Fully aware of this. Making a last offer here without talking to united to save the mission does not show respect for the community. I dont think it shows respect for the commission that sent us back to Work Together and talk. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi there. I am john jensen. A citizen of San Francisco and i support projects like this. I just want to be on the record that i support this project. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Mr. Kaplan, question. How long have you been out this at this entitlement . I believe this project has been on file since 2015. How long has active entitlement process been . For years now. Thank you. Any other comments, commissioners . Ill bring up the same thing about a plus time to vote for approval of the project. Commissioner richards. I opened this hearing and Commission Comment saying i dont want to see us under any illusion that we are approving a Housing Project to have a good portion of this project appear to be corporate rental like we talked at 2200 Market Street. If we move ahead to do anything with this project i would require that we condition it to have my affirmative vote, that we limit the amount of Corporate Housing rental that could be on the project to some reasonable level. What is a reasonable level . 10 . Why not zero . Zero. Okay. Would that maker of the motion except that accept that . Before i second its, another question i have of the project sponsor. He put an offer on the table, i dont want to get into private agreements, they cant accept it due to their process. If we approve it does the offer just to stay there . Can you just let them have it . Let me say this. The offer through yesterday was still on the table, which was the same offer the group had accepted previously. Should the commission approve this project today, there is a 30 day appeal time frame, i want to give anyway tricks of the trades. Theres another appeals in which we would be happy to not have to go through. There is more opportunities for this deal to still come to fruition. You are supportive of, so your headshake of a condition, or voluntary set of conditions that there would be no Corporate Housing rental on this property, this project . Correct, yes. I mean, let me take a step back. I mentioned the san bruno project this morning. Here we had a jurisdiction that disapproved, 475 housing units. We are trying to create real housing for real san franciscans i want to put a condition on this that we dont have another project like we just saw on charge on Market Street where we have a hotel. I do not want a hotel here. I want housing here for san franciscans for long term. If someone wants to do corporate rentals, they should declare that and we should talk about that as a project. I understand from the project sponsor that is not the condition here. I would condition the approval on this on that. I would second on that. I would like to raise a question, one more time, the private agreements are something we support. I hear two statements which do not link up at all. One person says they have not heard, they werent even contacted, didnt know anything about the small building. While the other person says this was part of an offer that has been on the table for a long time. We continue this project a number of times to encourage communication, to encourage some sort of settlement. I know we cannot further continue with the project. I would still like to better understand who said what, or who didnt hear home . Can you shed some light on this . Obviously you have an mou with neighbors. Who at united save the mission did you communicate with . Larissa has been the key contact. She says she hasnt heard from you. We have been in touch with larissa, kelly and others up until the last hearing. At the last hearing we ask for a two week continuance to help the facilitation of this agreement. My understanding, through various channels, as of last night there was still not an agreement acceptance on the deal on the table that had been devoted to an agreed to previously. That is why we are here today say we have no deal. We are ready, we were ready last night, we were ready two weeks ago. That is the latest i have heard directly from them. Im sorry, to, you are saying that the deal that you presented today has been available since the last hearing . That is what you are saying . And that is something that you emailed to them, or how did that get communicated to united to save the mission . Weve got a lot of different folks operating the mission. Its a challenging environment. Challenging project sponsors. Challenging neighborhood groups. It is a very sensitive neighborhood. Up and until two weeks ago, there was lots of communication back and forth between larissa, her folks on the project sponsor. That communication was not going anywhere. It did not result in the acceptance of the agreement. In the last two weeks i have been conversations not directly between myself or the project sponsor, but there have been conversations were once again the deal was put in front of them, we are ready to go. We will sign it this morning, and our understanding is no. Thank you. I still dont understand it, because i took what we said here as a direct invitation for those parties who were present in the room to talk to each other. I have a lineal way of thinking about that. That was the people i thought i was talking to and that didnt happen. So i dont know what to say. I dont have any comment anymore on that matter. Thank you. There is a motion on the table. I will say, my strong directive was to go back and work with the community. I expected there to be that communication, different from the last time. We heard this, the last few times we have heard this, i have not received a lot of communication from Community Folks nor do i see lots of Community Folks here today. You know, obviously the wood would woodward street neighbors were a big part of the folks that came last time. I do think this is a better project than the first time it came in front of us. Thank you for the efforts. Very good commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include a condition prohibiting Corporate Housing. On that motion. [roll call] that motion passes 51 with commissioner melger voting against. That places us on item 12. [reading notes] you will consider a large project authorization while the Zoning Administrator will reconsider a request for variance. Good afternoon president melger and members of the commission. Planning department staff. Im here to introduce the project at 88 bluxome street. The project before you is a large project authorization to allow construction of a new Building Greater than 85 feet in height, or for new construction of more than 50,000 gross square feet. A variance from the Zoning Administrator from the planning code requirements for parking and loading entrances and micro retail to allow offStreet Parking and transit greater than 20 feet in with and to allow three micro retail spaces were six are required. The project would demolish the existing 288,570 square foot tennis building and construct three new components. A 16 story, 240foot tall west component. A 13 story, 202foot tall east component, and a seven Story Community center and Affordable Housing building. The project includes a total of approximately 1. 2 million square feet consisting of 775,000 of office, 8,080 square feet of pdr , 16,590 square feet of retail, 4,630 square feet of childcare facility use and 134,460 gross square feet of private Recreation Center which will be the new tennis club. 29,690 gross square feet of community wreck. And 106,220 square feet of Affordable Housing for up to one eight 118 dwelling units. It will include basement level parking with 163 offStreet Parking spaces, eight offstreet loading spaces and 388 bicycle spaces. The project will provide approximately 15,500 square feet of privately owned public space through a combination of on and offsite spaces including a mid block alley, a linear park directly in front of the project, as well. Project requesting approval of a large project authorization pursuant to planning code section 329, permitted to seek special exceptions from the planning code. The code allows exceptions for projects identify key sites within the central soma that provide qualified amenities in excess of what is required by code. Qualified amenities proposed for the project include a parcel to the Mayors Office of the housing and Community Development for the construction , a developed recreation and Community Space that is proposed for dedication to the city and operated by the recreation and parks department. The development of a public park along and the retention and replacement of the telescope facility. As such, pursuant to planning code section 329 the project is seeking exceptions to the following planning code sections. Building setbacks and street wall articulation. Offstreet freight loading requirements. Pdr space requirements. Wins, height limits, bolt controls, horizontal mass reduction and narrow and mid lock alley controls. To date staff has received to support of the project from the Sheet Metal Workers Union 104 and the pipefitting unit number 38. The project is on balance consistent with the central soma plan and the relevant objectives and policies of the general plan. The project will provide new mixeduse development with ground floor pdr, childcare and retail, significant site updates including common open space and development of a public linear park. It also include qualified amenities per the central soma plan that will substantially improve the neighborhood. The project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation for you as well. This concludes my presentation. I am available for any questions. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. We are here with our partner, tmg partners and our architect from wescott. We will try to be brief, because we know you have a long agenda, and we have been here before with an informational session. Just to orient you, this is the tennis club site as it currently stands today, and as it was since the 1970s. We acquired this site because one pursuant of the central soma goals. We came up with a mixeduse project that is essentially filling out the site with multiple uses, which have been outlined. I will outline. It has a mid lock crossing connecting bluxome street to brannan street. This is a view looking across from brannan street. You can see a taller massing, a smaller massing of Office Component, and then the far distance you see the reddish massing which is the Affordable Housing site. We will be deeding to the citys Mayors Office of housing. The components of the project are listed here. I am not going to go through it in observance of time. Just to say that we think it is a nicely balanced mix of uses that will enrich this neighborhood. In general, this is how it lays out across the project site. At the center is the office allocation, the 775,000 square feet that we are seeking from your authorization today. This section indicates how this is a fully integrated signal structure essentially all connected at the base. There is the tennis club at the bottom along with the swimming pools and the Community Center. There is the Affordable Housing parcel that will be on top of the Community Center and on the Office Component of retail and pdr space. My partner, matt field will speak to the community benefits. Good afternoon commissioners. It is my honor to be here this afternoon presenting the project and the array of Public Recreation on Affordable Housing that comes with this project. First is the Aquatic Center that is being developed. As you probably know there are no pools south of our area. This project will develop an Aquatic Center that will be dedicated and donated to the city and operated by park and rec. Including two pools one that is a fullsize lap pool and one that is a learning pool for both kids and seniors. That Recreation Center will have a groundfloor element that is more flex space that park and rec will use for afternoon programming, and spills out onto the mid block alley. What you see here, on the left of this rendering is the Affordable Housing you see on top and the rec center on the bottom. As you pass between bluxome and brannan. Next is the bluxome linear park. This was developed in deep coordination with the city family, including dpw, mta, and the puc. So all elements of this plan have been fully vetted by the city family. At this. Because, there are a number of different programs within the space, that i will walk you through. There is space that is recreation based. There is space that is more relaxation based. It also includes a dog run which is deeply needed in this part of town. As to the Affordable Housing. As my partner related to, this is a dedication of an airspace parcel. Fully coordinated with the Mayors Office of housing. It will be 100 affordable. There is 107 units programmed here. Over 40 of the units are 23 bedrooms designed to fit both family and intergenerational housing. Here you can see unit plans that have been developed in consort with the Mayors Office of housing. This is really a thoughtful program that can be realized as soon as the Mayors Office is ready. And going to turn it over to lisa to walk you through the design of the project. Hello commissioners. This describes the project looking from the bluxome street side. There was a lot of effort to take and have it appear as separate buildings which are complementary to each other but not just superficially different but different also in massing. It is quite a large footprint and the idea is to allow for some double height spaces deep in the interior where he gets less sunlight and to also add double height spaces at the entry area. In terms of the massing strategy it takes the provisional zoning on put developed by the sky playing and adjusts in two different ways. On the west side a series of stacked blocks, on the east side a series of shifted volumes that connect through the negative space in the middle where there is a connector. In terms of facade we really wanted to take inspiration from the Historic Buildings there. The deep punch windows and also the industrial sash and bring that into contemporary language that unites and synthesizes each building. This is what has developed. There is a gradient facade on the West Building that allows us to orient and have different window sizes based on the site orientation and on the eastern building a series of vertical elements, all of which become quite asymmetrical, and less regular in nature. The facades are designed to have depth so they create more shadow and light, and look differently across the course of the day. For the West Building those are the deep windows that have two different materials. One is a panel, another is a copper bronze painted metal panel so that even as you move around the building, you are looking at two different sides of it. On the east wing, panels that again perform more depth and shadow within the vertical seams the view of the central space, the entry to the building, and some views of one of the interior and one of the eastern terrace which overlooks towards downtown. A summary of the project and im happy to answer any questions that you might have. Good afternoon commissioners, taras sullivan. I was asked by the Zoning Administrator to briefly discuss the two variances that the project is seeking. It is seeking a variance from a section 145. 14 though with of the off Street Parking space. Due to bluxome street part, there was a need to consolidate, minimize the impacts. It is greater than one third and 20 feet as required by the code. A variance is requested. The second variance that the project is seeking is for the micro retail spaces. The project is required to put in six micro retail spaces providing micro rebate retail spaces on the ground floor. As we explained in our variance application, the pdr spaces have been designed as essentially pdr micro retail spaces. The intent is to have the users have those function as small retail spaces. The project is intent for the micro retail spaces. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any Public Comments on this item . Good afternoon commissioners, tricia weaver, i am the cofounder and a former director of san franciscan for sports and recreation. It is the organization that was formed in 2015 to help save the San Francisco tennis club. As a longtime member of the San Francisco tennis community, i was quite skeptical of this project initially. The reality is that the project is doing the right thing from the beginning. Early on, the project sponsors and san franciscans for sports and recreations reached an it mou for the provision of offsite interim Tennis Courts during project construction. Also providing for advanced Public Benefits in the form of grants to Public Recreation throughout San Francisco. To date, funding for this project has provided 1. 864 million in Public Recreation grants to San Francisco. Some of the enhancements include the refurbishing of 15 public Tennis Courts at six different locations, throughout the city, including goldengate heights, musk only Recreation Center, marina, mclaren park, bonavista park, numerous others with four new court scheduled to be resurfaced with new nets replaced later this year, and early next year respectively. There was a 400,000 gift to the Learning Center in the recreation room at Golden Gate ParkTennis Center which is under construction now. 95,000 to the successful restoration of the playground and golden gate, which you know had been damaged by arson in 2017. 300,000 to the lets plan and initiative retrofitting playgrounds across the city in desperate need of repair. And a few months ago we celebrated the donation of 105,000 to the friend Recreation Center. Only a few blocks from 88 bluxome street which included sport wheelchair is now available for pickup up an basketball games. The project has also provided for its Marketing Center to be more than a Marketing Center. Also a Community Asset organization such as mine. Thank you so much. In conclusion i believe this project will benefit the community, the neighborhood. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon members of the commission. I am field representative for the carpenters local 22. The members of carpenters local 22, San Francisco and the surrounding bay area strongly support the approval of the 88 bluxome Street Project in the central soma area of San Francisco. This 1 million plus square foot of development will generate hundreds of Union Construction jobs in San Francisco and provide opportunity including women or minorities to begin and continue a career. This type of development is exactly what the city of San Francisco needs, a development which highlights the intent and goals of the central soma plan by delivering a well project, and vibrant mixed use. When completed, the development proposed by the alexander Real Estate Equities inc. , a collaboration with tmg partners will deliver the much needed 100 of horrible housing, of nearly 100 units all producing a tremendous amount of permanent jobs creating opportunities for local residents to work closer to where they live. Additionally the ground floor retail, generous amounts of public and private open spaces including amenities such as a new Public CommunityRecreation Center, pools and outdoor tennis facility. Onsite childcare center, curated Public Arts Program truly displays the developer teams overall commitment to San Francisco on its residents. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I have some letters that i would like to submit. Thank you, sir. Any other Public Comment on this item . Good afternoon, my name is andrew. I am with so can, and a resident of soma. During the planning and even before the plan was thought of, some had been advocating between 3090 . To ensure we would be able to house the most vulnerable populations in addition a few years ago, our Youth Program conducted documentation of how they are not children, youth or senior friendly. Reflecting how popos could be friendly and useful for these demographics. We have been sharing these insights with your planning staff and private developers. We have shared our feedback with alexandria to see more neighborhoods serving benefits included in this project such as onsite Affordable Housing with 3090 ami that would be marketed and available to families, and workers living in the south market. A Community Center and no cost to lowcost accessibility to the pool for low income families, and seniors. Our Design Guidelines and Real Community participation on the linear park on bluxome and popos. Community stewarts will engage neighborhood workers, residents and programming of the public spaces. Popos on the Community Center that are independent and separate from the park staffing. We realize that many of the implementation decisions are yet to come and we hope to see these commitments from the developer, planning, and reckon park. Anyone else who wants to speak, please come on up. Good afternoon, i am the Community Organizer for the Cultural Heritage district. For the past few decades, the Filipino Community has not been considered and much of the developments in the south of market. Despite soma burying 80 of the citys development is 60 of the citys overall housing. Our residents and community, arts organizations continue to be at risk of displacement. We would like to acknowledge alexandria for meeting with our community to learn about our needs and goals of the cultural district to get we appreciate that they have committed to work with us to advocate for neighborhood preference and a range of ami on the onsite afford housing. This is to ensure that workingclass immigrants and poc families can stay and thrive in the south of market that we have historically been a part of and have built to what it is today. We also want to acknowledge that alexandria has committed through their letter to the Planning Commission to provide opportunity at 88 bluxome street to increase visibility of filipino by supporting the fourth Community Center after a local Community Leader and integrating a filipino artist into the carrier aided public art program. The longstanding presence and resilience of our Community South of market, despite us continually being priced out must be recognized. The filipino Cultural Heritage district is not just about recognizing our past contributions as a community but we are living breathing community struggling not only to survive but thrive in the south of market. We hope that the Planning CommissionWill Champion every opportunity to support and advocate for the continuing presence and increase visibility of our community. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Commissioner. Six . Thank you, commissioners. I want to summarize the memo i sent you a couple of days ago and remind you of where we stand and assuming that you approve this project today. With that approval today if you choose to go ahead you would essentially, we would essentially be out of major office allocation, for the moment we would be down to 22,000 square feet roughly. As i said earlier, Zoning Administrator has been looking at past approvals. We think there is about 485,000 square feet available projects that did not build their entire allocation, or a couple of projects that did not go through. With that, and the 875 that the annual allocation that happens in october, he would be able to approve three major projects, two in central soma in one in trans bay in the fall. We anticipate the port, and pier 70 would also move forward within the next few months after that. The bottom line is that this Time Next Year there would be about 820,000 in a 20,000 squarefoot deficit at roughly this Time Next Year. Because the port projects are able to move forward with the Building Permit. What that means effectively, in october of 2020 essentially replenish that amount, and would be very little in the bank. Effectively what happens is after the fall of this year when you approve projects out one pass, or harrison gardens and parcel f on Howard Street you would essentially not be able to approve any major new projects for two years. Until the fall of 2021. The port projects as i said, could move forward because they are on their own track they can move forward regardless. The numbers on the port projects to come out of the pool regardless, that is just the way the port project is. You dont approve port projects it comes out of the allocation, and the allotment when the Building Permit is approved for each of those projects individually. With the approvals out the schedule i laid out to you in the memo and the approvals you make this fall, effectively the last large products projects you could approve for two years. I hope that explains it. Im happy to answer questions. This project is persuasive for two reasons. It has Strong Community support. I think it is an extremely sensitive project. I am delighted to see it. I think it offers a tremendous amount of those things that ive been looking for in other projects. It takes a very large site and does it in a manner that will not just look at volumes, not really caring about what we are really getting in terms of enriching and transforming this district. I am delighted to see a strategy, as a building, to a common base and creates all of the elements rising out of that base. One question i have for the applicant, perhaps ms. Nemesis. I am always asking, i think they could use sb35 and not have to come back to the commission. We can certainly share with you the design. I think the timing is going to depend on funding and likely depend on the bond measure of this, as well. I would just like to make a pitch that this project read higher special sensitivity because of what it brings, and anything that happens there should look like an integral part and continuation of the same sensitivity. I am in full support. Question for staff. In the revised motion that you provided, with us, recently. Offstreet freight loading section, page 3132, are those numbers correct . Should i be more specific . I see an extra zero. That is a typo. [laughter] also, seeking an exception for six of the required, to 11, isnt it . Eleven of the required number . For retail . The micro retail . Oh, for the loading . I would have to check my plans again. Check that, then also whether it is exception for six or is it an exception for three . Okay. On the page before, whether it is providing less than 50 or is that something else, depending on your number, okay . Were you going to wait for an answer . Just to clarify there is a provision in the code that allows them to do substitute spacious spaces which they are doing to offset. Understand, but that number still does not match up. Okay . We can certainly make the corrections to the motion if the commission is so inclined to make sure either the errors that are in the inspection are corrected on comply with the code. Its an incredible project. I recall last week i mentioned something about the flower marked when i said that i heard that that was going to go. I said is there anything sacred. I recall the founder of your organization, san franciscans for sports and recreation coming for Public Comment coming here and asking what is going to be left in the city, in terms of recreation . Once again a project sponsor has risen to the occasion. We have a more solid set of recreation options to all of the things youre doing, and it creates a more complete city, and more livable city and i cannot applaud you enough. Thank you. I would like to start by seconding the motion. I am really liking what we see here today. Great teamwork by alexandria and tmg. Not only is the project amazing, but the location is even better. Youre right next to the central subway. This is the right place for this project. Two tools and a rec center. I appreciate its going to be run and maintained by the city. A dog run, childcare, the arts program and the popos at the mid lock pathway. I also appreciate the fact that you are involving all of the trades with the carpenters, basic crafts and also sheetmetal plumbing and the other allied trades. Just as an aside, observation, it is interesting that among these large projects in central soma, two have chosen to be contextual to the previous aesthetic to the industrial, to chosen to have chosen not to. It is interesting to see. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with condition with the necessary corrections. On that motion,. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously 60. Closing the public hearing on the variance and issue a grant with the standard conditions. That will place doses on items 13 for case numbers 2014. 1573cua and 2014. 1573var at 2050 van ness avenue 1675 pacific avenue. This is a conditional use authorization. The zoning admitted meta strata will consider a request for variance. Good afternoon commissioners, chris may have Planning Department staff. You have before your request for a for the demolition of two existing buildings on the site in the construction of a, 70foot Tall Building with 63 rental dwelling units, 776 square feet of ground floor commercial uses, 24 below grade offStreet Parking spaces at 72 sizable Parking Spaces within the Zoning District and the van ness su d. While it is below the 80foot limit. Authorization for building highgrade or within 50 within the van ness su d. [reading notes] while the project proposes a commonly accessible and are our yard on the ground floor totaling approximately 2257 square feet, the courtyard does not meet the dimensions as open space and therefore requires a variance. The zoning on meta strata will consider this variance request along with request variances for obstructions over streets, dwelling unit exposure, street frontage and a rear yard modification with the commissions consideration paid commissioners since the publication of the staff report, the department has received three letters of support on the project, and for letters expressing opposition to various elements of the project area those in support site the replacement of underutilized buildings with a mixeduse development with muchneeded housing, as reasons for their support. While those in oppositions are the Building Height increase of vehicular traffic, quality of usable open space, number of bedrooms without windows, and access to light and air as reasons for their opposition. A significant number of changes have been made to the project since it was originally submitted to the department 2. 5 years ago. This was the original submission. The original project had large spans of glass with little facade articulation along the frontage and giving it some more and to show appearance. Those facades have been raised by incorporating a higher ratio and modulations including more traditional bay window dimensions to be a more San Francisco pattern. Residential pattern. The addition of a second ground floor walk up dwelling units on the frontage units provide appropriate scale at the ground level. Its also in conformance with the guidelines of ground floor residential design. The height of the building has been reduced by 14 and a better transition to the lower scale buildings along pacific avenue. The depth of the rear yard at the lower levels of the building has increased from approximately 30 feet to 37 feet and a significant portion of the interior yard is now proposed to be on excavated allowing for planting of larger trees within the mid lock open space. The executive summary in your packet included an analysis of bedrooms in the proposed project area when reviewing the floor plans for this analysis, planning staff inadvertently counted six bedrooms as being nested when in fact each have a window facing a small interior light. As such the overall percentage of units with decrease from the original submittal from 66 down to 8 . The overall percentage of bedrooms that are nested has decreased from 64 down to 35 . In addition, 22 of the 30 nesta bedrooms, amounting to 33 are located within one bedroom unit. 48 of the onebedroom units contain a nested bedroom. The Department Finds the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan including the van ness area plan. The Planning Department recommends the commission approve the project on the basis that represents an appropriate redevelopment of an underutilized lot, in an area where existing infrastructure can support residential growth. This concludes my presentation and i am available for further questions. Thank you. Project sponsor . Good afternoon. I am here on behalf of the project sponsor, the chan family. We appreciate the good work by mr. May and the rest of your staff. Over the past few years we have work to respond to design input from the Planning Department and rework the project to comply with the changes and unit mix requirements as they are requirements and assist natural increase in inclusionary housing requirements. That said we are very pleased with the end product and pleased to be presenting it to you today. From the outset the goal was to replace below commercial buildings on the site with a housing that fits with the scale of van ness avenue. My clients have viewed the site particularly with van ness bart under construction as a perfect one for entry entrylevel rental housing. Initially they proposed all onebedroom unit but have redesigned it to include six, three bedroom units on 11, two bedroom unit so we can house families as well as smaller households area the unit sizes have been kept sufficient, 400600 square feet for one bedrooms up to 1,000 square feet for three bedrooms. Weve also committed to providing Affordable Housing that is 11 units on site. With 24 Parking Spaces for those 63 units, we are well under 35 days maximum which is in line with the commissions goals for transit locations like this one. We are here before you, because anything taller than 50 feet requires a conditional use authorization. The project is actually lower than the height limit by about 10 feet. With onsite housing, excuse me, no environmental impact, and a building lower than many others on the block. We feel the project is a good fit for the neighborhood. We are pleased to have support from as well as our neighbors across the street at 2201 van ness. We hope to have your support, as well. Now i will turn it over for the design presentation. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners, my name is ian, im the architect for this project. It is my pleasure im going to go through this thing as quickly as i can. I know there will be some hotspots that people are going to want to address. Weve already talked about the date on the project. May i have the overhead projector, please . This is the 3d view of the building as it is currently designed and before you. This is the view on van ness avenue. I will skip past the site plan, i think you know where we are. This is the base went plan basement plan. As we said, we are not excavating this area here in the corner. That will be an area where we will be providing some deep rooted plantings. This is the courtyard. The color coding is retail in the corner, to bedrooms shown in pink and orange as the common areas based. This is a unit facing onto pacific. This faces onto van ness and this faces into the courtyard. It is a typical upper floor. The yellow units are onebedroom three bedrooms in the corner. Two bedroom over here. That plan pretty much repeat going through the various floors. Until we get to the top floor here where we have a courtyard, or actually a roof terrace with a three bedroom in the corner, two bedroom and then one bedrooms. With respect to the three bedroom unit. What you are seeing on these lands is actually, since we submitted the drawings, changed to reduce the bedrooms further. The three bedroom unit no longer has a nested bedroom. So, this is the non nested bedroom and this is the plan that preceded it. With respect to the nested bedrooms, we have data in your package that shows they do meet code. One last thing, with respect to our passing of the building, and it yard open space, the green area is the rear yard. The blue areas are develop a footprint of the adjacent properties. This shows you how our open space relate to the mid lock space, it is diagonally opposite and not contiguous. Thank you. Thinking. Thank you. We would like to open this up to Public Comment. Please line up on the screen side of the room. I am one of the owners of the building on 1650 jackson street. Since the building of the building right in front, 1645 pacific, this building is actually going to cut more sunlight. Folks are going to be feeling boxed in. That is one issue. The other is typography. If you look at van ness, and you look at jackson going further down, sloping down, this looks like an eyesore. Most of the buildings if you follow van ness all the way in north are about 34 floors in height. That is an issue. Since most of this building is facing pacific avenue, why not consider the zoning of that particular avenue which is 65 feet. One solution to all of this would be to further decrease the height of the building to 56 floors, and that would give more space for sunlight. It would be more consistent with what is on pacific. It would at least take away some of the eye soreness of that block moving down. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes, representing middle polk neighbors association. The project sponsors did reach out and meet with the association earlier on. The association is happy with the building, welcomes it to the neighborhood. Happy about the bmr unit. They are supported in general. They still have the concern of the number of nested bedrooms on the number of Parking Spaces. They would like the parking to be a. 25 ratio, and would like to reduce, nested bedrooms are not a great thing, as we know. Wherever possible to put windows in the south facade of the building. The request of the Neighborhood Association is for the commission to take further consideration of this project, the department and the commission to Work Together. It is not exactly done yet. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is now closed. I make a motion to approve. The question about the parking ratio resonates with me. Not only are we on van ness with bus, to be there, on pacific, actually on jackson we have multiple bus lines which have their Termination Point there. We can go across the city from that particular point. On california we have cable car, we have literally everything within walking distance. I would like that to be a consideration. I am concerned about the number of nested dreams, even if they have been reduced it is a question of quality overall units we are bringing to the we have the ability to look at it a little more closely, particularly because the project asks for quite a few exceptions. I would like to balance what we are giving, the extra height together with the exceptions. I would like to look at the ground floor, and i would like to look at the unit. I think a two bedroom unit facing the entry door, on pacific, i believe a two bedroom unit with it living room literally three quarters facing into the entry, in that particular location, it desirable unit. And no location its not a desirable unit, you have basically traffic going by your entry, by your living room all the time. There is no way on this, we raised that units at least 3 feet above grade that there could be a comfortable unit. Since the entry is recess recess it follows the scalping into the main entrance. I dont have a drawing number, it is page seven. It is a package i just gave you, it was page 93. I will put it up on the overhead. This is the unit entrance that you are referring to. 3 feet above sidewalk, still ada compliant for accessibility from the main entrance. The living room is an open kitchen with windows and doors to the courtyard. It is windows to the street basically for some security, and to the stoop which is part of the Design Guidelines that we were directed by planning to provide. Do you think you have enough privacy there because i actually live in a building that i designed and developed that has this condition on the corner of pierce street and we have this condition, and the living room and dining room actually nest up against that stoop. It does provide eyes on the stoop kind of thing. Is it ideal . Frankly, i think there are Better Solutions in different solutions. They dont comply with the Design Guidelines. This is clearly something we have to look at carefully. One thing i will say about this project is that the only retail space is at the corner. We have knowledge of the other frontages of the building will not make sense for retail, but we do think the corners are a place to mark retail because we want it to be more active. It would be challenging to do a residential space at ground level at that corner, since it is such a busy corner, but thats why it is limited to just that one corner. I hear what you are saying, it is a challenge for all these projects because there is so much vacancy in some parts of the city. And my question still is, the bedrooms remain a concern and the number of exceptions we are giving this project are quite a few. Commissioner fong . Perhaps the councilor can summarize again all of the exceptions. I know you have a corner lot so there is an exposure exception, then you have one variance, right . Yes, that is correct. The only request before the commission is actually for the conditional use for the height and in excess of 50 feet. The other approvals that we are requesting are actually from the Zoning Administrator and in the first is a rear yard modification. That modification is a direct response to the corner lot. The code does not allow us to put a code complying rear yard on this lot while providing a continuous block frontage around the entire perimeter of the lot, which is what you really want from an urban Design Perspective and then, the remaining