frown upon this, then why do we utilize the board members who file upon it rather than the better judgment of their conducts of leadership. now, it's important that we understand we're the leaders, and the leaders must provide the significance of the professionalism and utilize it to the best of our capability in the capacity of our intelligence of that ability, so we are not going to allow that, and i want everybody to understand we're not going to accept another proposal. that proposal is denied, and you will have one year. you'll have the opportunity to prepare it and submit it by december 1st, may 4th if you pass december 1st, may 4th you'll have the opportunity to submit it, and at the one-year you will have it reheard and you will still get the same results. we're not going to extend the hourly ability to acquire any

bars, nightclubs, or personal home to -- with the homeless is different, but extend the drinking and alcohol. get away from me. and that's not going to happen. and because if we do that, then, again, we defeat the purpose and we want change. and we're going to make change one way or the other, so i want to make sure we are going to keep those who are willing to change this corrupt government and society -- [ bell rings ] -- to establish the importance of the future, which holds much more prosperity. so we can't utilize expensive funding, and i don't want the taverns to extend their hours from 2:00 to 4:00 a.m. is unacceptable, because they open at, what, 9:00 a.m.? close at 2:00 a.m. doesn't matter. so that's an order. we're not going to do it. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public

comment. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i think this is a common sense move to adjust business model throughout the changing conditions of prop "e." i think for all the reasons the speakers spoke, having the business open to 2:00 a.m. will be beneficial for the neighborhood and i move to amove. >> president hillis: commissioner? >> we know this area better than a lot. most people don't make it out to ocean avenue, been out there for decades and decades, and to the degree that we should support this existing business and give more eyes on the street. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> the voice of the ocean avenue business association has always been strong, always really, really vigilant. if they are supporting it, i think we have a solid voice of support. >> secretary: commissioners, a motion to approve the matter. [ roll call ]

so moved, commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, we continued items 13-a and "b" to november 18th, placing us on items 14 a and b. 2015-01414 benx and var. project authorization while the zoning administrator will consider the variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners. zoning administrator, planning department staff. the item before you, before the planning commission, is a large project authorization pursuant to planning code section 329 and 847 to allow the new construction of the six-story, 64-foot tall mixed-use building along folsom street and grant open space exposure and dweming mix. item before the d.a. is a

variance request for planning code section five-story 45-foot tall residential building along ringgold street, rear yard open space and dwelling unit exposure within the western soma special use district and the folsom streets respectively. along folsom street the project includes the demolition of the existing school building on the project site. approximately 24,102 square feet with 20 housing units, and 3,553 square feet of retail sales and service use along folsom. ten below-grid off-street parking spaces, 40 biking spaces and six class-two bike parking spaces, one three-bedroom unit, 11 two-bedroom units, and eight studios. the project includes 2,214 square feet of common space via

a common courtyard and roof decks, as well as 942 square feet of private open space via roof decks. along ringold the demolition of the existing school and second building, five stories providing 17 housing units, eight below-grid offstreet parking spaces, 40 class-1 parking spaces and six class-2, including a dwelling unit mix consisting of one three-bedroom unit, two three-bedroom units, as well as six studios, including 2,085 square feet of common space and open space via roof deck. so our department has received correspondence expressing concerns about the proposed project. the concerns have been centered around the proposed height. the project is one existing

par parcel that spans two existing districts. therefore, the project is required to obtain an l.p.a. for the portion of the project within the red-mx zoning district. since the publication of the hearing notification, the project has been revised to eliminate the need for a conditional use authorization for exceeding the principally permitted amount of off-street parking. the project's off-street parking has been revised from a previously noted 23 spaces to a currently 18 off-street parking spaces. cumulative across the two buildings. an important notification to note is a new inclusionary housing finding has been printed for the commission to consider under the l.p.a. motion. the aforementioned explains the specific inclusionary housing percentage breakdown that the project is required to comply with. to clarify, the 20% that is included in the existing motion

is correct. however, more specifically the project is required to provide a minimum of 10% of the unit to low-income households and the remaining 5% of the units to modern income households as defined in the planning code and the procedures manual. the specific languages included in the conditions of approval but was omitted in the findings, so you have that finding today.

the project provides a new housing development with ground-floor retail sales and service to use a long fulsome street. both streets will receive site upgrades including street trees that will support the pedestrian environment and improve the public realm. the project is consistent with and respects the varied neighborhood character. the frontage is more in keeping with the prevailing industrial character of that corridor and the frontage is in keeping with the predominantly residential alley.

thus the project provides an appropriate mapping and scale for the adjacent context. the project adds 37 dwelling units across two buildings to the housing stock pick seven of which will be permanently affordable on site. the project would utilize easter neighborhood area plan controls as required for the building within the zoning district and will pay the appropriate development impact fees. this concludes our presentation and i'm i am happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: thank you project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners commissioners. i am an architect for the state of california and a registered m.b.e. with the city of san francisco. we started this project over two years ago. we're very excited to be at this point. and happy to present this project.

i thank you have a lot of everything that was already submitted that i have on our slideshow but i wanted to take a brief moment on the concern of the neighbors of the no windows on the east and west side. as you know, and i have these pictures to add that we took just today. that letter of concern came in last night at 8:00 pm. we wanted to prepare and respond appropriately. you know all the details of the number of units and whatnot. if you can focus on this, it is a very dark it is very common in san francisco to have windows along the property side that shows that we understand that we have covered up and will also build walls and in a modified building standard to rate the walls and we also had a sprinkler head at each one of the windows windows. they are not necessary to the light pack air and ventilation of the space that it is giving light to, with just an

opportunity to make the space is better at this moment. we recognize that it is not forever. just a couple of projects on the immediate block around. which we counted about eight projects with very similar situations. >> president hillis: can we get the overhead? do you want the overhead or the computer? >> the overhead. >> president hillis: overhead, , please. there you go. >> here is fulsome -- fulsome, and then this one was recent. it is one of the most recent

projects in san francisco. but this is on centre street. these are the cases that are relatively common practice with that zoning. that is how i wanted to use my time. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you we will open this item up for public comment. there are a couple of speaker cards. others may speak also if you would like. line up on the screen side of the room. you can approach in any order. go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is bill pollock. i own the publishing company in san francisco for over 20 years. i employ over 20 people.

we are located on 2,458th street, having outgrown our old location which is next to the subject property. i also started a public nonprofit in 2016 to do business in san francisco which will provide scholarships and grants to kids. our foundation is also a san francisco employer. we just received data approval to hire. i also own the building that borders this property. as a community, we depend on the planning commission to guide us through proposed developments like this one. in support of the commission process charge of improving our surroundings through environmental analysis, improving our heritage and enforcing the planning code, i am concerned about how the requested code exceptions and overbuilding impact will impact safety concerns in this zone and disrupt the neighborhood, affect the statics of our community and the historic street and failed

to advance a need for open space in this area and also, affect my ability to develop my own property with these property and lined windows. i would like to submit a few things -- i don't know how to show these things. >> president hillis: if you want to show it on the overhead just put it on the overhead. >> this map is attempting to show the lack of open space and parks in the area. one of these things is the variance to remove open space. these photos which were thanks to the preapplication meeting, they show -- you can see the height of this building that has been discussed the nature. one variance has to do with doing away with the rear yard and this will affect the statics of the community. there are minimal parks already as i showed in the previous screen. there's basically -- there is

one a few blocks away and west and south there is a concrete jungle. it is freeway and on ranks for blocks. property line windows next to my property prevent my ability to build. regardless of any precedent, these windows should be removed. it will affect community well-being and leave no play area and green open space for tenants with children. it will also increase noise pollution. as i mentioned, it will affect the visibility of the tower. and we are talking about going down 20 feet. the water table here is 9 feet down. we don't need a repeat of that to support a five-story building construction is estimated to take three years. that would disrupt the community life and bring noise and congestion and road closures and large diesel machinery. >> president hillis: thank you i appreciate it. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, i own a building make block on the

street. my questions would be, our street is one street long. we have already absolved 400 units. this guy is proposing a building that is bigger and bigger face than what was allowed across the road. it is meant block. it is a huge building. it is 45 feet high. i was led to believe that we had a 40-foot high limit on the street. i developed my property four years ago and i was subjected to 30-foot setbacks on my third floor. my worries would be the height of the building, the bulk and the ability for our neighborhood to absorb another massive development on our street. we are 1 street along with no parks and no outdoor space on the street for people and i believe we have reached critical mass with the amount of units that we have on our street. i would like to see it somehow fit in the fabric of our neighborhood. it is 45 feet high tech front

facing. the highest building on that side of the street is 25 feet high. without a setback. if you are going to allow to build, you should implement what you have for everyone else on the street which is setbacks and light and air. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a homeowner on the street which is up to watch what adjacent lots over, 25 feet away from the proposed project. i would like to echo the concerns of my neighbor and also add my concerns, which primarily surround the height of the project, the increased density of the project, the noise that will be created as a result. there will be 98 more people residing on this street. it is a very small alley and if you are familiar with so much, in order to access our street, you have to turn right from ace onto fulsome. there is a five way signal there

peerk you cannot turn right on red. the traffic has been backing up onto that right turn. the additional units will create a logjam at that intersection which will affect everyone who lives on the street. the noise is a concern, especially with the variance for the property line windows. because my unit is a penthouse which is flush with the adjacent building. all of the noise that is generated from any units with windows facing our side is going to directly affect me. there is no setback from the street. our property has two setbacks on the second floor and the third floor. i am a 30-foot setback. everything that goes on, especially on the roof deck of this project will directly impact me. you will be 25 feet away. there is -- those noise concerns also extend to the construction process. there is a limit of 80 decibels within 100 feet of the source of the noise. i have measure the street noise

on the roof of our building which is ambient, 50-60 decibels i consider that to be pretty moderate to. it is a quiet block. we are in the middle of the block and i enjoy the peace and quiet. the air quality is another concern i have. i have 400 square feet of uncovered deck space that will be below this project. so i am concerned about the breeze and the effect on the air quality. furthermore, i would like to note i never got a mailing about this project. i signed up with my real estate broker. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is andrea. i represent the owners at 1251 fulsome street. we are building properties towards a southwest of the project and the only concern that we have is a property

windows that is being shared. because we will be able to develop the site also at 1251 fulsome. we want to work with the project sponsor to see how we can mitigate the issues of these windows that is facing out of the properties. may be a light while situation. it might mitigate the issues. but we do have some concerns with those property windows along the property line. we are willing to work with the project sponsor to see how we can resolve that. >> president hillis: thank you any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comments. >> commissioner moore: i know we need to improve housing, but i consider this project problematic for a number of reasons. i do think that the issue of property line windows, aside from the fact, for the reasons of the public has mentioned it to, it basically does not take into consideration that there is

development rights on the adjoining properties on either side which could build up to the same height as this project as. that said, what we would then create is about -- a list of bedrooms which is project already has plenty of. i need to restate that as an objective of what type of housing we are building and where. i have a particular issue with the ground floor or watch is labelled the first floor of the project. -- or what is labelled the first floor of the project. the studio unit, which is to the right of the entry into the building, is flanked by a lobby by an elevator and a garage. it is basically a space that i would consider not livable. i do have problems to the rear of the building. a two bedroom unit facing a yard that is a public yard, where the

yard itself back in a net open dining mention is 9 feet. i do not consider that to be a commonly usable open space. and then there was a light well that is not being allowed to be counted as open space for fulfilling the requirements for open space of the building. are you following? ok. those are my concerns. you could debate the architectural appearance. we are not doing that here at the moment. it is the quality of the building and property line windows, which we are continuously, basically, not even allowed to support in older buildings. this is a starter for a building which creates, ultimately further, an increase in bedrooms that is not acceptable. i voiced my concerns and i am not in support of the project at this moment. it can be modified but it would

require some real work on this project. >> president hillis: any additional comments? maybe we can ask -- commissioner richards, go ahead. >> commissioner richards: it is interesting. i'm amazed at the change there. it used to be a low slung alley on both sides. it is really, really high. and you have developments along the other side of the street that are also becoming tall and it is really overwhelming in the alley. if we look at this project and i think to commissioner's -- more 's point, we need to make each quality more livable. especially if we don't approve the lot line windows. i will wait for other commissioners to see what they say. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: where the light wells considered in

the new building? >> we did not consider it light wells as an alternate solution. we discussed it with the project team as an alternative, but staff was recommending that they not provide any spee sex in general, i am in support of the project and appreciate the setbacks on the back that they have done to mitigate the massing. -- >> commissioner koppel: in general i am in support of the project and appreciate the setbacks on the back that they have done to mitigate the massing. >> president hillis: what you are thinking on the request for the variances -- >> this is a unique lot situation. it is a split a zoning lot which further complicates this. not only because of slightly different zoning requirements because of entirely different approval requirements. generally the project is fairly code compliant and we are in

support of the variance request that they are putting forward. the portion of the lot on the front on folsom is within the nct which allows for rear yard modifications if they provide the equivalent amount. they are providing a 25% rear yard essentially in the middle as a courtyard. so generally, that will comply with the rear yard modification requirements. i think for that, and going to the unique circumstances with the lot with a split zoning, i would be supportive of the request that they have made. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: could you please address the issue of property line windows and could you also address the issue of a supportable depth of a courtyard , 9 feet, as i mentioned seems very undersized. it is a light well. that is not a courtyard. even if it multiplied over the woods of the lot to, it creates square footage by usability, it

does not -- it is not a courtyard. we need to think about that. >> i understand that and can see that concern in relation to the courtyard at the lowest of the ground floor. but it does increase to 41 and a quarter feet at the second floors and above. it is just a question of that small courtyard at the ground level which serves -- perhaps for the units at the ground level could be better configured to because they do have one unit with studio fronting and the other unit fronting on that very small courtyard. >> commissioner moore: the unit fronting on the courtyard has a balcony which overhangs the courtyard. the courtyard itself has stairs coming down from the folsom street building and is used from folsom street. you may be able to exit out the bottom, but that is a folsom street yard. and the other project has a balcony. there is a misunderstanding. it is under dimensioned and

cleared 9 feet for those people from the fulton street side who are using that courtyard. it is a different layout. it is independent from the calculation. that piece is attributable to folsom on a 9-foot width. >> they are showing out to the proposed first floor, an 18-foot and 9-inch courtyard that serves the two bedroom unit that is on the other entrance. at that level, there is a two bedroom unit which has that courtyard, which is the width of the lot itself. it is almost 50 feet. it is about 50 feet wide. and then fronting on the other side, they have a studio. there are two auto units with that. at the second floor above -- >> commissioner moore: the building just comes back.

right. then you have a courtyard clear with a 9 feet and you have a deck which services the two bedroom units. >> president hillis: maybe we can ask the project sponsor to come up and put that on the overhead and explained explain that ground floor units. i am also not seeing how that works. >> on the ground floor, -- >> president hillis: you are on the computer, right? can we have the computer? >> on the ground floor, the rear yard is 18 feet. i'm not quite sure where that 9- foot is a -- >> president hillis: is there a cursor on there you can point in the rear yard? >> if you could pull up your section, it illustrates the condition that is of concern by commissioner moore.

>> i'm sorry. we did not include the whole pocket. >> president hillis: we can put it on the overhead. all right. walk us through. >> sure. >> president hillis: and also on the -- >> this site is very unique. it is a through lot. even going through and starting this project, we had to -- we took parts of considering it as one big lot and also having it divided. with that, even on the one side, a studio apartment originally, we had it as more as a

utilitarian room but working with the organization, they wanted it to have a residential unit. that is how that studio got applied there. here we see the lower section of the side. and then i will step up to the 41 feet wide of the rear yard. >> president hillis: can you point to where that two-bedroom unit is is? it is there. great. >> commissioner richards: could you put sheet a, 1.2 up which would have the four -- the floor plan. i think commissioner moore's concerns are related to the mix of private uncommon usable open space and that ground level. >> sure. putting that area is not a requirement. we figured it would be a better -- we are mitigating a future problem which is common people going in up against that window. it is our illustration of

showing that we are kind of thinking ahead. >> president hillis: it is not a balcony. you are just cordoning off the open space. >> we would put planters on their. >> commissioner richards: you have a gate there of some height to provide the privacy for the two bedroom unit. >> if you can imagine, if we didn't do it, people would be right up against that units. >> commissioner moore: you are showing a sliding door to get on that balcony there, right? >> i'm sorry. >> commissioner moore: you are able to go from the two bedroom unit onto that little balcony, right? >> yes, it is all the same level is not a balcony necessarily. it is kind of a private open space for that ground floor level. >> president hillis: in the region the commercial space comes back out that far, -- >> they did want us to give it as much commercial space as possible.

we did have a version that went even farther back, but there was some readings of it because it is a through lot of where it should be read as one lot continuously and then also split up into two. you notice where the parking is, on one side, we are within -- we are not asking for any variances >> president hillis: thank you >> commissioner richards: they are maximizing the amount of commercial space that they can have. on the front, which faces folsom , commercial uses are allowed and the rear portion, the commercial uses would not be allowed. so that is why they have -- the commercial space occupies the entirety of the nc zoning portion. >> president hillis: got to pick. >> commissioner moore: i still wanted to hear you speak to the property line windows, please. >> certainly. property line windows would be under the purview of this commission if you so choose to have us remove those. and otherwise, in order for the

permit to approve the poverty line windows into the building code, they would have to file a notice and be recorded on the deed of the property and those windows would have to be removed in the future, should there be development next-door, they are not allowed to meet any of their code requirements through those property line windows. it has to be completely self-sufficient based on access on its own property or the street frontage. those windows can't be used to satisfy code requirements. they will be required to be removed if there is future development that would block that. the commission may choose to not support that element of the project. >> president hillis: i'm supportive of the project. i think it could use some design tweaks. commissioner moore brought up some points. i think it could be -- it could be better designed. but i am willing to kick that to stop to work with and remove the property line windows and minimize the design changes of

the nested bedrooms. but i think the massing generally works. obviously, the housing is critical. >> commissioner moore: why wouldn't we ask that the project , even in the future, has lights coming to the bedroom so we are not kicking this project too much into more than 50% nested bedrooms? by modifying the plan and creating, basically, modulation on the north and south façade, which ultimately will be a light well. and for the time being, it is basically just extra light that we are creating. solidness on the property line and creating in such a windows for future access to light and air that would be a more responsible solution. i think it is fine. i would support property line windows. in the long run, it evaluates this housing and that is what i am concerned about.

>> president hillis: what devalues the housing? >> commissioner moore: if you have to later on closest windows , i would rather provide windows right now and support the department, which does not mean that you could not not invent windows. >> president hillis: if we can remove the property line windows and asked planning staff to work with them, that would minimize it. >> commissioner moore: the department has enough experience to direct that kind of modification. it will create a better project. >> most certainly. i am confident we can work with our in-house architects. we have been consistently working with this architect for the past couple of years to get the project to the state it is in today. knowing the intent to remove the windows and potentially explore other options such as light wells or other features while still maintaining the bedroom count, is certainly something that we can follow up with.

>> commissioner moore: if you wouldn't mind also looking at the quality of the studio unit which i think is quite efficient and that can also be done. i would appreciate that also be part of your rework of the project. i am in support of it but i am looking for some more refinement of the project. >> i think we can look at that one relative to the design guidelines and get a better orientation out of that unit. >> commissioner moore: what with the motion need to say? >> i would imagine that you would make a motion to approve this matter with conditions and direct the project sponsor to continue working with staff on the property line window issue. >> president hillis: it is to eliminate the property line windows. and minimize the nested bedrooms and look at alternatives such as light wells that would provide light and air into the bedrooms. >> commissioner moore: and look at quality of unit. i make a motion.

>> commissioner richards: seconds. -- second. >> on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. >> close public hearing and declined to request the public variance. >> that will put us on case number 15. 1698 folsom street. this is a conditional use authorization. [please stand by]