i am supportive of this fund for small businesses to think about really how do we -- how do we invite new business into the neighborhood, but still make it so that it doesn't raise the rent of those around them. and maybe that's impossible in this world. i don't know. but i think we have to, as a community, as nonprofits in the neighborhood to think about what are creative ways that we can think to really help these small businesses. i heard legal services suggested today. i heard marketing. maybe it's things like that. i think at the base of it is how much rent do these small businesses need to be paying. i have a question about what kind of retail is going to be in the three store fronts. maybe a developer or representative could speak to that. good afternoon, commissioners, i'm [speaker not understood]. we've actually been marketing the retail for about a year

just to see if we might have a tenant more than 6,000 square feet in cu and bring along approval process. and that has yet to be fruitful. we don't necessarily have any uses targeted. i would expect at this point we'd probably divide the space 14,750 square feet. there's been a fair amount of restaurant interest. that's not typical for the area. we'd like to see a retailer in at least one of the spaces. that is as specific as i can get up to this point. >> thank you. i appreciate your efforts. i think it's important to think about what kind of retail can be neighborhood serving, what kind of retail people living in the neighborhood can afford. i think there is really a mix of people living in the neighborhood now. people that have been there not a long time, probably lower income, and new transplants to the neighborhood. i think that as with [speaker not understood] in the retail, price point matters for the theater.

i think that it will cost a family of four $50 to go to the movies, but may price some people out. i'm really excited to see the actual space be used as a movie theater, but i want to keep that in mind. and then i have a number of questions about the housing. so, maybe ms. younga, maybe you can help me understand. can you conceptually describe, what is the formula to decide if there were to be x number of bmrs on-site or inclusionary was supposed to -- if developers chose to do bmrs on-site versus doing the land dedication, how does the planning department decide how much square footage -- [multiple voices] >> i'll defer to rich for that cal collision. -- calculation. >> rich [speaker not understood] land dedication staff. [speaker not understood] the developers elected to do the

on-site affordable option. because of the submittal of his application date for his original project, he is only required to provide 12% on-site affordable. so, that's about 14 dwelling units. and it's based on the number of dwelling units provided within a project. >> so, i know the policies are sort of being written right now around land dedication. i'm excited to see this is the first project. so, how is it decided on the land dedication, the site that's chosen, x footage or x value? what kind of conceptual considerations are there? >> the planning code provides guidance basically for the space on the parcel of land that the development is being -- that basically based on the parcel of land that the new housing is being built on. and that guides how much square footage the new -- the dedicated land has to provide for the site.

so, they're under a certain threshold. i think it's 35,000 square feet. -- of actual physical land. and, therefore, have to provide, i think, up to 35% of that within the new dedicated land. so, the new dedicated land meets the requirement, basically, of the code. >> okay. i think my concern -- i think probably when i trying to think through planning department staff was trying to think through this is there is not -- first of all, i'm supportive of the off-site option. i think it allowed moh to explore doing deep affordability on a separate site. but i want to make sure we're not creating a situation where there is sort of a giant incentive to choose the off-site, the land dedication option because it's so much more financially beneficial for the developer. so, essentially, if it only costs the developer $2 million

to do the off-site option but it would have cost something like $5 million to do bmrs on-site, i feel there is something lost there in the policy of what we've been goingv over the years on inclusionary housing. so, it's not to say that i'm not supportive of this project. i think it is -- this project -- the developer has done a very good job of following the rules and regulations as we've been developing them. but i think as we go forward, i would just ask staff to work with moh to work with the board of supervisors to try to put some more eyes on this policy issue. and then finally, i'm sorry to be long-winded. finally on the parking, i am interested to hear what the rest of the commission has to say, but i am interested in looking at fewer parking spots. i think more bike parking, the developer has looked at that. maybe equity in bike parking to automobile parking. i'm not sure, curious to hear what the rest of the commission has to said. >> commissioner moore.

>> before i get into my comments on the specifics of the project, i would like to acknowledge my support for commissioner wu's concerns about the trade-off between on-site and off-site in this particular case, very well phrased, has a very important policy question with the hope we will continue discussion with the [speaker not understood] and among ourselves. we do all want to avoid the overconcentration of affordability within one area as well. so, i think it's a very subtle question. what is the proper balance. two comments on the project. it's amazing that we're starting the year, the new year, with such a powerful project. i think it's very, very strong because this project has been around forever with all of its trials and tribulations, the ups and downs, the downs and the glimmers of hope of it can you having back and not coming back. that aside, i want to acknowledge the public on an

extremely sensitive and well thoughts common to basically cover the whole spectrum of what the commission likes and needs to be [speaker not understood] the community including how you are all trying to face the project and take a position for which you can support all or partial aspects of t. an incredible rewarding thing to sit here and listen to all of you and i resonate with many of the things that have been said. i'd like to acknowledge the process, both by the developer as well as by the department. i think it's a very high level of interaction that includes the mayor's office of housing. i'd like to talk about two aspects which are very important to me. one is a strong community benefits package. our inability to really condition them, but encouraging you, all of you in your various

needs, to stay and dialogue and see this to come through that is going to be a win/win for everybody. it will not be one day or two days. it will probably take a long time, particularly as we hear that the issue of affordable housing on shotwell, on 12 94 shotwell, might not have been as much discussed in detail as those residents in that area have come forward to fully support what is being done here. i think the commission, as commissioner wu just summarized, is one which the commission itself is very concerned about and we hope that you all find common ground together with how we are taking the full weight of the subject matter, and we all find your support for the project. i want to go through some aspects which the commission has not yet talked about, and that is basically the specifics of the building. i feel that many of the other aspects have been well

addressed, but i want to be the one who will raise two points. i believe that the cultural relevance of the project was very thoughtfully described as it refers to fabric and basket and arts and crafts and weaving. on the other hand, one can't help but think for a moment that we are talking about a piece of look-at-me architecture [speaker not understood] which is generally low key and more for everybody. the architecture as proposed is so strong that while it complements the theater in color and in overall form, it still leaves for me personally a number of issues to be discussed. let's talk about the positive things. * let's first talk about the positive things. i think the plan of the building is the interlocking of the two parts of a wonderful idea.

it recognizes context, and i think it brings forward the fabulous piece of historic preservation, that being the mission theater and a new housing type which still makes reference to height, massing, and in particular supports [speaker not understood]. it's the first time we will be going partially up to what is now 85 feet. it's the first time that we'll be doing it and i will not try to remember whether or not we were 65 feet way back when or whether the [speaker not understood] was 85, but with a project that recognizes how to fasten the edges and set something in context which seems to work. what struck me first, and i want to say it because the facade first remoodctionvedctionv minded * facade first reminded me of

gang nam style. [speaker not understood]. it is bold and really right on, the facade itself is still a point of discussion. and i want to pose an issue to the architect which is as follows. and we had the discussion before on another project. this project in the past, it was done, but an architect submitted a cross-section of the window wall so that one could understand somewhat as a layman or as a professional of what the real implications are in this facade. when you do this facade, it's too complicated, it's cross engineered out, the first thing that goes away. i see you nod because that is a danger here. you have a very difficult building. it's lovely how it turns corners. it really looks great from all

sides, from bartlett in particular how it turns the corner next to the theater, everything great. but the expense at which you are using the multi-angle, say, on the mission street side, might be slightly overdone. and i'm woner -- wondering whether you have an acceptable fall back position should the engineering come along and hit you with thoughts that you didn't anticipate [speaker not understood] as interesting and proper working, yet it does not fall apart and become completely flat building facade. * could you answer that? absolutely. so, since we worked with [speaker not understood], i think the design in its current iteration, staff probably first saw six, eight months ago. we've had the opportunity to spend a lot of time on the engineering you speak of. what i would say is that what you see today is i think what

you will get for a couple reasons. i think when staff first saw it, believe it or not, it was even wilder and even crazier. but the undulation of the facade as it is, it's floor to floor and it varies 7 degrees either forward or back. so, we have essentially three conditions. vertical section or we have back 7 degrees or forward 7 degrees. we've worked with a number of different window wall manufacturers to assure that this is well within acceptable [speaker not understood]. it would not overburden the project from a cost perspective. i just imagine my client, the project sponsor, is extremely keen on making sure such things are the case. the last thing we would want to do is come up here and present something that we cannot afford. so, we have given it a great deal of consideration for that. the can't is 7 degrees. it's not a curtain wall, a window wall. a slab.

it's a high degree of vision glass supported by the energy codes. some spangle glass and metal giving us a high quality facade overall which we fully intend and expect to be able to adhere to. >> thank you. i appreciate your explanation, so, we'll accept that as an answer to my question. i just would like to comment that i believe how you transition the ground floor to the theater is very skillfully done. i would hope that the retail space we were talking about earlier, a rather large amount subdivided by three could be subdivided by smaller units even so that instead of having just three large ones, you might have a variety of smaller ones which aggregate three larger ones because that, i think, is more in keeping with perhaps some of the mission corridor merchants who might want to be there, but might really look for a smaller space

[speaker not understood] can't afford. i do think that having a variety of retail offerings in that area would indeed be beneficial to all of what the theater itself is trying to do rather than having the equally sized entity. there is one other issue, and that is that i am in full support of the department's recommendation for parking. it comes out of long discussions with the eastern neighborhood and there is no compelling reasons why i would not support .67 [speaker not understood] support for this particular project. >> commissioner antonini, if you don't mind, i'd like to try to jump in here. >> yeah. >> overall, i'm in support of the project. i think the off-site housing is sort of an interesting hybrid. i understand it has been tried a couple of times unsuccessfully worked a couple times in san francisco. and while i agree with commissioner moore, it's a

delicate policy question. i sort of view it as it's one more tool that we potentially have, it's one more arrow in the quiver that might solve a problem. if not to be used every single time, but in the right situation and the right circumstances. it's one more opportunity to solve some problems. i'll cut straight to the one concern that i have or one i want to bring up. it's contrary to what was just mentioned and that's the parking. i fully agree that we have been staying with a consistent policy of .65. i think what makes this maybe more unique is that there is already a basement and it already lays out for a larger number of cars than staff recommends. i'd hate to see that space, that basement space misused or wasted or not maximized when we can potentially get some cars off the street. and as the old photo showed, mission street has always been full of cars, but it still continues to have that problem.

and putting 117 units, if we can get a few more cars off the street for residents, i think it's good. i know there is a motion already made, commissioner sugaya, but i'd like to maybe -- i can't make a motion as president, but have you entertain the idea of splitting the difference, the difference staff is asking for and what they're recommending and what the project sponsor is asking for is 12 parking spaces. i'd like to maybe ask a fellow commissioner to suggest splitting a difference of maybe allowing 6 additional parking spaces above what staff is recommending and using the remaining space to dedicate towards bicycle parking. so, 6 and 6. >> can i ask a question? >> yes. >> would that be the bicycle parking which

if they want to change t they'll have to make an amendment. >> fair. otherwise i am looking forward to seeing the proponents in the theater. commissioner antonini? >> two things i would agree to some degree with commissioner moore about the designs. and i would hope we can continue to work with staff. i met with the architect two or three occasions and we talked about possibly making the amount of glazing less so that we don't have -- it de-emphasizes a little bit the size of these bays which become the entire frontage of these units. and i'm sure staff can work and see if we can do something that might tend to ameliorate the effect of these bays at

different angles and making it such a bold statement. * technical difficulty p but the side amendment i want to make to the motion on the floor, and the amendment would call for, i think we -- i forget the number of parking spaces, but i think we were asking for a total of 89 parking spaces, i guess, off-site. * 3:48 p.m. on-site parking spaces. i was going to make the compromise that was brought up by chair fong and the amendment would be we split the difference. we make it 6 additional ones. this is a conditional use. i mentioned earlier that they are giving a lot of things back. thousands, millions of dollars in development, millions of dollars in a land dedication that is going to go for affordable, hundreds of thousands of dollars in

community benefits, and certainly reward them with the ability to get the project built. because if you can't build the project, then nobody benefits. and project sponsors have told me if we can't get enough parking, it's not going to be buildable and it makes a lot of sense. so, i think this may be a compromise. it's sort of odd that we had to bring it down. we're allowed by conditional use to go as high as .75, which should be one to one as far as i'm concerned. but this is one of the flaws of the mission. but i think you'd end up with a total of 6 spaces less than the developer wants, 6 more than what staff wants if i'm doing the math right. could you comment on that, mr. marquez, or project sponsor, as far as the number of parking spaces we're going to end up with, making the difference for residential bike parking? yes. a couple points. if i trip over this i'll ask [speaker not understood] to step up and clarify it. so, as we understand it, it's

86 residential, one car share, and two retail. and, so, the difference is actually 9. and, so, you know, we welcome the opportunity for a compromise where we could get 6 more spaces and we would commit to increasing the parking for bicycles to -- by one-third. you don't necessarily -- in the condition, though, there's other space in the area that would be more appropriate for the bicycles rather than where the parking spots are. so, if you were to make that amendment, we would welcome that, have the additional ones. and then allow us to design the appropriate place with staff where the additional -- up to 60 parking spaces for bicycle. so, instead of 41 it would go up to 60. >> thank you. you know, i think my amendment, then, if i'm doing the math

right, it would be 80 residential instead of -- 86 is what you're asking for. staff is allowing -- what was staff's number? 77. so, we're coming up with actually four more, i believe, if i call it 80. >> commissioner, the draft motion before you called out 77 off-street parking spaceses for the 114 dwelling units. total comes up to 83. >> [speaker not understood]. >> 77 residential, right. >> the commissioner talked about splitting the difference. i think we have an odd number here. it's pretty hard to split it. >> i believe what it is, it's 77 for the residential, 3 for the commercial and car share. so, that's 80. so, if you want to add the extra four, it would be 84. >> 84 total, that makes it clearer. the number would be 84. but the 84 would be the combination of what was just

mentioned by -- >> 8 would be 8 residential, 77 plus the 4, the space, plus the three street, one car share and two commercial consisting of one car share and two commercial. >> that seems to make more car share, a commercial, and we have a few more than what staff is recommending. but still less than would be allowed by conditional use. so, that's my amendment if i can get a second on that. >> let me be clear. math has never been my strong suit. [laughter] >> when i was saying splitting the difference, if my math was wrong about the gross overall, i'll defer to staff to split, try to come up with a number that's 50% of what's proposed. >> so, just to be clear, so, the condition of approval that staffed included reduced the amount of residential parking by 9. so, the difference between the two would be four spaces or five spaces basically would be the split difference. >> yes, please.

>> so, clarifying question. staff's recommendation which is the motion on the floor right now, 77 residential plus 3 -- >> exactly. >> okay. >> and to revise my amendment would be as was presented, we would have a total of 80 residential and 3 -- 81 residential and then how many car share? 3 car share. >> commercial and car share. >> combined. >> 84 total. >> yeah, that was the number. >> commissioner hillis. >> just on the parking issue, can i ask, how you came up with the .67, where did that come from? >> it came from the commission's past decisions and nearby ncs particularly along the [speaker not understood]. therefore, we haven't had, to my knowledge, parking cu -- >> right, this is the first one we've had on mission street. we based that on a precedent of the case. >> in the area?

>> in the area, correct. >> so, it passed the commission as a .67 on the other for et. >> okay. * other project. i don't understand the land dedication model, how that calculation is made as to how big the lot has to be or how small the lot has to be or how many units it has to accommodate. i like the option of land dedication. i like it here obviously gives us the ability to do 100% affordable project if they have the funds and built more affordable housing than you would get from the inclusionary model. >> yeah, basically there is a calculation offered within the code. the project site itself falls within the tier a, which basically says that the land itself has to be -- the dedicated land has to be 35% the size of the land of the project. so, the affordable housing project.

>> yeah, to clarify. so, the project site is roughly 50,000 square feet. considering just the development which is excluding the new mission theater. this is the development portion of the residential unit. >> you take 35% of that which is roughly 15,000, and that's the size of the new lot for the land dedication. that land dedication lot has to be a minimum of 40 units. moh has determined that it can be 46. they can also -- there's some language that allowseses them to go as low as 25 in certain circumstances, but they determined they can do 46. * allows >> is this based on [speaker not understood] are we talking about the economics, 12 affordable units in the projects? >> this is strictly from eastern neighborhoods. >> is that originally based on some economic calculation or it's not clear? >> i don't remember. there was some analysis looking at comparables. i can't remember the details. if i had ken rich here, we could ask him that question.

i honestly don't remember. >> i kind of second commissioner wu's comments to see if this is, you know, economically consistent. they're following the rules which is great. i think it's a good model. we should use this as a test to see are we getting kind of the same value because then there is a potential to get even more land to do land dedication. so, it would be good just to see that kind of -- it's not a terribly difficult calculation. >> yeah, we could do that. i think what's relevant here is that the land dedication, regardless of whether it's economically comfortable in terms of dollars, it was intended to provide more units. and, so, what this does, it relatively triples the amount of affordable units. >> [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. [multiple voices] >> more units on lower land cost. >> one thing i do remember, part of the reason and i think mayor's office of housing can clarify this. part of the reason we did that five years ago now, four years

ago now, is because at the time, and i think it's still the case, land itself was a big part of the problem that the affordable housing community in general has had. so, we rao really looking at an alternative to make land available for new housing. >> make an incentive to use the land dedication model but you don't want it to be too much of an incentive you're not getting enough units. >> okay, commissioner moore. >> i'm sorry, i should have taken my name off. >> commissioner wu. >> just to add one last thought on this conversation is that there is a policy difference here, which is that moh has to finance these units. so, in the example where the developer builds bmrs, the units come ready, however you want to say it. but the city is taking on more of the burden. i really agree we have to make sure it's economically correct. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner antonini.

>> well, on this issue of off-site land dedication, for years we've had a lot of affordable housing activists who have come forward and said, we really want this, particularly in the mission district. so, it's been created and it seems like the wrong forum, although it's worthy of discussion. this is not the time. when the policy is being formulated and approved, that's when the discussion should come forward and make sure it works out equitably and these are all valid comments since they're not being built right now, but itself a trade-off. again this is probably one of the reasons the project can go forward and give so much because the land is dedicated, but they don't have to go through the initial cost of building right at this time of the extra set of units. but land is expensive. it's usually anywhere from 30, sometimes 40% of the value. it depends how much the improvements are. land is very expensive in san