Bell walked from market and van ness to my dental office on franklin street which is 2 miles but its better than getting onto those crowded buses. Theyre going to get better when the bus Rapid Transit but it still isnt done the way it should be done in the subways are light rail. Anyway, that being said, ive no problem with the amount of parking. Its only one car. Units. If you things that could be improved. First of all the exterior whatever happened to building walls and putting windows and . What we do is build windows nokia we dont have anything but glazing. I would like to see that work with the project architect and try to make it look like it fits in a little bit better because to the east, you can see theres a building they might particularly like the style of it. Its a fairly new building there was likely built in the last 2030 years, and has some pays and it has more of a punch window window instead of all glazing which i dont really know if its cheaper to build it or why we have these solid windows all over the place. The other thing i would see is some of the units are pretty big. The audit numbered units. They have this huge master bedroom which looks like its 27 by i think, 16 which is a pretty big rented it could be that way but it may be possible to redesign those bigger units and end up with three, three bedroom units and of course you have the two three, two bedroom units on the fun once if im not a stake in. That would be something i think i would try to look at because it might be better to try to design. Its interior design which we really dont have to do that much with but it would make more familyfriendly units whether more bedrooms in those. The idea of a big unit is pretty large on the top, i understand the access problem. If there was a way to combine those or rather separate them and make an additional unit its okay. But, i dont really feel is that necessary. Its a big units but i dont really know if theres much that can be done. I have to defer to mr. Keegan and see if theres any way that could be done if it looks like we had to cut it back so far to keep the shadows from helen will spark, then it might be difficult to make that not a townhouse. As far as the height, i mean i think its the compliance, i believe. Is it not . We already taken enough height off to block thenot block any light on the Tennis Courts and maybe some impact on the places to the north, but theres a fairly good separation from those. I mean, you can always have no shadows anywhere. See with the other commissioners say commissioner moore of a cover clarification from the applicant were staff regarding access, private access to from unit seven to the roof deck so we have a penthouse for private roof deck axis given elevator penthouse with the public stare what exactly do we have here . Last week, i think, we have a project which attempted Something Like a weaver re ourselves to basically anybody who wants to go to the roof deck basically comes up on the common stairs. I think that is a Pretty Healthy thing because this extra as additional height and clutter in a neighborhood with our typical and it adds to the shadow and impact on neighbors to the east whoand to the northeast because they are already affected by shadow anyway. Could you explain that please the designer of the project . Sure. Ill start by saying were not propose the la to go to the repaired the elevator penthouse so that we match you with the height of the parapet so 4 feet above the roof level. We do have two stairs that go up there which is required. When you dont Fire Department access from one main public stairs going up to the roof and then we have an interiors therefore that residential unit. To get access up there but that is what we at this moment are debating because we do not believe that the private access stare from the unit below is necessary. Thats basicallyif anybody goes to the roof they often go the same stairs. Theres no need for the unit which already has a very large terrace to have extra dedication penthouse access to this route. I find that really somewhat ironic that the terror space for this unit seven is already 1305 five squared. That is easily three unit sizes of mediumsize studios in the city. One of the issues we run to previously before the shadow Impact Analysis we had to stairs going up to the roof which provided all of our common open spaces on a roof. When we have a lot off the first 3550 feet the building we had to illuminate the main penthouse up to the roof as well as the old waiter panos and it cannot be used as common open space. We often run into bombs with the Fire Department if we have a common stairs going up to the roof deck and its not intuitively designated as private open space did we end up having to provide [inaudible] so it is something we can potentially look up here if we were to provide a common stair only up to the roof and provide locked the gate so only that tenant has access to it. Is that which are getting that . I am actually getting at that. Youre providing balconies of 80 ft. 2 on the majority of the units except the one in question, which is 1305 ft. 2. Right. Another issue is on the sixth floor because of the shadow impact we can actually have any guardrails in front of the building and so that is actually just roof and not with deck access. So what is main living area we dont have any roof decking on the 64. This is actually just flat roof and i was again an issue chapter is minor sampling wont even allow carbonyls to be stuck into that shutter window. Normally, we would not put the cargoes of the edge of the roof anyway. We pull them as far back with any override of any stair penthouse, etc. So we were never pushing guardrails at the edge because you can look at that we can even push it out. There still something off. Thank you for it mr. Roman, my question has beennot been answered and thats the question im asking for a variance in noncompliant structure. Where are we with that . Commissioner moore additional variance requested maybe we could speak to the suggestion that this is limited commercial use building thats an existing use of the building. Thats one story have to lot. The back half of the lot is ground floor with a mezzanine, which were there were offices. So, the fact that the structure encroached into the required year rear yard makes that portion nonconforming but theyre not exacerbating the nonconformity. The new vertical addition is that when i percent outside of the required we are your. We are getting into the very gray area of noncompliant structures in the discussion we had on pacific. This is the same discussion. What would happen if this would be a demolition . This would be basically a project which grows from the ground up, takes its proper attitude toward your yard and in concert and harmony with all surrounding developments because it is primary residential, and would indeed, involve a building which would probably have eight units with open space and more bounce than what were seeing here. Im very very uncomfortable. We are basically being thrown again to the same kind of discussion that in pacific we need to come at some point with a Planning Department to some kind of better understanding where we stand with article 1 and where we stand with article 2 when it comes to new construction, so it avoids mix and match his. Im not an expert on it by a long shot but i know theres something not quite balanced here. We are making compromises around the building that tries to do all kinds of things but in the end, it maximizesit designs the building and maximizing an envelope and that is just not enough because it misses out on being sensitive to what is surrounds it. That is my problem can you just clarify, if this building the existing building was demolished with a be able to happen with it less of a building envelope to build in . My understanding that is correct they would . They would be further restricted all the residential components of it [inaudible] Zoning District in other words the ground floor is bigger than it would be otherwise but the upper floor is about the ground floor are all within the end below. They couldve anyway. I think the restrictions were the concerns about parking were very well expressed. Broadway is already basically an extension of highway 1 going down van ness into lombard. When the prt on dennis is being built this we further exacerbated because walt left turn destructions off van ness going downtown. This will further exacerbate the problem of using broadly in both directions. The street is actually the moving lanes on broadway in front of these buildings is two lanes. Yet, now you have cars entering and exiting out of this particular situation it that is a very difficult thing to inpatient on top of what is already going on. I happen to walked other alltime somewhat little bit prejudiced but the difficulties as a pedestrian as well as doing with past within cars who think they own the freeway. I think we are, indeed, not adding a residential building the kind of harmonizes within those constraints including the adjoining neighbors particularly going north, northeast. I think we would be better off looking at the building which looks at parking at a lower ratio. Perhaps even in the basement. It deals with the ground floor where in a way thats appropriate to where we are and does a building that involves the number of units that we can do but in a better way. Commissioner hillis just a question. I like the project. I think its welldesigned and i think kind of the biggest impact to the park has been mitigated which i appreciate. I share some concerns about the top floor deck in trying to minimize the structures and the penthouses that penetrate the top deck and i think its appropriate to reduce the private staircase up to the roof in either replace that with a hatchet if you want private access or use the common area staircase for that. I also share your concern about eight units. I mean that unit on the top is large. If there is a way thats code compliance to reduce you be able to get to units instead of that somewhat larger 3000 squarefoot unit. I mean dont be something i might be happy to writing staff to look at to maximize the amount of housing and modest sized units of housing we can get on the site the first issue be happy doing a roof hatch on the. Disregard administrative battle but it should not be an issue. So were fine putting a roof hatch that private access to the roof. In regards to modifying the top floors to get an Additional Units in that its going to require further discussions building and fire engines of travel distances and whatnot. Thats why weve not integrated at this point. I think there is a solution in there somehow. We have to maintain toplevel being a townhouse connected to the lower level because of the egress issue. I think we can probably get an eight unit into this poem. We need to work with staff okay, thank you i be comfortable moving forward today with those conditions that the product with debt be only accessed by a terrace from the upper units attempt is made to work with staff to try to get an extra units on this site. I get the concerns about the ground floor but i didnt think given the context here is a bit different than what we saw on pacific. I sympathize with the neighbors on the layout. I know theres an impact to this, but if you look at the setbacks as you go up this building they start to get 40 feet amount plus, in the rear on the upper floors. So, i think that appropriate design and project in this context it would move to approve with those conditions. And second commissioner richards question for staff it is this eight emotions do to fix no, its not a demolition. Section 370 does not apply. Not residential no newbury is needed . Its a change in use and noncompliant structure. Its not a noncompliance rupture. Its not a noncompliant structure. I think theres some confusion about that. Its an rntwo dish. This is allowed. This is when i percent code compliance and i could actually go to the light wells as well in case anyone is curious. Commissioner moore i still like the commission to open the 8. 23 we are we are not seeing the living room of unit for audit store floor to basically 3 feet of the face of the adjoining bay window good do you see that . Yes its fairly light on the window but that is existing with his existing those structure. Thats where the existing Office Envelope is. We are proposing to remove that part of the building structure to provide a light well. Yes, but you are providing a notch where your dining room table is. Instead of coming straight across from the bathroom going south your notching and you are 2 feet of the face of that bay window that. I believe that is too close for privacy issues across the light well in the existing unless i misunderstand what youre trying to do. I think you understand it correctly could be worked with the adjacent neighbor and their fine with us putting foss across along that edge and thats what we dumped it was her nonoperable windows as well. What is the use in the day there in the adjoining building . Im not sure but i believe their kitchens and baths in the midin the building and bedrooms and living heirs towards the street rear yard is this a rental building nextdoor . Its condos i find it very unusual summary would want to sit of the adjoining building and in the past we have not taken privacy. Where providing what needs to be done that. So i would basically still say that the distance between the baby and your window has to be 5 feet without you are not. As soon as the buildingas soon as they unit which is currently being affected from your neighbors being sold there will be problems. So those private agreements we had them with noise and whatever other things, they dont really matter to what we need to hear and that is basically to insure that privacy concerns are properly addressed when they need to be called and that is my current i think would be comfortable moving that section back to feature lineup 5 feet all the way across the third floor. [inaudible] that is correct. You are drawing it correctly. Were fine including that is part of the conditions. Thats fine with me as a second. Can i ask a question . Rule go ahead forgive me to you said this building is compliance. Is that because if it was residential right now would be compliant . Theres no clear yard. Its not on vallejo we have a rear yard setback requirements. Is that rear yard setback requirement exists on broadway or in exist because its commercial . The existing structure encroaches affectively into the entire rear yard. So theres only 9 footdistance between the actual hotline and the rear was part of the build. So that existing structure maintaining. Theyre not exacerbating the nonconformity is that its in compliance currently but thats not good grandfathered in if you want to sit down, thank you attics this odyssey and real ledge and encroaching into the rear yard. Whether or not project sponsor is exacerbating that noncompliance by obviously they can do a vertical addition on that portion in the rear yard. That would not be allowed. Only option there would be to ask for evidence which they are not doing. The vertical edition is one of percent within the code. They have notched every single setback accordingly including the template notch beginning at 30 feet from the rear property line. This thing has lost its commissioner moore i want to stay one more time the neighborhood surrounding this project in the pacific avenue corridor, the project in broadway corridor in on cross streets all have noncompliant buildings in there which are by default now being turned into residential will be exacerbate density developed residential patterns which dont benefit from properly designing residential which fits this is a great sparrow this could be well developed with training carried on the existing building and creating something which indeed braces for looking attitude towards residential densification which is this particular project does not get their attack is a good architect at the questions about its. However, what this project is entirely designed as maximizing an envelope including some lingering questions that we from a policy point have not clearly formulated with respect to the reuse of these older buildings and what to do, i cannot support this project. I am really hoping that this commissionsorry commissioner antonini you will not be around to have a discussion which clearly addresses the future of the sites in the context of what our real issues really are. So i cannot support this project aside from the fact that i appreciate your work and the seriousness of what we do but i cannot commissioner hillis appreciate those comments but i want to make sure commissioner moore you understand the difference between a code compliant mode one you would build a structure from nothing on the site as opposed to setting and what we saw on pacific. I think what you see is the difference being on the first floor am a you would now have a beard yard we are is now you have a structure. Going to the end of the lot on the first floor. As you get beyond the first floor to the second floor, third, and beyond, youve got setbacks that comply in would look exactly what we would see the building built from scratch your. On top of that, youve got a development and a project thats responding to the context. I think thats most important we respond to which the public park across the street in making changes to its facade that respond to that so doesnt actually shadow the park. So, i get the issue but i think weve got to look at those new ones is and understand its not an enormous difference were talking about. Thats what were talking about. If you want a project that does that you can certainly take the first floor of the building and lop off the back that are necessary and you have a compliant parts. We should speak to the developer but im not hearing anything from neighbors and looking at the context of this project where on both sides as well as in the back and the walgreens on the side your start to encroach. Theres not the kind of midblock open space that i think we saw on pacific and see elsewhere that contextually were not really doing anything detrimental by allowing this to happen. Which is a bit different than what happened on pacific. So, im okay with the project as is. I dont hope others are the changes i think that had been made to the top and two for the notch. Commissioner antonini i am fine, too. I think this is a good use. I dont think we have to do a whole demo and rebuild because im not sure what were going to gain. We dont need large number of tiny units. The unit sizes are good and if that upper unit theres a way to make two units were the one unit is, then you come up with eight units of reasonable size that i think is a good use for the size of the space that. I dont think the extension of the first floor into the reader has any impact on anybody. So i think that is im fine with the project with those changes did to fix commissioner moore i like to clarify the open space according to our courts, there are Tennis Courts and basketball courts, theres not a single element of grass or walking or sitting in this particular. Its a functional looping of hard surface play yards. There need to be protected. They will they were rebuilt a few years ago with a lot of neighborhood and city support because its a difficult elevated structure which needs to be completely refurbished and no shadow on that particular part. Its important. However, i believe we would be better off considering a project from scratch that something what we have here. The difficulty is with a conditional use which does not really ring it to everybodys attention and that we had basically letters of concern the being given to us not even senseless because people were not aware should be an indication that this project as far as neighbors are concerned is pretty much flying under the radar. Commissioner richards theres too many questions for me to say yesterday. I sport a continuance. I dont want to say no but ive too many questions. I was looking at the part of the building. Not the back of the building. So i would love to be assessed this could have a go back to staff with commissioner moores concerns looked at very brief continuance and ring it back to us. Commissioner hillis i know its late and sometimes these issues get complicated but i think through stephanie architect we bolted down to what the change would be. From a project that would be built from scratch to this price. I get where we have questions we like to continue them but that is in essence the difference between the project. I appreciate the concern but the difference would be that first floor. It would be set back to allow a rearguard. If you look at the drawings in context on the overhead we will see, to the west is a building. That takes up that lots. That would be adjacent to this building on the first floor. To the east is a small open space that is already kind of boxed in by the existing built environments. So, i mean, im okay continuing its and continuing to work on it but i think we 02 people come here to rock these projects and put a lot into them to try to get down to the issues and understand what they are. I think we do in this case. Unprepared to vote. Theres only five of us here so that to continue weve got to continue, but i think our kneejerk reaction is kind of windows a bit of a question is not as complicated in the situations i think were making it out to be. People obviously have worked with neighbors to make this a project work. I get theres concern in the back but we are complying with the rear yard setback on every floor but the first. Commissioner richards could we take a look at section 188 point a to make sure thats not covering this building . 180 a, codes section. Could you give a little content to the section eight just talked about a noncompliant rearguard building could not be converted to the residential use without seeking and justifying of a variance. If i could if you look at trying [inaudible] in this section, i think theres confusion you. The existing building goes back into it the rear yard would be today. It is in a onestory building but if you look at that section and the portion of that section that is just that onestory parts, that you cannot build on there today. But everything because thats the existing building. The building is complying or noncomplying itself . The new building . The existing government the existing building goes into his noncompliant but all the addition is complying. All of the upper floors i get it. Roxy removing 15 feet off the back of the building. All this hatch area that hatched areas being removed. Its actually increasing the compliance. Yesterday were actually lowering the back half above the first floor. If you if you just take a look at 180 8a, i would be happy. While hes looking that up, if you want to illustrate director rams, we try to point out in which area. This area here is the only area the existing building that is being used on the ground floor as part of these are seen and look. I would not be in compliance. That if this was a brandnew building all the hatch indicates area of the existing building were proposing to remove. That 15 feet of height in the rear yard are locking down. Vastly reducing the impact on all the rearguard at they currently exist and the lowering the back 35 feet or so of the structure. 34. 4. Thank you. While they are looking commissioner moore. I think it would be interesting to see the pros and cons. Commissioner richards, im kind of like interested. I havent thought about continuance but i think would be interesting for this commission to see that if we study what a tear down the existing building and start from scratch with look like. They can create a completely different building. Also, see ive never seen a shadow started. Im basically being told it cast shadows but ive never seen a shadow subject id really like to particularly as you go up to the corner where the open spaces, to the open space itself sits on the platform and it is easily 6 feet taller than me above the street level. When i walked by there i see the feet of the people on that court. Its not to grade. I like to see that relationship together with the proposed building as well as with and envelope which would basically demolish existing buildings and to show the commission with the tradeoffs are in terms of units, interment unit sizes that subject it can be done quickly. The figure 3d mappings. You know enough about residential design to do that quickly. Thats what i would be asking if we have a continuance. Im in support of a project there. It just has to be done correctly given we have other sites in the neighborhood where we are starting not properly addressing a problem that the reuse of those existing basis can i adjust that yes if we toured on this building and started this project we took into account the impact on the park address across the way the building but the exact same envelope, less the last 25 feet of the building on the ground floor. We would have it it parking exception perhaps a units because we would lose several of the Parking Spaces on the ground floor because we are required to the accessible spot in there which takes up a fair amount of space and that would be the result of that. The only real change here of the building as proposed using the existing envelope on the ground floor is the additional parking. What that is something is a big residence for me is the problem on pacific. Im not prepared to design a building based on parking and driving and parking space driven. Im in support of accessible parking and he kept parking im in support of reasonable amount of parking but for the reduction of what you are proposing. So, i think the story you are telling is you could design a building with 25 foot rear yard which would be interesting to see what it does relative older to unit design what you might have to add terms about any sort terraces but am interested in pursuing that because i think it wont do anything to the unit. [inaudible] i think it will require a unit we design because you wont have to look at the allocation of how you deal with your ducks in your balconies. It would be the exact same the second floor would be access to the rear yard. Commissioner antonini i think this is kind of your projects presented to us. We are to opine on the projects, not create a new project. If the commission doesnt like this project they can vote against it. But i dont see where a continuance is going to gain us anything because i dont think project sponsor once a project whether doing a tear down and rebuild. They want to build on the existing structure which makes a lot of sense. As far as the parking ratios, and the impact of coming out onto broadway, cars travel quickly. They traveled quickly on franklin street. My neighbor who lived to be 103 years old used to get out of his driveway into his 90s almost 100 by carefully backing out into their picking his times when he exited, but its not like we have a vast number of cars that give one car per unit. Maybe in this case one unit without a parking place. I would like to see it passed as presented. Commissioner richards mr. Foster all do my absolute best. Section 188 noncompliant structures enlargements alterations and reconstruction at this is specifically subset eight with no limitations of article 1. 7 especially section 172 and 180 here of occupying structure as defined in section 180 a. D. Enlarge altered or relocated were undergoing change contents edition of use in conformity with the use limitations of this code. Provided that with respect to such structure there is no increase in any discrepancy or any new discrepancy in any level of the structure between the existing conditions of the lot and the required new construction set forth in this code provided there may be required to the code are amended third this is a divorce of the existing portion. There is nothe changes to the noncompliant structure actually [inaudible] song back to the parking issue. Ive heard with the neighborhood said. If you got the building offer you three parking spots and you create a backyard. How are we . How do you feel about that . Project sponsor . Were in a transit which neighborhood. We have a backyard. Bother deliberating on the density units, we are getting six twobedroom units and one threebedroom units which is actually far far greater than what weve required for example in the Neighborhood Association and market octavia etc. There is a provision in the planning code for rc are in districts that clout the threequarter provision if the units were less than 500 ft. 2 they could counted three quarters of a year. If you count that out you only get one additional unit out of this. The difference between nine and 88 is the maximum number could i just want to point that out treats im good with that. Object sponsor want to respond . A lot of moving pieces here. The parking is a template. Any other neighborhoods this was eight twobedroom units can end up with eight twobedroom units were not that far off aware market octavia would be eastern neighborhoods would be. It will be less than 121. The problem is, some neighbors dont want parking and other neighbors have been told there is one to one parking. This is the classic story of the project sponsor always been rule if or not existing in the rear yard i would not have a problem with it. The one thing ill say about the rear yard, it will improve the rear yard i get it. Im with you there. Get rid of three spaces. It seems like a win for the environment, the neighbors or we can continue. Commissioner moore i have avoided for the last number of years to make a counterpoint to commissioner antonini position on parking in this particular case as we are now moving into a new era of thinking about tdm i believe that we need to take a very hard look at reducing parking wherever we can. Because we cannot continue to speak out both ends of our mouth eagerly at a time when the transportation environment and the Movement Environment around this particular site will be greatly altered in the near future. Commissioner antonini i dont speak out abovecited ive always advocated for parking. I advocate for what i consider to be normal people who have families that need a car to live. Even people who dont have Young Children generally would want to have a place where they can park their car. Thats the way i feel and we dont want to exclude that type of person which is the majority of the people in the united states, and were selfselecting out people who dont have cars and sometimes those peoples abuse dont agree with mine on a lot of things that i think we have to be brought on enough to make up lease for people who do have cars and theres nothing wrong with that. Its fine to have more transit, but trying to scope these projects so theres less than one to one parking. These are forsale units and i dont think they want a backyard. I mean, they have decks. Youre on the third or fourth worker. I want one always done to go to this backyard when you have younger. Probably not going to even use the backyard so i dont see the point. When he is gaining anything by having a lower level except to add to a little more conformity which they are already making it more conforms. Project sponsor, how do you feel about the backyard . I dont see what we can i think would have been a challenge with it because we designed going to be code compliant and use the code as our guide to create it thats how they ran the numbers to make sure this a viable project that i think theres a struggle for sure i know because were not sure how thats been a pencil out and whether that make sense. We would lose half a parking space and we end up with 34 for the seven or eight units at the point that doesnt work. Years ago, we acknowledged units with more than one bedroom would have allowance of parking that is higher 121. On many of the years that we approved parking for could we give less parking for one bedrooms were no parking, but if a multiple bedrooms we did the 121 as part of the code we put in. So, that only makes sense here because i think you can end up with what did you say, probably eight twobedroom should is that which are thinking to fix these are family sized unit. Their good size there only two bedrooms but good size. I think the project is scope that make sense to me because nobodys really gaining anything by not having that extension into the rear yard in the back commissioner richards i think we give more time to the project sponsors you can work with us and figure the subject i know it might be a bit of a surprise did was focus on the front of the building. Happy to continue into the first meeting we have in september. Commissioner sec. You can continue any day you like. You are going toyou be coming back strong half a block from an ncd. Youre not sitting in the terrace where you actually need a car. Of everything and anything for your living. Commissioner hillis i noticed you are raising your hand its good to hear a valuable. I just want to say, we kind of our cross purposes what were trying to do and accomplish in solving every problem the city has in one unit project. Sometimes it does not work. I dont i think actually, the ground floor in the open seas probably better without first floor going all the way to the end getting kind of what is there in the context of the walgreens and larger scale buildings. I know i have a family with three kids good i challenge anybody to get them anywhere they need to go without a car. From soccer practice. So, yes to my think were on a good trend in the city not to have one to one parking, but our own wolves are inconsistent there is some have to work there some 121. Theres a lot of projects being built in the city that we dont see that you have onetoone parking. Theres a lot of people and families who do need a car. Again, id be all over the city on uber or lift spending millions to try to get my kids around to soccer and baseball into school on time. Then you have to quit my job. In order to figure it out. You begin to hear your thoughts a couple of responses. One might think were making a big assumption that families live here. Again, 1200 a square foot. I dont know how much the average square foot is here. I wait and i have made a decision to live in an urban environment but its a small space and given the high cost of childcare and everything else, but we are unique. Most of the people in our neighborhood are not families. So i think everyone of families live there if you build smaller units without parking you not definitely not going to get you might have a young family that lives there for a couple of years and moves somewhere else but weve offered to the sponsor and i think its a good way to get this done today for them to lop off that last part of the building. The rear yard thats an amenity, two. Thats a place where you can go down there kick around a soccer ball. People will selfselected people will say, this twobedroom condo am going to get a little bit of cheaper price on it but not to get a parking space within my price range. Someone else may say well you know what, i absolutely need to cars because we commute that a fark the go look somewhere else. Im interested in i think thats a fair compromise. We should not let parking design the whole project and thats exactly whats happening here and i think to echo commissioner moores point, hours and hours on these meetings on Transportation Demand management Environmental Concerns and everything else. Honestly, these units will sell. In our neighborhood, demand is high. They will sell. Somebody will bynum and somebody will live there i get the get we grapple often with their space. What else could you use it for. You might as well put parking in the. You can have a shot at attracting families. I get it. I dont think this is a very the standards got a ton of families of special egg utilizing 23 bedrooms for maximum out of families. But i dont quite agree you lucked out that off you got some nice open space thats when to her. Youre probably better off with the second floor backspace on there then you are first floor. So i get it. Were making we can make tweaks like that. Are we improving the project . Maybe, maybe not. But i get it. Theyre bigger policies that were scenes were trying to [inaudible] try to do them on every project sometimes gets a little challenging i am aware. Having these eight units a hustle to get a live there. Some may be family could some of them may not be. But we welcome those new eight households and i think theres really an urgency to get more units approved but make sure that their respectful of the whole context. So, im hoping the project sponsor would be amenable to that and we can get this hopefully the commission would support that as well commissioner moore can i ask you a question. Do you by any chanceyou live around the corner what is the distribution of car sharing traces on the street there . I know there. I see the provision and i dont pay much attention to it anymore. This particular corridor has literally car share places everywhere on the public rightofway yes. There are several city car share as well as zip car outlets within a 510 min. Walk. Theres several along polk, both in private condominium buildings as well. And other commercial outlets. I mean, theres definitely no problem in getting harsher. I would just say other than a 99 unit building that was constructed in 2014. Oftentimes, several of the Parking Spaces are empty because people dont have a car. Further, you will see there will be a constant stream of gmc pickups at all times of the day. Peoples motive transportation is changing. Our building of 99 units we have 15 children. Most of whom are small. The many empty investors, retirees wouldve grown up have been in the suburbs at rays family and they want to come back into the city. That buyer could buy here. We have many Young Professionals with roommates. So, i know that we want to bring in families. I am just take that top unit 3000 ft. 2. Thats 3. 6 million could mean, sure theres a family out there that can drop 3. 6 million but i dont think its what were thinking of mom, dad to car to get in a golden retriever. I just want an offer that. Thank you. Commissioner moore, on the point of car sure in that era was also in our mind is one of the first supercar locations on the corner which we approve the building on and its no longer there. So come i think some of the destinations we are building project. Commissioner richards if we stop sent based on census tract the car ownership rate is. 5 and we had from the American Committee surveyed twobedroom households on one car i would be okay with it. Lets just do it did fine but we dont have that. So im open to 10 you it. I think were at a stalemate here today. Lets come back. Can i adjust that . If we were to not try and squeeze in the eight units and keep it as seven units and we took off the back 15 feet of the ground floor, would we be in agreement . Repeat that one more time, please if we kept the unit count at sevenseven or eight units and we take off the back 15 feet of the proposed structure of the ground floor, would we be in agreement with the commission . What would that accomplish . Will have to reorganize the garage. We can explore looking at parking stackers. Will maybe lose parking. I am not sure. We will have to look at it. It would give you a larger rear yard and i guess it would bring it halfway closer to 10 feet into the required rearguard youd have a beer yard it would be closer to it. You would come in five more feet yes. Uncomfortable with that. Im okay. Im fine with that motion replacing the motion that is before us now. It depends on the motion. What it all includes. Same thing. Additional rear yard a roof hatches for the roof tec open space. Popoff 15 feet from the ground floor as proposed and will work with staff to address interior layout of the garage and its a privacy issue of holding back yes. Include the thirdfloor light will i am good with that commissioner moore are you good . Im good in principle. I prefer to see plans before i approve something. Thats my own nature. I prefer to see drawings and if they can be shown on whatever september 5 or so whatever the date is, that would be fine by me did you say you want us to come back and show you . Yes you can chose on the 15th. Kind of like we did on basically eliminate [inaudible] with the deck is yes. How are you responding to our challenge about those 3000 squarefoot unit on number seven and the 1300 ft. 2 of terrace on that unit . That is a challenge for me. Youd like to see a smaller duck . Yes, i do i find the imbalance in the building given also the cost of what this huge oversized unit does somewhat unproportional to what we are trying to do can we set back the deck from 5 feet from each from the back and front . Is that getting to where youd like to see this . Yes it should be set back. It should be more inbounds. 80 ft. 2 versus 1300 ft. 2 balcony or deck size is somewhat a message for a units inequity than having a hard time with. So in addition to the other changes we will remove the last 5 feet of the deck and said dr. Garbo . We will convert this to a roof hatch. Is that workable . We will work with staff to figure this out okay i think weve kind of be dissolved. We listen to you. Trust me. We have. Commissioners, theres a motion and seconded to approve this project with conditions as amended to require roof hatches to explore an Additional Units notching the third level of the building and reducing the first floor 15 feet from the review leader also reducing the roof terrace 5 feet from the real. Is that could you repeat the sentence of the roof hatches . Requiring with patches in lieu of excuse me i dont think you never roof hatch [inaudible] the common staircase saws have a penthouse because the roof hatch on the private yes on a motion commissioner antonini aye hillis aye moore nay richards aye fong got so moved the motion passes 41 with commissioner moore voting against. That will places on your discretionary review calendar for item 16, 1276 market st. This is a mandatory discretion review to the cost of the premise of this item before you is an application for mandatory discretion or view deception medical cannabis dispensary or ncd for sure doing business as mowbray and spirit located at 1276 market st. The project site is located within the see 3g data general Zoning District 80 x height and bulk did. Its bound by Market Street to the south i say to these barking street to the west and grove street juvenile. Perception new and city replacing a bacon ground floor commercial space. See occupied by retail sales and service these doing business as the dollar store. The subject space has been vacant since november 2015. The proposal would allow for onsite sales of medical cannabis and her medical cannabis edibles to person 18 years of age over holding a valid medical cannabis identification card. Addition the proposal would allow for the medication of medical cannabis many that smoking vaporizing in her consumption of medical cannabis edibles would be permitted onsite. As was the onsite cultivation again meeting like underwater plants be kept on the premises for the purposes of harvesting medical products. The proposal would make tenant permits to the existing 4001 at 21 squarefoot ground floor commercial space with no physical expansion at the existing structure. The project sponsor remains a fulltime security which is include indoor and outdoor Video Surveillance that in addition security guards will be employed inside and outside the subject retail shit hours of operation for the ncb 8 am10 pm dear. They maintain fulltime security as i mentioned. [inaudible] project sponsor employment levels are anticipated to exceed 30 employees the first year which does include security. As approved by the board of supervisors of the prominent publichealth serves as the lead agency for permitting and cds. The print unto you is generally limited to the location of physical characteristics of entities are principally permitted the Zoning District and cities are part to be heard by the Planning Commission which shall consider whether or not to exercise its discretion or review powers of the Building Permit application should the planning code section 202. To date the department has received 19 letters of support to the letters were received after the active publication deadline because were transmitted to the commission of their service. You have those letters. Major of the public, transported up close and cities folks on the need for additional state axis to medical cannabis in San Francisco as well as potential for increased Economic Economic activity. The Department Recommends take discretionary review and approve the following week. The ncd is a neighbor serving units that complies with all requirements of the codes and secondly the site areas already and credibly well served by Public Transit including muni and golden gate Transit Services as well as per part this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Project sponsor, please good evening commissioners. Antonini congratulation get we commend you to the service to the city. Thank you we will split time get on here representing mr. Nate half doing business as mowbrays medical cannabis dispensary at 1276 market st. When i was first retained by mr. Hoss to assist them with the project at a conference of betting the neighborhood to ensure theres no conflicting uses or potentially conflicting uses within 1000 feet the results were conclusive. Theres no use serving facilities recreational facilities or schools anywhere nearby. This will actually only be the only dispensary in this area worth of Market Street. It will serve the Valley Civic Center midmarket corridor larkin street and even up market. The dispensary will revitalize this corridor to clean up the surrounding area Market Street is in much need of attention and economic developments. Hes been a speak about his expense and the work is done already towards improving this area in the Community Good afternoon were good evening commissioners. I started at Barbary Coast as a doorman that worked my up to the general manager there. Being first on every job and a dispensary is the key to being an effective general manager. Based on the knowledge on definitely a semioverall knowledge am deathly a Security First guy. Patient security and comfort are paramount to running a well having a wellrun dispensary. Beyond that, i care deeply about the city. Im a proud thirdgeneration san franciscan raising my family here. When i signed the lease at 1276 market reach out to supervisor kims office to kind of get advice on the issues that plagued the neighborhood. At her suggestion for my walk the property with house and birth of sf safe as well as cmdr. Teresa humans of the tenderloin command and learned a little more of the specifics about the problems that are on the block. At their recognition to secure the best lighting and security cameras