other ones we had where we had initiatives by citizens, signatures, and we have things that are 50 5%, anything lower than 67% will not pass. i am worried about that. there's all kinds of funding sources, with us one of the most regressive ones we have. is a property owner, i am happy to pay a property tax if this will work and it will start solving things. the new regional housing entity authority will collect revenue, i guess that is taxes, invest in housing developments, and provide technical assistance. great, what does that do for the mere's office of housing here? how do they work together? i think we need a little bit more detail on this stuff. the other thing is, i'm sorry, i am skipping around here. on the next page, we have such a big amount of data on studies,

and figures, and everything. let's put them all on the table and actually analyse them. i have them here, do an inventory of everything that we know starting with the nexis study, the pipeline report kept his zone capacity, the housing balance report, the housing inventory, the% of each income level in each neighborhood that is a federal reserve of san francisco publishes in their federal reserve snapshot. the outmigration, the in migration, i read on the outmigration we have 48,000 low-income people leave, a 60,000 high income people came. we had an increase in population of 12,000 of people that now are higher and wired than the people who left. number of jobs added, square footage of commercial area, commercial space that will be approved each year under prop and, how many workers is that? how many people commute into the city?

they are projecting the 70,000 pipeline units. how much would that accommodate of the people we are trying to get to? the commute patterns in the population trends and rates. in my neighborhood, sexual orientation. the castro is becoming less gay because people are moving to portland, one move to new orleans, because it is cheaper. i want to get all of this understood. i think we tend to make decisions sometimes in vacuums, but when you put it all, i think we can get a really good understanding of this. hats off to the great overview and context, i think the sense of this commission, and certainly the citizens is let's have a deep dive here in s.b. 50 , and have a hearing on it and actually vote like we did on a 27, and potentially the same with casa. >> anyone else on this? commissioner fong?

>> well, commissioner richards, that's quite a thing to follow-up their. [laughter]. >> i applaud the amount of work that you put into this and other topics. i appreciate the idea that you suggested, and the problems that were presented. we are all struggling with a similar kind of problems. i want to thank mr true for taking on this task. if anyone can wage through it, i'm hoping that you -- and i thank you have the ability to do that. i don't have any great ideas to add to it necessarily, but i do think that san francisco is going to continue to grow, and it is a mistake for us to ignore and put her head in the sand thinking that san francisco will be exactly the way it was. no large city in america is going to be exactly the way it was. this is where the jobs are you guys all see the amount of technology and creativity that is happening in san francisco, and i just see continued job growth. as we talked about though, the

job growth and office growth has to be in conjunction with transit growth, and with housing growth. his the last eight years we have really seen that office go out of whack, and we are feeling the pain on that. one of the speakers had mentioned emphasis or attachment to transit spending infrastructure spending. i have to agree that should come along with the housing considerations. i am supportive of the work that is going forward to. we need to hustle up here. we are probably already too late, but it is never too late to start, and get ready for that growth as it is coming. >> thanks. i want to thank staff. i actually am very supportive of what is happening at the regional level because i think we all know from our own experience that we are in a regional problem, you know, i think we all know friends, coworkers who could no longer afford to live in san francisco. you could just look at the planning department staff where

many have moved outside of the city to find cheaper places to live, and even beyond that, people who have left the bay area because it is too expensive, and they're going to portland, seattle and los angeles, and other places. i think this is a great first step. we cannot ignore it. people are not coming to the bay area. people want to come here, and want to live here, and we are not going to stop -- just like i did 25 years ago, and many of us did in this room. if you're going to slog through all of the numbers and analysis, if you look at the information we got last week of how much house and is being built in the region, from 2,000 to 202017, the region built 116,000 units. and if you assume we are going to build 50,000 more in the next three years, this decade his lowest housing producing decade of the last 80 years.

it is just progressively being decreased every decade from a peak of 435,000 units in 1970, 370,000 in the fifties, 366,000 in the sixties, and we are down to 110,000 in this seven years, unlikely to get more than 150,000. this is clearly a regional issue of enormous proportions. if we say, you know, we can point to some random m.i.t. study done by a graduate student about some neighborhood in chicago, but i think it is fairly simple to look at that we are not producing, we are not producing near enough housing in the region. we can all sit around and our various planning commissions in san francisco and say, you know, we are doing our part, but if you look in the last 17 years,

we have produced 50,000 units, alameda and contra costa and santa clara have all produce more housing than we have. i get it, they are bigger spots, but more people are also wanting to live in cities in urban areas from an environmental standpoint, we need to build more in urban areas, yes, we need to build more transits, i think that one is an adjunct to this report, and we've got to figure that one out. where the report lacked was funding for affordable housing, and san francisco has been a leader in that spirit we need to do more, and other regional level, they were a little sheepish about taxes, you know, revenue sources for our regional affordable housing solution, so commissioner fong hit it on the head, we will keep growing, were going to keep going at the regional level, were going to keep growing at the san francisco level, we can continue to say, you know, we don't like the way the state is doing it,

but if we keep growing at the keep pace that we have grown for the last couple of decades, there's no way we will solve the problem, and i applaud this effort to be think it's great to we have to continue to look at the regional level because that is what will get us out of this solution. not necessarily -- we want to do our part. i think it is great mr true is here, because we grapple with why these units are not being built. clearly we need to build those. beyond that, we have to build others that are in the pipeline, and we have to be smart about it. we have projects like 3333 california which is a small -- smart space to build new housing. there are a lot of people in here that were questioning the rationale for that housing when we had a hearing on it, the forest hills, laguna honda affordable housing project that we did not build because of opposition. we have to build where it makes sense. there are still a lot of places we can build in san francisco,

and i think we need to do it. looking at this regionally is a great concept, a great step and we have to continue on. >> thank you. just a couple of quick things. we will be doing an analysis of s.b. 50. the reason we haven't done it yet is the bill is changing. it will likely change fairly substantially over the next month touch at six weeks. we are waiting for that line of changes to do that detailed analysis. i think i wanted to emphasize something that commissioner hillis just said. the reason that i voted the report at the meeting was because it's a regional report. i think -- i can't emphasize that enough. the chart that marion presented last time she has every decade of housing production in the bay area, and we have literally, every decade since the 1970s, we have produced less housing than the previous decade, so we now producing -- will produce less than half the number of units that we produce in the 1970s as a region.

the notion that san francisco can solve these problems on its own is just ridiculous. we can't do it, and we are part of a community so people come to a region, the only -- the other thing that i find very interesting is that the notion -- there's an ocean among get many people that if we don't build it, they won't come. that is actually not the case. if you look at the population growth of this region and most regions in the country, the population grows before the housing is built, and that is because of job growth. we seem to get it when we talk about the job's housing and balance in the numbers are -- 700,000 units those jobs relate to people and population growth. to those folks are coming here, and yet, the population is growing even if we don't build the housing. in my view, it is not the buildings that cause the impacts

on transportation and water and everything else, it is the people. the people are coming whether we build the housing or not. i really believe strongly that we have to get over this notion that somehow if we don't build housing, people won't move here. it is not the case. i really believe strongly in this approach. commissioner richards, the third page of the report, this diagram does have the numbers, the goals that the casa report believes are necessary in order to meet these. it is 35,000 housing units a year, of which 14,000 are affordable, and 7,000 are modern-day homes. it does have the numbers in the report as well. i will be happy -- staff will be happy to delve into the report and s.b. 50 in more detail as that particular legislation is flushed out. >> thanks, commissioner johnson quaffed. >> first i wanted to join my fellow commissioners in thanking

mr true for his work. i am really excited for your role, and excited to continue to hear from you as you learn and explore hopefully you will have opinions with how the body can help support the city's goals. thank you to my fellow commissioners and director ram. i thank you couldn't -- there have points that you have all have made that i couldn't have said better myself. this is something i brought up in our joint hearing with historic preservation, which is just we continue to have a tension between the issues of how we balance the expedition and production of housing with preservation and protection, and on this body we look at it week by week, project by project, and what i see in this document is an opportunity which we all hold and embody to continue to take

the long view, is actually think beyond our city, regionally, about what needs to happen to make sure that we can do both. i am really challenged by -- i feel like i continue to hear week in and week out, which is a narrative of one thing or the other, and the idea that just because a suggestion isn't a silver bullet, it means we shouldn't do it, and because something isn't a silver bullet, it doesn't give us licensed to not do anything about those issues. i want to say yes to all of these things, i want to say yes to production -- protections, protections that people believe in, and that actually impact they're lived experience, and take the pressure off of their lives. i want those protections not just for san franciscans, the folks in vallejo, and palo alto, all throughout california. we need better mechanisms for preserving and preserving affordable housing and paying for affordable housing. we need to get better at

entitling projects and making sure that those entitled projects get built, and we have to up zone. i cannot think of a vision for the future that does not involve up zoning the city, and something that i found really interesting in this report was a conversation around high opportunity areas and exclusionary areas. areas that have great access to jobs and educational opportunities, but disproportionate levels of density, and i think that we can look at that on a state level, and we should be thinking about that in our own city. seventy mention the fact that we have certain communities that have not been treated fairly, and that have -- but those communities, those neighborhoods have been ups owned, while there are other communities that have been on equitably not ups owned, and not gotten transit that would allow more people to live in those neighborhoods. so when we talk about inequality, we have to recognize

the inequality of that that we continue to perpetuate as a city we have to also have transportation improvements. it is not one or the other. all of these things have to go together. we are being called to the opportunity to do them altogether. for me, the question next is how do we get it done? one of the issues is sequencing. protections are the foundation of being able to move forward on the other pieces, and again, i really think that all city departments, and we all have to work together to create that foundation where people believe in and experience protection that can allow them to live in a broader future and present, which is that more people are going to continue to move here, and our city is going to grow and expand, and we have to accommodate that. i was also really interested in -- it sounds like there was an internal debate around the

sensitive communities language and s.b. 50 and in casa around the definition of self, subsequent proposals, of whether development should be postponed in certain communities, and i think that is a commute -- a conversation we should be having at a city level as well. how do we define those areas? i know we are already having that conversation, but it gives us even more of an opportunity to think about that as we are exploring innovation, including looking at up zoning our city. finally, i will underlined that i agree with what so many fellow commissioners have said back that i think the priority that was missing from both of these pieces is looking at how we fund fund affordable housing, which again, goes hand-in-hand with the foundation of protection

that again we need to create in order to make sure people can feel -- fell into and to support the ultimate growth that is needed, not just in the city, within the region for california's future. >> thanks. commissioner moore? >> i am generally in full support and admiration of what my fellow commissioners said and what the public submitted in comments to us. there couldn't be any better dialogue and setting up challenges to re-examine what's in front of us given report has been set and being sent to us. the only thing i would like to add is if we are looking at up zoning on the regional scale i was strongly urge that each community looks at his own capacity. we are talking about up zoning, which we have done, but we have never really looked at the carrying capacity of our land, of our preestablished streets

and transportation networks, that includes infrastructure, roads, sewers, et cetera. that has a measure in stone, at least for built up the steep -- cities. san francisco first and foremost because we are at the lowest end of capacity which are being -- affected by this legislation. the other think, and i said it last time, is comparing housing, -- housing growth going back to the fifties and sixties. we need to look at what types of housing under what circumstances these houses were built, and i do not think that we can sit here and honestly beat ourselves and say we are not doing enough. it is a situation of what type of housing we build, under what code provisions, totally and absolutely different from what it was in the fifties and sixties when there was a catch up with demand, in an expensive housing could be built in mass production. let's get out of being guilty

about what was and what isn't anymore. that goes the same thing when we were talking today about looking at housing growth by location in the region, i don't have any regrets. if you have plenty of land and continue mass production of housing at a much lower end, selling it high, building at low, that does not faze me, because we are basically doing gentrification by building super expensive high-rise housing, which no gets near the square foot cost of what you are building out in the suburbs. i think that needs to be brought to the table as we are creating an even playing field of how to meet the state mandates, if we want to basically -- if we have to succumb from top-down regulations of how we build and how we live. that's all i want to say, and i am actually -- i have to admit it, i am depressed by the honest and serious pushback and comments that i have received,

all of them are printed out, and it is very difficult to sit here and have to think about it. that is my comment. >> thank you. mr. true kinetic -- can i ask you a question? you have these entitled projects that we obviously all want to get built and helped put a dent in the demand for housing, are you -- i know you are fairly new to this, maybe you don't know the answer to this, but are you seeing this on a regional level, or is that a somewhat san francisco unique phenomenon that there is a huge amount of pent up entitled?

>> those will be built in 5, 10 or 15 more years. we have a strong need that encompasses more than those units.

>> we have if not the highest one of the very highest numbers in terms of projects that are ready to go. >> commissioner richards: we have 141,000 zoned capacity. why aren't people getting entitlements on those one story buildings on mission street where the shoe store and there's a height limit. >> just a quick data clarification, the 140,000 is inclusive. >> director richardson: okay, great. i appreciate that. i agree what everybody else said

here. doing nothing is not an option. what is the sensitive community. i went to the website of m.t.c. and federal opportunity website. there are two different things, i don't know what the definition was. how did we com come up with thee opportunity zones. governor brown chose them and reported it back to the federal government. did you have have any -- >> we can bring you a clear definition and geographical designation of those areas. there have been multiple efforts to define that at the state, federal and regional level. each one has likely different set of indicators for transportation purposes. they are the disadvantaged

communities. the sensitive communities is based on community input. each one varies slightly. we can summarize the information. >> director richardson: one of other things, the worry that i have, i probably said this five times i walked around neighborhood in los angeles called frog town. it was just horrible. all these little bungalows. there are 700 square feet. what's happening is, we're probably one of the those kinds of zones that would be covered under sb50. you have black rock and morgan stanley buying all the homes up. when the community comes and says this is what we want the plan to be, it's no longer community owning it. you got this big payout happening in five years, whenever those parcels are

unlocked for development. there's got to be something to prevents that kind of acquisition of large masses of properties for community of concern or whatever. they don't own anything anymore. it doesn't make any sense. >> that is the intent of the communities of concern in general. if we are supporting any level of investment because of the availability and the zoning and the infrastructure, that comes with equally if not stronger protection controls that allows sensitive communities it stay in place. whether it's supported through housing or economic development or districts. this that effort that will allow us to retain the integrity of those communities. >> commissioner richards: great. really brief comments. i have seen ms. rogers in the chambers last week.

i said to her, let's talk about this type understanding what zoning is. you had said, we had mr. rossman come and speak to the department. i love him to come and educate about how he found out about the zoning. one more data point, everybody that i mentioned taking sb35 standard, i said would you support sb50 if were that? i didn't get one person that said no. i think you got people who for the right kind of housing can get behind these kind of radical changes to our city and to the region and to the state. last question, what are the chance bees that casa can get gummed up? we had the mayor come -- i had

no participation in this. what do the cities weren't sitting at the table, what can they gum up the process? >> regional process director can provide more of the specifics. it's really advisory board. in terms of implementation, the implementation would have to go to the state level or local level. the intent of casa is we bring some level of collaboration, an engagement from cities that can produce more housing. they have the resources and the infrastructure and recognize the cities that have have been contributing. there is a recognition that we have strong zoning local controls and is through an engagement and incentives and collaborations that we can get substantial being. >> commissioner richards: my recommendation would be, we have something that we work for us in

the region. there need to be some broad state laws. few are following your local, regional process and your good faith effort -- we don't things being thrown off kilter by somebody saying, i'm invoking the a.h.a. here in regards to your community plan. there's got to be some type of carve outs. i have a question too. first question back. i want to ask you, you spoke to the slide of the san francisco strategies and housing production, or your colleague spoke to that. we're first looking at large-scale approved projects. i want to ask you in descending order of approval, these were

all large development agreements. are you intending to look at these projects based on the age of approvals or what priorities are you looking at? >> that's a good question one that i'm actively working on with colleagues throughout the city. i think different projects -- they all need to move forward. i don't think i'm in position to say this development agreement project needs to move faster than the other one. we as a city have entered in agreement with project responsers to move these projects forward. we need to have the response --y and resources. they should be in different

stages. each project has its own particular challenges that may arrive over the course of the process. whether it's through the legal process. one of the things is taking a look at the projects to understand where they are in their lifecycle. i was away from city hall for four years and my previous job before working for mayor breed and board president chu, he voted to support the entitlement and the development agreement for some of the projects. they haven't moved to construction. i'm looking at a significant number of years since some of these were approved and trying to understand what's going on. there have been each individual project, significant efforts to get them closer to construction and we do see some ready to go verticals. my answer, there really are the

priorities. >> commissioner moore: will you stay in touch with this commission to give us an update? some of us have been sittings on the commission for a while. many of them were approved so long ago. each time, we all sitting here and we're really working this project. we're doing, are you ready for ground breaking. each time, we hear, yes we are. we are rushing approvals and really trying to do the heavy lifting only to see nothing many years later. we encourage you to keep communication with us so we can hear little positive news. >> i'll be happy to. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you all for being here. if you watch the mayor state of the city address, he challenge

us all to take on these issues. commissioner johnson your comment about there isn't a silver bullet. there's tons of ideas and solutions to try to bridge this divide and thank you for your yes vote on the compact. we'll hear more on that. [laughter] >> we can move on to items 14a and b for case numbers 2018-7029 zoning administrator will consider request for variance. >> good afternoon.

commissioner hillis and joining administrator. presenting a request for conditional use authorization and for variance to planning code at 88 museum way. it's located mid-block on the south side between roosevelt way and randall museum within the corona heights neighborhood. the lot is 125 feet in deputy dd slopes deep down low. properties developed with a three-story two family dwelling on the state street side the lot. the building is unique and subdivided vertically. although planning code definition, we'll be discussing

the project as rear yard of the property for the project sponsors with area under review of the front yard. the only access to the public street. on museum way, the properties are developed with two family dwellings of three story and three stories in height. the lot totaled 3125 square feet. the project will construct -- two story detached garage structure and accessory space located on the rear property line. the structure front from the museum way will provide two vehicle parking spaces for the residents if the rear unit. the structure provides an entry gate to maintain pedestrian access to the existing unit, 88

museum way. we request conditional use authorization for the corona special use district for residential development this results in less than 45% rear yard depth. at the time of the publication, the department received nine letters in support. this includes letters from adjacent property owners on museum way. since the publishing of the report, the department received three letters in opposition to granting of the c.u.a. these were emailed to the commissioners in week. additional letter of support was

submitted. i'll be submitting these to the record. project sponsor has been responding to concerns through the review process. originally submitted the project contain a roof deck as a family room. they found the site design to be consistent with the residential design guideline but requested the roof deck to be removed and garage door be reduced. the department stressed concerns with the appropriateness of the upper floor and the proposed use of detached living space with a roof deck. in addition to responding to the department concern with removing the roof deck, the sponsor clarified the proposed use of upper floor storage and work space. with that said, the department is recommending approval of the project with conditions. the property is currently developed to the maximum

density. proposed project is -- the proposed building has been beened condition the context of the neighborhood. this concludes staff presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> project sponsor. welcome. >> thank you, good afternoon commissioners. we can display presentation. thank you. we're way. ewith lived in san francisco for over 10ally te 10 -- ten years. some of the aspects of the home which most attracted us when we were looking at it was a friendly neighborhood, the

garden, the 6-year-old cypress tree and opportunity to build a garage. the parcel map included in the documents illustrated a proposed garage which was permitted for construction in 1986. we were starting a family in april. having on sight parking is important to us. we love the city. we love the neighborhood and we plan it stay in our home for the long-term. we go through wooden gates from museum way we walked down a sleep slope of 62 steps. it's about 45° slope down in some places. our home is quite high up as well, there 300 feet. the other unit on the property is 336 state street. the slope is very steep and it's

far too steep for a driveway and front of our current condo. this is a unique situation. the reason we can have parking on museum way as was proposed in the '80s. having this garage will improve the enjoyment of our home. ththat shows the additional

parking. it contains two spaces. that's added one to the streets. all the homes on museum way have their own street parking on museum way. that's out of like 23 frontages on the street. we plan to use the upper space for exercise and meditation. the space will provide additional security for the street, security is an issue in our area. we had number of lights stolen from the front of our property. we will benefit from the storage area as well. we need to vetera convert a roor home to nursery. let's show the diagram now. we've been asked about our plan for cypress tree. we love the tree. we're preserving it.

we've been consulting on the design for the garage. we plan to hold back the foundation at least 12 feet from the tree and supporting structure will be on piers. we did receive a letter from certified arborist on confirming that our plans are compatible with preservation of the tree. we'll continue to work with the arborist to ensure the final design will protect the tree. we love the local wildlife. we've included a wildlife so animals can continue to pass to our lot. it is important to note that the buildings have blank walls facing us today, we will not be disrupted any one's view. in response to this feedback,

we've removed proposed roof deck, etcetera. for these reasons, we are happy to receive nine letters of support from our neighbors including five immediately adjacent ones. thank you for reviewing the project. >> thank you. we'll open this up for public comment. i got couple of speaker cards. >> was that three minutes? >> president hillis: five. >> do we have ten minutes. >> president hillis: we have to shorten time because we may lose quorum. public comment on this item? no. now is the time.

>> i want to say thank you to the commissioners. you might want to consider putting a partial in favor and partial oppose. i don't mind the parking garage at this location. there's four other properties along the street that also have put in garage. that's fine and it looks perfect. by adding the second floor, they will take away any view of the cypress tree that the people -- they will see 15% top that tree from across the street. why they need to add an additional 800 square feet of storage space is kind of confusing to me. if they want to add additional space, why not build on the existing home. they have 200 square feet underneath the pine lawns. they're asking for 45, -- why not drop that second floor down?

that way it would leave the views from corona height parks which is beautiful. the idea there's security issues, maybe they've had a light stolen once or twice, our street is very quiet, except for during the daytime when people going to the randall museum. people come down museum way and head down to state street. the street got activity on it. there's no safety issues there. i lived there since 2012. there was a bathroom and a kitchen space in there. i would really appreciate if this commission guarantee us neither one of those will be there. big concern of the people were there, this will be an airbnb space outhear or third bedroom.

finally, the idea of extra eyes and safety issue and boilerplate letter is ridiculous. if this is clearly a storage pace, why do they have ceiling windows on both sides of the space. i don't think i would put windows if the storage space area. that's all i have to say. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i've been there over 15 years and i agree 100% with tom and what he said about the neighborhood. i personally have had my car broken into several times. it is dangerous on that street as far as getting in and out of the car. i've been hit by a car once and that particular car was on the way to the museum.

there is an issue with the street being too narrow. i fully support tom with the addition. as far as talwi tall windows, ts massive windows in the front. they are still pleasing. they're at the end of the block. i wasn't opposed to those two structures. tom's proposal isn't something that's going to be horrible for the neighborhood. they've been excellent neighbors and very civilized and contributing not only to our block but to the whole area as a whole. i fully support it. as far as the tree, there's no guarantee in any area in san francisco that you can't have full access to the beauty of a

tree. i think that's ridiculous. the structure is to the garage with storage space. it's not anything monstrous. it's pleasing. i think that you should support and let this happen for vladimir and tom. i'm little nervous, i'm sorry. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> next speaker please.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i'm chris parks. i live at 231 state street. i request not approve the proposed project. zoning protections for rear yard have made state street and museum way a beautiful streets they are today. this happens to be state street. as you can see on this graphic from overhead, museum way is along the top. state street is in the middle. at the bottom is the court. these are through lots. of because the zoning, few exceptions such as apartment

existing rear yards on state street have been preserved by zoning requirements. you can see museum way. [indiscernible] >> speak in the mic. >> sorry. this actually shows museum way. these are rear yards up on museum way just a short distance away from the proposed project. then again, this is state street where the rear yard -- these alternating patterns provides characteristics where folks can enjoy the rear yards. relatively recently, residents

discovered variances were granted for developments. the article on the front page of the san francisco chronical in 2015 shows both state street and museum way. in response, neighbors spent hundreds of hours getting new controls in place on the through lots that we have on state street and museum way. if we do not follow the controls, we're to improve this, what have we accomplished with all that effort? bottom here it talks about the intent of through lots and protecting those rear yards. this is the proposed garage in the rear yard of 88 museum way. it's three levels. i believe the roof deck may have been changed recently from this

depiction. it's in the rear. if we do not follow -- [indiscernible]-our neighborhood will be changed review from existing residents. i ask that you please deny it. >> any additional public comment on this item? >> hi commissioners. i live 108 museum way. i've been a long time resident of museum way. i met these two guys when they

moved in. let me tell you, they are a beautiful addition to our neighborhood. that's what we call museum way. i know just about everybody who lives on that street. when they come and go, it took me 11 years at podiums like this around city hall to get utilities under ground on museum way. the wonderful neighbors came to me and said, what can we do for you. you increased our property values by 10%. i said, ounce of caviar and a bottle chris stow will be fine. i'm still waiting. i think this project is in addition to our neighborhood. rules are made to be bent.

that's solomon proved in the old testament. they worked hard. they've done everything that's been asked of them. the issue of tailing two -- taking two parking spaces off the street i find wonderful. it's a very quiet street. we have a lot of break-ins, lot of damage. whatever you can do and your consideration of this request, think about the neighbors. think about their friendses. think about the two guys who are willing to improve our neighborhood, with a fence and a structure and enclosed garage to provide them security for their vehicles. i love it see the city require two parking spaces for every residential unit. [laughter] you think that's going to happen?

thank you very much. >> thank you. any additional public comments? we'll close public comment. >> commissioner moore: unfortun. we spent a lot of time for many months and years on state and museum way or in that area. this project fits in. i wanted to acknowledge that department challenges to the project very well taken. there was a roof deck which has been removed. there was a reduction in the wirth owidth of the garage door. i havely to assume -- i have to

sexual harassment there's restriction on th--assume theref the use of the upper floor. i think that also, please correct me, trees on private property do not fall under the control of the planning department. however, this commission together was a department very intent on either getting trees to be landmark trees, they are very special quality or make go out of our way to preserve the trees. i have to look at least once a week.

i do not see an any issues with this application. i'm in full support of it. >> commissioner richards: it's refreshing to have project sponsor to present their own project rather than have an attorney and somebody else. that's nice to know. i agree with what commissioner moore says. i agree on the condition of the tree. it's incredible. you did consult an arborist. we had significant trees, where we asked for a tree report, etcetera and what project sponsor end up doing. they didn't kill the tree, they killed it from the lot they bought next to it. i believe that you're sincere wanting to keep that tree. i move to approve. >> second.

>> thank you. >> there's a motion to approve. on that motion -- [roll call] motion passes unanimous 5-0. >> closed public hearing. >> very good. commissioners that will place us on items 15a and b. you will consider the conditional use authorization and zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. >> good afternoon chair hillis

and member of the commission. the proposal before you is a conditional use authorization for new construction on a lot greater than 10,000 square feet. the project also requires the rear yard modification which zoning administrator will review as the next item on today's agenda. the project site is located on the same parcel as the city landmark. extensive review has been completed. there are no changes proposed to the landmark building. the subject parcel is an l-shaped 13,480 square foot lot located at the corner of buchanan and north point street. new construction kansas city oft four-story building. -the dwelling units are family size. six of the eight units have

private patios or balconies and all of the units have access to common open space located in the central courtyard. the new building will replace one-story garden shed building. which is currently used as an office and has existing drive-way. garden area underwent resource evaluation and neither were found to be contributing features of landmark site. the evolution of the building design is clearly illustrated in the project plan, included in the packet. a certificate of appropriateness was approved by the historic preservation commission in november 2018 and project sponsor has addressed the two building material items that were conditions of approval. both the historic resource

evaluation are included in the project packet. large lot development rares c.u.a. approval in order to promote, protect and maintain a scale of development which is appropriate to the district and compatible with adjacent buildings. the subject and opposite block phase contained mixed use and residential buildings ranging in size from two to four stories with two to 28 dwelling units. building of this size is completely appropriate for this site. the project sponsor has made numerous modifications as directed by the historic preservation commission. the department has received a letter in support of the project