the concessions or concession concession -- incentives are from state density bonus law, so in this case, it is just something that we made lack the ability to require. >> vice president moore: except as a commission, we can support uniform application of residential design standards, and i think we would be greatly amiss if, just for the sake of state density bonus, where we are making other concessions already that we would not uphold that as general element of quality of unit design, so i'd like to encourage the commission to consider that needs to become a condition of our approval. i am generally in support, but

i -- >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: this project is providing less open space in a relative what would otherwise be required, and we

imposed additional findings that encouraged the project sponsor to work with staff, and i'm wondering if you have that language available that you could read so you can decide if it might be appropriate to include those two? >> sure. so as i'd first note, the sponsor has indicated that they can increase the amount of open space on the upper level roof. the commission can certainly adopt that as a condition of approval. the finding encouraging additional provision of open space that was applied to 321 florida was -- the commission encourages the project sponsor to continue to work with department staff to identify opportunities for additional provision of useable open space, particularly provide open space areas that are sized such that residents can place features such as small tables

and chairs, in recognition for the need of such space spaces as residents potentially work for home and may need to shelter in place in the future. additionally, the department encourages the project sponsor to explore other open space areas, even if such areas are not useable under planning code section 35. >> commissioner diamond: thank you, mr. christiansen. i'd like to add as a condition of approval the expansion of the open space on the roof as proposed by the project sponsor, and i'd also propose that we include the finding that mr. christiansen just read. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. a question, mr. christiansen. was i understanding correctly that the fire department has a policy that has limited the roof deck to 750, but there is a path to increasing it?

i just want to make sure i'm understanding that from what was stated. >> when the department initially received the project, we conducted an interdepartmental project review meeting, including the fire department, and there was a comment from the fire department at that time that if the roof deck were increased beyond 750 square feet that it would trigger additional requirements that would be not financially feasible for the project. >> commissioner tanner: is that like [inaudible] types of things? >> i believe so. the architect for the project may be able to provide some additional clarification. the statement that was made by the project sponsor and what they've indicated to department staff is they intend to continue to work with fire department staff to see if they'd be eligible for any type

of waiver to increase that. >> commissioner tanner: in your experience, is that type -- my thought is that -- we have some unusual situations in san francisco because of our building height, especially old buildings, may have to have some exceptions, but i would be concerned about a new building especially to achieve such waivers. are you familiar with that occurring with other projects on a new build? >> not personally. i think if a waiver were discussed with the fire department, it would not necessarily be just waiving a requirement as much as an alternate method of compliance, whether it be adding springlers at that level or something of that nature. >> commissioner tanner: okay. can the project sponsor speak to that item? >> for some reason, he can't speak, so i'll speak for him. he asked me to indicate that on other projects he had worked

on, he's been able to apply for an equivalency request from the fire department to seek additional useable open space on rooftops, and that there are instances in which that has been successful, but we cannot know before we actually make that request, and we need a lot more data to provide to the fire department, but we are happy to put in a condition of approval that we will work in good faith with the fire department to ask for an equivalency and staff should -- i'm happy for staff to participate in that. >> commissioner tanner: okay. and i also want to just recognize in that there are the balconies that are provided. i believe there are nine. is there any ability, based on the configuration of the building, to add any of those balconies to additional units or is that the best we can do

given the location of the units? is there room for other small balconies to be added? >> the architect asked me to pass on that that is not possible, and whether it's architectural engineering, i'll have to get back to you on. however, the architects don't believe the decks are of that much use in san francisco, particularly when they are facing the direction they are, particularly because the weather can be so poor. it's much easier to create wind breaks or wind walls on the roof, which don't work on balconies. >> commissioner tanner: yeah. okay. generally, those are my questions, and i'm supportive of commissioner diamond's

suggestion, as well. >> president koppel: i'm in support of the commissioner's request, as well. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i wanted to ask mr. gladstone one more time, what is the resistance about the windows? >> my clients, you know, are no longer -- well, my clients, you know, feel that it's a matter of cost, and they feel that with the proper coating on the vinyl windows, they can create something that will be aesthetically pleasing and ask for a waiver -- >> vice president moore: it's not aesthetics, it is performance. it's performance. we all know that vinyl windows will basically age and sag and will be more expensive in the

long run than a wood or aluminum-coated wood window. i'm very hesitant to approve the project with vinyl windows. >> well, the architect has asked me to pass on that he feels that they can be done of sufficient quality, and that to do other kinds would be tough to keep the window in good condition, and that's all i can say, commissioner. obviously, it's in your hands. >> vice president moore: yeah. we all know with vinyl, it's not a question of maintaining, it's a question of natural aging, and basically failing as a material. people have used fiberglass instead of vinyl and have fared better. aluminum-clad wood is superior,

but fiberglass is an alternative to vinyl. a project of this size i think should do better, and i personally will refrain from supporting it if there is no concession being made to the department's recommendation. >> clerk: commissioners, apologies for the interjection, but there is a very late request for comment. >> president koppel: go ahead. >> clerk: okay. you have two minutes. >> yeah, hello there. my name is shawn ketterpaul. i am a resident, and i'm calling in support of the project. yeah, this is exactly the sort of development that we need in the city, and it's a good use of the existing plot, in particular, the on-site affordable use, and the height

density of this development is great, particularly that it's mixed use, and i'm glad of the fact that this includes bike parking but it's not pulling away for floor entry level space with a parking garage. it's great with mixed space and retail on the ground floor, and thank you for allowing me to call in really late. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you, commissioners, for having their comments on -- i would like to move this motion. i am generally in support of this project since there are recommendations and also agreements between the d.r. requesters. in terms of other commissioners' conditions, one is, i guess, i want to be

clarified, conditions where the vinyl, i guess the wording will be to meet the urban guidelines by the planning department. that's something for us, in the planning commission, we can adhere to, right, for mr. christiansen? >> i would like to defer to mr. sucre, if he's available. the concern is the objectivity of the design guideline in question. >> hi, commissioners. yes, happy to address the concern. yes, the issue that we have with the vinyl windows generally is an approach -- department does not recommend

vinyl windows on the public facing facades in the general design policy. we have policy standards that provide loose guidelines that generally discourage windows, but there is no hard-and-fast rule that prevents us from using vinyl windows. generally, the profile's on them relative to the building. they tend to be flat, and good design buildings often have shadow and shade within them that are caused by the reveals within the buildings and the kind of ins and outs of a building, so you usually get better profiles with, for example, an aluminum window or definitely with a wood window or an aluminum clad window. we also seek and work with applicants to try to get other

options. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, mr. sucre. it is safe for us, for the planning department, to not grant a concession for urban design guidelines? was that -- was that -- that's just my clarification of that. >> yeah, i'll not lie. it's something that we've struggled with, and i might ask for some advice from city attorney kate stacey to assist here on your question, commissioner. [please stand by]

>> let me pull up the urban design guidelines and come up with something while the other commissioners discuss. i will help develop something that will meet the commission's intent based on the conversation from earlier. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> as you are in the middle of trying to craft the language, i would just and by to see that what into a conditional approval

>> okay. >> i had a similar comment to commissioner moore more and i was just wondering if -- is sounded like miss stacy said we can still require that they meet the guidelines. i wonder if it's too much to be more prescriptive in stating the type of windows, although i thought the department did already suggests the type of windows that could be used. i thought that would be somewhat subjective. and it needs to be the wood or aluminum. maybe i am confused as to how that is not objective guidelines >> mr. more, do we have anything else? -- commissioner moore, do we have anything else? >> mr. speaker, go ahead. >> i think i've got something.

for example, within the urban design guidelines, we have design objectives about designing building friends. so if the commission were inclined, we could add a conditional approval to this project that states that in recognition of the urban design guideline or active building friends, the project sponsor shall seek window material that is more in keeping with the spirit of that objective, you know, knowing that we will work with them to make sure that we get appropriate profile of building that meets the discussion and, you know, meets their objective, as well as our objective.

>> was that okay with commissioners more and town or and diamond? -- and tanner, and diamond? >> it says what it needs to say and it leaves it open. that seems to have given contemporary window manufacturers the ability to deal with would, aluminum cladding, and fire glass. there is no limitation -- [indiscernible] -- kind of language. >> i am also fine with that condition. >> good for me.

>> if i understand correctly -- [indiscernible] >> i moved to approve with conditions stated earlier. i think that would be my motion. >> thank you for that clarification, commissioner. [laughter] >> so let me just try to paraphrase saintly -- so think significantly. there is a motion that has been -- it has been to adopt the resolution for consent to, adding -- taking it and

approving the project with modifications, including the conditions that the roof deck be increased to 750 square feet and appropriate when deal -- window materials. >> i hope the verbiage that was given will -- >> off the top of my head i couldn't recall the exact words. it was related to the window materials. so we will go with that and i will be reminded after the hearing. on that motion... [roll call] >> so moved.

that motion passes unanimously 7 -0 and places that's on your final item on today's agenda under the discretionary review calendar, number 14. 1555 oaks street. mr. winslow? >> good evening, president koppel, friends, commissioners. the item before you is a congressional review of building applications. to construct three new a.d.u. units within the ground floor of an existing four-story, 12 unit as a dental building. no expansion of the existing building envelope is proposed. the existing building is a historic resource category. there are two d. on requesters.

there is -- there are two d.r. requesters. [indiscernible] it diminishes space such as that it is not adequate for car parking. he constitutes last -- loss of housing. and that the inclusion of trash bins in the garage space further reduces the usability of the garage. they want to relocate the garbage and recycling bins and why didn't the garage -- and widen the garage to allow access to the parked cars. the second requester is concerned that the proposed project involves different walls to create open space at the rear of the adjacent property.

we will present a danger to their property for ways, drainage, and soil movement. these alternatives are to modify the upper patio area so it ends approximately six to 8 feet from their shared property line and also move in the concrete stay up -- stairs. construct a retaining wall with adequate drainage along the property line to ensure that water is not diverted along the property line towards their patio or that soil from their property does not divert onto their property. and third to contract -- construct a fence to minimize that one of their residents or guests may possibly fall into the side of the property and be injured. the department has received two letters in opposition to the project and no letter in support

and while the department emphasizes with the circumstances, staff does not deem that modifying the space to increase parking manages to accommodate the functionality. the d.r. requesters' parking spaces are being placed in an equivalent manner from the perspective of the applicable regulations. it -- the rent board may be better to determine how this results in a reduction of tenant services. regarding the work for the permit application involving the steps in the and the patio, the d.r. requester has issues related to grading, the retaining wall, and drainage are outside of the planning department's ability to review, regulate, or enforce. the relocation and reconfiguration of the parking