numbers i would assume those are correct he better read them off in every project in the pipeline went forward you know there would be 85, w 9 units in the and were coastline showcase square and analyzed 5 thousand nine hundred units of everything went forward you'll be belief and 90 blow and no consideration it is oneelow and no consideration it is one of the first projects. >> i'm sorry i don't have the numbers in front of the me. >> it goes without saying a mute point and traffic in terms of the eir the traffic study is complete and very good it talked about one intersection that had impacts are significant and not

mitigated by u but that is something that can be worked on as we go forward i think that the eir part is i had a few more comments on the project first of all, you know i'm very - nevertheless of u n are m u some people spoke to the fact that every project needs pdrs but my understanding the u m u you want to promote the pdrs and housing and mixed urban use there is a lot of provided on uber and so i think that concept every project to have both uses not something not analyzed sfierdz in the eastern neighborhoods and the other comment that was very important was that the present uses have been relocated

within san francisco to 6000 third street which are the areas we want more pdrs lots of available space people with businesses that need to move products are much more interested in being in those areas their closer to the freeways and moving their product and lower rents and make sense to have the heavier pdrs use some of the smaller boutique pdr uses may be might fit by the way, that's my feeling and two and a half times the open space. >> i mind add some speakers providing more of the open space not a to be you know usable by the public i'll encourage that to work with staff to replace some of the muse with the paved areas and the public can sit

rather than the paved areas that are so heavy planned you can't go to those areas on the gym situation i'm very much encourage you to pursue the gym and jackson playground and the high school z did they have tennis courts and parking garages and put the courts up there the courts are there you're doubling the space and not pinal on the area but whatever to improve on the clubhouse at yaks that will be good i think that was commissioner richards or commissioner moore spoke about the need for places for students

after-school programs and other things we need to improve so those are some of the uses but i think that is realistic that many of the projects that are coming before us and potrero hill will have requirement to contribute to open space and contribute to recreational uses it is not impossible that some of the projects could be funds could be directed towards this project that will benefit not only live oak but all the people in the potrero hill such moscone and playground has a gym and others playgrounds have gives him that is a great idea on that part of the i have a few more things the balconies with gone it's good and while you're up, sir 35 feet i think between live oak and your buildings is 35 feet sthashgs and erect and

there were so the walkable is 25 feet either landscaping or something what is taking up that the square feet. >> patios. >> patios you'll see the 35 but pedestrians will see 25 feet. >> that's off the lower units. >> i'd like to comment on that again it is generally thoughts you like to activate public areas that have so-called eyes on the street at night time in particular when residents frankly might be walking through there i think it is a good idea to have not just. >> wall hence the proposal. >> i agree 100 percent there was one very good speaker in favor the project and things it is spoke i didn't and talking about eyes on the street a

passageway it is good people are on their patios r or visible pathways it is a lot savor this is very good and i had a couple of more comments in terms of construction many, many schools in san francisco and the example about the school project and the school on oak many schools have projects next to them or onsite and have to remediate the types of impacts and then on detailing i think as far as i'm concerned, i think some things on the tops of buildings may relieve in some places to analysis emphasis the rooflines and again, this could be done with staff in the

detailed today and also in terms of there was a suggestion that there is pdr use on the muse but most people that have any kind of products is not really practical to be dragging their product to get it to the street i'm very much in favor and i think that in terms of parking i think one thing that nobody was observing to was the amount of parking allowed any of the residents inn on potrero hill don't want the residents driving around trying to find parking on the hill one the complaints about the hill the logical one the transportation to downtown and other areas is i think adequate at this time you'll have a lot of people working in their cars and virtual everyone that lives interest better if their parked than trying to look

for parking on the hill and further clogging up the hill anyway those are my comments i'm very much in favor but a few things to be changed. >> commissioner hillis. >> so thanks everybody for coming and testifying i want to thank mr. miguel and others that put together the design i thought it was informative especially the presentation would be great at some point to have that discussion here i think sometimes the design gets bogged down with the height and massing and not the design the building but large buildings that are designed well and they have to come down to reducing the size and a well-designed building in you'll different sizes i agree with some of my

fellow commissioners the massing works in the neighborhoods i don't have an issue i applaud did developers for doing an a.d. 20 project we've not heard enough about that they're not asking for height and density but moving forward with a higher affordability a few questions for staff but the public passageway especially the north south passageway in our conditions of approval that remains open and public at southern times. >> wanders to the north-south alley it is subject to the code section which establishes the performance standards so staff is in the plan check look at those boundaries design and

performance standards that insures that will not leave that space unpaved and if he landscaped and maintained for the pedestrians and well light and so forth. >> how about the hours the passage ways not used by residents from people are 40 have balconies you may want to enclose them. >> they have to remain ungated and. >> open at all times. >> yes. that's the codes reference it. >> it has to remain open a good example was on the fulsome project that one state hospital through the area not gated. >> that's only for the north south not the east west but

require that on the east west and on on the north south. >> it is required to be pub assessable twenty-four hours a day. >> okay. >> that's great. >> a followup question on knocks have there been discussions about an in kind discussion with the project sponsor utility some of the fees for work on jackson playground or going out and building whatever improvements are agreed upon. >> yeah. the impact fees assessment in the staff report are the basic impact fees the concept of the park contribution is relatively a new proposal and has not been discussed nevertheless of that. >> maybe i can ask the pardon any discussion about the cac

level or everything else the it is outside of. >> the answer is there will be we haven't yet i mean technically this has to be approved by the neighborhood cac potrero hill has 4 staff 19 seats on this that is not screwdriver considered a slam dunk we're you been talking with the commissioners and community not frankly dwaus just for the gym but other things in jackson park the process that phil ginsburg hat outlined is helpful the community for the whole park in so funding for the phase one you'll implement not wait for everything to be done. >> your comment about mr. ginsburg the cost will be higher $67 million a had an you can do it cheaper.

>> it's true my understanding it if it were privately funded not have to glow the city's procurement processes but meet the city requirements that are required of any city sponsored or leased prompt but not through the procurement process he'll tell you farther and chamber. >> so i don't know as a condition to require or at least ask staff to work with the eastern neighborhoods cac or the developer and neighbors to potentially come back with an in kind all the time that addresses the parking improvements a first phase or pedestrian safety improvements to those crosswalks. >> any kind of additional improvements like adding a gym a gym is a new use whether on the project sites or in jackson park

is subject to the ceqa review so that - no commitment or approval of that can happy at this time. >> i was saying for that street. >> to mediate pedestrian safety issues it might not be a gym i don't know if a give him we certainly got that from live oaks but this is a new before the accident occurred i'd like a new give him in my school but part of jackson square improvements you know whatever comes out of new parade to phase it so some can be done through an in kind agreements we've seen successfully used before i will encourage that and definitely work to try to take that on not required and come back. >> construction impacts on the

school we've heard a lot about that from the some of the parents i guess we get your willingness to do this over the summer months i guess what happens if it doesn't happen scheduled are not what we anticipated them and can't get it done in the time. >> we have to adhere to the same protocols they've got to be deemed completely save regardless of what you do that i would hate to be in a situation where we had to defer construction for a year because we missed the summer or something we could do dismissing something we could do is look at off times not just school in session over the summer or not in session every hour we could look at trying to focus on this

off hours i have to look at this thing i'm not sure if possible. >> i want to add that the permitting premiums p there or are citizen terrors there are students at the site all year around u rounds because four of them they still needs to be protected the permitting presumed that the students are there are and adequately safeguarding them if they're there it is desirable to have a lessor effect but not a health and safety issue. >> okay. >> and then on the design issues that have been raised i'm kind of two minds we did hear during that presentation potrero hill kind of you know we try too much i think to make the building look like they are different ones they're not and actually, the projects the

one issue i'd take up there are two two different buildings and i think they maybe look too slaurng we talked about this at one point and you know don't you understand to be a little bit more industrial aesthetic and one more in the fitting in with the residential and the israel they're similar so, i mean the fact we have two buildings is guy on the more we can differentiate been those two buildings with the project sponsor to do two i'll encourage. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. >> i also want to talk about the a.d. 20 project it is really great the 20 percent affordable and 50 percent of ami we've lost the discussion of i am talking

about affordability a single person at 50 percent makes $35,000 something a year if you make minimum wage and work full-time you don't make that much if either worked minimum wage and full-time i can't apply to live in avenue, i hope the affordable housing cries in context it is really great to have 60 units at that ami i want to ask also about the demolition and remediation i saw in the response to comments a number of plans that have to be written health and safety and emissions plan and soil additional management plan are 0 these are the city or they with hespa they're with ct s c those are

the plans that need final approval draft plans in place and reflected in the draft eir but they need to come back to planning and building and through t through the district 2 before they're the building permit are finalize and approved that's the requirement of the communication marie's measures they need to be approved but coming back to the implementing agency before the work can begin. >> we're not as familiar with that process i heard the gentleman say a paeshgz b.a. can you explain how did public has assess to the plan. >> i can you know we don't usually the department of public health in the city deals with

the plan but any project sponsor is choice they can work with the toxics and substance control the ct s c has a public outreach plan and engaged and done the community survey with the neighborhood i believe meetings with the neighborhood about the clear up plan and i believe they're going to have they'll have an outreach meeting with the neighbors but i could defer to the pardon who knows. >> that there will detail of what is going to occur. >> if project sponsor. >> i'm susan be we have a draft emotion plan on file with d t s we've working closely with and the document is available now we've been meeting with them once the eir is certified

they'll start their process with community outreach and thirty day period those documents will be created to the public and take public comment brainstorming the approval. >> that's helpful we've heard concerns the dealt get worked out in the plans lastly i wanted to just make a couple of comments about open space and concur with the fell commissioners looking at the landscape and the surface are all design is moving in the green direction and make p makes that more softer in the east west and north-south pathways we want to ask staff to continue to work with the project sponsor. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much thank you to everyone that came out overseeing who were invited and most of hearing he was in

the back watching all the public comment on tv so i was here he appreciate that project one thing that's not been mentioned as much today that project has begun to rearbitrations that brought it from boxes surrounding the live oaks school and the other buildings covering up what was formally a public right-of-way to something that integrates with the surroundings and will support jackson playground and really be great for the neighborhood i know are for the school i appreciate that the muse is there but frankly the public right-of-way they're looking at out the window to a bus depot hole in the ground the project is a great improvement i know we've talked about a lot of things i won't repeat but with

the construction mitigation i want mention one public commenter wanted changes to the final eir and just to note we obviously want to have the permit planning process that goes forward will look at the sensitive facts and circumstances in the neighborhood and fit that that? not the first time around the construction of the school we all have senior centers and other types of construction like that i'm not concerned the only thing that ceqa and require that you not have construction near the sensors that's not a change i i mean, i'll recommend for the final eir a couple of final things though the public comment abruptly today and the e-mail we

got from today and i think a great project the first one on the landscaping a little bit existed know there is a lot of hard escape but from the rendering and the design especially there is some landscaping working with the staff i want to make sure that there is more sort of areas of respite i know there is back and forth on wla whether a draft or how to make that greener no matter how you do that that is how you create more communities stay in the green but able to stop and not walk throwing with the beverages we know the muse is absent different with teaches open areas and the better street plans i hope we see that one thing in public comment somehow over 3 hours of public comment i

don't think was mentioned the suggestion of having the communities shuttles great idea but not on this project other projects in the vicinity and populations from all across i think that is something that needs to go through the mta certainly there are other neighborhoods in the shipyards that cancer community shiflt to have something in place while the transit matches that is not something that is needed to be a benefit solely on this project 1601 mariposa that comment did make its way to me and then finally i definitely support of the suggestion by schifz but

also commissioner richards and commissioner moore about directing the impact fees to jackson playgrounds or there about's through the cac process or otherwise there could be i think the cuisine will have to go to the cac so definitely looking at that process is the best; right? >> any of those approaches go the cac to recommend oozing how those fees are spent. >> yeah. >> an in kind agreement before the commission. >> i'll follow-up on the what commissioner hillis said as finding. >> we can get back to that and a quick follow-up question so commissioner johnck's brought up the idea of parking and that you know we are getting close to a

one-on-one ratio the two floors of enthrone parking has not changed even though it went to three hundred and 20 to three hundred and 99 a general the projects are only those units that are 3 bedroom or larger and over one thousand square feet subject to the one by one ratio. >> speak louder. >> the project is going to the 7.5 ratio only those units 2 bedroom or larger that are subject to the ratio being requested there are specific additional finding that staff is able to make given thees contraction of the site to accommodate the garages that did get the frontages this is a special finding in the staff report so for your consideration. >> i'd like to ask the the

project architect if you had noted gotten it flgd how would you have uses that space i'm challenged in terms of making a suggestion around how you can less than those o on the parking because of the space because of - we're losing a unit to get that parking or losing on amenity not that clear trade off here other than having less parking because of transit impacts or traffic impacts or other environmental impact or so. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> the parking as is .75

complies to the zoning controls as chris townsend mentioned it is for the units that are 2 bedroom a one-on-one 39 units the trade off in the parking garage that whole site the for the right of the site a parking lot we're able to without digging put a two serious pain and suffering assessable to two streets back into a thirty foot hope in the site we've wrapped that with unit so there is a trade off. >> how about others- >> other uses so i know obviously that is ground space so above ground is a different conversation if you take out x numbers of space an opportunity to have morality or

more pdr, or what have you other active use what are the options for that underground space if we realized that parking space ratio on a one by one square footage. >> currently bike parking in 3 different spaces throughout the project the bike parking area will be able to grow a little bit like you said all hemmed in to the a garage you slope down 5 feet it is not like you can put something there that is something that would be last week, a residential unit. >> so i think in this case again, i agree with some of the

someone said i forgot who wore starting to move to an era because of ability to have park this in and of itself therefore could increase traffic i agree with that but at the same time i'm looking at commissioner richards with a followup comment not sure what other positive benefit you get if there were other options i would support it but not creating space with nothing there rather than not having a car i love commissioner richards to jump in i know it is important to him otherwise supportive of the project one last thing i love the 8020 project it was great to see more minimum housing but larger units

here. >> commissioner richards. >> great i'm jump on that the parking the excess parking on finding if i look at the parking garage behind the fitness studio is there a grade change to step down. >> it it's a two foot grade change under the parking garage to the muse and that is because the parking garage no digging the intention that you scrape the site as minimally as soon as possible and build on top top of that the muse a 2 foot drop the muse is lower yards to the typography. >> two feet i see the gives him i go to and the handicaps

they're not a lot of windows and lights not not our a good thing to have from the fitness studio that is bigger in the back. >> you will have to provide a ramp that was the way the concern with the school against the light and air with the school and with the neighborhood we've talked about loyalty with the windows and talking talked about that is no matter to every community meeting is the amount of parking that they have onsite. >> so it is counters intuitive to me the more parking the more cars the more traffic doesn't

make sense i think from the density ethnic and open space point of view your spot on from a design point of view interest is questions here the open space design well commissioner johnson and i are the two looking this thing for parking for someone else for emotion questions and the cross around the escrow for the $2 million and other things i look at this and say your 90 percent there just a little bit more time and a little bit more clarification will get this to custom by i can't so continue for to project until january 31st. >> i'll second that. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'll speak against the continuance i certainly understand commissioner richards interest in having less parking

on site but realistically the people that rents those units or you know especially those with families are going to have a car if you have a child you'll have a karaoke about the income level isle you've got to take the kid some place it is unrealistic not to have one by one parking for families we dropped the ratio slightly on some certificate smaller units like the studios not the worst thing i'm not sure a gym or imagine in the suck transparence space is of much use you know - anyway i'm going to

speak against the continuance it project has been around many, many things this is a small issue and i'm going to support it i think that is where it needs to be. >> commissioner richards says we talk out of both sides of our mouth we are a rich environment and this is absolutely like we are talk about out bossing of our mouth. >> sir, do you have a comment. >> just a couple of points of clarifications not seeking exception we're commented before exemptions they didn't include parking and if we had a emotion in the summer of 2016 we scant do with with the eir

certification there is a process we're committed to a continuance to january makes that impossible. >> commissioner hillis and yeah. i'm also against a continuance i think those issues we could address have the staff work on them and not getting more clari clarity but address through coming back with design and going back with design changes and approving the general project now as well as i mean i'd like to encourage the project sponsor to schedule demolition and the emotion activities over the summer if that doesn't happen because of scheduling come back and report to us what the process and with

the d t s c and the project measures onsite to comment on them. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. i can't support a continuance we're so close to there i agree with commissioner richards offender is sentiment on the parking i really let's say we decreased keeping the larger units by the one by one and decrease another to 25 is not clear how we will redesign the project they're not excavating to create more space i'm not sure how to change that i don't like open-end suggestions they could come back and bite us so the staff can figure out i have to you know support as is and he building the developer should look at how

the reuse frankly i don't believe that all the parking will be used so many believes in mission bay half the spaces are unused and those buildings are 100 percent full i don't know that the assumption that the car will be as of right now. >> commissioner richards. >> i'm happy to approve the eir and the project later with more clarity but certified the eir. >> second. >> second. >> your recess sending your motion. >> i'll make a motion to continue. >> over the certification and commissioner moore. >> i want to make sure if we do the motion as described in the revised motion nonresponsive us does by language approve the

project in sdierlt but we continue the design approval needs to be addressed i need the clarification i didn't write it but i want to make sure that inadvertently we're not you approving the project as exactly in front of us. >> the only motion right now to certify the environmental impact report. >> the challenge what is happening are valid ones and totals redesign requires a thoughtful exclamation because of the open space and the possible reduction in parking he building as we are reducing the parking in direct comment to the commissioner johnson we're potential creating more building

the cost of parking is huge and it is anybody's interest to provide spaces for parking if the space that is george being built cannot be used for other parking it is a financial burden and didn't pencil out including the architect if you're not deciding down for structure in close parking spaces and structures carry it are the buildings are expensive to build i'd like to find a reconsideration of the space if we can i'm not saying it is a must but thoughtfully reconsidered and a strong comment there needs be between the parks different languages i know that mr. bakers office is capable of doing that. >> call the question on the eir. >> sure.

>> on the motion to certify the environmental impact report commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes - oh, just - certifying the eir as corrected by staff. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. >> commissioner richards. >> we approve the eir to get clarity around other issues i move to continue the project approval to the next available commission not close but january 21st. >> second. >> on that motion to - shall i call that question. >> mr. bell. >> another point of legal clarification it didn't continue

but if you continue to the appeal period the board of supervisors will not hear this until april. >> sorry but the appeal period is after certification of the eir thirty days. >> i stands corrected i didn't know that. >> we're not slowing down the process on this correcting that. >> i mean, the commission could do it but slowing down the project if you deny the changes you'll talking about additional requirement review i just need to say it is not fair to say it is not slowing down the project. >> there's a motion that's been second to continue this to january 21st shall you call. >> commissioner antonini. >> no commissioner hillis san francisco our commissioner richards commissioner wu no and commissioner president fong no. >> that motion fails 2 to 5.

>> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask a question about parking i mean you've been kind of more familiar with the project and working with the communities parking didn't come up as an issue i don't know if somebody you rob a can talk about a discussion of parking and parking ratios. >> i guess you can address it. >> junior. >> my concern a code compliant parking ratio but i - so i'm renewal it is difficult not a right answer for parking we believe that less parking generates less cars on the

streets that is a strong concern and the view in our communities we're not well transit served and cars are a requirement we need a place to spore the cars we have not engaged in that question both sides are right we get the transit in place we'll not move away from the cars in the eastern neighborhood then we could more effectively advocate for the reduction of parking but now we're dealing with the ideal versus realty we trespassed lightly on that. >> i'll offer it, it is quite obvious that the parking will, served by the day and not residents with the ideas of sharing those resources if our city right in front of us with

the volunteer parents looking for parking for children not during the day commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'll think no problem with the parking being used for other purposes as suggested by commissioner president fong especially that that may not be i'd like if, in fact, is not approved is entirely utilized but used for productive use for people that must drive to the area on a daily basis so that's another good reason to keep it where it is and converted to someone else we're allowing a maximum not saying you have to have this amount of parking. >> if i may there maybe an issue with the parking being used you're getting would a

situation of a parking garage triggers an issue with the school using it it does not become a typical use. >> under a private arrangement. >> city attorney 0 would you care could weigh in. >> they don't a approve agreement. >> there was a change to the requirements that supervisor wiener put forward a couple years ago that allows the use of residential parking i don't know if it applies in this case this is not a condition of approval they should talk to each other. >> maybe a logical idea it has to be operational. >> can i keep the floor i'd like to make a motion to adopt the ceqa finding that's our second 0 motion. >> we've not done that part yet. >> that was not part of eir 3

straight things and the second is adopting the ceqa finding. >> is there a second. >> could we please finish the discussion before that we were talking about parking we want to make a puric comment about parking that - >> still make a motion to approve the item 7 a. >> i didn't hear it. >> second. >> second. >> thank you commissioner moore an parking. >> i want to speak about the difficulties with mick public and private parking calls for the developer no residential garage where residents are comfortable having an unknown amount of people enter a garage in the interests of residents to have their own parking separate it from any other shared

facilities that are condominiums and others new built buildings there is a discussion of where you place of car share this is a serious issue i'll not want to explores a requirements unless it is architecturally. >> this was not a proposed condition. >> i know that. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i was going to make a motion to approve the project item 7 b but with a following condition or amendments one on the condition that the 14 will schedule a remediation activities in the summer when the school population is lower and if that's not schedule during that time of the year

that the project sponsor will report back to us or the staff will report back to us on the outreach and approval that is done by the whatever that mitigations and the project sponsor will provide updates reflecting them in the vicinity regarding emotion activities and take the other suggestion point project sponsor shall consult with live oak schools with the mitigation plan i'd like to add that we encourage staff work with the project sponsor and neighbors sfmta and the rec and park department on potential in kind agreement to make improvements to jackson square and any pedestrian improvements

on the intersections around live oak school and that also the staff report back to us on design changes and continue to work with the developer specifically to further differentiate between the two separate buildings and add additional mr. sanchez and green space to the open space. >> second. >> commissioner hillis can i clarify you included it in the e-mail outreach if there's a new new contact or liaison. >> yeah. >> that's the standard. >> wanted to make sure and whatever pedestrian safety during construction. >> i just want to clarify the part of rtc process we made the amendments for that the construction plan and there is requirements that they outreach with live oak and

all the other schools as part of development of the construction plan. >> okay. thank you. >> so there's a motion and second. >> eerie apologize i don't write that fast after the in kind agreement. >> about design that staff continue to work with the project sponsor on the design of the project. >> i believe it is in the cu. >> kind of with the specific you know specific issues around furthers differentiate between the east and west building on the project as well as additional green space in the public passageway. >> staff recommended a slight change that recognizes the design guidelines put forwarding. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to make a comment to the commission and public i want to acknowledge the architect to

this package addresses at complete information about the use of project and how it depicts i want to hold this up this is a very, very good example this is a minimum of this commission as well the public needs to understand the project. >> commissioner richards. >> i want to amend the motion the staff wants to elevate the interim controls to a cu before i take them up think that. >> it is not a recommendation. >> i thought small business said - no okay. >> commissioner antonini. >> in terms of the my second to the motion for 7 b did we or did we not include the $2 million contribution to sf rec and park to be held no

escrow can quay do that we can't do that. >> a couple of points of clarification that above and beyond so to clarify on the impact fees the impact fees and they're in the neighborhood plans specified with several uses one can't use transit impact fees for parks the only in kind is the open space indexing i don't know what that number but the only kind to use to do this. >> mentioning we're hearing it as a findings. >> they've made that offer and commission i don't think to be flip antd or antd but accident curriculums be adopted we're proposing i recognize that the staff recognizes and uses them in the final design of the

building. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there are 2 separate motions that have been second the first is to adopt the ceqa as adopted by staff correct shall i call them separately on the first 0 motion august commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner wong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and the second being the large project authorization the motion to approve this matter with conditions as amended by commissioner hillis that the sponsor is encouraged to perform mitigation during off school hours and if not able to perform

to return to the commission with an update second to provide weekly updates to anyone requesting as much regarding the emotion activities, third to consult with live oak school for the construction mitigation of plan and fourth to pursue an in kind agreement with rec and park and dpw on jackson park and pedestrian safety mitigation measures and improvements and fist the sponsor shall work with the staff on designs specifically to differentiate within between the east and west building with the open space did i capture everything. >> yes. >> the design guidelines. >> and recognize the skyline guidelines. >> just one clarification i believe we were talking about a construction transportation plan

as well as to all construction. >> construction and is transportation. >> construction and transportation plan during construction. >> commissioner antonini. >> it is understood that is motion complained what is before us the one area, no it in the paperwork there will, 23 bedroom units and he assuming that is what the being approved. >> it says 10 in the paper. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like clarification on the scion of additional of green space not as much addition because the project provided it but a rendering of green space with hard escape i want to be precise. >> yes. >> can you clarify that in the

motion. >> so that will be the design of landscaping sooeps. >> the balance between hard and soft scape. >> commissioner wu. >> so to commissioner antonini's question i think that the project in front of us recognizing recognizes 10 bedrooms and the question is from the pardon talked about 23 bedrooms i understand there is maybe an environmental issue not approve that that way today. >> in terms of converting 10 of the proposed unit from liens 3 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms any additional environmental impact of that if their units under 2 bedrooms being converted will be extremely minimum and our

environmental analysis covered a large project that would be well within the issue. >> commissioner johnson. >> real quick i don't know we can have a finding that will be recent change to the project so not contrary clear how they'll go from one to 20 not clear of how 10 to 20 they will do. >> so commissioner johnson i'll clarify under 2 bedroom units not convert any 210 east to 3 only studios or ones. >> do we have a final unit. >> we're still refinancing the plans to side that lined we might lose a few units but certain not gaining any. >> we want to add as a finding

the developers agree to again from 2 to 3 bedrooms. >> okay. >> as a findings excellent. >> so the maker of the motion is okay with having a finding. >> yeah. >> second or two. >> so that will recognizing 10 to 23, 2 bedroom units. >> from 10:00 to 3:00 bedrooms to 23 bedroom units. >> okay. let's try it again. >> there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the large