little bit more -- we really were asking for a basic alignment with this building next door and this new building mass such that this space here was as open to the rest of the midblock open space as -- as possible. and it was doing no more than what the existing full lot two story building is currently doing. so our recommendation is removing the third floor of this portion, which is in excess of what's currently there to sort of open this up to the rest of the midblock open space. with respect to the roof decks, you can see the roof decks on both front and back buildings, you know, are especially in excess of this already pretty gracious open space already in

the project sponsor's schemes, so given the interior location of those roof decks, we felt it was appropriate to ask them to be removed. >> commissioner moore: could you address the other question i have, the front and universal accessibility? >> i'm sorry, what was the other question you had? >> commissioner moore: the front section, you had accessibility. >> did you ask about accessibility? >> commissioner moore: yes. >> this is a six-unit building. under chapter 11, it would be a covered building. the first primary floor of those dwellings would have to be accessible. in order to do that, given that it's on the second floor, it would have to have a means of access from the sidewalk, main

point of entry so that -- to a unit. 10% of the units, which would be one unit ground floor of that second floor. so there needs to be either a lift or an elevator from the ground floor up to that second floor primary entrance or individual unit. >> president melgar: so is there one now in the proposed design? >> no, there's not one. there's a proposed stairway. >> president melgar: and are you saying they're required to do that? >> by my interpretation of the california building code. so we don't typically ask and review plans to that level. sometimes we miss things that are under our purview in terms of building code issues. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioners, regarding the

front set back inquiry, so because the subject parcel is between parcels that front 24th street as well as parcels that front folsom street, the project cannot average the front set back requirement, so because of its configuration, it must match the folsom street neighbor's front set back requirement, which is 12 feet. currently, the project is proposing 10 feet, so that means 2 feet are enkopping into the required front set back, so that's planning code section 132. planning code section 260 also requires that at the front set back, a 45-degree access plane be provided, so there's a portion of the massing that is not code complying and it needs to be rectified and is, so my understanding and -- to my understanding and i'll defer to the zoning administrator, nonvariable. >> president melgar: thank you,

miss jardines. mr. teague, did you want to say something on that. >> thank you. i'll elaborate on that a little bit. co corey teague. i think there was a statement that the project sponsor can pick which frontage. that only applies to their property, the owner -- a property owner may pick which frontage is the frontage for the purpose of the code. even they be, the zoning -- in this case, the neighboring property is determining the frontage which is what's governing this. scott sanchez and i have both looked at this, and we both have determined that 24th street was definitely the frontage for purposes of the planning code. as was required, the required set back is 2 feet deeper into

the proposed property than what is -- referenced property than what is proposed now. in rh-2, there is an additional height requirement. it basically states once you get up to 30 feet, you have to -- there's a 45-degree jog into the lot that you have to meet, and that -- where that line starts is even the front property line or the required front set back line. so in this situation you could theorically request a front set back variance, but that would not allow you to push that back into the variance. height cannot be varied. so in this situation, the statements are made by langust and language in the motion is more about design and less of a

code issue. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. teague. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: mr. teague, can you at least with the drawings maybe show me what the 45 -- what that looks like because i'm just struggling to see how the 40-degree fits draw. >> i don't think it is on the plans. i think that's why the language is in the motion, the project needs to be amended to be pulled back 3 feet to meet the front set back requirement. there is no diagram in the plans that shows that. >> commissioner richards: okay. got it. i was looking for those. so i guess the question i have is i think this is a great thing for the neighborhood. i guess the question is i really would have hoped we could have seen changes that were recommended by planning, at least a set so we can understand what we're trying to approve. mr. winslow -- mr. winslow, on -- if you can use a-1.7, you

showed the overhead view in terms of what you're asking of the midblock open space. can you show us a side-view? >> yeah. thanks for asking. yeah. at or below the existing structure. this one is beyond the existing structure and is kind of what we were asking for with respect to augmenting and maintaining the existing midblock open space. can you see that? >> commissioner richards: thank you. exactly what i was asking. >> president melgar: commissioner hillis?

>> commissioner hillis: so thank you. o one, i like this project. i think it is a good conversion to housing. the midblock open space is -- it gets confusing back there. obviously, this is a full -- full lot building that has some full lot coverage buildings adjacent to it. there isn't this clear, defined midblock open space. i think we're trying to accommodate immediately next door to the north some additional light and air in this. but i like the project design. you've got a gracious courtyard. i think it's bigger than what's needed or necessary or code requirements, and you do get that extra bedroom from it.

i like the project as is. you're saying they've got to comply -- miss jardines, if you put that back up, the a-1.7, it's that fourth floor behind the parapet that you're saying has got to go back two more feet by code? >> yeah. >> commissioner hillis: so that's a code requirement because again, i don't see any impact from that. it's behind a parapet. you're not necessarily going to see that from the street, but you're saying that 2 feet is code required. [inaudible] >> commissioner hillis: right. so that's -- obviously, if it's code required, it's code required and that's got to comply. generally, we're supportive of the remainder of the project. you've got the roof decks on the remainder of that roof -- top roof.

would you be amenable pulling them back three to 5 feet from the east and west sides? i get it. you're kind of already setbacks -- >> i think the arc tech can address that. >> commissioner hillis: but, if you pull up the roof plan -- they're still going. if you pull up the roof plan. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the project design engineer. >> commissioner hillis: do you have, like, a-1.3. >> a-1.3?

>> commissioner hillis: yeah. just put it on the overhead. just pull it up so we can see those two on the bottom. so you had it before -- no, sorry. just the two -- two on the bottom. so your roof -- i mean, the roof decks on those, they cover the entire portion of the top floor, correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner hillis: except it -- i mean, i was particularly concerned in the rear, but you've got how much space between the building and the lot there? there's an additional 10 feet and then there will be 12 feet, i guess, in the front? >> that's right. >> commissioner hillis: okay. i mean, that's the only thing that's possibly a concern, although i get the issue that you're -- the building is

already pulled back from the side, so in essence, the roof deck is pulled back. it doesn't look as much like that in the rear, but i guess it. but -- but generally, i mean, i'm supportive of it as proposed, with the exception if it's code compliant, you have to move 2 feet back in the front. >> sure. if i may make a comment on the rear yard, the frontage of the corner building and how the front set back is averaged. >> commissioner hillis: you can. i don't think you -- i think you're going to have to duke is out with the zoning administrator. >> president melgar: yeah, we're not the body. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: the only thing i'd like to add is we have to remember, commissioner hillis, the roof decks are individually accessed roof decks.

if these were roof decks for the entire tenants, that would be another discussion. these are roof decks for three of the six units, and i think that is where the problem lies. this is where we spend a lot of time allowing not individually accessible roof decks but making roof decks a common open space if the open space is shy of the required rear yard in this particular place -- it is not. so i think the individual roof decks are just an issue of general policy that we have held up for many, many other projects. we have basically told many people to reconsider that, and we've often got very positive responses. >> president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i agree with commissioner hillis on that extra bedroom on the one side, open space. i'm just struggling to see what

robbing those bedrooms off that open space is going to do. you have code complying already? is that true? how big of a -- how big a variance is it seeking? i mean, what is the code complying real yard. >> so the project is required to provide 45% of the lot depth which the dimensional requirement -- here it is. >> commissioner richards: how many square feet. >> it's 65'3". >>. >> commissioner richards: what's the square footage for the rear yard and what are they proposing for the ground? >> if i may, that's a little bit challenging calculation on the spot because the rear yard jogs off.

it's not a perfect rectangle. >> commissioner richards: additional. >> no, of the required rear yard. >> commissioner richards: the proposed rear yard with the patio is approximately how much? >> 1,018. cumulative, the open space provided is over 6,000 square feet inclusive of all of the roof decks. however, the project does not need the roof decks to satisfy the useable open space requirement because that was satisfied at the courtyard level. >> commissioner richards: okay. i'm a little bit confused. so it's satisfied at the courtyard level -- >> for useable open space. there's two things. there's rear yard requirement and useable space requirement. in theory, one would satisfy

useable space requirement are rear yards, but in this case, we don't have that condition. if the building is pulled back the pull 12 feet at the -- at the third floor as required by the code, that would satisfy the dimensional requirements 'cause those would be private decks. >> commissioner richards: okay. you know, we've been down this road before on projects in the mission. we changed a project on mission street because the idea that it conveyed to the neighborhood, needism and things. i think these roof decks are in the same category. if we shrinked the roof deck and made it common, i'd be okay. roof decks in the calle 24 just seem like oil and water to me. >> president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: we would have to ask the applicant

whether he would be willing to add two scares tairs to make tf decks available to all. i can live with common roof decks. i cannot live with individual roof decks. could the applicant come up one more time, mr. patterson, or the architect or -- [please stand by]

comfortable with the project is. i would like to see five feet brought in from the east and west edge of the top floor so they are not as visible to neighbors and with that, i propose approval of the project. keeping the bedrooms and pulling back the roof decks from the east and west side five feet. so -- that's a motion.

>> ok. second. i agree with commissioner hillis's proposal. i want to point out that none of the neighbors are complaining about the roof decks, and neither is the man that has negotiated the deal. so, i -- i support pulling it back the five feet and keeping the bedrooms as well. ok, commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: mr. winslow. recently and -- recently proposed policy on roof decks, how would this building, what, if this building were going through the sausage factory now, what would it end up looking like with that policy applied? >> it go through the sausage factory with the direction we have been consistently hearing with respect to roof decks in locations such as this and that's why we made our recommendation, given the ample open space and, yeah, private

usable open space at the second level. both in the rear 15 feet of the lot as well as the 30-foot wide courtyard, all demised as primarily individual patios. in addition to the uppermost front terrace that could also be used as open space, it just seems like a lot of open space and the roof open space to the extent that it's in the back of a very tightly knit set of small, you know, it's high up, and it's in a very constrained pattern of other properties abutting it. so -- that was our -- that was our thinking about it, i mean -- >> commissioner richards: in your opinion, five-foot setback versus 7, 8, 10, i don't know what the square footage is of each private roof deck, give me

the impact analysis of every one you go back. >> immediate impact setting five feet from the side lot lines is that you immediately reduce the need for a solid fire rated parapet at 3.5 feet. so, that reduces some of the bulk, you know, shaving and shattering on adjacent properties, and reduces some of the usage of the deck from presumably peering directly over and into more privatized spaces such as rear yards and back windows. >> commissioner richards: if i -- >> this is the top of a fourth story on the roof decks. >> commissioner richards: i don't have kids, but if i had a kid, i would rather have them playing on the patio where i could see them from the unit rather than on the deck by themselves, fall over, who knows. ok, thank you. >> thank you. before i let you go, i just wanted to point out we have policies that we have

implemented and we want to standardize city-wide, you know. i think it's special and we are planning for the physical space that's going to be there for the next 100 years. but we are also planning for the existing conditions, and the community that's there now, and in, you know, taking account of what we are planning for for this particular building i want to be sensitive to what the community has negotiated for this particular project. we are getting the assurance one of the community institutions most important to the cultural corridor will stay, that you know, the facade that has, you know the beautiful mural will get to stay and that it is a place that will, you know, be in the community for a while, so, you know, i understand that we have policies that we want to

have everywhere, but i also want to be sensitive to this particular building and what we are getting and how important it is for the institutions of the corridor. ok. mr. teague. >> i was going to ask for clarification of his approval with the setbacks for the decks. you mentioned five feet on the east and west. we have an east and west building, so, your -- was your intent five foot on the east and west portion of each deck or just one at the front and one at the rear? >> commissioner hillis: the latter. the courtyard -- it's people who live in the building, you are looking over their space. and you are already -- so that was -- >> was there a second? commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: given the access stairs to the roof decks are, we are isolating the stairs now from the roof deck itself, so you have to create like a catwalk over the roof to get to

the roof deck itself, i want to point that out. and i do owe it to myself to express particular strong support for quattro, i sat here many, many years supporting it until we are blue in the face. and not a waivering position i'm taking on that. on the other hand, when, when as a planning commissioner i need to take a consistent position for all and everybody in their own right, emotionally and psychologically and spiritually, each of us, we all just don't have strong enough voice, but all neighbors are struggling across the city and i need to stand for principle. so, if i vote against it for the reason i cannot support individual roof decks no matter where they are, please understand that and i need to also say that to president

melgar, i support your position, but i do need to reserve myself the freedom to vote my conscience here. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: so, i hear where commissioner moore is coming from, i feel i'm the swing vote because you need four. i think it's extraordinary that you are allowing the cultural use of the first space into perpetuity. i'm better off with the railings pulled back. i do want to acknowledge the m.o.u. in our motion so at least it's memorialized legally somewhere, just acknowledge it. amend the motion, acknowledging the m.o.u. with the community. >> i would like to hear from the city attorney, if we can use that word, acknowledge. >> not condition acknowledge --

>> i think we have done this in other motions before. findings, in the findings. >> great. >> president melgar, there is a write-up about it on page seven of the commission's findings. i'm not sure if commissioner richards you are asking for something more. >> no, i'm good. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: a question for mr. winslow. the facts that the department acknowledges universal access, is this something we also put in as findings, we are not making that decision, but it is a finding by which this building needs to acknowledge that as a potential change in part of the unit design? >> my attitude towards that would be that's typically a thing that's covered under the building inspection department, building inspection typically plans are approved at a

schematic level. if the project can be modified to the satisfaction of building departments expectations, whether it's a lift or an elevator, without substantially changing the envelope that you are approving today, i think that's adequate. >> so it's -- i assume it's part of what we are acknowledging as a finding, we are not making decisions about it, just putting it out there because a change in use rule requires that and i think we need to ultimately, even as a planning department, recognize that. >> ok. so if there's nothing further, commissioners, a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as have been amended to pull back the east and west side property line roof decks by five foot on either side, and for the project to comply with the planning code

requirements. on that motion, commissioner hillis. [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, the motion passes 4-1, with commissioner moore voting against. zoning administrator. >> grant with the standard conditions and the condition the project be amended to meet the front setback requirement. >> commissioners, shall we go back to item 8 or proceed with item 10? 2009-3461cpw, implementation committee report, informational presentation. >> thank you.

ok, folks, if we could take the conversations outside, please, we still have business. thank you. folks. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. matt snyder, department staff. we are here today to provide you

with our annual report on the interagency plan implementation committee, just posted and covers fiscal years 2020-2024. and this presentation i'm going to give you, remind you of what it does, along with the implementation team and the c.a.c. a broad overview of the revenue, and then dive deeper and give you some highlights of some of the expenditures for the next four years. so, very quickly, so the implementation team on the city-wide division of the planning department was set up, i think about seven years ago. we were charged with looking after the implementation of six plan areas. before that, we had the zoning and of course current planning to look at the land use sides of

things, advent of our impact fees, geographically-based impact fees. we developed this team to look at other aspects of implementation of the plan areas, specifically around community benefits and infrastructure. at the same time, the ipic implementation plan committee was created, interagency team, devised of several agencies, public works, m.t.a. and rec and park that helps us implement our area plans and helps us make sure that the infrastructure plans get implemented. i don't have a slide for it but i should mention as a counter to the ipic, we have two c.a.c.s in eastern neighborhoods and market octavia. our two main work products ipic does every year, expenditure

plans and also capital plans. focus on the expenditure plans today. they are prepared annually to coincide with the city budget. they include projects funded by impact fees and we look at them in a five-year time frame. also do mini capital plans, that's headed up by the office of resiliency and capital planning. look more broadly at the needs of the area plans to look at other funding sources and that is incorporated into the ten-year capital plan. this slide just indicates what the ipic process is. it's not as complicated as it looks in the flow chart. it's essentially a budget process, whereby we look at expenditures from previous years, revenues expected to be, adjustments accordingly. take it to the c.a.c. for their thoughts and input and ipic, we ask the c.a.c.s to endorse it

and ipic to endorse it. and expenditures are incorporated to the city's budget to enable the agencies to start work on the projects. so right now we generally fund four categories, transit, complete streets, recreation and open space and child care. of course determined by needs assessment and studies that we update every five years. and set aside for administration as well and we are going to begin that process this year as well, to look at making sure that we can justify the fees under these categories and possibly look at some other improvement types. a couple, just key issues and considerations and observations from the previous year. the time being of the revenue public improvements for development has slowed down. we expect essentially around the same amount of revenue over the next five years, but have noticed particularly in this last year we did not receive the

revenue that we had assumed, that we were expecting. one of the things we are also looking to do is to think about how we deliver these projects, is it going to be through the agencies or in some cases through in-kind, where the developer makes the improvements through agreements. next year looking at integrating a new plan area, specifically central soma, those figures are not yet incorporated into the plan but we will talk about what some of the ramifications might be. and then we'll also look at in the next year to use the ipic not only to help program impact fees but funds coming through community facility districts as well. so, this chart shows you where we are for the impact fees through this current fiscal year, so means actual to date but then the remainder of this fiscal year anticipate among the five, excuse me, six plan areas, we will have received

$319 million, almost $320 million, a couple observations, much of that is coming from transit center, transit center, of course, being small geographic area with high fees, so much is coming from that plan area. and then if we look at the next five years, revenue goes down but as you will see again, observations, the fees that we get from rincon hill and transit center go down substantially. rincon hill, the funds we are expected to receive by the end of this fiscal year. transit center also goes down dramatically. we think most of those fees are large scale projects and first construction documents by the end of the year. and also notice market octavia goes up, as hub projects come

come online. and balboa park, this is the smallest of our plan areas, we don't anticipate a lot of revenue relatively few opportunity sites for development. however, it is in a project area where there is a lot of infrastructure needed, largely because it's surrounded by a lot of hubs of transportation in the city. so we do keep track of those infrastructure projects as well. completed this last year were several transit and pedestrian-related improvements around balboa park bart station. we also had, we also had completed unity plaza in the last fiscal year. eastern neighborhoods, of course, largest and most complex plan area, we should say areas. it's really five plan areas soon to be six.

just give you a couple of highlights. this past year public works completed the streetscape project at 22nd street, envisioned by the dogpatch neighborhood, incorporated in the green connections plan and we had set impact fee money three years ago to make sure that happened and this particular project, we were paying for most of the impact fees, and that was completed this year. major streetscape currently under construction, second street through soma. and then one of our priority projects in eastern neighborhoods, howard and folsom. they have been rolling out improvements along folsom on short-term, near-term basis for folsom, soon for howard street. they have just completed intensive round, just finished intensive round of community outreach, and they are going

into construction drawings and so permanent improvements should be under construction shortly after the near term improvements. in terms of recreation and open space improvements, rec and park will be under construction for the complete rehabilitation of the pool at garfield square. which we are paying for about a third. a smaller intervention jury commons playground in the mission to go out for bid. and further back in terms of development phase are two large scale project, rehabilitation projects, gene friend rehabilitation and esprit park, finished the designs or completed designs working with the neighbors, they have a fairly solid finance plan to make those happen.

quickly to market octavia, highlights, we have a range of types of projects we fund. market octavia, give about $100,000 a year to public works to work with local community groups and nonprofits to do streetscrape and tree planting. a larger scale project under construction is the complete rehabilitation of margaret hayward playground on the north portion of the plan area. similar to folsom street, upper market street, pedestrian improvement is something they have been rolling out, and begin improvements, following the near-term improvements. and further back, the public realm plan associated with the hub. you will see that we are anticipating, looks like we have a large surplus, fy24, we should mention that's money that we

think we could easily spend. we have not really tied them to specific projects yet, much of which will be in the hub and the streetscape plans. rincon hill, as i had mentioned, this was, i think, the first of the area plans that had impact fees, as i had mentioned. most of those projects have been entitled through you, most of them have, all of them have building permits in, so just a few reminder development projects paid for the fees at the first construction document. one park has been completed, one park is under construction. we have the hill, rincon hill plan had anticipated streetscrape improvements for all the streets because there was so much and we knew, we have always known we didn't have enough funds to pay for them, and divided to priority one projects, harrison and 1ststreet, and the other public works will plan to begin construction on the priority one projects this year.

transit center, similar to rincon hill area, a small plan area with very large scale projects, paying relatively high fees. this year we, in terms of the expenditure plan, we did reach out to some of the other agencies, transportation agencies that had not been at the table to make sure they were at the table, the original implementation plan for transit center included funds for bart, for the transit, transportation authority, to studies, and then for m.t.a. for actual vehicles and expenditure plan includes line items for them as well. and visitation valley, is not a plan area per se, it was a fee created by supervisor maxwell along with the community in 2005 to leverage value from some of

the high density plan areas. we have been kind of allocating money to the agencies as we receive the funds because there was not a whole plan. our staff along with m.t.a., rec and park, public works have been working with the community on an ongoing basis to identify spending for those funds. this year they are looking to start work on improvements to visitation valley -- excuse me, visitation boulevard. also with the hertz playground. and just very quickly as i mentioned earlier, we looked to implement these projects, both through providing allocations to the agencies, and also in kind. some that we have completed thus far, completed including dagget park, pedestrian path part of the waller alignment, dogpatch

art plaza and the ringle valley improvements as well. the next steps, so the spring and the winter will make sure that the allocations in the next two years in 20 -- excuse me, 20 and 21 are included in the respective agency budgets, so they are appropriated and have the authority to start working on these projects. we are also supervisor kim, before her term ended, introduced legislation to create a new c.a.c. for soma or soma general, we'll be looking to get that committee going. spring and the summer, the cycle again, as i had indicated we are also beginning work on a new needs assessments and nexus study that we have to do every five years. we are looking at some other improvements other than the ones i have mentioned today,

potentially fire, potentially looking at libraries again and some other infrastructure. at the end of that, it may be that we are introducing legislation to make tweaks to our percentages and so forth. and also looking to revise or improve the ipic process itself. it will expand its roles in helping allocate funds through, from c.f.d.s as well as impact fees. we'll probably be looking at the eastern neighborhoods m.o.u., established the priority projects i mentioned, since they are now fully funded and again, looking to ramp up soma, new expenditure plan for soma and central soma. that concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you very much. do we have any public comment on this item? ok. public comments is closed.

commissioners. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this is a great piece of work. i truly admire that you are able to hold that many strings in your hands and also have them not totally pull you out of alignment, because that's difficult to do, it takes a tremendous organization and i'm delighted that we have this tool to really manage the city in an equitable way, given the amount of things we have spread over a very large area. congratulations. great piece of work. >> thank you, commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: echoing the same.

in some cases from the streetscapes where they are considering the streets through the project that can potentially benefit from that, eastern neighborhoods, i am going to just off the top of my head it seems like two-thirds of the projects that we can pay through impact fees or that we have identified funding for. that is a hard question to answer because, you know, some

of the projects that people want we don't know the costs yet. it is hard to compare them to projects for which we do know what the costs are. >> one of the concerns i have. what is your leverage rate on the dollar to the impact fees versus the other projects that happen? >> that ranges dramatically. some times it is all of them. like second street we are paying 5 to 10% of it. second street we are paying a quarter to a third. folsom street 75%. that was a project out of the priorities of the neighborhoods plan. my sense of that project it was kept alive because it was a priority project. we were able to identify funds. we had to put funds aside.

16th street we are paying for half of it. >> next question. i know when we were going to market octavia. that is what i started my land use activism through. we knew the value recapture in the impact fees was a third. when we went to central soma it was 65%. we were able to get higher. when we moved to the hub and start looking at re-zoning for whatever new things we want, are we looking at impact fee at 65% and change it or through the market octavia lens at 33%? i hope the answer is 65%. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the city wide planning commission. we don't have that number yet. when we do is assess the

feasibility of the development and set the impact fee ratings based on the feasibility. central soma had up zoning. the hub up zoning is more. >> is there a ballpark? >> in between there. it is a pretty high fee in the hub because you have the special use district. it will be additional development. i don't know how much fee it will be. there will be more money because of the additional development if that makes sense. >> it is something to pay attention to. thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: directly to the line of questioning commissioner richards asked. do we see any ripple effect in the transit center given what we have.

i am sure you will be scratching your head because the improvements of the plans for the transit center are high end, expensive. do we see a possible impact? >> the short answer is no. partly because the value of the transit center is there with the terminal and park which will re-open in a few weeks -- couple months i guess. there is strong support for, standing caltrain to the terminal. i think there is deep support forgetting the connection from fourth and king to the terminal made even if it is not high-speed rail for 20 years or whatever it is. getting caltrain there is high priority for the city and the region. >> thank you. >> if there is nothing further we can move to item 10.

828 arkansas street. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners, michael christian son department staff. the item before you is request for conditional use authorization demolition of the two story family residence for the four story two unit building. the existing home is determined not to be historic resource by planning department staff. it is located on the southern edge of the hill directly across the street from the recreation

center. it is rh2 zoning. the existing street consisting of two story buildings to the north on the lock and three story buildings to the south. the block is mix of single family homes and multi-unit buildings. the proposed building has a three story masking. four stories after a 14' 11" set back from the front building wall. two unit goes with three bedrooms and adds 17282 square feet in size. it also contained two roof decks one at front door and one at highest roof level, staff has worked with the sponsor to refine over the course every view. specifically the building was set in from the rear at the rear at the northern property line to provide transition to the lower masking of the northern

neighbor. it was redesigned to remove blank walls and entry was more prominent. staff received six comments three express support and site the housing shortage. one disagrees with the multifamily housing added to the street. the final two are from residents of the unit to the south of the project. to the south they have been engaged with the project sponsor and are requesting modifications. the primary concern is the impact of light and air to the light well of the property. the covering of the property line window and parking impact on the street. the department reviewed the comments as part of the review of the project. it is providing a matching light well as requested by the department 75% of the width of the ad adjacent light well three

feet in depth. property line windows are not protected. the department recommends approval. >> we will hear from the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor thanks for staff for the presentation. this project proposes demolition of small existing house and replacement with two mid-size units. what is there currently is the smallest house on the street in poor condition. what is proposed is two family size and moderate mid-size units in their place. it is quite consistent with the existing block and provides additional housing to the city.

you also heard when the changes made. there was really extensive back and forth with staff to make sure the building is compat i believe with adjacent houses particularly single family at 28286 arkansas. there was additional pull back from the rear of the house. the back of the proposed building was aligned which required moving the stairs and moving room around. we understood that was important to staff to have that alignment. that does serve to protect the adjacent building. the access to the roof deck is going to be minimized to height of the railing. it will be barely visible from the street front. it is important to note. i know there is a lot of discussion of roof decks, and we get that. the rear yard for the building will be open space for the lower unit then the roof jack will be

used for the upper that is the reason for the roof deck space. we were careful to pull it back from the sides of the building to be minimized from the street and adjacent believes and minimize the roof deck access stairs. also additional changes to materials and design over the course of the project. you heard about the property line window issue. it isn't an issue i it is a window. to be clear if i could have the overhead. could i have the overhead, please. well, anyway. i will describe it. there is a room that is the property line window closed with construction. there is also a number of large windows that are adjacent the

same room as that window. that is not an issue here. we think this is a building consistent with the adjacent believe on the block particularly you can see with the block face there is a single family home we are careful to be compatible with and rose of houses to the south that are consistent with the height of the proposed building. we will have a presentation buy the acticket. the team is here for -- by the articket. the team is here for any questions. thank you. >> do we have public comment on this issue? >> i believe there is an additional presentation from the architect. >> sorry. i see it now.

>> good afternoon commissioner, i am the project architect. i have a quick presentation for you if i can get the overhead projector as well. >> as i pointed out there is a property line window right here on this building and it is -- we have considered that and so forth. i think we are probably going to talk about that in a few moments, and we have the roof deck is indeed set back an official three feet from each side so it is 6 feet set back from the neighbors to avoid privacy issues. it is limited to 250 square feet on the very top of the building. that said, we are on the north side of the neighbors who we have worked with the most, and

we do not have any sunlight blockage obviously because the sun does not shine from the north side in this case. i am here to answer any questions and am happy to explain anything if you would like me to. >> thank you very much. now do we have any public comment on this item? come on up, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, thank you for the chance to speak today. me name is anna marie pabst. i live with the four owner occupied building at 834 arkansas street next door to this. the plans are to demolish a two-story house and replace it