If you would adjust the overhead we cant follow our description it is too far down. Thank you supervisor thaengs there we go. The union Street Building not expanding into the rear yard if you look at the alladin terrace building there is 7 feet difference were averaging that 3 feet back from the west neighborhood and 3 feet heading of the east in and about exactly how we applied in the residential Design Guidelines looking towards the union street frontage again, we see an exact kind of natural step adopt with the 40 foot tall home and steps down with the grade and with the two just a few minutes knows and as you can see the renderings you dont see anything but by no means that is a building that is standing down in terms of mapping moving to the alladin building that is consist with this project stepping down with the step down of the two just a minute buildings and, of course, the sbltsd at the street and because the street is so narrow by look at the renders that read the 3 stories at the street and so narrow thats all ill see if anything this is consistent with the character of the alladin terrace so as jackie mentioned their gambled in a outreach and accepted a number of items of input from the community those include modification of the bay windows think union street and modification of the siding 0 and the architecture materials and eleme element alladin and reduced the window size and changed the materials and enhanced the soundproofing and construction housing monday through friday from 8 to 5 and result again, a building that arguably most impacts on the neighbors on alladin theyre in support of project i want to speak to the parking issue on alladin brought up by jackie and danny recognize is a special alley with the traffic and want to maintain that is something that serves them as well and theyre committed to as well the proposing a 10 foot wide garage opening for two cars as jackie mentions two jobs theyll have two cars thatll theyre adding go cars with the parking on the streets if i putdown it on the street were asking them to walk around union street to taylor to the rear didnt seem reasonable considering the fact theyre adding go cars to this street your adrc maybe two to four trips on average not changing the character of the street so with that, we feel like we video a project very consistent with the existing development and done our outreach and respectfully ask the commission to approve the project as is. Okay speakers in support of the project sponsor. Other than the project sponsors team. Good evening commissioners i thank you im stephen and my wife and i lived on the terrace for 43 and 37 years for all the years weve enjoyed the empty lot will we miss that bus weve always known as some point in time there would come a time someone will build something we speak in support of jackie and danny theyve been respectful of us and our neighbors we had a frank and open conversation the 4 of us established a consensus we can agree with and the final plans is a reflection of listening to the neighbors were thrilled another young couple wants to build their dream house to raise their family in San Francisco we were the first house on alladin terrace to build a garage 10 years ago to allow us to apg there are 6 Parking Spaces so adrc go more offstreet parking shouldnt denying the garage will have a negative effect by right they having could have built one more story but instead the concerns of the neighbors about. Pardon me lisa lived here for 13 years we plan to spend our requirement in this location the proposed. A couple of spots and to drop off relatives and friends and another garage will actually reduce the traffic flow trips both the alley will be one way and driving out of alley burglary are safer more cars will face forward and neighborhood parking is so difficult to find several of us including some of us office of the city administrator rent the Parking Spaces the additional parking will be a net positive for us all thank you for your consideration. Theyve be grace us to let us use their area our studio directly faces the story poles that jackie and danny set up to represent their proposed home and have a strong understanding of the building scope in terms of dimension tare almost the same height and dimension as the other buildings weve seen in the neighborhoods and i feel that the home that the proposed home is very comparable with that block and the neighborhoods generally to keep a lot free and clear fl for all it use and enjoy. Thank you so much. My name is katey simp son. Work for hospital in San Francisco. When they discussed the desire i had a fear of elx act evictions and not knowing how that would go and i was nervous and that was the fact they assured me i was able to stay in the unit and aeroed offered to rent and know i wont be displaced. It is answered and listened to the exactly what i would have hoped. It says a lot about who they are and so i just wanted to say as a tenant i have complete support and look forward moving in. The polarize visible from the units and line up where the buildings are in the back alley so seems like it is a great way to nestal in another unit knowing there is so few new ones coming to San Francisco and feels like it fits in so the comments about the windows as a future tenant and like the amounts of light coming in and think it seems like a great plan. Just wanted to say that they seem to be great landlords and look forward being neighbors with them in the future and cant think of a Better Family keeping in the neighborhood. Thank you. Good evening. My name is brent tam and current resident of 870 union street and live below danny and jacquie and like to speak in support the project. Looking at the plan and seeing the storee poles up for the last few months the project is reasonable. I see the poles every day and height and footprint seem consistent with all the buildings mptd the sponsor danny and jacquie are informing about the project and informed of updates. I like to clarify i will be displayed. Jacquie and danny offered me a room after construction but looking to buy units and move out of state so declined but it isnt something i would be worried about so in support of the project and danny and jacquie. Thank you for your time. I live two blocks away. Sorry i didnt prepare like everyone else mp i have seen the plans and just want to say that they look like they fit in the neighborhood rchlt nothing that stands out to me and think everything looks good so just here in support of the project and jacquie and danny. Thank you. My name is alex and liv at 951 jackson for 7 year jz hung out in the neighborhood for a decade and in the bay area since i was a teenager. When i first heard about the project jacquie and danny a transparent about the plains explaining the plans. As a renter im thrilled to see new units added to the neighborhood. Not just unit but the right development. I love my neighborhood, i love living there and building myome there. It isnt without the flaws. Parking is perhaps the most challenging in the city of any neighborhood, soei so i urge the commission to support in this case and general development that whos plans include sufficient on site parking particularly fl family units. That is something that impacts neighbors but also the community and neighborhood in general. Good evening. My name is ary redstone and the owner of 1420 Taylor Street. I initially reached out to the owner because i was concerned the building would impact my view. Danny and jacquie showed the plans and walked through the design and i wasnt okay until i saw the story poles. The height of the building matches the surroundsing biltdings. I appreciate they reached out to me to tell me the story poles s went up and asked if i had concerns. It shows that they are committed to public process and cared about the neighbors concerns. I hope you approve their project i look forward to getting to know them better at neighbors. I also think the city should encourage young couples to stay in San Francisco to develop families mptd. Thank you. Good evening. Christopher lloyd and live at 1348 sacramento street. Having seen concerns today about the size of the back terrace i want to express general support of the project having recently got engaged i want to raise a family in San Francisco and happy to see projects large enough to accommodate families. My name is sonya and live at 909 vallejo between mason and taylor. I agree with many commentsed earlier this nairbd is unique and cultural rich with a identity all its own and i reviewsed the plan and believe the character and design of the projeblth is keeping with the neighbor. The buildings is identical in size to the neighbors. I believe garages should be allowed and difficult finding parking. Long time resident of the neighborhood it is [inaudible] spent weeks if not months of my life looking for parking and dont know what i would do if i had to drive to work. Yes, to echo a comment, i support the project. Any other speakers in support of the project sponsor . Not seeing any, requester you have a two minute rebuttal. Would like to clarify we are not attempting to stop the construction and we also welcome a new family and new children to the neighborhood. We are just simply concerned about the volume and bulk and the garage space. And we acknowledge there are changes made to the project, however, they dont really acknowledge that the primary basis for those changes were specific direction by the city notice of Planning Department requirements and review comments. Never the less, some of those do echo the concerns voized by the neighbor. As to the inconvenience of parking in on union Street Garage and walking up to taylor and around the corner, not true. They can park in the union street grad garage and jacquies elderly parent and Young Children will be able to walk directly from the new garage through the existing proposed corridor through the inner court a distance of 61 feet, 7 ofeet from the glauj to the front door of their entry in the union Street Building. This image illustrates the extreme degree of non compliance with quantitative requirements of the planning code. Here is the required rear yard. Here is the minimum depth of a inner court at 25 feert feet which is also the minimum depth for exposure for unit one and these diagonal lines indicates points where the 45 de your time is up. Thats fast one. Project sponsor you have two minute rebuttal. Thank you commissioners. Just a couple things to wrap up. One of the early dr requested mentioned about light and air getting down to their light well. I want to point this out and make claer to everyone on the overhead. This is the proposed partial 4th floor on union street. We valight well we are proposing about less than 2 3 of the depth on the east size and another light well for the rear 1 3 on the west side. There are significant light wells and completely covers the existing loathe light well on the adjacent property here so wanted to point that out. The degree there is consideration about putting more parking on the union street side, there is not physical space horizontally for more parking so we need to do stackers, which in certain contexts are okay. In this context it cost prohibitive for the project. Jacquie and danny, this is their home and quoted between 75 thousand and 200 thousand per lift so i acknowledge that isnt a precise number but talking real number and real family not talking about building into development cost. I just want to make that clear as well. Obviously it is Dense Development here. We made clear we think this is just really fits in with the existing development and recognize not everyone will be satisfied considering how many people in are the neighbor but think jacquie and danny have shown to go out of the wear to work with folks and make this work for neighbors. We are here for questions and rerequest your support. That concludes the public hearing and commissioners if you dont mind this is a little unusual project and will ask sanchez to chime in. And think the application is unusual. I have questions for the project sponsor and one of the dr requesters as well. They are seeking multiple variances and often have variances with the dr or conditional use authorization to remind the commission, if the variance is granted for the praumgect project if the commission desires to be more restrictive you have the full project and can be restrictive just to make that clear. They are seeking multiple variances, the rear yard and exposure and open space. [inaudible] allows a structure. The fact is the size of the structure is what is triggering the variances. On first pass i look at the plans i think i have the same reaction many of the public commenters did that were in support of the project that it does fit. It makes use of averaging existing structures and fit in the existing context. Maybe a fair question whether the existing context is over built but does fit into the existing context. Usually when we have in the fill projecs like this that are New Buildings at the rear of the lot that is the entirety of the project and so i had a question for the project sponsor. This is unusual to have a major addition to the front building as well. It is my understanding that your client lives in the top unit of the building and relocate to the new building that is being constructed at the rear. What was the reason for still maintaining and doing substantial alterations to the the front building you are no longer libing in . I understand the building was converted to cond ominiums. You sell the units or . Project sponsor. Our intent is not to sell the units. Katie will continue to live in a unit and hopefully we will have family and friend occupy the others like now. We have no intent to sell the unit. We think highest and best use for the site kw feels like it fits in the confecs of the surrounding buildings. In termoffs where you currently live and adding all that space to that unit that is something you rent . Correct. I do need to rent the top floor to offset libing expense of having a moorejudge in mart gj in San Francisco. Popping out to fill in the little other space is a natural filling of dead space. The idea for the upper floor is have a nice livable rental unit. Thank you. As part the project is adding a large light well for that front building. There is currently the building doesnt reflect or match the existing light well, which is raised by some of the dr requesters. When you have sth ability to add a new light well why didnt you reflect the existing light well . Sure, please. As you heard from dr requesters one of the concerns is the new building being tantamount to demolition so we created a large light well to match bullet the stories below we tried to limit amount of work we are doing so that is why we have chosen not to match below. That was the rational behind it. Okay. Alright. And then one question for one of the dr requestersyou are 22 aladdin and looking at the history of the development we have Great Airline photos from 1938 and overlay with current. The only property that wasnt there in 38 but built in 39. Correct. Looking at the records. It looks like you saw the variance for rear addition in 1989 and 90 . Also correct. Was that ever completed . No. That was appealed and permits issued but did want complete the work . The variance was granted and didnt proceed with the work. Thank you. Appreciate that. I think the context is supportive of the project but can be challenging given how dense. I see justification for a variance and think in particular the support that the adjacent properties have on aladdin which are most directly impacted enterms of the variances being sought in understand if the commission had additional changes but do find can be supportive project here. Thank you. Lets see what commissioners moore. Mr. Sanchez, could i talk about the property as [inaudible] versus adjoining propertys subdivided into two lots. In this particular case the lot actually mitigates the impact of a building in the aladdin lot adjacent to the property to the east, which is built prior to minimum rear yard separations and that creates a very impacting situation at least to 3 or 4 owners on union street. Adding a bidding in the year of aladdin without subdividing the lot or following the typical rear yard dimensions to unit 1 you will have a 20 foot face to face rear situation which exacerbates the situation which is created to a building which was built prior to the required separation. I see that as a major impact because if we are looking at 4 to 6 to 8 stories or 10 stories buildings in other parts of the city, i continuously refer to the issue we need to avoid created tenement unit and by forcing or asking a variance for that particular critical dimension in this new building, i believe that we are inadvertently impacting buildings to eithercidin union street in a manner that gives great concern. If this lot would have been subdivided the rules would have been different and process for approval would have been different and had other situations on sacramento towards divisadero. The slope between union and aladdin find the impact of tenement units further disturbing. And i need to be very clear about that because we are on the downslope on the north side so the effect of the taller element over the rear yard together is further diminishing the effect of light from the north. At this moment you have the reflective quality of the bay and a wide open lower units facing north which gives light to these units but i think we are potentially doing something which im very concerned about. The second point i am asking is, how could we create an aladdin address when the property is really a union street address and how could we probably in this situation take access to the garage from aladdin when the building is a union street address . The planning code allows for development of through lots when developed with dwelling and that is the case here. There is nothing under the planning code that prohibits establishment of a developing unit. What is triggering the variance is the depth it isnt maintaining the 25 percent between the two buildings and nothing in the planning code that prohibits that unit which the code allows from having a address on aladdin. A address creating a address that is under the purview of department of building inspection in termoffs the street number it gets but the planning code contemplates this specifically and allows for development of a dwelling unit because of the fact the adjacent buildings are developed. In termoffs the lots i would be less supportive that did do a subdivision because that would seek variances because we would seek lot area variances because the lot of aladdin wouldnt meet the requirements of the planning code. I think the fact that the adjacent properties that are on aladdinmaybe they were through lots at one point and subdivided out. The fact there are property lines on the adjacent property doesnt weigh in the rear yard variance. The fact the buildings is there and this is compatible with the buildings is supportable for me. There will be no light coming from the north. That is because the sun will come from the south and in terms of all the light and air issues. In terms of reflective light i dont like the argument but having a building provides reflective light for the buildings adjacent. I dent think that is great argument it is generally trying to have critically continue at the issue of below standard courtyards including impaired unit exposure and since this is over 4 stories we had the same argument when we looked at lynch street and russell street and same argument with pacific street very recently. I like this commission to develop a vocabulary and understanding of those impacts which really matter to the existing unit surrounding such a larger excessively sized expansion and excessively sized it is because while we are seeking to use Additional Space in the city for reasonable increase in unit size. The unit which is really the only one which to qualify for being rentable is the one which is 352 square feet at the bottom of the thing where we are not intensifying accept mega a mansion and have the use the word when i dont like. I believe the request is uncoordinated piece of twement and believe the commission needs to make a point while supporting development to push back and size in a manner it sites better and more compatible and frndly with the neighbors. I actually visited a site yesterday, it is kind oof like 15 minute walking down Taylor Street and wanted to plarbly see the inner space and it was sobering more sobering because of the 1970s building on the east side of the lot. It is pretty depressing situation. I couldnt be more honest about what i saw and i know it will bethat feeling will be exacerbated by the vertical extrusion of the building. The thing i regret is that the developer is only aminable to a two sided access for cars while i understand the family situation i support additional car access off union street and stackers do not cost 250 thousand we had that discussion can russell street. At least take one zero off. Having said that, i believe that kind of really creatively denseifying that would be together with using the required alley breezeway which is 60 feet i can get into Something Like that because i think it is innovative and understanding dense fiication accept it doesnt make me feel it is not sensitive to the existing neighbors. The alley is a wonderful place. It is the ideal mrs. Wenslow shared space. It is east west for those that live in small homes and they are fun. That particular alley is standing outside having your kids play or whatever you do out there but that is what i see the future the city and this possible future of open space to be. They are not interrupted by garage doors. They are just not. May i provide a comment with parking that may provide relief. The code does notthe code requires 1 to 1 parking for the zoning district, however, there are prohaveitions in the code that allow easy reduction. You can replace auto parking with bike parking. If there is a concern that they need to provide 4 Parking Spaces to meet code requirements that is not the case and i could see many ways around that. I can hear the description of the work and i can be sympathetic to the living sipuation with maybe having two cars in the future i can deal with that it is 234 question how you do it. If we are supposed to understand the change in general direction of how we live than understanding how to deal with parking in a cooperative way that doesnt impact the neighbors. Instead of saying to park the traditional and walk to union street, i want a little more newer thinking and think the commission should encourage that if we want to support parking in a transit rich corridor. Im prepared to do that, but just need a slightly different approach. I will stop talking but this project troubles me particularly after we have so many controversial projects in this area in the recent past. Commissioner richards. Question for the zoning administrator. If the project sponsor comes back after this is complete and want a lot split subdivision would they get it . They would need to seek another variance. It would be for lot size for rear yard again. One thing we would look at is the pattern of development. There is a clear pattern of the smaller lots which weigh favorbly on the application but cant say they will get a variance or not. I guess question i have and think thiz was raised in the brief by the discretionary review. We had a code before 1976, 77, whatever it was and the housing there bench mark built under a new 76 77, whatever it was and the housing there benchmark built under a new code. Now we vanew code and new code apply jz need a variance but we go back to the old code because the pattern of development is there. Can you comment why would we want to add the same problem that we already got there . It is putting a new buildingim troubled. I have no renderings from the back of union Street Properties to your new development. All i have a photo from the next door neighbor looking up at the gar gaj wn house. It is mindboggling. The next door neighborit is like this. I luchb to see what the building looks like in context. What these people will have to look at. Why would we want to compound a problem we already have saying it is non complying . These are housing. Part is how can it ingrate to pattern of development. The existing development was created when we had different code provision but it is a question how you integrate in the pattern of the other noncomplying buildings. Code compliant alturn tchb would have a shorter building on aladdin or require dimnition of part of the building on union and both of the buildingss on the plans are contextual and respect the adjacent properties. I think that is part of the justification. It is a roomy building. Mr. Butler in the brief mentioned something of section 134 c 43properties that contain two buildings and [inaudible] rear yard of the subject lot be reduced to less than a depth of equal to 25 percent of the total depothf the subject lot or les than 15 feet, which ever is greater. Can you interpret that . They are seeking a variance. It is a absolute . No, not at all. Thank you for the clarification. One thing that troubles me honestly is quhie you are touching the fronts building . This is a huge construction project. You want to create a space for the family and put it in the back of the lot. I have issues with some of the details of your project in the back. You look at the existing Properties Unit 1345 to go to 350, unit 2, 1141 to 1313, not much a difference but all this Construction Unit 3, 12 59 to 2252 and it is a rental unit which you wont live in. I think it is successive and not be aggreat neighbor especially having to lower floors to sink the building. If that was my house and wanted that for my wife and need for the family it carries a lot more weight rather than building a back and blowing up the upper unit. I do think that parking is excessive. I opened the hearing with a piece of news this week about a truck that drove 130 miles with 70 tons obeer. I think the car ratio is. 5 or less and you are diluting what i think is a car ownership ratio regardless if you drive. Perhaps the front two units dont need a recollect paparks someplace. Ride share, uber, lift, walking it seems like a lot. I think thei like the idea of the dr requester said about parking in the front. This is a one unit property not two unit so 60 feet away is two cars that can be your two. You dont have to build a garage door on the back of thealy. The alley is special place. It is really narrow and think commissioner moores point, we struggled and fought over 6 stories buildings with amount of space between them and had the character recognition and sunlight angles and we normally come away with a minimum of 25 feet so you have a very small amount of space between the front building and across aladdin a 18 foot. It just is a lot and it would [inaudible] different requirement for this property versus a 85 unit building. I think the glazing is too much. On lynch alley we have the same in the. We are on a alley and looking at somebody else you dont need the huge windows. It is just too much. I thipg it degrades the quality of life. Thats where im coming from. I think it is excessive and dont like the parking. I dont know why you go through the cost of adding a upper unit and think there are maybe issues how to taylor the back project to be more frndly. Commissioner copal. Im hearing about the oakland developer and not sure and confused who that is and how they fit into had process if you are the family that wants to construct this project. So, my older brother went to Elementary School with [inaudible] grew up in San Francisco. Reozlives on a block a number of years ago looking to find a home. I help in my families business which is hotel in napa. I havent evicted anybody. Riozisnt working on the project anymore. Commissioner moore. I want to briefly talk about unit sizing and it is in response to two projects which fill the opposite spectrum of what we do in the commission. There is really no parking between 24 two things but it is ish oo athat continues to trouble me. On the affordable end of units we are looking at studios which are in the lower 400 square feet and we approved a very large project today which brings a large number of affordable units to the market. The smallest unit in the buildings are studios at the size of 439 square feet. On the otherened of the spectrum, we are looking at the approving a building where one bedroom is in the 900 square feet. I like to just comment and stand in the room for a moment because for me personally it starts to make me think that there is a ever larger gap between what we need to decide in order to hit a middle ground by which it works for all. It is the over sizing of the particular project in a environment where families with two children, three children, i just heard yesterday there was a baby born on that alley there which is a week old. They are families who i met who had 2 or three children and lived in 1500 square feet and becomes difficult for me not to comment this project could be slightly reduced, could be more sensitive to common demiseing lines and sensitivity and still be a good and appropriate project and echoing what i heard commissioner richard spell out clearly. Commissioner melgar. I had a question for the project sponsor. I um, i think it is asked in a different way just still dont understand the answer. I guess the math of why you are addingtupping the unit you are mubing out of. You are investing quite a bit into making that bigger and i assume that it is because you want to rent it for more than what you can get for it now. I ami know a little about the real estate in that area and it is high. It is expensive. What you can get for rent untouched is fairly high. I am wondering why you would do it sfaelsh if you are getting push back from the neighbors so can you tell usit makes me suspicious a bit and wonder if it pencils oout and wurkt it that is a debate. The number one thing is the home because that is where we will live. We in early conversations say it is worth adding the unit. Furnished rental in San Francisco which is high demand is great way to offset your mortgage. Losing the top floor is something that made this a doable project we would do it in the heart beat because the home in the back is the most important. The pop out in the empty light well area is really not going to impact. It just makes a better libing room and kitchen. It was a debate for us. Is it wurkt doing this and knowing that clearly down hill neighborerize worried about the foundation and excavation and know that would maybe create problems there. Commissioner richards. We just heard the project sponsor represent the dr requesters. Come on up, please. Just heard the project sponsor say that building isnt pair mount to us and want to deal with the back building. What are your thoughts on that and think as dr 864 union doesnt alter the union. For aladdin terrace it is a question of the scale of the back buildings. None of the dr requesters oppose the back building. There fs emails sent last summer and blocks 50 percent of the day light sunlight to the yard of 864 to have the third story at the depth of the variance. It is too high in that location. Either three stories above grade without a garage on the rear with 25 percent the lot with rear yard and no work on the front building and that would be a great improvement. Not trying to broker a deal, but when i heard the front building was something you didnt need to do maybe we dont need to be here if there is some way to get to the middle. Please comment on what just saying we are talking about removing the top floor not the pop outs in the plans off the living room. They still need to be significant work. Can you use the mic, please . There will still need to work because there isit is a deck now and so if we are filling in the deck on 2 stories we have to reframe the structure to support it. I think mr. Butler mentioned they wanted no work on the building but that isnt what we want. One question for mr. Foster. So, the back building seems like we are getting somewhere. The back building it goes straight up if you look fraught the front building. What would a set back do there and from a light and air point of view . On the new construction . Jes. Because of the conangle plane plain this is north so impact of light it would be not impact. Sun angle plaining somebody brought up the diagram, which it mr. Butler . Can we see that . Can you walk us through that, please . Talking about the section with the 45 degree angles . Yes. Thats it. We have the issue with lynch and with several others. The rear yard of the building should be could you pull it down so we can see it . Pull the drawing downthere you go. This st. The actual requires rear yard depth, 25 percent of the lot width and 45 degree angle back to existing 3 story buildings shows it complying with the courtyard space. Likewise, when you are back at the line of the variance, the 45 degree exposure also works for the other side when the third floor is set back away fwraum the variance line. How much . You can see coming out of the roof looks like to be about 9 to 10 feet back. That footprint of the back building i believe is 41 feet in depth and if it respected the rear yard it would be 32 feet in depth. I bleechb those are the numbers plus or minus. They have a 32 foot buildable envelope at the back but want 41. 9 foot off the top floor 15 from the front and have one room at the top that gives them access to outdoor space. Okay. I think we may be getting somewhere. See what other commissioners have to say or make a motion . I think there is a lot of pieces here that are kind of floating. The rear yard, the light well, the, the garage is a stacker 200 thousand or 30 thousand . It is a very unusual lot and opportunity lot and maybe commissioner moore agrees it is a opportunity to be creative and get more out of this than we are looking rep. Joe atkins the moment. Commissioner more, i believe there is a envelope that has gives and takes. It has compliance or intent of compliance but taking it out of the disregard. There is a big difference between 20 feet and additional 11 feet or whatever the dimension was. I like to see a sketch approach to negotiated point of mutual sensitivity about we want to build a second house and leave the one thing alone and deal with parking if at all. Good perspect from you and see where it goes. If we get ourselves in a similar [inaudible] as we did on [inaudible] im not prepared to play. I just cant do this anymore because what we say or what our sensitiveties are not just push back to you. I fully appreciate what you want to do. I really do, but there has to be more give and take and absence of give and take it is difficult for us because i dont sit on either side but i sit in the middle where i need to hear everybody and that is what i think president fong is saying. Lets open the dialogue between parties which seem to be creative but dont another loop. Im worried where we will be in a russell situation. When we come back more things happen and talk about 5 16th of a inch and sat here kwr wanted to put my hair out. Let me try towell see where this goes. Make a motion to take dr allow for two Parking Spaces in the front building but not the back with a 9 foot setback in the back on the third floor. Thats what we talked about. Light well. Nothing happens in the building in the front other than the pop out. Seems to be where we were going. Just afraid we will back in a russell situation where we will spend 10 more hours on this. That is a motion. Can you explain9 feet on the third floor. On the third floor of the back building from the innercourtyard. Correct. To allow sunlight. I would 2nd that but like to ask mr. Butler and [inaudible] whether we are in the range where ubelieve there is a commize. I want to make sure we are not and what we are doing is 5