i would like to say that -- we had eight -- coming up with a combination on hickory and the more traditional building facing the south side, i think it is phenomenal. not even talking about using three architects. i think it is a wonderful example of how to really create tively use the freeway. all of the legal foundations in place for labor, for affordable

housing, etc., i am comfortable with and i greatly appreciate mr. lee being a strong supporter. in the end, i believe the position the department takes is a correct one. however, market octavia -- having said that, i am very comfortable st. exceptional designed -- seeing exceptional designs. how we measure height and how we look at hickory alley, whatever. fees are being used for infrastructure improvements, the extension and the completion is in the spirit of using the

money. it would -- it is perfectly justified. it is not just a self-serving thing. together with the idea of potentially having an agreement for hickory, at an innovative way which reinforces our market octavia it is developing. i think market octavia is one of the most exciting neighborhoods that is happening and i am really happy that we are -- we continue to support innovative design, good design, and neighborhood associations will support the project. i really do not have anything

negative to say. the only thing i would have liked staff to do, look for a -- the reason i'm asking, we want to encourage the architectural design and its detaining express is an attitude towards windows. if you use a very thin board, which might be used on this project, you might get a flatness around the window and the kind of detail and that does not wear very well. we should be encouraging staff to work with the architects, all three, to fully explain that so the building delivers the type

of quality of architecture we are all supporting and we need to see at this scale of the building. commissioner antonini: a few comments on design. i think it is pretty good. the modifications from regulations are fairly minor ones. allows for bay windows to be on the corners, which i think it is a nice feature. most of these exceptions are ones that actually improve the project. a few points on design. i think it is well designed. there are a couple of places on one of the three, i believe it is on the oak street, perhaps a

stronger element that is more complementary to everything else in the neighborhood would be better. it does not have to be a traditional in terms of the architecture throughout the western addition, but something that makes a definite break at the end of the building towards the top. also another thing i was happy to see it was talk about different materials when you're a break between stucco and wood, two elements to differentiate. if that could be done to make sure that we emphasize the individuality of the different units, to make them look like separate units, would be a another good feature. the colors look like they are good ones. hopefully, -- i am using the

word tasteful, that is hard to say because everyone has different taste. the windows, some sort of framing or moldings around the windows were possible to offset them a little bit more would be good. on the landscaping, i have not looked at the plant in great detail, but i hope we have usable areas within these courtyards which would have areas where people could actually sit and enjoy themselves, rather than decorative areas they would look at. that was softened -- their own little parks within the building. it is very good. in regards to parking, and i would encourage project sponsor to work with car share and see

if there is a possibility of including more car share. there may be plentiful street parking, a lot of people might not want to have a car, especially if they leave it on the street and it is broken into frequently. they may prefer to use cart share. it gives them a third option. it will attract a lot of potential renters if they could utilize a car share. commissioner sugaya: thank you. a little detail that does not have anything to do with the project. on your drawing sheets, you have central spelled wrong. [laughter] before you go to the public or whatever, after this meeting, you may want to take a look at that.

i have a question with respect -- the city currently on is this parcel, is that correct? -- wonowns this parcel, it is tt correct? since there seems to be consensus among the neighborhood, locally within the area, and i think among the commissioners, there is a preference for having inclusionary units within the development. quite apart from mr. lee's comment about the fees. with respect to the other -- under the current legislation, we cannot force the developer to do that because he has three options that he can choose from. however, if this is a city-owned parcel, could you have conditions of sale on having

inclusionary units within the development? >> i can answer that question. yes. you could do that. commissioner sugaya: given that answer, does the mayor's office have any comment at this point? i do not think we can condition that, obviously. >> the purchase and sale agreements is a voluntary agreement with team -- two parties. it is a negotiation. commissioner sugaya: i understand, thank you. i do not want to put you on the spot. but maybe there could be some further discussion. i do not know if the commission wants to encourage anything like that, but it is just an observation. this is a little different

situation where developers come to us with a property that has been privately transacted. they can choose one of the three. it seems to me if the city is selling the parcel and it is a -- it is in the public interest to do so, you have strong support from the neighborhood organizations. it seems to me that we would want to encourage some kind of discussions to take place. commissioner moore: i would like to ask the city attorney as to whether or not in our motion there needs to be a request for an in kind agreement regarding hickory street. i do not want to step out of line here, but i would like to see that we extend our support for that to happen. >> that was one of the modifications in the materials

before you that i read at the beginning of the presentation. it was adding condition to the motion for that agreement. >> a resolution to urge the developer to make that agreement. commissioner moore: acceptable to the developer. >> yes, it is acceptably to the developer. -- acceptable to the developer. page 32. commissioner moore: thank you for reminding me. commissioner antonini: i would speak against any change in the on site affordable. we have already discussed that. in this instance, it makes no sense. you have another parcel right next to it that will be 100% affordable. the mayor's office is the latitude to be able to apply

these funds were state and federal moneys have dried up. if there is no funding, they never get built. we have a lot of affordable projects that are sitting and not being developed because there is no funding. it only makes sense that this stays as it has been proposed. commissioner sugaya: i am going to make a motion to continue. until the mayor's office of housing, giving them an opportunity to talk to developer about requiring on-site inclusion mary housing. they can bring it back one way or another -- inclusion very housing. they can bring it back one way or another.

commissioner borden: i do not think that most people said. given the parcel o is abutting this project site and there is another site close by, this is an important issue, for this parcel, it is less of a concern. not that it is a -- not that it is not a concern over all. you basically have to affordable projects of but in this project site and the fact that we recognize that the 55 laguna is in the neighborhood. the reason we did not support that is not because it is not a great idea. in this project site or in pacific heights, were there are not any projects coming on line,

we might have had a different result. commissioner sugaya: the rfp for the other parcel has not been issued, is that correct? >> that is the office that issued the rfp. excuse me, the rfp for o has not been issued. commissioner sugaya: is it conceivable that it could not be 100% affordable? >> there is a very remote chance, but since we acquired the land with redevelopment tax increment funds from the city, the board put a requirement that if you use 100% for affordable housing, that is a requirement

that still remains. there is a very remote possibility that the board would change its mind. but at this point, it is dedicated for affordable housing and that is the intent of the mayor's office that it be affordable housing. commissioner sugaya: thank you. >> there is a motion and a second to approve with conditions as amended, correct? >> [inaudible] >> that was read into the record by staff. on that motion? [roll call vote] so moved. that the motion passes unanimously. president fong: we will take a