image they're to go up they've spent a million in cleaning up the gas station and providing retail and less than the allowed park and starkers and only 48 onsite this is a i get to the point people talked about the importance which adere to give you an awe anyone else we have single-family homes on both sides we have 10 houses on both sides they each have a minimum of 10 cars we have 40 cars coming and out of the driveway for satisfactory reasons we're there from 5 to 7 it's less frequent when a car comes midday

and week days and not that business i didn't on saturdays and sunday people don't come out of their driveways that often so that's around to 50 cars they're talking about 48 on site i semiemphasize with the patterns this is a minimal impact and as pointed out by the gentleman said they come in to they're coming back and not going to cross the school they have to go south van ness and when they arrive more than likely make the are the on adere it's a redirect street if i want to predict the children in the white zones change that to a one

way the traffic only comes in one direction and people wanting to pickup their kids go to the white zone and others pass through those housing units on van ness is important they've made significant changes based on the commissioner comments and bringing down 10 feet lower than maybe a little bit lower than that and makes a better looking building and allows for more light so it's even more compliant that they've done that this is a large project authorization we're asked does this promote the health and safety and wolf of the city it clearly does i'm supportive of

this project and i will see what the other commissioners have to say i'm prepared to make the motion. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much just a couple you have comments first, by thanking the staff for the map i've requested it is nice to say something that happens like magic the map actually really, really helps from all the different context talking about even having the law man's per apprehension on how the physical character changes and the circulation looks like and a mental picture in your head how many people are we talking about it really helps so i thank you and hope that wasn't too much work i like this conditional use authorization going forward looking at the map with the revised project i want

to start with the parking garage i think up in the air whether or not it can be done my thoughts i think the original proposal is the best one i actually thought about this i happened to be on 16 and van ness meeting some friends i rode my bike on 16 toward mission bay i paused like 10 o'clock i paused at the site and said i don't think this is from a per that, of course, we're tracking the egress and in ingress not having cars there on the street and those are thing the ones that were made where the parking currently is work best and a comment and question

specifically about the project and i agree with commissioner antonini on his suggestion of having the percentage defined that i square footage around unit i think that people there is market rate be needing less space and having 5 units is more affordable units so i don't agree that and another quick statement i'd like to see the public finance as part of looking at the development in the city i don't think those comments will be tied to specific projects i think that at the end of the box and box housing unit and how we pay for in terms of subsidizing the costs of the unit don't change is a policy decision separate so

that's my thought and on the project itself i know there were changes the commission comments and going back to the community the last time we saw the project a month ago can the zoning administrator comment on whether or not those changes are or the staff comment on whether or not those changes effected the variances for the project and no richard with the department staff not changes in the project doesn't effect that any of the modifications they were already xooefd their space requirements and the same units that require an exposure modification so all the modifications are still part of the proposal. >> thank you. i want to echo

some of the comments of commissioner johnson i think this is a great forum to talk about financing for avenue, i think that many people come to us with the frustrations on a case by case as he basis it's challenging to try to project what new policy will be when we're looking at the individual cases i'll not be supportive of changing the mix or calculation around the affordable there are discussions a task force about a dial many at the desks going on we should be the policy to a different forum on that issue but bring that here more generally commissioner richards i grew up in a planned area i understand the tenure and frustration about it taking a long time to get things done and

asked the staff to put things on hold 2014 is different than 2008 and 9 i want to take ms. hester up on the relatives of the plan december 4th and commissioner president wu said it has to be a good forum it's sensitive to the historic rent zones next door i like to say the much better design i have a question for mr. sanchez okay we heard about the garage issue and somebody brought of fact if schools up in the early morning in your professional understanding this was not in our driveway comparison would the placement of the schools present a conflict with the schools and the traffic off the

of the garage. >> typically being a housing unite u opted it falls into the 5 to 9 or 4 to 6 there's interaction in the morning but the 2 to 3 is outside of the 4 to 6 but they have a series of pedestrians and any car going on down there and cars are being forced to go one way and on van ness so there's no conflict incoming will go detain the corridor and not coincide with the peak of the school. >> that's more comfortable so thank you appreciate that commissioner antonini read through the criteria to approve

or disapprove i'm sensitive to those avenues and at the of the affordable housing study gets reviewed we should include that information on the businesses and folks that is for another day we need an update i look to that and that conversation american people the percentage versus mix is another day it so pappas happens that the project captures that's great it is time to make this project forward i move to approve. >> commissioner hillis i'm supportive of the project i think the massing is nice it is great there's a lot going on the design so it's amenable i want

folks the project team to work with staff and simplify is and have marrow a interaction but the fade it looks at great and eloquent but now there's 3 shades of red and black and set backs so if we make this nor elegant so that's what i want to say i would like you want to add that to the motion. >> yes. real quick the standards of approval we have a kind of conditional approval regarding final materials we have the ability to refine the project. >> so there's a lot more kind of the colors and awnings and

things like that. >> yeah. >> i know what the commissioner is saying beyond the standard leaking the simplification of the form. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i would agree with those comments i think continue to work with staff by adding up the corn sisters if their stronger make the roof element nor definite and trying to find a rust color in keeping with the color of the red stone building next door but those are things that be easily be done by staff with the planning of the project and certainly any kind of simplification trying to emphasis our opinions. >> it's hard to fulfill appreciate what commissioner

hillis is saying the charge has had and has to excruciates the large mass of so it appears not just relent leslie over size it has to distinguish itself that means i'm trying to help you and staff understand what our trying to do what you put next to that has a reciprocate a smaller appearance the facade moving before and after so sir, do you think what was said helps i to helps the architect you've spent quite a bit of time.

>> this is helpful in moving the project forward and getting something more in line of what the commissioner supports. >> so we're still trying to uphold the objectives that the building has to have a variation facade still is a quiet building not necessarily scream for potential on its own but harmonious next to each other with the adjacent building. >> we should take this debate up the variation of facades it didn't work if you look at historically on the art buildings they don't have the facades even with housing projects i mean to take up now but we've seen projects that were by true mark a few weeks

ago you didn't have the cut off facade it works better but it looks like we're trying to articulate the building and make that feel like it's not one big building and didn't work all the time but i hear our point. >> we might create vocabulary or things we agree on that's one way of framing the discussion. >> thanks. >> just to be clear about the condition of approval it focuses focuses on the refinancing the color after material pallet so it's the fade treatments correct. >> yep. >> yeah. >> commissioner we have a motion and a second if the maker

of the motion is amenable and to the second thank you. >> commissioners on that motion or excuse me. there's a motion to approve this project with conditions as amended to include at project sponsor to work with the staff and on that motion. >> commissioner antonini commissioner johnck commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards is commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> yeah, the commission will

you'll remember the program is pilot into the small cap between 25 and 50 thousand square feet and there with he have available for the square feet we'll take everything out the the pipeline we still have over one mill square feet no longer than 50 thousand square feet gunning again as you can see we have 2 hundred 1 million square feet in

the cap today, if i took out the preponderance of the evidence projects and essentially all the project with form application we're going looking at the a deficit of 7.9 million square feet before we go into the promotions one caveat those are bans the information we have today and the universal truth about the development in san francisco is that they're all subject to change over time and so want to make that clear that is bans our information today also the project are listed by quarter not necessarily in exact order of approval we can't know which projects are going to be in exact order but we do think

sliding into the annual quarter it make sense this is confusing unfortunately the 8 hundred and plus square feet happens on october 17th not on january 1st or sexual first which is easy to explain so an allocation year is the fourth quarter of the previous year for example, and unfortunately, that slide a not projecting currently in terms of format but the 2015 is the fourth quarter of calendar 2014 just to be wear of the numbers that's a little bit confusing this is a copy of the table provided in the memo to the planning commission and it listed the specific projects and other events that impact the

large cap during the 2015 allocation year as you can see we have 2 point one million and a an annual allocate this month and have several prenlz ready to go or nearly ready and in front of the which the commission and we have two projects that go in second quarter as well as some revocation that will bring a little bit more square footage into the last year cap cue 3 two large promotions and cue four one large project tech that puts us below the zero so the timing it has to happen after the october 2015, 8 hundred and 75 square feet allocate if this

happens say after the allotment we'll be left with 4 hundred and 50 thousand square footage for the 2015 allocation year this graft is essentially the same table but in chart form every event is hone in the graft starting in october the allocation year you go up because we get our 8 hundred thousand secret into october of next year. >> you can imagine when promotions are beyond 2015 they're close but we know what projects are on file that are somewhat promgd in the year this is a project in 2016 for the

selma plan and we have 3 hundred 4 million square feet in the project in central selma another projects will will file in the near future in transbay he know that the f will be up to 7 thousand square feet and begin the process at the end of the ri8 and the sales force property in 2016 or maybe a little bit later they can have up to 3 thousand square feet in says and candle stick is 2016 or later we aware of some large projects pier 70 the seawall lot 34 u 32

south of the ball park is large significant projects in 2016 or later so again, our last presentation we didn't get into the details of whether or not a new policy is definitely need or not we've spent time going over the project how the numbers work last time we're here to talk about the needs or lack of a 92 need for a new policy you have a few options option one to continue the status quo allowing the projects to duo come before the planning commission and for the planning commission review but the other option to choose the same type of policy that's been if you're going to adapt such a

policy more considerations that about create the fraction one is important the effective date i'm sure you're aware of right now the director has a policy that no large office projects can be calendar if the planning commission until it's been addressed by the planning commission and the effective date of such a policy that impacts the policies that are able to move forward with that policy and after the length of the policy is important one every 6 months or one per year but regardless it's an port definition to be made and the issue of allocation limits if you have a competitive pool there's a question has to whether or not you want to allocate everything you have in

one allocation period for a significant amount for a allowance of other projects in the pipeline to competitive compete for the space and we have a policy a little bit lax if the performance period but because of the poor economy from 2008 and 9 and 51st cut off the address review criteria will be looked in section 31 the review criteria but in the past the other commission policies adopted additional criteria to look at the projects many of the potential criteria review is the the proximity of rail impact pdr uses and the creation of new pdr

and the green building designs or other measures as you see fit there is a third option we touched on that a little bit with the performance period the current policy with the planning commission and this department was adapted in 2009 during a down economy where there was a number of office projects approved in prior years were not able to move forward because of the finance issues the planning commission has rescued the staff not to bring those projects back if past the 18 most so long as they were active you may want to adapt a policy with no competitive pool it's a case per project but a stricter criteria

where after the 18 months it's brought back for and a a hearing about the active state thought to make sure the spaces are, in fact, being used so those grafts are updates of the graft with current numbers as you can see basically we're not going to allocation anywhere within two weeks but if using the projects in 2015 and 2016 we'll allocate basically a little bit more than 3 thousand square feet that deposits us down in 2016 to less than - each have the only 35 thousand square

feet this is an example if you were to adapt a competitive pool policy and adapted an artifical limit on any one period again to hold space for future projects the imply lines is smoothed out to allow other projects to compete for the space green again, this is the comparison between 2015 and 2016 if we do just one at that time, as we they come forward we're going to see it come down it smooths the line out and more allocation for future projects this is an update on the numbers and at

this point, we're definitely looking at to the commission for the guidance on the next steps whether additional research or data or additional hearing the need for policy at this point or a later date other future hearings to that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for questions you may have. >> director ram. >> thank you. i want to thank corey and just to i think a couple of things might have changed worth mentioning one of the large projects came in with their applications