company #r -- thank you, corey tieg. the planning meets the code requirement. the two houses that are included is a 10-12 feet. the planning code would allow you to go 60 feet above the height to allow for the elevator and the equipment which is somewhat lower. in terms of the zoning, the zoning is u mu, urban mixed use, one of our provision in the code that it actually permits. it does allow pdr industrial uses and also allows residential and retail and other types of uses. that ties into the issue of ground floor commercial or retail space. we don't require in this area that you have retail space on the ground floor. there are specific streets and blocks within each neighborhood where it is required that you have ground floor space and usually those are more established commercial corridors but in the manuality -- majority of the neighborhood we don't require space. we don't have store fronts if there is blocks and blocks of empty commercial space. regarding the appeal language, we can check that. that's in the application itself. it may incorrectly state tha

corey tieg. i'm here to discuss what miss hestor is complaining about. the original appeal was the original office allocation associated building permit did apply for and was submitted into the fee deferral program that allowed them to make a impact fees. the additional 6 stories of office space also could have gone within that fee deferral program but the developer did choose to voluntarily go ahead and pay the impact fees at the issuance of the first construction document for the 6 stories but did not choose to take the fees from the original office allocation and pull them out of the fee deferral program and paid them in full. i just wanted to make sure that was clear and i'm available for any other questions you may have. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> a couple of comments. commissioners, during the appeal hearing on the original 24 story building, i made comments that related to the fact that the exceptions that were granted allowed them to continue with a fairly bulky building th

corey tiegs.oard of appeals met last night for the appeal for the building for 1050 valencia street which is at the corner of valencia and hill street. this is a 5 story, 55-foot tall proposal with 12 dwelling units and ground floor retail space. just to remind you a little bit of the history. this project was a co-compliant project that did not require any entitlements from the planning commission. however discretionary review was requested by the neighboring property owner at the marsh theatre and by the liberty hill neighborhood association. the planning commission heard that dr in 2012 and on september 6, 2012, took dr and approved the project with no modifications to the project itself, but adding some conditions regarding refinement of the bay windows and establishing a community liaison, additional noise control feeters and limited construction hours attend -- encouraged the project sponsor to work with sound issues anden encouraged the sponsor to work with staff and not reduce the number o

>> good evening, commissioners, corey tieg. i don't intend to use all 28 minutes. i will try not to repeat anything. just again the project is a code complying project. it did not require any entitlement or variances. however there was a discretionary review filed at the planning commission. they did take discretionary review and adopt the project as proposed with specific conditions which i would like to paraphrase at this point and that was on september 26, 2012, condition one was to refine bay windows. i believe that has been done. condition two, with the liaison condition before the permit of issuance. i don't know the exact date when the community liaison information was given to the zone is administrator. however in my experience, the community liaison is often the developer because at this point they are usually the person who is most knowledgeable about the project and is who the community liaison was the third party would have to ultimately go and speak with and specific requirements that cannot be the developer or must be a mutual third party or anything