Good morning fs good afternoon we submitted a letter and definitely think that housing should go forward it is not that hard to comply about the 45 percent setback as in the letter this is 2007 zoning and in many ways trying to hit a home run as a single and get on base why cant Property Owner and neighbors Work Together with a 45 percent rear yard it seems like this is a big waste of time it is a waste of Planning Department staff time and waste of the neighbors time they can get on the on the same page i wanted to thank Planning Department staff and the members of the commission that working hard it is tragic that Something Else has to go on and on they scant righthand turn the four to five percent i would ask the commission to simply give the permission for the savings account and move on. Any more speakers in support of dr requester not seeing any, project sponsor. Architect for the project sponsor staff gave a thorough review of all the changes restrictions weve made since you guys last saw this ill go through the architecture briefly to show you where and why we did it in the rear yards since is last time well substantially changed the rear yards by moving back 5 and a half feet to code compliant 45 percent point here we have taken magnificence off the fourth floor and reduced that by a substantial amount and rows on each and in compliance with the neighborhoods suggested to us on t on the rooftop weve gotten glass handrails their inner visual from the public rightofway weve setback 10 feet consistently and on this side made the same kind of adjustment weve taken i think this was miss construed by the neighborhood actually, you, ask we took a certain amount and put that amount in the back it is 8 hundred and 60 feet less than what we took out here in a sense advertise it is not double dip were only on second base a Common Ground between the naebdz neighborhoods we can provide for light and air and reduce the magnificence in the front weve done it consciously throughout the with area and at the same token no damage to this side of the street by reducing the massing we think this is the Good Neighbor thing to side weve heard that and taken that point of view to hart weve added back in the rear yard two small cottages and we think that there is no we understand this is in the 45 setback and no shadows and sunlight by putting that amount of massing two small cottages in the rear yard for that reason we ask for your approval of the project. Id like to talk about the elevation but i think that will come up in the questions and speakers in support of project sponsor. Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners im nervous im robin a Small Business owner and my business is on pacific avenue two doors from the specific project the building on pacific as is stand a industrial building i supported the original project but this is a big improvement over the original one as a family man the project is offering larger sized units fit for families we have a shortage of the type of housing we sprelt sprel need. Any more speakers for the project sponsor dr requester a two minute no, no. Public comment is closed. And opening up to commissioners commissioner antonini. I think there is a significant cut back on the massing 17 percent i can verify my records show 23, to 19775; is that correct i mean, youre taking it from the beginning rather than a point in may and saying it is overall sixth less and made in critical points youve made that along the west side which if anything is impacted the west side of 10 feet all the way down except for the 8 feet he was there yesterday it seems like ive been at the site multiply times the sites on the roof and yesterday it was around 3 in the afternoon that alley was in the shade probably from 1 oclock that is a narrow alley and theres a 28 foot wall if the wall is 40 feet not sixth change the amount of light in there and will actually open up to the winter months it is new july 14th to the sun is in the northern position as we get into the fall and winter months with the cut in the middle that will allow anymore light spots all over the place for a longer period of time and in the winter months youve taken that down to the empowering as far as i know and the townhouses are only 20 feet; is that correct or less than that. Yeah. Can you come up the little place in the back the cottages how high 20 stories from grade. From grade. Correct. Your mid block space that youre creating here is at grades you said not. Correct at the grades. Thats a big issue it was originally one floor and we brought it down to a no floor thats a huge improvement to the west and adding spacing on the east the sun comes from the east so other than view i really dont see impacts on the mccormick side so youve done a lot of good things the project is done good things i favor the placement of the cottages in the back rather than having them up against the building is opens up more Life Enrichment Committee to the west that is a critical area by putting them at the a fairly short theyre no higher than the building youre making the project that was noncompliant with the 45 rear yard it is a new law that passed and now youre making that less noncompliant youve dropped the height for a significant heights of thirty feet with no height at all and part that have is the small pop up for the parking for the bottom of lower floor that is essentially another open space it is such a allow pop up i like the idea of familysized units and contextual im in support of project. Commissioner hillis. Thank you all for thank you for your time to mediate about cosponsor and myself and trying to you resolve some of the issues im sorry we didnt get closer but the way you looked at the was two ways to go at that a code compliant project you know you were demoing the massing in the front of the building similar to what we saw that was kind of listed in this or adding back some of the cottages and giving the ability to reduce some the massing especially along Larkin Properties to give them more light and air so i think this is what i want to see a more clarification on i mean it is a small if i can ask you some questions about that i know in youre where you kind of lay out the areas weve looked in the past you didnt include the somewhere or did you to add no rear cottages do you have that in there. It would be helpful if you walk through what youre proposing now kind of floor by floor in the proposal you had that didnt include restore cottages and the differences in the project in those two scenarios. All right. I i guess thats the stock passage one of them two one that starts with the february submission. I think may 10th is the one. May 10th you last saw walk through through may tenth and through that up and tells you where you lost the square feet not a huge loss of Square Footage one thousand Square Footage that is from the may 10th version the last time and the july 14th and well that is 8 hundred and 62 square feet is what we calculated and this mass not interior space mass like a building profile. The overhead. The tom cam. I dont think i have a highlighted version. I want to show one comparison so this is the ground floor what you see in yellow what we took away from may 10th to today. All right. We pushed back the garage here okay. On is second story we took away the mass and created balconies. On the second story where does the mass come from a reduction in the back of building. This is where that was a deep unit we made it shallow we took approximately 12 feet. I dont know your highlighting it correct is that. Yes. Yes. This line right here is that line right there we took that out. Okay. Took that amount on the side out then the fourth floor we took oath approximately 12 feet so be reflected this and reflected this and put it into two cottages those two cottages are 8 hundred to 62 feet less makings than what we took out of the building weve not double dipped weve gone the opposite we thought the greatest impact on larkin street and on the you know the mccormick and thats why in the backyard it is a better than even trade so how much Square Footage did you calculate you lost and how much did you add into the rear cottages. I never calculated that way we calculated by the gross area we had and in the may 10th. Thats massing. A massing. Right. 199975 we took the difference a calculated that. Right so a net loss of one thousand square feet but you took more off the front building. Took more off the front and put lessen is back. I mean, i to me i thoughts that was a better solution for the neighbors then to kind of make less than significant changes to the upper floors and tweak them how many units were in that may 10th version. They were both 9 units. The two units in the back and 9 in the front. You know the questions remain whether enough was removed from the front building to justify the addition of the cottages in the back. In. The rational if i may say we know that massing in the middle building would have done damage for the light and air on mccormick the neighbors clearly told us we had to take it there i dont think a case is made alignment to larkin and mccormick is created the problem has created with those two cottages i dont hear that and common sense no shed and light and air of the cottages. I continue to have problems with the parking Design Choices here and you know the bum out i guess thats 12 feet beyond a doubt the parking that bumps out is that 12 feet. Beyond the 45 percent line correct. What about removing that. And having that setback i mean in the back you do have this i think youre a over and condition to kind of i guess the tendency to deck every space mr. Wentz slow you sent out by removing that or minimizing that bump outs on the first story way yes wentz slow architect we had to insistence meeting with you and commissioner mooyo. It was basically a choice we the prefer as closed to a code compliant rear yard as possible with that said about o what with boiled down to the cottage massing or is 12 foot bump out on the ground floor that was programmed for parking exclusively in the spirit of trying to arrive at a solution not too much damage to the project sponsor we devised a dr. Murase and parking to be retained while accomplishing the 45 percent or so maybe 35 percent of rear yard open to the sky and thought that was a demonstration how to solve to the satisfaction i think satisfaction of a reasonable compromise not everybody gets exactly what they want but this is the outcome of some of the two parties at the meeting those two meetings so the way it works was that the parking will come in from the streets introduce a passageway and exits the building using the rear yards to tuck in the parking under the building envelope i dont know if this diagram is ready it happens to have the point being it could be the rear yard youre asking for a evaporates of the cottages in the rear yards parking assess using it will be a variance but an improvement on what the current proposal and given the number of Parking Spaces number of times the car travesties that portion of the required rear yard is negotiable. We have the overhead the sophisticated diagram might help to demonstrate the concept so the current line of the 12 foot ground floor bump out by removing this thing area the parking was proposed at the first story and allowing this to be open but you know usable to tuck in the parking right here and relatively sufficient approximate of a four rear yards this is a potential solution and provided that to the sponsor as a means of showing i think that both sides can probably have what belongs with a reasonable solution. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Walling ton you can comment. First of all, theres such a thing as a Building Code to have a garage separated one thing, and, secondly, we have to have a required exit out of back of the building down to grade and into the second exits for the building and we cant drop it into the parking lot and third you know the amenity value someone in the neighborhoods you want rear yard but look at a parking lot it as bizarre solution and second and fourthly the only 3 cars i dont know doesnt make sense sometimes you try for a solution and thats what happened. Do you have other thoughts it is has a design decision you know what is happening a way to get more of that rear yard and reduce that 12 foot bump out on the ground floor. If we reduce is bump out this is our garage right now if he reduces the bumper out well have no parking no room for parking maybe two cars sideways and it would be a nonstarter for us a nonstarter. I know the issue of underground parking comes up if you dig underground parking you might as well take down the building it is a nonstarter you start over again and the pardprr is for the prepared to sided that. I think so the conundrum of the decks if you remove the living space you have decks and decks. Not necessarily the case on the roof on the roof. Theres two private decks and a common deck but those that we reduced massing we reduced the deck. There are two stair houses and a deck is a lot for building a 7 unit building. Yes. If i can make one comment if you look at the concern of the deck the concern that you have perhaps the use of deck and spilling into the neighbors and profess and noise issues things like that if i look at any typical residential context with 25 wide lots were talking about sshlts if the side and 3 and 5 feet we typically do here if you look at a project every single project in the rear is setback by 10 feet some are set back up to 18 feet youll not get that in any context we feel their significantly setback and we want to provide open space for those units and make them liveable where we starts it was larger when you guys saw this in february now, one 3rd of rooftop area. Is interest an built a requirement maybe that is for staff to comment on the st. Patrick can those limited total private roof decks and reduce is penthouses. Corey teague assistants Zoning Administrator it requires a certain amount of usable open space it allows this open space to be private or common or a combination so the code didnt dictate that has ton common the flexibility is provided for each individual project. Given the amount of open space are the decks on the top floor or common open space. It is complex if those are private decks and helped for the open space if you reduce those to the point they dont fulfill the time requirement of open space you have to turn to the open space and make sure you have another common open space meets the reminders for the units as well as any other units for that open space it is a domino effect moving around the common space no requirement them to be there but provide a certain amount of open space. Perhaps i can answer 9 units so if we have private open space one square feet and common one and 33 per units so 9 units 5 of these have private open spaces so their decks and terraces satisfy the open space and 5 requirements no open space so they therefore have one and 33 which is what we have rooftop. Some are for the rear cottages thats the math. My question could it be limited on the roof deck. I think we need it we dont center enough common open space on the ground floor. I mean can you make it smaller perhaps but. Some of the problem with the amount of you know stair assess elevators access to get there. Actually, if you look at the rooftop we have so we have two common stakes on each see those are commonplace they have to be there so those will be there and to privateers at the rooftop no private assess they used to have penthouse we reduced them. But they can be access to those and. They dont have that anymore they assess it says that from the two common staircases. Commissioner moore. Id like to just remind the public that the commission took this project back to the Planning Commission where the architect of the department were basically the primary negotiation oversees of changes we were im sorry commissioner hillis were witnessing and participating in february and common there was a large number of points of discussion the problem which stops this from moving forward it identical to what is today and the project discussions failed was the two challenges of Creative Ideas to go back to zero who is defending and taken the approach to a project which stops all expectations and frequent notions didnt make it a discussion of even trade thats what creates the project today, the use of word even trade i gave here and take her now completely misses the points of the challenges by which the commission pushed the project the project is not an adapt active reuse a new project and circumstance where we have the ideas of compliant open space a 45 percent a key issue not about light and issue and sun and this and that it was about relieving an inappropriate land use beyond the lifespan and reinventing the neighborhoods with a taller building and more units in a manner that it works for each other not about 7 foot tier or reducing or tucking not buzz any of that and no really exchange of give and take as far as im concerned, and let me make a couple of comments here the real issue the real challenge of the commission to deal with the required code compliant open space site is large a building on the site that is fair larger than anything around it thats fine thats a question how you do it and when it came to an idea which in the beginning sounded really like fun to explore the ideas of small cottages in the rear yard would soon become out of this cottages a second story right now house attached housing looks like an Apartment Building not about this but we know enough neighborhoods in San Francisco for small cottages are exactly what theyre describing they were supposed to be a green gasped not supposed to be access to provide what is now only a 28 percent rear yard because the telephone bump out makes the remaining open space which is supposed to be 45 percent really actually, only 28 percent we will only have to cottages in the rear garden by the terrace and scrape 28 percent open space a building with a bump out but no congress well go to 34 percent through all the ideas except when one idea came up and it was posed as an alternative the next time all around the things you tried to modify were basically at this moments looking at a project aside from others points it can be improved that only delivers 28 percent rear yards that as far as im concerned, did not meet any thoughts objectives by which we took on the dilate title of the department and our own to modify the into a more amenable and comfortable configuration that meets the rest of the neighborhood were ba