in designing the project and giving input it's been a tremendous community process we applaud it's long overdue there's time constraint and hope you won't delay a minute in approving it >> thank you. >> thank you for taking my comment and what he said i agree. i'm chris i'm in support and my involvement began as a resident in 18999. as an interested neighbor i started attending the visitacion valley planning meetings that drove the fight against the home depot project and it's been a tireless advocate. i served on the advisory committee under redevelopment on

this project. i'm a small business owner i know it will be good for the city and paragon has shown to be a good partner. i think the one place with the development agreement it's an imperative world we don't have the same tools or we had to make a lot of compromises but in the end we've arrived at a good place this is a community driven project and the developers agreement there's meetings need to update the community i feel that's an inadequate amount i'd like to see the city and the planning department and the developer to commit to hearing in visitacion valley we have a

great library a great place to have those meetings i want to see that happen as part of the process so we can again e keep the community voice in the project. the city and developer is going to want it there's going to be changes but overall i really want to see this project move forward and i am grateful to my community that worked hard so thank you for hearing my comment >> thank you >> thank you public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> well, thank you this is a wonderful project and an example of great public and private coordination after the loss of very development to bring this forward i'm very supportive of

the modifications outlined by staff concerning issues that have risen i'm confident that things obey worked out. my concerns are in references to the transportation issues while some of them are not part and parcel of the project i think parts of the project are contingent on the decisions outlined. i'll bring up a few examples the first, the study has to make sure that whatever it approved as far as the transportation along the third street or along geneva eventually connecting to hunters point should be rail ready nation studies across the country rail preference over bus rapid transit appeal and also the fact we have a key line that

dead-ends in visitacion valley and all the trains have to go back and make a long trip to connect with the rest of the system. that makes sense as we move forward if we can't do it immediately we make sure that any plan makes it possible to implement a connection with our existing metro light rail system instead of pedestrians having to transfer. the things i've mentioned are contingent are the placement of the caltrain station will to some degree dedicate with the extension of the t line 10 east is going to be we want the extension to go where the station end up there's concerns

in brisbane having the station closer to them this has to be should but it's essential the t line connect with both the caltrain station as well as the future light rail connection and you're not having people figuring out how to get a half a mile from one station to another. those are important things needed to be discussed and, of course, the new clover leaf over 101 there's going to be auto traffic there will be cars moving from the east to the west side. that's a got to work together and those are my feelings but i think it's an excellent plan >> commissioner moore. >> i i would like to echo this

is an remarkable project but after the collapse of redevelopment we were able to pull this together and kudos to the mayor's office of economic workforce development the developer himself obviously had other issues that were there when it was still underdevelopment and hand it to the planning department 24 is one of the comprehensive projections without my opposition because it was well worked. i had the good future of listening to a design presentation and i can only tell you because you don't have the luxury it answered every request so i'm supporting the there will

for which the development agreement has formulateed the verbiage of enlightenments and the fairness of this project. i'm delighted and in full support of the impacts to approve >> commissioner hillis. >> just original my colleagues. if you could give us i don't know if it's planning or oewd the planning of the processes i'm hoping when this is implemented we're saying the same thing the community has been involved you've added elements but an overview of the phasing who's reviewing that and with the addressed community input meeting >> yeah. so ashley moved

through the process kind of as we wrap up the phase of approvals we'll have the virus meeting like the post application meeting. once we wrap up we move on to the development phase so as i outlined at the last time the most of the review applications as well as the permit applications will be administrative i probably have the slides.

okay. here it is. administration approval of the building applications and within both of those so the building applications can be submitted at the same time of the phase applications so the community review first a required preapplication meeting for both phases and building permit applications those have to had a in visitacion valley and they have the option of happening in the planning department and given the neighborhood how far we made it implicit 2, 3, 4 happen near the project site. after the meetings the neighborhood notification and

within the 312 period both for phase pleas and now building permits not on the slides that's from the may 8th hearing for parks and building permits there's a post application meeting within the thirty day notification period close to the project site my public comment and review has to be documented similar to the preapplication meeting so all of those xhments comments my written comments and my comments that happen during the post application meetings are going to be farther to the planning director to make their final approval. and we made that under the redevelopment plan it was the advisory committee to have that roll it was similar to be involved in vertical as well as horizon development without

having the cac they served a larger roll to look at workforce development and this is funding that is, you know, no longer part of the project we didn't think the cac wroel roll would be the most appropriate but the original goals outlined for review of the project were still relevant and the community has expressed they want that we put it in post application meetings and in general it's accomplishes the intent of what that was but in additions our current cacs those have a role in the impact fees. that wasn't an original roll in the cac so we've added that the communities are going to be the

best source of information what should be a priority so to have one minimum community meeting you heard 2, 3, 4 chris and the testimony last month there's to make sure those proposals are going to workout so for the first two years as emily highlighted we're going to have two meetings to talk about what the community needs and this is how it is implemented and we'll use the meetings to determine the mechanisms are sufficient >> that's helpful. you know, what's the directors review in kind of you know what do you expect to hear with the projects that are consistent with the design important development >> that's specifically outlined in the safety rolls to make sure

their consistency with the master plan and the reason for having also the post application meeting 15 days workplace the comment review period to make sure that staff has had a review to see the consistency there's an informed conversation about what the community sauthd what the staff saw during the 60 day review. >> then like a project post application meeting that's specific to a specific project there is specific design. >> yes. for post application they've submitted the application and staff has had their i don't recall we've highlighted this in the last presentation but basically put in an "x" petted time there's

the conversation we've had did it comply or not and you heard at the preapplication meeting. >> thank you that addresses it and puts in the design which i think t is critical there's big blocks. >> right. >> in a neighborhood but we want to get something to make sure they build what they need to build that's a good balance or having a cac without having a cac and this whole slightly taller heats it's appropriate and the two meetings say the

economy gets worse or there's a delay there's not much use 90 in meeting two years does it kick in. >> it kicks in he effective when the da or the development agreement becomes effective so we condominium to a minimum of two but we can have more as needed in cases where there's nothing to meet about we'll communicate with people there's nothing much different by g if there are questions i think the purpose number one is to keep information flowing that is what's happening not much or this is in the pipeline but subsequent meetings can be scheduled prioritizing impact

fees or talking about others issues one issue that's been important to the community is making sure the conversation about the old building is continued so a few of the first meetings are going to be about the old doctors building but also a one-on-one on what else is going on. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. so long as i mentioned the office building there's a notice of special restriction that commits 25 percent of the floor area and hopefully i don't think we have to put it in mr. but the developer will provide the 25 percent of assessable location not tucked away somewhere in the backroom. excuse me. i have a question for i guess it would be best i don't know if

staff or universal paragon could we get a two second update in the brisbane project because it is so connected to this particular project and things like transportation questions you're going to be extending streets and land use that will take place. i know earlier way earlier concerns expressed in brisbane about any kinds of housing that's been overcome so i'm asking more in terms of timing what kinds of things happening that might effect this particular project as well >> thank you, commissioner seeing no representatives from brisbane i mean, i'll take that question. jonathan development director at

the universal paragon we're the owners of the adjacent site along bayshore known as brisbane it's currently under administrative review the draft virile draft report is being prepared right away right now under the city of brisbane the comment period closed in january of this year sometimes in the third quarter of this year, the document will be published and consideration of all of the issues you've raised will be likely be addressed in the draft eir and the final. my understanding of the process after that is that brisbane will be looking at an advisory vote

on the general plans to accommodate housing or other uses >> great, thank you. >> and one last procedural question. on the slide presentation i think in our materials there's reference for sequa finding today. i have a question because didn't we already do that in 2009 the resolution one don't worry about 2009. >> deputy city attorney when i make that you have to make a sequa finding they're in our motions actually i can't remember but there's sequa finding adapted by the prior finding in 2008, and the prior

redevelopment agency and also includes findings the sequa guidelines that are the finding you make finding that no subsequential changes have occurred, no subsequential changes in the project that will lead to new virile impacts or increases of severity of impacts that was analyzed in the admiring and no mitigation measures are required i'm glad you brought this up since the eir was certified both at the time of the action some of the transportationization mitigation measures were found to be infeasible with the developmental agency made the finding and since that time additional mitigation measures have been made feasible that's in our staff reports fortunately

those don't change the determination of significance because they're already significant you're making extra finding the mitigation measures. >> does that mean we also have a mitigation measures in monitoring program which carries a may 2014 date that is. is that possible to make not editorial but gramic changes >> a grammatical error. >> well under the historic study the feasibility of rex e reacting nearby sites i don't think that means anything can we make a correction or if staff can looking at that. >> yes. we know make the corrections. >> yes. under relocation which

is c under mitigation 10.1. number c on page m m rp 10 >> so i think it's supposed to say study the affectionate of relocating it to nearby sites something like that and i'll work with staff it can be included in the board of supervisors approval package. >> thank you. >> commissioner fong. >> i'm supportive overall and i think we're in the right direction with this project it's going to, you know, it's a significant size and the location on the south side of the city i commend the departments and offices for this effort and moving it well seems like a slow process is pretty quickly it's in the right time

given where the city is i'm in support and. >> thank you. i. supportive of the progress i want to echo the pedestrian safety i've watched in the news a fatality a couple of months ago through could be improvements by the mta looking at the vision zero progress going forward i'm curious to watch the project moving forward there's been comments the market rate could be more affordable and what kind of prices commissioner moore. >> i'd like to make a motion i want guidance on sequa i see who impacts here adapting the agreement and recommending it to

the board of supervisors with modifications the second part would be adapting the regulars e recommendations including the zoning maps and the general map and the documentation and recommending approval with modifications to the board of supervisors. the third portion is you read into the record i'm unaware how to call it >> you don't have to that or do that the sequa findings are in our draft prevail. >> okay. thank you. >> i'll second that motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. this is 3 and a half years late i was reading the planning 779 from december 2008 which were the basic modifications and one of the eyes was commissioner antonini with an extra o in his name i

want to point out that misspelling it wasn't me another will commissioner antonini but i'm supportive of the motion. >> the secretary can make that change commissioners there are as motion and second recommending amendments for approval to the board of supervisors planning code, general plan and text amendments as well as amended. as well as the demonstration agreement with modifications. commissioners, on that motion >> commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> the commission will welcome

planning commission regularometers for dumb. please be advised commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. . commissioners we left off in our regular calendar for case 2010 x at the 2051, third street for the planning code large project authorization >> and commissioners doug with the plaintiff. the project is a large authorization for the proposed development on third street. this project was granted a

continuance so the project sponsor will be able to rise the project and sufficiently address community input. there the project authorization it's seeking the modification of the planning code for open space and provisions inform the dwell unite this includes the demolition of two warehouse building 15 thousand square feet and the merging of the 3 existing lots and the construction of 9 hundred though, 68, 6 story building that has frontage along third and illinois streets. the project will include 93 dwelling unite 12 will be affordable and underground all parking spaces and biking spaces it includes a dwelling mix of 33 studios easy 22, one boarding

bedroom and 3, 3 bedroom units. the proposed project as 3 hundred 4 thousand square feet it's provided for 7 units units and 59 square feet roof project that fronts illinois street. in addition the project will provide 2 thousand 41 square feet of interior courtyard spates. we've received corresponds from 3 neighborhood residents no support of project the department has received letters of opposition 2 of which own

property jafrnt to the site and this is in relation to the shadow combats to the park east of illinois street. the commission has provided copies of the corresponds. it's elected to satisfy the rental incentive option within the zoning district. under this option the sponsor represents out all unit for no less than 3 years with a one directing reduction of the benefit fee. copies of the hopping kings and rental incentive agreement are available. after will looking at this the project is consistent with the

objectives and including the waterfront area plan the project is located in the zoning district for renal and dwelling units are loud it has significant site upgrades like landscaping and open space along third street. the project is respected the character but also is in an appropriate masking scale and architect. the project addresses 93 dwelling units to the site. and the project proposes the parking radio approximately 8 point spaces which is below the permitted 8.5 and finally the project willfully utility the