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 buyers who

could buy those relative to the ami competing for existing housing this is available to them and drives the prices up you're not going to get anywhere i'll be amenable to what the supervisors change to allow a different percentage with the affordability that was suggested by a lot of the commissioners but you know, i think for maybe too soon we couldn't condition that if if even if we want to by i certainly obey supportive of that looking at that as a possible alternative that would be available in the future. the other other thing it's important to keep the affordable

units if you look at the sheet it shows the percentages the market rate and middle and low income we've built the second highest of the low income and almost no middle-income it's to one hundred per actually i actually market rate projects historically have been allowed to be at one hundred and one hundred 20 percent so 90 it's somewhat lower and addresses part of the population that's caught in between making two which to get intubsdz housing but the stoops have to remain and we answered this even if they're using it for a business we don't want to look at it it negatively.

and keeping the entrance on o dare if he move that to south van ness we'll have to bring the driveways there this defeats the look of the project i'm be amenable to who is worked out i think whatever it decided if it remains on o dare we address the concerns on cap street and try to make it testify s safe for the parented picking up the kids and notary republic direct traffic out of there. if it's approved today, i would be supportive of the staff working with the project sponsor and the design and colors we need something stronger the

units pop up i'm not what the corn us is but it needs to be made stronger to show that's the top of the building. and project sponsor can i ask you a little bit about you're feeling in regards to a continuance it sounds like a lot of the commissioners are interested probably be two weeks i think i'll have to see what they're interested in doing >> it sounds like it's in the best interest i myself being a parent we want to the driveway issue we think is the thing the major impact in the back of the minds it the 3 hundred car garage from that's being proposed from the bigger project from bart station entering on to cap street that needs to be addressed by magnifying but our

cars leave the garage and taking, into van ness and into the path of the kids and the few cars 75 percent of cars are left in the garage those cars are going to, returning from working 6 or 7 o'clock we have a minimal impact but we are open to the mitigation to a continuance. >> thank you invites e that's my question it sounds there's a motion made what was the date on the motion. >> there actually was no date we'll need a date. >> i'd be in favor of the two weeks if the staff can work with the parties in that amount of time. the date is september 18th

>> just to be clear from the commission would you want us to research the garage issue further. >> yeah. >> it didn't hurt to look at it. >> and then obviously the other items we've previously identified the alley and the materials and sxrooen on the ground floor level will all be further look at. >> okay. >> and the impact of the exceptions of the rear yard and enclosure. >> director ram i was going to ask if you want a continuance or come back as an informational item but it sounds like you're more interested in a continuance i'll let it - and commissioner

hillis. >> quickly i agree with sxhugz comments but looking at that beyond eastern in the excelsior we see that in the richmond the foornlt crisis is facing every nauseated. on the continuance i mean, i don't know if there's design consequence i'm comfortable having it come back as on a informational item i think the rules we talk about this play by the rules on the garage entry increase not a chance to move that over this was my biggest design issue again, i don't know if there's consensus i'm comfortable leaving the design and come back as informational i

don't know what kind of direction we're doing >> commissioner fong. >> well, i share a similar opinion i'm supportive of the project i agree with commissioner moore this commission has an area plan and not pick them apart project by project if a project needs tweaking that's within our per view to look at it intellectually i'm in support of staying with a plan. f it that didn't have that itch displacement i like the b m r ratio and looking at the mayor's office high priority we need to look at ourselves and see where we are if two weeks tall ones makes us a better commission we

show look at but the project sponsor has responded to questions by the staff and commissioners, i think we'll probably continue it and see it if two or three weeks and it will not be as different from now i point out getting housing built as as quickly as possible is the goal we should taking into consideration so i understand there are outstanding questions and but i do pit a lot of faith in staff and if we voted to paragraph it today, we'll report back to stop it and review it if it didn't meet standards >> commissioner johnson. >> i also want to see this project go forward i'm asking the question what i mean, the

reason i got confused it sound like there are things that come back could be in fluctuation i had a technical question but let's talk about the garage i've heard both sides of it there is there a that potential we'll approve this project and the garage think built on van ness potentially and if there was the location this was specified on o dare that will be reviewed as a substantial change since the units will shift and the commissioner raised that if the question was there was a big enough change to review you intend. >> that was sounding the project sponsor will have a discussion or study this entrance or discussed altercating other major design

changes and post our age why not come back with the design so we'll improve what you're building if that's the case i'll supporting in if there's a major change then fine it will have to come back to us. >> the motion didn't include a motion addressing the materials and final design as part of the larger alternatives do addressing the finance and mature pallet and the design as projects go from entitlements to permits. >> commissioner moore. >> i would still like to see the project just for a clean process come back 2, 3, 4 two weeks the discussions about the design were advisory and i want

to give this group the full benefit of how the changes track from top to bottom and in the interest of the arithmetic not just wood and things in between 245i9 the way we treat all the application in front of if you say so not to set a precedent i think we mr. taylor i have to remind you in the meeting the request to the architect was no objection to deliver the draufrgz ahead 7, 8, 9 was not attended to i'm seeing it today he was more and more busy and couldn't do it you bye i want to see a consistency before we make a decision rather than see him

for 5 minutes that's a simple request. >> commissioner antonini and sir, i guess we'll have to do the two week continuance i said support it but i'll vote for the continuance i hear the concerns of commissioner moore and commissioner richards and i want to everyone to thank you for the opportunity to see the changes i hope that commissioners do communicate with you and the project sponsor and we hopefully can have before the hamburger we can have material that are reflective of the final product. >> the project is continued until the 18 we'll produce produce the packet for the commissioners by the 11. >> mr. smokes can that be done. >> we had labor day weekend in between we had 4 business days

and wrpd staff signed off and we scalped to put together enough information and unfortunately production is an issue for a small architecture if next theirs is pushing everybody's button which at this point if we're going to revisit the design i want to project sponsor to attend the meetings and have input it's only fair i'm suggesting only a two week continuance it's a little bit stressed. >> we said three weeks so we have 2 weeks to resolve it are you comfortable with that and

warren is correct if we're involving the mta we're brepg in outside agencies we know you guys are busy it's hard to lock down decisions so i think as some of the commissioners commented there's little bit the bones we have the bones and a lot of the projects get approved with conditions we're open like with dennis xhishd we're not going anywhere we'll deal with the issues coming up you down the road if this project that got approved today and for some reason the driveway that or had to be replaced from van ness we'll come back to the board it

took us 4 years to get this far we know that it's early september but i see us sitting here in december. >> we don't want that to happen we certainly could ask the date to be changed to the 25th if it gives everyone enough time the plans drawn now are pretty close but modifications on the facade and a little bit on the some of the things that the commissioners asked for and i would say that bargaining a change by mta i think the driveway has to stay on the other street but given the third week a desire to change that. >> commissioner antonini for the benefit thoughtful commission september 25th hearing is scald so if you push

it out further than three weeks. >> stick with the 18 if there's a problem we can continue it at the time and the 8th is feasible. >> okay until october 3rdrd. >> commissioners, if i may i want to toss out something to consider after hearing all the comments i think the basic project is in our packets you know what it looks like between the architect and the sponsor they could read into the record and make that a condition of the approval not coming for that optional informational and take a vote today. >> it depends on if the commissioners are comfortable. >> if the commissioners are comfortable. >> commissioners you wanted to

weigh in an that. >> commissioner moore. >> you were 63 me, i'm not a person that likes to make last minute deals and at this point the gentleman asked architect can you get it into the packet and they'll work it out it was not in the packet zero. there was not even reference to keep the old material i believe this was a consistency of progress we need to treat every architect i'm supportive of the changes i believe that have to be properly documented and drawn out in order to do apples to apples in this chamber that's my

position >> commissioner richards. >> i sympathyries with the timeline i met with the public defender's and left phone number i didn't hear anything i'm are commissioner moore let's do that right. >> we recognize. >> why not continue three weeks. >> what's on the 25th. >> it's scald. >> october 2nd. >> that would be the maker of the motion will have to change the motion. >> xhishd. >> i amend it to october 2nd. >> 5. >> 2. sorry it's getting late >> it's not late. >> commissioner no other

deliberation we have a motion and a second to october 2nd. commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. sxhoer. sxhishd i xhishd. commissioner fong. no. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously take minute break. >> good evening and welcome back to the planning commission welling regular hearing for september 4, 2014. commissioners we left off under our regular calendar for the case at 189, sixth avenue request for a conditional use authorization. >> good evening commissioner president wu and members of the commission the principle is a

conditional use authorization for a limited restaurant in an nc one neighborhood district. nc one district are intended to serve as local shopping districts. limited restaurant are typically permitted unless they're related to within a quarter mile of a district that's more restrictive in this case it's within a quarter of a mile that requires eating and drinking to have a conditional use authorization. the subject property is a 3 story mixed use this between california street and the unit is located on the ground floor and measures 2 hundred plus square feet it is vacant. the surrounding development

confidence of a variety of mixed used above floor establishment and nearby businesses include a jogging studio and beauty salon and other stores the restaurant is the north cafe is open between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. the business is locally owned and operate and, in fact, all of the owners live within the neighborhood. the proposed use is not formula retail and the moon includes good dishes we have including one letter from the clemente streets organization association and two letters from residents that live near the site. staff recommendations approval

of the approval that concludes my presentation. i'll be available to answer questions the project sponsor is also here she explicit wish to present but happy to address the dimension if you have questions >> okay. thank you we'll open this up for public comment. anyone from the public wish to speak on this item. i have one card i can't read the name are all right. no public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini that sounds appropriate i'm surprised that wasn't on consent that technically has to be approved but i'm move to approve >> second and. >> on that motion to approve commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore.

xhishd and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes navel and places you and then items 12 ab request for conditional use authorization and windows radish modifications >> good evening planning staff it is a request for confusion for the 26 avenue located on clement street and 26 avenue at hearing the planning commission continued the project at the request of supervisor mar and

neighboring opposition for the people to discuss its project. the project was continued from february 20th so april 4th and most recently april 4th to today a he at the project sponsors request they offered a certificate for the class 3 exemption was roermg proposed it will include the demolition with two vacant units with the existing lots lots at about r ab with the total of 6 dwelling units and 6 off-street parking the square feet.

the proposed mixed use building will consist of ground floor retail space with bicycle parking garage and 4 off-street parking spaces and in a garage along with the roof-deck with contestant space the accessing assess to the residential lobby will be through entrances on clemente student the proposed building on lot b will have 3 vehicle parking spaces and bicycle parking garages in a garage along with with a roof-deck and main assessing access 20 from the lobby on 26 avenue and vehicular access would be along 26th avenue. additionally the project seeks a rear yard modification with the

actively zoning will hear. the project site is located? outer neighborhood commercial district the site measures 37 feet wide and one hundred feet deep plus. the surrounding development consist of three to four mixture use and each corner lot at the corner of the street will have 6, 8 and 12 unit each. the today, the the president has received one hundred and 12 letters in support and one hundred and 71 opposed and petitions with one hundred and 37 persons opposed a letter and 5 phone calls opposed and no position requesting additional information our loss of view,

loss of certain time and out of scale? neighborhood. at this time, i'd like to read into the record with respect to the density up to 4 dwelling units not 6 and the proposed unit of the each of the lots continues to comply with the proscribed density in order for it to denying continue it needs conditional use authorization to demolish 2 units and the department recommend that is project be approved it is consist and complies with the planning code with condemnation to the rear yard and it meets the planning code sections in that the project will result in a net gain of 15 bedrooms and 6

dwelling units and given the scale there is no significant effect of the local district the replacement buildings will be consist with the density of the immediate neighborhood and it's an appropriate development although the structure proposed for demolition the aging building is not a landmark the project replies existing units with more family sized housing it is comparable with the neighborhood of the clement street and the project will bring it into conformity and the project areas well served and the project proposes a correct number of parks and it meets all the planning code

that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions >> for the benefit of the public i wanted to clarify our opportunity to address the conditional use authorization is all combined in our what will be a two minute comment period for each individual. >> project sponsor. >> good evening commissioner president wu and commissioners. i know that's been a long day i'll keep the comments brief. jeremy project architect and another architect if i can have the overhead here. when we first