have to voted no, but valid things to do in the next 3 months i've not heard it i'll have to vote no if you call the question. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm definitely voting no, it didn't make sense after 8 years in serious considerations we put at risk this is completely privately done xadz cap & trade you know by continuing we may jeopardizes the few minutes and the other things this project brings forward for the continuance like the heritage district maybe a good thing has to do with and none can guarantee whether or not this is displacement or not i can't ask that this is about the benefits

of this project this project should be voted on today and approved. >> commissioner hillis. >> i want to add i'll vote against a continuance i'm been on the commission for 3 and a half years this is the project we've heard the mothering most about there are issues of affordable housing and what the projects looks like but i'm prepared to vote on this today and vote on any changes we've heard this project a lot we continue a project there are tons of projects that we hear them oh, my god the day to continue or you know i've as i said sad with the folks if from soma and see how to get concrete answers there is talk about a code compliant or changes to the affordability but i think we're here to make those concrete

distributions in i'd also point out 24 project goes to the board of supervisors it's not done here we have an obligation to weigh in by it goes to the board of supervisors it will be two to three months from the board of supervisors votes on this and hears this project and hears it in land use commission so i'll prepared to vote. >> i wanted to first of all, thank you to everyone that was 6 and a half hours of public comment and heartfelt i think we all appreciate the comments you want to point out if we take a vote to continuance and from the continuance didn't pass didn't mean some of the things that some cam can't be achieved thank you to commissioner richards to come up and address what we want and offer the project sponsor an exultant eir opportunities to address how they've tried to

reach the goals commissioner richards. >> one other question he think that commissioner hillis raised a good point the board of supervisors is going to hear this what's the lag times is that a couple of months are we looking like bumping up against the december dates director ram. >> the staff will address that. >> we're actually doing a continuance continuance. >> the earliest this is in front of the land use is november 2nd there will be a and then the two votes at the full board so we're looking like an early december date. >> it dovetails at that time, december dates the community is president generally. >> yes. >> okay

commissioner moore. >> i folds this project with great interests for quite sometime and has existing ideas and while i was really focusing other than the great ideas and the lady register i not recently heard how it is delivered and that is where my questions arose that's where why not community should be given additional time i could change my mind unless the authoritativeness and the elected in which the project is discussed to talk about it's physical qualities is gun thing but which united states fog go to the special district i think a larger weight on my responsibility to know what it

is i'm that concludes my report and i perp do to the feel that i was given just rights amount of time because in begin meetings i had i didn't hear much and it was not the time to talk about how to be packaged maybe a normal approval processes, however, the extents i have to decide and support is it is more than i can do today as simple as that. >> excuse me. the member of the public that phone keeps gov. off turn it off that would be helpful. >> one of the people that was speaking about the code compliant the project sponsor guzzles an enormous occasions we've seen it this group has seen it heard in public comment and shows that this project is a

trade off we've heard and open space we want to preserve the hectic buildings and by doing code compliant no reason that it there will be open space it will not be housing much less affordable housing and likely demolition of some historic buildings so you know the choice was to have more open space and taller buildings and that was a compromise he think that a very good compromise and crafted over many, many years with lots of communities inputs and the person that says we don't know code compliant it is a bunch flat buildings using up the space and mostly office spaces that's what you get i'm against any continuance. >> commissioner richards and i wanted to echo commissioner

johns comments if get introduce to vote we'll get into the meat so a lot of the items we'll wish discussing i want to make sure you realize this is not the ends from the continuance fails as commissioner moore. >> i believe the exercise of that code compliant was difference the rules that govern this part of the city that is the c-3 s created a project whether or not this project is connect and, desirable but what was shown as a code compliant project is not necessarily the result if i really put our pencil down and sketch but a code compliant project. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there is a there is a motion and a second to

continue the certification the environmental impact report to december 10th on that motion commissioner antonini no commissioner hillis no commissioner johnson snow commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong no that motion fails 3 to for you with commissioner antonini commissioner hillis and commissioner johnson and commissioner president fong voting against. >> commissioner richards i read the eir. >> this a public if i recaller bursts brought to you by the people of central selma. >> (repeated.) we're - and folks this is a bit unnecessary you're all out of order if you choose to continue. >> to disrupt this preceding we'll be forced to clear the

room. >> we need to - >> displacement to whom are you building for. >> (repeated.) >> to whom are you building for . >> (repeated.) >> >> (repeated.) >> to whom are you building for . >> >> (repeated.) and to whom are you building for . >> >> (repeated.) >> to whom are you building for. >> (repeated.) 5u get them out of here. >> thank you we're going to resume get the sheriff and get them out of here. >> who you, you building for (repeated.) >> we're not going going to continue until the sheriff. >> the commission will

and rec and park commission joint hearing for thursday, september 17, 2015, i'd like to remind the public to that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind public comment is closed. if individuals choose to disrupt this proceedings the sheriff's are escort that person out of the chambers in the group decides to disrupt of the this proceedings the room will be cleared for one final time you'll sees not overflow room in the court we'll close the repeat after me room and precede with that hearing. >> i hope that is contrary to everyone arrest i would request

it mill mobile defenses broadway-sansome apartments be silenced or and/or turned off. >> public comment is closed. a commissioners we commissioner, we left off under the special calendar. >> commissioner richards i've read the internal revenue and month so civil. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further under those a there is a motion and a second to certify the environmental impact report on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson common core commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and would suggest that is planning commission take up items 2 ab next.

>> those will be held together. >> correct. >> if you choose to have them called spiritually or together we can do that. >> commissioner antonini yeah, this project we should do you want the vktsz for the offer riding considerations the impacts have been resculpted to eliminate almost all impacts on historic building their preserving so many and less than end the impacts and those impacts can't be mitigated i think the project benefits far override those impacts and you know i'm very much in favor of that portion of that and i also feel for the reasons given even

though staff it consistent be providing open space and saving historic building saving 3 times the amount of affordable housing every part of the general plan that project is conforming what i'm in favor of the adopting the findings from california california environmental quality act and the general plan i'll move to approve. >> second. >> sure commissioner wu. >> asked to have the items voted on separately. >> that's okay with me and there is a motion and a second to do you want the findings as well the findings the

consistency we'll note they have been a or rat sheet submitted so i'll imagine. >> my motion includes the a rat sheet. >> thank you, commissioners this one on the motion of deposition of fbtsdz and statement of overriding under the santa clara california environmental quality act as corrected in the sheet. >> commissioner antonini commissioner greaves commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero on the vnts the continent wcy with the planning code section 101.1 as amended in the or rat sheet commissioner antonini

commissioner hillis. >> commission on this item or my apologies. >> two b. >> so i have a lot of questions about the project but out of respect in the rec and park commissioners i'll not go into you will all of them my comments are disjointed i - so the project is asking about giving a lot of value to this land; right? a different value than under the current scoping in exchange been a package of communities benefits i actually think despite the fact more transparency it benefits seem far a lot of details and the question of transparency and in the city or whether the

stabilization fund or another place what is challenging for me, the general plan i look at the 8 prior policies the ones that were voted in whenever there were voted in a number refer to preserving filed in the city not impeding the streets with too much paragraph and one about small business and exist the diverse economic an issue in the city i'll not be that concludes my report this item. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner wu i took the words out of my mouth i have similar questions and the one element i would add to the list

this area targeted for affordable housing prioritize as land use while there is this office loud the building of hours with one the major priorities for the c-3 s. >> ronald reagan either commissioner antonini or - >> i was going to say first of all, in response to some of the concerns 2, 3, 4 explicit displace anyone was we said and conjectural whether or not it will raise property values in the adjacent areas necessary that will result in displacement of the recent study it was put out in regards to the mission actually having 18 new housing

lens the perspires pressures so i don't think it is an issue and they've added addressed the traffic concerns sfard and building housing an extraordinary amount of affordable housing and this area being c-3 prominently is hugely more of a business area they've because i have sud were able to put in a lot of housing that wouldn't ordinarily be there it satisfies the general plan. >> commissioner richards. >> a comment on the ted egon report i read it and look at this project this project is actually different at an when we look at the map that was put together by staff we'll assuming this project is approved it is a concentrated project all at once many more projects i'm

interested to see what happens on this over time some the recommendations i make later on in the another items we'll take into consideration but this a different outcome commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i totally see whether commissioner wu and moore are are coming from in the projects that are we have a general plan that says things that are loft i didn't and great but projects of most of the projects we find them in conflict with each other i've never seen a project with the consistencies findings that matches up with the policy you don't find one that contradicts the other i see that here for me perp i've done what i weighing

an balance this project does the outburst set match up with the policies laid out even though some of the objectives more policies contradict each other commissioner hillis. >> just a board comment on the general consistency obviously we're being asked to enter into an sud and modify the zoning for rec and park reply shadow discussion we don't hold the things in the general plans as more important or priorities i know affordable housing kind of obviously was a discussion today risen to the top we see it every with or week we're not providing enough affordable housing and a raging debate when we approve a project does market rate housing case displacement if you're not

displacing folks will that help to bring down the price of market rate housing i know it will i did not think we can build that so i agree with commissioner richards this sets this project apart we would like to see the monster in the mission having the 33 percent or other projects easy that level of affordable housing and we'll quibble over and talk about where that is onsite or cash to make the tndc project happen but those are the kind of strategies to get more affordable housing that's why i'm i believe this is consistent with the general plan. >> before commissioner, i want to put on and on on record and

clarify the eir includes the amendments as submitted by staff. >> correct. >> very good commissioners. >> then if nothing furthers on two b on that motion commissioners to do you want the findings the consistent with the san francisco planning code commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards commissioner wu marry no and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to two with commissioner moore and commissioner wu voting against commission you may top the discussion of joint action. >> commissioner vice president low answer some questions relating to shadow what i heard at 11 o'clock note the same

thing at 7 clock do you clarify the shadow that is cast on the park there was conflicting information done planning and our staff want to make sure wear looking at the same amount of shadows during the same amount of time. >> i think i know the presentation i protruded had a table with a time and so the end the stood shooting shadow was 845 and the presentation provided by the sponsor gave you a video of the shadow explained it end at 8:00 a.m. the reason there's different days not the same evidences they illustrated the day was the greatest amount of shadow and it happens less.

>> on the days there were shadow begun by 840 and 8:00 a.m. and what's the hours of boo benchmark park and 9 to 7. >> okay there was also some testimony that was conflicting as to what is the area affectionate boo benchmark pade. >> it is graph mainly stairs up to it and ornamental and grass a few vegetable planting in the central area. >> does that effect the community garden. >> it does effect that area

briefly in the early morning. >> okay. now obviously we're trying to avoid another st. mary's problem what is the agreements where are the mechanisms to make sure the community benefits that is in the development agreement or actually delivered. >> this is not my area of expertise i'm defer to someone in the planning department. >> can rich join the planning department. >> (laughter). >> i haven't gone back there yet ken relishing rich oewd this is a legally biden contract for the first and foremost there are a number of ways to enforce a contract the nice thing about this amendment is that most the

communities benefits are due upon can be conditioned upon a permit so many of the communities benefits need to be provided before the project sponsor receives the building permit and other for the certificate of the occupancy we have other remedies available to us you know that run the game bet in terms of going to the court stop to force compliance by it doesn't really relative it can't be built unless or unless it the ratified every single one of the 3 major new buildings has a set of physical and monetary obligations when you build a certain building not written

until the building is in terms of the open space that needs to be built and open and available for the companies certificate of occupancy having gone introduce the agreements this is as airtight we work hard to make sure those are airtight and enforce them if they're not observed. >> the trigger point is the observation. >> if there were particular benefit i, tell you the trigger part various i can get help for the first and foremost the community benefits involve paying money there are quite a few of the can of them written for the taylor or the youth activities those checks need to

be written up he written before a permit is grant by the city a few things like parks open space need to be done and built and available to the public by the time that associated as a certificate of occupancy they have to have the park in place by the time for the public occupancy and the one million dollars contribution to kickoff the - >> give me a second here >> ann with the oewd the one million dollars this is a again question. >> comes with the first building permit. >> okay.

>> commissioner hillis. >> just a followup question one emotion he see to having the park shadowed i don't think it is circuit but the construction of new open space especially the ground level open space more open xhardz to the chronicle building can you tell me which are those built together associated with the building or separately how does that work. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns if i may jump in while the staff gets you the specification i can say in addition to the development agreements a conceptual obligation the

project sponsor has to the city each the cu motion actually is tied to one the required pubically assessable privately owners open spaces in the project that include mary court and the rooftop of the chronicle building it includes the objections and conditions of approval for the crux 9 open space and maintaining them. >> ann so the physical obligations the office building is responsible to build the mary court and the pedestrian improvements along howard and fifth and the m-2 building which is the rental residential building is responsible for the 11 thousand the remaining part of mary court has to seconds the

h1 building 14 thousand plus and the m-2 provides 11 how's thousand 5 hundred square feet and the n one the residential condolence building has the rooftop. >> okay. >> is there an anticipated order i know there is no order necessarily in the - >> right now we anticipate the h1 will be the first building built. >> okay. >> and on the open space who they remain the owner of the open space or is is transferred to the city. >> it remains privately owned open space. >> but a deed restriction that requires it to be. >> (speaking chinese.) >> yes. >> what's the hours of that open space when it is open and closes we've seen around open

space gets troublesome to maintain gates go up and the says is locked or only open certain hours during. >> the empowering is anticipated to be open twenty-four hours a day no gates that block off the streets there are public right-of-way through mary street they'll pedestrian news a portion the street their active public right-of-way the ground floor will be opened twenty-four hours and the crocodile rooftop closes an hour after. >> when the open space comes back for destine; right? when it comes back and specifically designed part of associated building how is that done is it the planning director how is the

reviewed. >> it's the planning director. >> is there anything fence or you know that this will remain pub i don't believe is there - >> kevin do you remember. >> kevin guy is the as mentioned by the ms. burns the the condition of approval i'm not sure this is consistent the individual projects as laid down out in the d for d and the individual plans for each building so none of those effect the gates and again, the idea that the ground level is open and assessable to the public. >> and then this may not be for you a question an issue about shadowing in yerba buena gardens do we have an analysis available

i know it didn't fall under the prop k could someone show us the extent of that shadow. >> we don't have to take this up now if it is not readily available part of the ceqa analysis. >> i'm sorry repeat question. >> the level of shadowing to yerba buena. >> let me pull out the environmental impact report and look at it was reviewed in the environmental impact report. >> we can wait until later to review that and okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnson i believe no, i think it is commissioner antonini. >> okay. thank you yeah as far as the increase the cumulative shadow limit i think it only make sense my understanding is the amount of the totals light on the park

annually that this shadow interferes with the .004, $41,000 of a percentage and the location is a gate entry some planters and the important thing from 7 to 740 on late fall and winter i think october 20th november 20th and january 20th to february 20th you have the first lights of sun falling so it has virtually no impact i think it makes total sense to raise that i had gone other question i thought on the housing issue i know the rec and park commission will be leaving can i ask one speaker brought up

the issue not senior housing in the plan i think this is a senior housing that's been and has been in the plan not a contingency for the benefit of the public clear any question about the fact we have clearly 33 percent of the affordable housing and includes a senior project not on site but close to being onsite. >> kate mayor's office of housing and community development yes, we're anticipating building 83 units of senior housing that will be paid for through the project we're very excited about the senior project and low income housing available to seniors the lands will transfer with the financing. >> thank you. i thinks the monies from the plan that are going for benefits go first to affordable housing before

anything else if i read the report correctly. >> yes. commissioner so in our package in the develop agreement a schedule and in the schedule it acknowledges $24 million plus for the senior parcel the lands transfer for the first building regardless of what building built first, the land transfers first and also some small money for the first building and the remainder of the money for the senior site comes with the second large building. >> thank you and we note those the development agreement goes with the site so for any reason it wasn't the present sponsor anyone is obligated. >> correct. >> commissioner wu. >> following back to the jean friend question maybe you can

answer you assume now the h1 building gets built first in case the other building gets built first dot financial obligations go with that building n one then the funded if get paid. >> i am working sort of creating the inverse situation so you'll oil a candidate another should not the implication with the development agreement we front the affordable housing so if 9 n one building is first then it generates more money we have a little bit more money to use for we are able to pay off taylor immediately and transfer the land and actually distribute the

other dollars for the communities benefits including jean friend for the money and the workforce money can be transferred to the n one building to accomplish that up front and okay. so you keep the same goals but more money from the n one come firs you cover more benefits initially and exactly. >> and then i wanted to ask staff will be the absolute cumulative limit in the parks i'm looking at the praushg 9 parklets we've been through this is there a distinction between the main parks and you consider the quantify and qualify.

>> kevin guy so the you're referring to the 1989 memo that was adapted by the rec and park commission to provide for specific guidance than provided in the original prop k it is to be honest speculation on any part but the time the parks that were considered the most effected were the tall zoning within the larger downtown area and didn't contemplate naming parks outing outside of the area there are parks in 40 foot zoning which take into consideration those shadows issues it is certainly fair and appropriate to consider the quantify and qualify active criteria as well as the partnership webinar public benefit aspects which considering the question of raising shadow budgets or considering whether or not you believe the shadow impacts will

be adverse not necessarily by naming bodecker or any other parks the criteria can't be considered and as a matter of fact, should be considered which faced with raising the budget or considering whether shadows are adverse. >> thank you. >> i guess i heard a different version of history a lot of the zero tloornts parks came out of the history of chinatown and came out of willie woe playground and a parking lot that will shadow the park and whether the question people prefer shadows or shade some people prefer it is not shadow itself is so problematic but the spirit of being open space sort

of pure or available to the sunshine there's a special i think staff can correct me only a few cases in which the bodecker and to the two tndc parks and hundred percent affordable housing and the with the transit district court plan i just find is somewhat somewhat of a high bar a little bit of shadow before the park hours, however, the hours can change. >> commissioner bonilla. >> during the testimony or public comment the impress was given that the community benefits fund or award were

going to be handed arbitrarily it is my understanding an rfp process for the grants so could you please describe a little bit more when that rfp process will consist of. >> i'm sorry for the arts and cultural piece. >> yes. few minutes that are designated to be going out through an revenue process and describe is in detail. >> that money is designated there's two pots one for the youth and family and benefits and there's one $.5 million in that will be distributed to mocd

will actually conduct an rfp process for any nonprofits in the selma district that you know serving the youths and family and any sorts of service providers that are in the any district need money for capital improvement program or programming can be used through the process. >> that rfp will be distributed or announced throughout the communities within selma. >> yes. that's correct. >> commissioner moore. >> there are to instances historically where shadow limits have been race on bodecker pork one 2006 the 66 dwelling units and as recent as 2015 one of 8

eddy was 3 hundred affordable units and i supported raising the shadow limits for those to projects historically to on all the parks from that concludes my report smith to the other 14 downtown parks by the planning code section i have consisting voted as the rec and park know against raising the shadow limits partial i think that the building with the public benefit particularly when it comes to housing and under principles parts of city whether there is a great lack of sufficient and sun lit open space requires that attention, however, we're spending those benefits and

rising the shadow limits to public and private who have the guilty ability to avoid casting shadow they have the ability to create open space on their own i believe that this is asking too much and can't support it i've worked for many, many years for no building every cast a shadow on a public open space or asked for exemptions i know there is an ability of skill that could be avoid for that reign i have a consistently voted against raising shadows limits you know that being around informing for the many years. >> commissioner antonini and speaking in favor of raising it commissioner moore makes good points as this project evolved

we'll of we've moved the massing to create more open space on the site and know in my mind mitigates the very small allowance we have to raise and there may be a way that this could have been done so none at all on the - the trade off is a winds is the result of massing to put them in a position they minimized most the wind this is another thing to be considered there are trade offs and i think since i mentioned this was you know a raising of one thousands of a percent in my mind not significant obviously in principle you would not want to raise it but the raise one that

makes no noticeable impacts aim very much in favor a trade offs that allows to have a lot more open space as well as porgsz the building that controls i wind and sculpts the building at different heights arrest commissioner moore. >> i actually want to commend forest for the animation and shadows not seen a better way of documenting shadow and director ram if we could perhaps incorporate that into the expectation of what people do that would be helpful it's the berries shadow report i've seen. >> commissioner hillis going back to the time how to sequence in you know is there a reason

not to prioritize the ground floor i said we don't anticipate that but the building that triggers the rooftop comes first. >> we're prioritizing that ground floor the expectation the h1 will go first and followed by the m two and the n one in that order we'll build into sides of mary court and the third recipient we've not contemplate in the n one building was built first, the objection obligation would be the n one. >> a way to say you know if this building is built first and triggers the chronicle we

somehow substitute the ground floor which i like the chronicle open space but i consider that valley level of mary court open space is more public. >> commissioner antonini i'd like to to move on above of the planning commission a separate one from rec and park i'd like to raise this cumulative shadows for the monocare park as part of motion. >> second. >> if there's no further discussion for the planning commission to raise the cumulative shadow for the park commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards commissioner wu no and commissioner fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to two with

commissioner moore and commissioner wu voting against and so rec and park we'll i'd like to entertain a motion to approve agenda item to c. >> i wanted to say i think so the communities concern i was the pro bono attorney for 6 years that was the longest real estate transcription i've worked on i sympathy emphasize with the data but under the shadow analysis the shadow indicate cast on bodecker when you look at the quantify analysis it is hitting an area that is not an active recreation area it is before the park opens and the communities benefits for the city goes wrong side when the

requires it outweighs the minimal shadows on the area i'll support the motion and like to make the amendment in supporting that motion we also incorporate the correction or eradicate dated september 16th that was submitted to the us this morning. >> that's consider it a motion. >> i've been on this commission for 11 years and probably for the first r9d eight or nine wrench heard the lions share and for the reasons the development is rampant with this exception opportunity that we have on each one the projects because we have heard it so often we've become

somewhat numb to the effect i think we can talk ourselves into this is just one small percentage but cumulatively shadows are okay. and i think if you truly building in parks no shadow is okay. but i can't sit here and be a hypocrite i've approved shadows on project less communities benefit and tremendous community benefit on this but i'll be honest i struggle because future projects will come before us there's no such thing as a okay shadow. >> there is a motion and a second all in favor, say i. opposed? hearing none it is unanimous thank you very much. >> planning commissioner for clarity that motion will include the motion by staff with the

eradicate. >> the rec and park will consider item 2 d i'd like to entertain a motion. >> my motion pertains to the impact or the effect that the new net new shadow will cast on bodecker park and it is clear that through commissioner antonini and commissioner vice president lows comments that will not think adverse i'd like to make the motion we approve well, we approve the resolution in front of of item 2 d with the amendments prepared by staff in the eradicate and.

>> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? it's unanimous i think i'll mansion a motion to adjourn the rec and park commission. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> done thank you very much it is a pleasure planning commission hank you like to ask mr. guy who has the deeper understanding the project to explain the use of family zone and the length of the special district has existed as well as that there is now an overlap between the 5m project and the zone to make sure we properly thinks. >> sure if i could have the screen up i think there is a good summary i apologize not the exact date but two components as

commissioner antonini notes you'll see on the rights column the requirements under the circumstances and little package of the sud a higher level of security new for liquor store and announcement arcadia and movie thooerlts and parking lot and religious facilities perhaps i want to see the boundaries and . >> oh, i apologize. >> i want to see the boundaries. >> so i don't know how clearly it is on the screen is essentially applies to the southeast arriving over lapsing the underlining the r s d not

expending into c-3 zoning. >> the correct description is the use and family zone is rather a large area of which the 5m project takes a small bite; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> thank you that's all i wanted to - thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner johnson. >> sorry i haven't had my name up here all night i'll take this up and continue to separately so heard a lot of things in public comment and doing thinking on the project since i heard it last year and heard about it from various sources and had a lot of time to think about the

project itself and the land uses the first one is arbitrate more about transportation funds so we recently approved the transportation sustainability funds i think we had a project my memory is failing it is explicit that the t d i if is that the same case here or no. >> good afternoon, everyone. peter with the mta she worked closely with me understanding what is unique about this project it is the only project that tida t t d i f it goes to the citywide and the other funds that t d i f is specific to the

project site and the $12 million; is that right. >> yeah, the t d i f is $8.8 million it not subject to the t d i for that amount a 2 housing unit $8 million and the 2.4 is dedicated to the pedestrian and transit improvements in the neighborhood. >> thank you very much a couple of other things in terms of the design this is where it looks i've got issues since the d for d came out sort of i guess i'll call is at the equality design half of the space that is open space for the project is the chronicle building which is

privately owned and pubically vertebral space but it is on the top floor the chronicle building assessable by the slate i feel this is not necessarily it is open during the day to day hours and technically e technically anyone can go in there not the best option for open space so my suggestion on d for d and it cakes to the planning direction who he look at the plan if you could limit some of the programming in mary court to make sure that open space is truly available free on and welcoming to all on the ground floor there is not a lot we can do about access to the chronicle it is on the third-story of a building upstairs or elevators

or some other way to funnel people but i think that we can sort of counteract that but limiting some of the programming in as far as i am concerned court to have space that is open and available for anyone that wants to come and didn't feel inclusionary to anyone maybe the programming is not for them arching otherwise inclusionary is that something i've thought about a lot for the d for duo d and i don't think it goes to the level of needing amendments but up to the planning director to the developer. >> do you mind limit the programming do you mean limit the activities or limit the the physical design. >> yeah. i think the physical design should be just much more open to, however, people time to

use the space i see a lot of activities is programming if you look at the space for st. mary's cotter a text design and a number of difference types of activities and some other sorts of like difference physical activities like people can do and sort of look at the design it takes up the entire space i don't feel it is the most open prairie with the other half is on the third-story of the building so again, we didn't see actual design this is not part of d for did. >> philosophically thinking about my other major point for the i've asked myself do the things i hear from public

comment and hear from the communities groups actually has nothing to do with would the land use decisions we make my answer in my soul is not really i'm very deeply concerned about the neighborhoods stabilization both economic and in terms of small business and entrepreneurs and residential and keeping the cultural i've been thinking about the hunters point and looking at the lotteries and different ways to sometimes, we harm ourselves in keeping the diverse neighborhoods why i think about how do you do anything about that i don't see changing the physical design or anything about this project fixing that i think those are things that probably their there's option the board of supervisors should come up with for the development agreement

and legislation in parallel with this project a couple of ideas come to mind certainly i think there should be explicit support for the small businesses whether it is the cultural district i definitely think this is should be explicit we can't stop people if from raising prices because they feel like the value of that land is gone up but find ways for small businesses to be able to afford 0 those prices and be able to stay we can figure out and i don't think that is something that all on the developer that is all on the city to come up with the parallel secludes and same thing with residential i see the map here on stabilized housing many of the color coded many are pink and orange their sort of like

salvation rent control or bmr's i can't tell you how many times just having the ounce units on the market didn't meaning mean you'll keep people if the neighborhoods i know people that make higher salaries that went and got a rental units apartment not it is a bad thing but in and of itself keeps people in the neighborhood so the board of supervisors maintain people getting their housing next week we'll hear about neighborhoods preference which impacts people that maybe evicted or forced from their homes i hope that helps and other commissioners, i want to throw that out there are a couple of things that maintains the residential stabilization and get to the concerns that are not part of

the land use decisions today. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. >> i want to ask specific questions first about the affordable housing benefits so for the senior building it looks like for predevelopment something a little bit more than $300,000 is allocated i wanted to ask maybe mohcd to get through development making sure that gets online as quickly as possible and we're more like $2 million so what we have looked in the senior his or her is housing is a total contribution that allows you to us get to the level we need to build the housing i'm not sure the phasing of the 2, 3, 4 of the money the 3 hundred thousand

can be used right away for for the technical title issues financial analyze, etc. and then when we have additional if i understand make the other predevelopment money vertebral immediately so that process can be completed. >> so will it possibility be cuts waiting for more development money is that not a concern. >> will it get cut. >> cost. >> oh, he think it wouldn't if we know the schedule the funding and we will based on the development schedule then while we're waiting have the bridge funds from other sources to keep predevelopment the last thing have it stop. >> okay. thank you for the capital funds for the building of the senior building looking at this is somewhere around 21

or $24 million what happens from the costs escalates not enough money. >> we fix that one every deal and sometimes, we have cost savings and sometimes have to put more money into the projects because is there's a site condition or labor groups we have sized the gap at 21.1 for vertical construction plus the value of lands at a level forcing the housing we feel is conservative so there's a lot of cushion and burning w be able to work with the development partners to make sure that the projects are inadequately funded. >> okay. thank you. >> so i have a lot of thoughts

i want to make comments for generally about the planning department pea planning commission and commission i think that you know there's a question what is the role of planning department or planning in the city this project sounds like around the same time the youth and family zone as xhaush listed aced the filipino 5 m minimum wage was in the conceptual phase yet on 5 m and not the other two items can we think about how to push the planning staff i know we don't get general funds money commissioner cranshaw can we show you the nation to do more planning if we came here today with all 3 items on the agendas maybe that would be difference

that's speculation i spoke about the conveyance the piece in the family zone the most of the southern and eastern piece the office building that is zoned r s d the biscuit clank on the site is the up zoning of i don't actually know of 3 hundred and 75 feet a change in the type of eye for going from r s d to r.c. s an encroachment into 89 family zone he think my thoughts this is a starts a great map i like seeing this kind of work it sounds like criticisms but this is what the planning staff should be able to

do you know it sounds like this project has for to go through maybe your job to track the categories going forward and really understand how projects impact neighboring housing units is seems like a lot of rent control with the peach color and that in addition to the privately sros this is most vulnerable we see so much in the sro stock of people illegal convert from residential to tourist or taking the units off the market and i think we're seeing evictions of all type nos ellis act but harassment it is it a - i don't know buyouts or small fractions like keeping things in the hallway it it our

job to stablg lists the communities before we convey this kind of value i think that it is a hard question to ask i know that the planning process is long it is not always available and easy to look at it in hindsight can we ask of the community benefit from the developer to buy 5 to 7 of the buildings and give them to the city to hold them at permanently affordable housing how to push users to they come online we're not just hoping for stabilization in the future. >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you and thank you, again, for all the public comment i was driving and the assistant went to one of the kids soccer games i think there was a home for sale or noriega i

looked it up it was 1.5 millions that was a home that 10 years would have sold for three or four hundred dollars yet people are priced out of that market and rents are skyrocketing in the flip side we're building aggressively whether potrero or selma the housing stock has not gone down we need to find other solutions besides fighting over the projects one by one in order to secure housing affordable housing and some people mentions i'll plug it again, the small sites we should call the large sites project inlands trusts if we really want to keep the units affordable you have to own them

and keeping them affordable not necessarily going to make that happen this project is a good example of how we could do things to gain more affordability and public benefits i think what we see on the project a level of affordability and public benefits we typically see on projects that our city sponsored or city owned the giants sea level lot or pier 70 so for the redevelopment area or transbay you know levels of affordability we wouldn't otherwise achieve and there are other good things i know should be called out on this project the arts components the father and mother fact that cast owns the building not saying they're putting studio a nonprofit committed to the arts in control of that prompt you think the director of cast was

here but want to encourage them to think beyond you know typical arts organizations look to the neighborhood when they're looking to fill that space i think the open space is great and much needed in district of not enough of that and you know that maybe small by hayes worked great in areas surrounded by open space the transportation is guarantee great i'm glad we moved to the preservation alternatives there not evictions are displacement whether it is pdr displacements or housing in those project we'll debate whether or not it causes additional displacement but i think again, the key comes back to the affordable housing the way to stop displacement controlling the property by

bmr's or providing funds to tndc to build out their projects that is going to give us the ability to control and build the air force one question on the affordable housing which do you anticipate one why was senior housing selected for that this seat was there a process the community was involved in or is it definitive and you and i worked on octavia boulevard one pink or thing that frustrates me parcel o no affordable housing and that transferred quite some time i want to make sure this is 33 percent it is not all the market rate housing and the affordable housing 10 years from now is this prioritized in cue

or are there funds. >> for the record parcel o is in predevelopment. >> thank you. >> we'll have that in 12 months and doing architecture drawings i can't say speak to the earlier process but from the physical constraints of the site it is sued for smaller units but at a high unit count so senior housing is perfect a needs for low income seniors and a 20 percent homeless senior components on this sites it lands itself physically very well and provides a needs eddy taylor is shovel ready we have concentrated funds and an application to the states second

application that is in place when the money is available that's going to be able to go and we are not going to have a long phasing that you saw on octavia boulevard. >> funding is always an issue going back to that site there is a provision in the da or somewhere that allows mow to sell that site if can you pertain that - i don't think i've heard of a case mow sold a billable site. >> sorry. >> yeah. please. so the provision that the da allows mow to due diligence to determine if we don't want the site the developer pace the cash value of site to mow and they'll purchase another site in selma

to build the affordable housing it is up to mow if they determine it is. >> to be clear there is not an ability until mow does the analysis of site so this provision is there only if something is found on the site that makes it unbelievable mow - until the city controls he seat question can't dig into the ground and look at it toxics our preliminary reports don't show the potential for too many problems but the city needs to negotiate an out in case we don't build we get the money we would have gotten to develop the site. >> so mow e as see.

>> there were changes of that retails on the ground floor versus the active ground space can someone show what is anticipated and walk us through on the ground floor and my biggest concern is active retail space on the mary court again, i think that morality makes it more active and welcoming to the public i i know there say, i think a change to the d for d.

>> we yurptd the d for d the draft you received has the updates and the changes were - so already a requirement for 25 percent of the frontage on the perimeter streets to be retail and additional we added that any retail in the ground floor needs to be limited to 5 thousand square feet per space to encourage more smaller scale local retail spaces we limited there been a provision for active office the interest in having the potential office phenomenon on the ground floor like the coworker spaces and other spares on the ground floor we originally had that in any of the building and rejected it only happen in terms of new

construction in the h1 office building that has restrictions that if you're going to have it using the ground floor in addition to the transparency requirements on the ground floor interests additional requirements inform parish walls within 20 to three feet of the storefront in other words, to basically present none can line that with offices saying this is pretending to think activating it. >> can you walk us through where sorry about that where rail is riders because i had a hard time following it in t

t hard time following it in ttimf >> computer please. >> so essentially what we've done is said there are is to aspects of this one the permitted the requirement 6 what is permitted on the ground floor and so on the ground floor of the two residential construction buildings there is only permitted essentially retail use no office permitted so i can have the residential lob or other serving use additionally, a requirement to deliver there is retails on 25 percent of the frontages so on all of the the major streets frontages 25 percent of that frontage has to be desolated to

retail then in the new construction building their permitted to have what they have currently an could you remember for retail and now you'll see i think in the conditional use applications the proposal about this dwraurz there is more of a retails use in the examiner as a high retail space and in the h1 building similarly the 25 percent if i take the frontage 25 percent retail and the permit allows the retail lobby and pro-active with the physical design and the outlet related requirement is entries an all the frontages except for the alleys and so that whether a building entrance or retail you have the fromgz. >> and where are you so are you

around the open space. >> yep. >> the interior open space. >> is interest there a plan to do retail along. >> yeah. essentially it is a tricky thing if so surrounded bike or like the chicken and egg the cam minute building are not the sdrarnz there are ways the walls can be used and the examiner you'll see in the conditional use that will be priority as a retail space of some sort and the public elevator is required to be here so that also created a component and in this building i mean pretty much the only thing is the permitted house. >> the retail.

>> the cafe to serve that and the circulation of the h1 is aligned to the open space. >> thank you. >> and then just a note on i mean the reason we can get those public benefits we're obviously allowing for the there's level of development be potential while some parcels are up and some are down zoned the overhead impact is the significant level of additional development and potential that allows us to in and the developer to fund some of the benefits in that leads to taller building that were not neon the west side of fifshth and this toe many is the biggest hurdles and we're trading for the height in this case, i think works and i think director ram

gave a good talk about how the heights work with what's happening and he can't be as well as what is happening on van ness and market and the skin. >> will be additional this site can take the height he appreciate it is on the eastern edge of those parcels and kind of helps to protect the others uses in the alley i want to be clear i don't think that is precedent setting it is in a neighborhoods that can take heights but we're not looking to up zone parcels in the mission where the eastern neighborhoods plan was done in order to get additional public benefits or affordable housing it is a fairly unique space that could be that and this works here

the one building where i think is the most impactful itself housing street building because of the floor plate as you come down housing there is low rising and that building i want to talk about you know, i see in the discussion we're in the d for d there is a setback along howard and i don't know what level it is is that a required can someone talk about the height and massing of the office building along housing and what's being duplicate in the d 80 for d and iron this is the xhaeks building gloria. >> right the h1 building does have there are a couple of ways it is controls a base height set to the student street at hundred

and 45 is the maximum and then above is the controls for the tower kick in and towers - is that sixth district shown required. >> it resultant from you cannot build the floor plate you'll be heritage having the setback. >> but build the floor plate and have a setback on the alley he mean that's on par. >> that's. >> should be on housing. >> yep i'll say that is not explicitly required this it is a by virtue the tower controls assumed it be with a resultant and the dynamics of the winds

singularly require it so everything that is studied in the wind in order to reach the performance we want does need that as well that terrace there. >> okay. >> and another question on process we've had in the past when this comes back for design review and for the d for d it is done at the department level i mean this is delighted. >> the structure as written essentially delineated to review the phases they come in and find it consistent workplace the perimeters of sud and the d for d a certain top of small breaks breathes around architecture and

kind of street materials and things like that thanks or things that are shown as examples with the designs in front of you for the conditional use approvals but there's some thoughts those may evolve within certain perimeters priorities those spaces are reviewed and determined to be consistent about the d for d and reviewed at the staff level if he were to steady the perimeters of d for d a different situation i may have to come back for additional hearing process. >> is - could we the commission i realize i know for purposes of da you know there wants to be certainty on the type of projects to be built are we able to call a public hearing like

more park merced we saw the design and with respect to comment to help to inform the directors review of the project. >> obviously i defer to director ram but there is an interest to say it is important the planning department feels it the individuals phases is consistent but with the d for d and evolving as you just quick on the question of open space and prioritizing i i guess the yerba buena priorizing the non-rooftop open space. >> i think so the reason the n one rooftop is the n one triggers the renovation and so their directly tides when the construction starts with the n one the demolition the first demolition of examiner building and the renovations of the

chronicle building that's why think outside the box are physically tied and can't be directed. >> the question on shadow of yerba buena gardens. >> yes. sarah jones environmental review officer the eir i analyzed the shadow on yerba buena gardens and looked at it yerba buena north that area by the center for the arts and also the children's playground think in the southern part of yerba buena didn't finds a significant impact on either area of covering yerba buena north first and this situation on the worse case the revised projecting project we did a further shadows analysis the revised case is 8.2

percent of open space middle afternoon in the latest fall and the winter so the shadow is cast during those winters months the overall shadowing of yerba buena north would be .09 percent of the theoretical annual available sunlight and so that would be the shadow situation the conclusion was that it was a relatively small amount during the day's and space was not heavy eyed per the observations and not sixth for the children's play area it skafts a net shadows on 29 percent of play area on the worst today that would be .17

percent of theoretical available sunlight total so that net shadow occurs in the late afternoon in the fall, winter and spring it go be over a period of one hours this is the worse case scenario time the portions of that area that will be shatsdz primarily will be the area in her the car sale and the entry stairs and one hours after sunset again given the amount of increase and the times of year and what would be shadowed for the most part it is less than significance so the speak up open space is without mitigation for the shadow impact