minimizing those i maintain that is a stronger public concern and remind you with commissioner lee that said he was on the commission when the first project was approved i think i remember he said if i say this i would never have ever approved that. >> i agree with the sentiment option g or e giving a sense of not having facade along the freeway i'm looking at our flatiron example there is something about this building it is more angle last year at the tip whatever those are retained an edge than the other works; right? there is on a angle last year point i don't know if it is

worst achieving the flatiron and giving up the facade along the freeway at the end of the day i'm a believer none of us are experiencing buildings from the outside i do agree that more focus on the pedestrian experience really is sort of what the best for the public commissioners just a point of clarification on commissioner moore's comments on the street footage commissioner moore what you clarify about your discussion on the access to the street. >> i think the pedestrian friendliness needs to start at the corner not up the hill until

you are at least 60 or 80 feet into the building facade something from an industrial point that needs to make the building invite and open with the creditor flow lane being an issue and constraint but the openness of the building rather than the closed unpedestrian corner we're putting that requirement open emily murase building i don't want to see that here. >> i want to give the gentleman a chance you're walking up to the podium to respond. >> first of all, a that have the information the wage is facing the mainline line freeway it is 97 feet away it is substantially away i wanted to

understand the freeway second degree minded not the - >> you're saying it's the freeway. >> process wise if the commission would like us to exposure g or f the one constraint what was initiated a 2 hundred height limit i recommend the commission what it does consider the ethics commission and look at a 2 hundred and 50 height limit we've got the liberty to look at it the height ability it is particular important for the connecticut electrotraffic flow lane we'll be losing 5 to 10

unit between making the building slimer and make up for the podium that is lost it may end up way less than 4 hundred feet what makes sense we want to request we stay on the july 18th calendar - july 16th calendar that we initiate the height from 4 hundred to 2 vod and that way consider pravlg the project and as we worked things with the ac transit and maybe come back for a design approval within the 2 hundred and 50 foot perimeter we set for ourselves. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm fine with those things obviously most the confirmations have said they're

okay with a little bit more height with less bulk certainly it that doesn't have to be that way but - >> yes, sir. >> kevin i wanted to point out in the study that was done we're responding to the environmental review and the sort of feedback was that the limit without having you know expand on the studies or have them all go to go to maintain a 2 hundred and 5 maximum that's where we look at the flatiron design if we added 3 more stories it will be in opposition b and maybe that's f now and so that would require 5 unit to come out of the building and incidentally matches with the giving up of the contra flow

and the lower bulk version that is a 21 story this that will be below that 2 hundred and 50 count i wanted to point out our belief we want to get approved our 17 stories hundred and 79 project might end up at hundred and 74 we'll not propose going beyond 3 floors and the other case 3 floors. >> yeah. that is misunderstood other argument the home sharing problems are limiting factors in the amount of height what i'm seeing i seeing i feel flexibility if you're adding a floor in responded to some of the commissioners comments would be fine i'm certainly supportive of the lower version and the

other thing it sounds like some of the commissioners want the flatiron want flatiron rather than a squared off flatiron it is a minor point in keeping what we traditionally see on the flatiron building finally is there a crosswalk for pedestrians i walk up there i never go that far. >> currently not a crosswalk at first street or essex one the reasons we're excited by going our streetscape plan adding the trees and open space we spend that up harrison to first and come down to essex there's a plan in the city side to request caltrain to allow for pedestrian

crosswalks at essex and first electricity we're certainly supportive of that that will be end of the streetscape improvements you've got the bulb outs and . >> as you think about the ability to bring a housing project to this block it helps to complete the transition from harrison to the waterfront to selma and second street and to add that completion on our see of harvey's and 45 lansing and worked with the developer that will do similarly on the harrison side and with the under ramp park having the experience to the corner within the sort of 3 projects if you combine them you'll include this with the

edge of rincon hill i'm excited i came to san francisco with hines to work on mission street that's a hines project many in the city it our intent in working with the plan to make sure we are you know designing and building high quality buildings for san francisco so flu fully intend to follow through. >> i totally agree if you're trying to create a pedestrian experience at that part of harrison with the improvements your proposing along the front of the building to engage pedestrians that will be hard to get pedestrians if they can't cross essex and first, we're talking about the pedestrian experience in rincon hill and got to allow pedestrians to cross the street not out the question a lot of places in san

francisco you have busy streets like king streets off the freeways pedestrians can cross and it make a lot more welcoming for people to walk from one side of king to another if there's a place to cross that is something that would be very much in favor of. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess additional thoughts i'm not an urban design person i'm just open about an off-ramp what other buildings have the same kind of orientation like toronto this is my best example of the worse we experience the traffic on off-ramps like you're kind of in the building you're turning around it so i like the gentleman's suggestion about

coming back and maybe showing a few more designs. >> commissioner moore. >> it is still an option despite what decided a few weeks ago and again in order for a building to get approvals what their expectations the design has to be exceptional and exerted. >> commissioners if there's nothing further. >> we can. >> commissioner hillis just a question if he wanted to consider what the gentleman's point of having a building taller and lows buck i didn't do we have to do anything. >> it's not on the calendar you'll have to change our motion to a taller higher number of

initiation so at the next meeting. >> commissioners. >> it is good to bring that back at the time. >> from what i understand since the board of supervisors that ultimately approves the height recommendations you can the commission now the legislation has been initiated you can recommend a higher height limit i'm defer this to the city attorney. >> referral that has to change; right? >> well, they're doing a zoning map from 4 hundred to 2 hundred was the proposal from the sponsor in the commission wants to recommend the higher height limit they can do that in the project rules. >> all right. >> my recollection the general plan didn't is a one-way or

another about the plan so the commission can recommend a less of 0 reduction. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask a genetic or make a genetic suggestion we have areas that is as complicated it is good to have the alternatives discuss before the presentation a few weeks ago number one the previously exported alternatives were discussions i appreciate our bringing this forward this discussion should occur much ireland's bus of the architects fees and schedules that would be better of us as commissioners as well as the public as partnering would see the possibilities discussed much much earlier. >> commissioner richards. >> the person that was struggling with that last time

the most was me i think what commissioner moore s said is spot on for those complicated projects i appreciate the work that we could do there in the future that is sort of a situation thing. >> director ram has to leave at 245 can we go to the legislative item. >> we have general public comment next. >> so at this time time, members of the public may address the commission of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i do have one speaker card. >> sir. >> commissioners why in the world hadn't the

department had interim controls for the mission district listening 90 to the director the 2020 plan it will be months without anything and to do elective we're talking about a year before there is any owners and if not eir several years in the meantime the mission is burning down in a runaway real estate market normally in the past interim controls are initiated in nature changes in the 1980s under mayor feinstein the controls for tenderloin and chinatown those areas were rezoned and in 2000 in the last bubble the eastern neighborhoods had interim controls for the whole sdriblthd to protect the pdr beyond this

what they do you the control the department will discourage quote divulge the daytime of pdr or possibly development potential affordable housing sites or other categories that you define it is normal normal that interim controls yet there's nothing coming from here nothing i'm astonished okay being a 40 engineer observer i'm astonished no leadership okay. what every happens in the mission good by art and pdr i'm astonished this commission has advocated limp obviously the neighborhood is extraordinarily aroused i can't stand why you're not doing

anything. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'd like to make a comment on an item that had been couple for discussion in other month or so i understand it is a time when i'm out of town the 5 m project an important issue for the future lists to this tuesday, i went to a community meeting to discuss the 5 m project put on by house and senate e hearst and the forecast city i want to compliment the meeting while they allowed no public comment conversation it was a one way presentation followed by a discussion of members of the

team i'm concerned about this project it brings the central business district to selma and as a result the spot zone that will be start by 5 m will be continued and destroy the selma communicated a community of a very fragile population retirees and sro's and homeless a number of the support agencies that provide health for this kind of community they'll disappear the spot zoning will flow through the selma area in the next 10 years. >> you're starting it with this one. >> i want to also mention the one of my problems a private corporation is going to take over a lane of a public street at least according to what i saw at the presentation so this street will lose a lane going south i think had this is

something we need to consider carefully it will impact traffic especially as traffic moves from market street mainly to mission and some of it going south and 6 and 5th street other thing the proposal as i've seen it reduces the space between buildings drastically and put up to wall between east and west if you look at it from the west you'll see a wall between selma and downtown if you look from do you only you'll see a wall between it and the low rise area of selma other thing is 4 that story building in selma a 47 story condo building very high-priced

condo will not help the housing situation in selma it wouldn't be people moving from selma it will increase the number of high wealth individuals moving into an area in a community that really didn't need them. >> thank you additional general public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm chris a property owner at the ocean avenue site i have to address the upcoming number ten that is i'm sorry sir you can't make agendized comments. >> sir unfortunately, i have to wait until item 10 comes. >> if you need to leave you can provide written. >> i have a general comment

when the city of san francisco with your trying to make affordable housing affordable you have one of the biggest rising a zoning map of the residential areas to allow revolvers to rh2 especially by ocean avenue you allow the mixed use buildings but the houses behind are rh2 it is not fair to the residents they can't take their property and have this choice to create affordable housing by legalizing the in-law units we know that a lot of the people don't legalize their units they don't have the proper zoning please revise the zoning map that make sense for the new era i mean, if you want

affordable housing just teacher of the year down buildings and building new buildings why not lierlt the single-family homes give them the choices of legal listing in-law units and rezone this that's my comment. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm georgia i've been here before talking about the alteration and the demos and is happening some of the second units are getting absorbed into the larger feej of the homes their martin those homes saying it is part of the union and one single-family home that is remodeled and what got me come on $7 million on elizabeth on the 25 by hundred

and 14 lot a single-family home with a second unit and keeping the unit they merged it when they marked it, it is really a one unit home and up on hoffman the second most expensive 6.7 i'm here to talk about that it was said well call the building inspection they can't catch those because walls up and put a wall up or a certain time it is hard but two what is happening they may have to focus on are what those huge excavations going on to create basically iceberg homes maybe this needs to be focused on two points maybe when those projects come

into the staff and our staffs expertise the staff can have greater scrutiny and look at the plans closer or since their building those big expensive homes and the nexus study what's the impact of the homes in innovating historical innovating is the mission and historically socially social nooech better scrutiny from the staff and when the nexus study some of the million dollars homes what is happening in the rest of the city particularly in the hardest of the mission and the next point you never started my clock i'm

still talk. >> my apologies your forgotten and the other point as long as those buildings are remodeled they expended of expend into the yard they're creating a huge things with those cement walls the response time a lot of cement and wood and he did earth is sort of covered up i know we've gotten our water bills with the government with the hetch hetchy water you if if your cover up those backyards where is the water going to go even the nexus study will look at those first homes thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any general public comment is closed. >> seeing none, public comment

is closed. >> commissioner richards. >> some of the things recess in what capacity with me we've struggled with this commission making policy and giving direction on a project by project in the rules committee we'll hear that in july it is at some point having time to talk about those items free flow in front of the commission and good for a public debate. >> commissioners that is under our regular calendar for case numbers resolution wealthy the consideration of broad file and board file 15568 somewhat unusual request for an unusual agenda. >> it is very unusual the wavr

the opportunity for the city's proposed budget first the building fees for unwarranted units and the admin code for the fund self-appropriately i'm sure you're aware of the planning commission renders its decision on the board of supervisors initiated ordinances within 90 days of the referral to act between the time is the disapproval and they can't be heard by the 90 days those two ordinances were referred to the planning planning department on june 10th and the planning department has not had time to calendar those items by the planning commission go properly noticed public hearing in order for them to move forward in concert with the cities budget in order for that the waiving

the issuance by the board sophie and benjamin from the mayor's office of housing and community development discuss the affordable housing funds fee waiver will waive the legalization of the assessy dwelling units constructed without preliminaries with the legalization of legalized housing with the planning department after the budget was presented to the planning commission not considered we the planning commission at the time it is not the directive that directs the planning department and other departments to prioritize they're to the construction of all new net housing including affordable housing the department estimates the - the dbi averages $1,500

for the permit fees and 167 hundred per approved permits from the fee waiver had been there the cost would be roughly $42,000 this is the budget and the importance of the legal listing existing housing the department supports this from the departments waives waves the opportunity the fee waiver been published in the commission decided not to waive it will be agendize and not probably be phobic for several months after it is published that concludes my remarks my sophie has to do with hayward. >> thank you very much for the

opportunity to come and spec speak with you this is unusual pursue i'm sure you're aware of the citywide affordable fund fees from affordable housing programs are deposited a fund and fees fees including the houses illogical and the inclusionary condo condominium conversion and the fees by housing in the market octavia and eastern neighborhoods are all deposited into the citywide housing fund it seeks to collect two awful nostril by the controller's office but want to suppress that neither change will impact the fees how they're used or what their spent on or how the fund is administered through first the citywide affordable fund is currently defined in the planning code and the planning code only not in and of itself is unusual not defined in the administered through that is