whether this project gets approved those who live? neighborhood have a benefit from the blighted site clear up and as far as the water table it's a dbi issue that will have to be taken up and buildings being built to address the effects of the adjacent buildings but 245i9 not part of our approval process and the ground floor retail that is 20 feet ground floor retail which is a very eloquent locking situation is the outreach is 4 years it's amazing people don't know about this building i have documents from meetings that were had with neighborhoods reneighbors up to four years ago as well as the parking impact that are 48 parking places on

stackers and lift and i have reason to building that the number of cars coming and going is going to be small i don't think it's going to have a significant impact on traffic, however, in response to the parents who brought up the cap street i drove down there yesterday two twice one in the early afternoon and later and i think you have a problem even without a project the parents are picking up the kids after school where the playground is on cap street. i think you need a light zone or possibly need if the city can do that an area that was carved out of the nearest he planning latent print to the school that allowed parents to wait for their children and that's the

key thing the children shouldn't be wandering especially a 5-year-old wandering around trying to go to school i have grandchildren of that age we don't let them cross the street i don't think a child of that age should be out of there and the other thing you need on this street is to think about it the city could do it one way do it a couple of ways one way from 15 to 16 and they would come out another way so they've never make it to the school you never come up with the school the school is on the 15 side that's a solution that will mitigate small impacts we're kind of making overkill safety is

important but a lot of the problems would be improved by working with the city or improving the way the student - street is designed. i like accident flex of the housing we have 5 thousand unit with scoops and steps their flexible but possibly having eyes-only the street they're at street level seeing things they don't like they're going to call you have u up the cops that's an excellent idea instead of having a building where everyone is isolated from the area they're having trees also was mentioned public bike parking as well as

their private bike parking for tenants 8 thousand one hundred and 22 square feet of open space as far as the red stone building is concerned they have a set back this building have providing between 23 and 35 additional feet of light rail so the distance is at least thirty to 35 feet away so that's about as big don't interrupt, sir. this agency the biggest set back i've heard of it allows the building to have the open space and allows a very respect fulfill and set back to the red

stone building and it sort of drives should s some of the housing we've talked about the height and needing the 68 feet you're taking away housing so part of the need for the height is driven by that. also, this is a large project authorization not a conditional use so what we have to determine it promotes the health and safety and welfare of the city certainly heathier people are watching the street and 2rish9 economically and employing the people who live there already and have jobs because of the money spent by the owners in those buildings go it certainly does that. so, anyway i'm very much in

support of this building we've had many continuances i've happy with this and visualize by the final thing is this parking entrance on south van ness maybe the gentleman can address that i've heard the staff is opposed to that and another building was allowed to do it open on a nearby street >> i can't speak to the other property but in conversations the issue of the parking garage was reviewed by our ushering design team and agreed to the location. >> that particular project was muzzled approved to allow the garage on south van ness the

original recommendation is that south van ness is a transit street which is why at first, i recommended it not be on 15 street for n this project but ? course of the negotiations this was with the corporation with mta but for this project we've not discussed this with mta gateways because this is the first time it's come up it's a possibility because of precedent but i want to speak to mta. >> i think the amount of traffic from this building with 48 cars many are going to sit

all week in their stalls it is going to be very, very small impact. i think you need to address this cap street as the other development occurs on 16 eventually you're going to have to look at the whole situation in regards to cap street in a larger sense but the impact of this building is small so it probably you don't need to relocate it but, however, if the commission felt it's important i'll be poster of that that's my feeling at the present time >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. i echo some of the thoughts of commissioner antonini and the potential authenticity for mta and dpw how to reorganize the

streets i have a quick couple of things first i appreciate this this building has a 16 percent inclusionary housing it is hard to find the off housing there's no sanctioned type of low income credits for low income housing no such thing as middle-income his or her i appreciated the ground floor it will under those the mix used character of this neighborhood that is something that is extremely characteristic the neighborhood i appreciate that staff has included that as part of the design i have a quick question about the designs

how it impacts the motion so maybe this is for either staff or staff can answer that i would like staff to try. does the set back change the exception for the rear yard unit exposure >> the problem is we haven't had a chance to fully review it it shouldn't given their seeking a radish and exposure expectation with a dwelling modification so big it should not we've that obviously have to confirm that. >> we're only seeing this today, it's unfortunate it is subsequential and works to the

design. >> the rear yard stays the same. dropping the floor or dropping the allowing the sent that eliminates the floor at this point would probably increase the exposure to some of the units but definitely be a positive so you wouldn't need to change that and as far as the height it's not variable so it is constant >> obviously, the square footage would be decreased since they've carved the mass out of the building. >> i'll just say in support of this design that works for the neighborhood but it's problematic to approve a project h that has to change? motion i don't know how i feel about it's

not going to be voting on something that is going to be a standard into the future we're looking at the a design on which the action was predicated on. >> commissioner richards. >> i had the privilege of meeting with the project manager and developer i felt like i was on the scene of the sopranos in the late oovrnl afternoon the eastern neighborhoods plan is something the committee agreed on, on the octavia plan we need to look at the financial risks they need to come in and understand the rules we shouldn't be changing the rules midstream we shouldn't be changing the rules i think the project as implicates i've mentioned on tuesday come up

with something different on the alley they did this this was something they didn't have to do i also came up with my forum some of the lens the displacement does this displace tenants they said it don't cumulatively over time it could and affordability it does have that i want to talk about the idea that commissioner antonini mentioned keeping the square footage on the avenue, i think that not something we can do but supervisor avalos could accomplish that and commissioner lee has done that as recently in a castro land use issue that will help the affordability and the small unit for 65 percent or

lower the liveability it depends on who you ask there are people that might be displaced it's a good project and will create eyes-only is street and a good design a neighborhood character in you respond to the katrero alley that will add to the character and addresses accident foornlt issues. the developer the project sponsor is responsive to doing creative things around affordability i agree with commissioner johnson letting the issues out for another week or two and come back and voting i want to figure out the affordable unit mix >> if i can comment the current affordability are a percentage of the units. >> right. >> but the issues we've worked

out with the mayor's office of housing is they be comparable to the market rate they don't have to mimic but spread thought there's a major policy discussion about whether or not to reduce the smaller for the maufrt that's not been part of the project. >> they have how many 20th century 1 and 2. >> 42, one bedroom. >> so the affordability is how many. >> they'll have to have the same percentage. >> same ratio maybe a couple of additional 1 bedroom here we are on the project we should look at every unit this is something we should look at it and additional

unit we could achieve that's it thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to briefly comment on the changes that jeff has undertaken i regret they're only come in today i believe this project follows the eastern neighborhoods bylaw but was asked to step forward with the creativity because the department said the length of the project in its previous version was o profess to massively how to turns the corner never an elevation recalling turning of the project to look from all sides. the one thing that is still not been shown and the developer was asked to do for the commissioners edification the

previous drawings that identified the necessary moral panel on the facades facing on elevation in which the architect never models the change in materials takes away the eyes-only the street partially for the protection of the business behind it and would have a significant larger hypothesized e height than the openness of the current stoop shows we asked to show as part of the disclosures this a lot of i didn't green stoop appearance will maintain itself it doesn't the architect said the suggestion for the material team and after hearing the drawings and that the landscape architect this issue is not addressed i

wish he could explain the two gentlemen support me and said if the dimension by the president to approve the alternative use in the future with the stoop and open and green what does it look like if the alternative use comes in so, sir could you respond to that we don't have that today >> we've discussed that commissioner moore i understand it's difficult to see but on our if you could go to the one in front of you we've shown the horizontal open rairlz on the adjusted prospective i didn't change the details on the plan those guys were out but we're totally open to the railing material to provide the balance between security and eyes-only is street on the other hand.

>> this is our intent is to address our concern and, you know, this little done in a modest fashion we're sensitive. >> you're basically not saying anywhere than the solid memento punch please state your name and address. >> it doesn't need to do that no we will change that. >> this is harder to understand. >> i understand. >> it's not a null edited project supporting the questions commissioner johnson and commissioner antonini are asking relative to the amount the project by the eastern neighborhoods is a fine project we've asked for looking ahead for creativity and variation i believe that the project in the drawings is addressing the numbers of the concerns expressed in the meeting,

however, to do it justice i prefer to spend more time having the judge gentleman and broad staff review the submittal and bring it forward with a motion for approval or whatever. >> if i could ask a followup question i'm sorry on the flexion face if it's residential or commercial does that decision have to come back to the commission this is. >> so what the commission is doing with the motion is modifying the accessory to the ground floor levels so typically by our traditionally accessory opinion you wouldn't be allowed thirty to have an employee or members of the public enter into the accessory spaces so modifying the project sponsor is asking for use in one of the new

capacities. >> so the commercial use is considered accessory there's a sense the primary use is residential. >> yes residential and authorized as dwelling unit they could have a small architect office for example, or a bag making shop for example. >> that's helpful thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> so first on the broader issue of affordability it's good to be remind we approve those projects a lot it's good to be reminded of the crisis we face in the city i wish it was as easy as approving those that would solve the problem or not approving i hope it would be that easy but taking city land and building houses and bringing

back the increments that could be impacting our foornlt. on the project itself i'd like some of the design changes on a dare i don't like them only van ness and 16 it is clustered with set backs on 16? new kind of color pattern i thought the building was more handsome we're trying to do too much on the articulation i'd prefer the garage kind of a quiet open space i'd like prefer it on south van ness that's a broad fairly wide boulevard that could accommodate is garage it's the

muni traffic by again maybe can the project sponsor address that have you looked at an alternative on a garage on van ness and we till when we submitted in 2010 that was eastern neighborhoods we k340u7b9d with the environmental planning and the planning commission subsequent to our second application in 2014 when we resuscitations this project the same definition was this was the appropriate location and quite frankly not questioned on south van ness and mapped was the environmental planning approved that and the traffic and traffic exemption iowa's as part of the eir mandatory it not be on the streets that's not an issue >> okay. fine.

maybe we should look at that i'm comfortable the design changes h are significant we can direct starch and not have this come back to us we've given specific directs on things like that >> i want to add a couple of thoughts. i indefinitely agree with the characterization with the b m r a are middle-class for people at 90 percent of ami this is something we need to fulfill and the b m r purchase programs has always done that. i know that a lot of issues have been raised around the larger affordability question that's something i take seriously. i think there was a long process

throughout the earner neighborhood not as closely involved i wasn't on the commission at the time but a lot of was written into the nra active that didn't make it into side code people had different recollections by it's clear that made it do into the code those tiaras we're at 15 percent of the affordable housing and there's some fairness questions about, you know, the developer did follow those very strict guidelines. earlier we made the changes to the we were selma plan and i made a comment about the plans this is off topic a little bit but the eastern neighborhood we were in a recession not in the boom we are in now and maybe some decisions would have been

made differently that we - the department sea department staff has a role to play in helping we've heard anti cry around the affordable housing so what's our roll it either in looking at eastern neighborhoods again, if it's just the data from it or helping the mission district think about other kinds of strategies as our own citywide division has one area plan left with the investing in neighborhoods is there a roll for this department to play in helping to come up with solutions there are many task forces and city-state should be the planners so we're challenged every project comes to us

one-on-one anticipate this can help jump start the conversation. on the owner it started to be raised around the driveway pedestrian safety is important for this school but the conflicting priorities from mta and also for the need of pedestrian safety from schools 0 i'm not sure exactly where i fall on that i could be supportive of a continuance to see the design flushed out more i'm somewhat hesitate tanned we've continued to so many times but the tweaks around the edges of the design they satisfy one component of trying to meet the complex but a larger issue i'd like to spend time tackling >> commissioner richards. >> i agree you said about staffs way to it look at the

feeshth and the eastern neighborhood maybe i should take a look at the reports i agree i think that supporting a turns would be a good idea i'll make a motion to continue. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. again, i also struggle with the continuance this project even though i start in july it's clear that project has been kicking around but if you play around the edges of the design and changes eventually you have to say are we looking at the same thing and even if we're looking at a garage entrance on east van ness to me this changes the character of the streetscape

design and traffic flow with that small piece whether it impacts the exceptions the project sponsor is looking for i want to see that and have that be a part of the approval not something that happens within the department later. i'm also supportive of commissioner wu's general comment about what can say the planning department do to assist the questions on the affordable housing coming from the pashd it's about the dollars but we need the safety to put the housing we can have conversations with the planning department to see what can we od add to the discussion about where affordable housing should go. with that said, i want to put that in there redundantly what

we approved today is not the project that will be eventually fulfilled >> commissioner antonini and a if you general comments and i want to talk to the project sponsor on the affordable issue i think it was commissioner hillis brought up if you're looking for lo low income housing the vehicle is going to be through bond issues and the monies you generated through projects like this in lieu this is the answer you're not going to be able to build those in the private sector because it's not going to work. i think we have to be supportive of those sort of measures what you did was drive