not a hearing it is going through the motion we've had a lot of that in the city so i would basically is a you have your operating on an eastern neighborhoods area plan that is magnificentlyly 0 up to date it is based on false information not the reality of the mission right now if you have a plan that talks about massive displacement and you need to address it in the eastern neighborhoods plan you can't do that thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> general public comment on this item not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> director rahaim. >> thank you i want to first of all, thank everyone for coming i want to just say a couple of things particular to the folks in the missions we've been meeting being and i know having fruitful

conversations i found it personally educational and glad we're in the process i want to also thank claudia for this this has been before and after before and after for several months want to reiterate claude why i said we need to do this and a number of projects in the pipeline i want to recognize staff is also person in saying we've adopted the eastern neighborhoods plan i go that plan was adopted loneliness 10 years ago staff said in 2008, that is circumstances that have changed the cost of housing is taken us by surprise and things at a pace not anticipated so it is time to take a pause and a long time this in a way that allows you to pay a higher level of security new just a reminder

the commission hadn't done this and adopt our own controls that are not legislation you can't change the basically perimeters of code address can't do the setback and change the affordability but require an extra level of security new i do want to call your attention to a couple of things in conversation a couple of specific changes that the staff and community mentioned i want to mention one the community felt strongly that while this is actually requiring the developers to submit studies we have initially not required thirng anything in the analyzed we're approaching at this time i know that staff will krirng t it is a lot important work but some level of analysis and give you a tack on the results of those

studies number one and number 2 one of the basic perimeters is providing 33 percent affordable and a couple of things as i look at this it make sense to make overseeing things the same consist so 1/3rd we're asking for affordable and one for land use make sense the community is suggesting to us that land parcels for 100 percent projects are one of the priorities for some of the larger a projects in the pipeline and the dedication that provide parcels for 100 percent affordable we'll ask to you to consider and at request to have staff present at meetings i've heard that over

several months we're looking forward that and asked that some staff trying to figure out a way for staff to come to the meetings for larger projects and in the budget requests is a request for an alternated position devoted to that purchase we e purpose we will have staff attended meetings and the other thick in the budget request a substantial sum for a detailed study of rent-controlled housing stock and how timely true obviously facts in the rent-controlled housing stock so we're proposing a substantial budget request you'll see in a couple of weeks with our budget proposal to do a detailed study of the rent-controlled with that, we that concludes my presentation. and urge you to take action and

to reminder you that the mission 2020 plan will be coming to you in march i think for distribution hearing and hopefully in april for adoption. >> thank you, thank you very much. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you for staff and all commenters who commented on this important subject i tend to be supportive of the comments from the pack because i find it really bad to change rules in mid-stream two projects that are being do evaluated and filing dates in 2009 so i think that is not a good thing to do and i don't like singling out one neighborhood the many eastern neighborhoods we've approved to have those additional controls, however, i do you know maybe inclined to vote favor in favor for one reason if we set up reasonable perimeter and if they're met

those projects are approved fairly easily that maybe nephew on my part seeing rules to meet the so-called demand and then there is a reason why it didn't work anyway it is work or worthy a try the focus like wiener one of the speakers talks about the changes occurred in the mission the negative ones displacement and other things these those are a result of factors other than building more housing they're actually a result of not building enough housing i think labor if my statistics are correct they were only 75 new unit built in the advisory committee mission district including the affordable housing i'll check the statistics very low not a spriepts that the pressures on the existing stock are greatest in the mission and

other neighborhood because there is so little new buildings being built and people want to live there you can't set rules tell people who can this or live in a neighborhood and who can't that's one of the problems and then so other things a couple of others comments on the pdr issue i think that is important to establish what would be considered a pdr use now there maybe buildings that are zoned pdr technically one m zone for many years and things were done at they could be downey done the reasons turned into the other used for 57 or 15 years nobody changed the zoning that was not necessary now we'll challenge the rules we have to set a time

limit how far back that was pdr if it is an in active use that use has to be protected and relocated somewhere in san francisco and not necessarily in the mission district but we're lugd businesses out of san francisco because things are expensive and a lot of the pdr uses would be better loomed or located where the square footage represent is the not as high like near chalet or other places for pdr in any case we have to make some kind of a timeframe for consideration for what to arbitrary has been in the last decade or so and you know not necessarily have a replacement pdr for something that hadn't been pdr for 15 years the other thing that bothered me in the staff report talks about the larger and medium projects

happening for total housing production and housing preservation every week, we get a dashboard that tlufls exactly those things not specifically in the mission district but i think that a staff can adapt that easily enough to give us that information i don't see the need for every single project go through the same thing again and again when staff can do it or collectively like the dashboard we get the report on the mission to kind of answer those questions to avoid adding more process and time to the approval budgets another thing that is quoted often by some of the advocates for these controls are this kirsten study if 2007 i'd like to see i yant i can't believe this thing is factual every time

you build you require 19 to 25 units of live and work housing i'm not sure what level of affordable housing are we talking about the regional impact or you know is it jobs can i, understand jobs are created by filled by existing businesses over and over filled on a regional basis often this will be part of generation of impact but the you know the gardener or the electrician or whoever work region not afford by keeping in business by having their business in one neighborhood i want more detail that is being used i'm not entirely sure it is liability people come from all over thirty percent of my paint or patients come outside of san francisco

only a fair small percentage like 20 or 25 percent reside in a mile or two of the office we have to look at those kinds of things other things talk about the maximum debt now i thought we're looking for family sized housing congressman as many units both a small space shouldn't be a perimeter that necessarily prohibit a project from going forward we need appropriate sized unit specifically in the mission district we have a lot of families we need family sized projects a cough codify other thoughts i think as i mentioned neighborhood changed and historically in san francisco the western edition and the south beach and soma one neighborhood after another over the course of 15 years it is

changed it's economic and ethically and somewhat in build form you can't freeze things in time there is changes we have to protect the people that will there now and want to stay there and i think can be done if it is crafted properly i am in favor of the 33 percent per land dedication as well as more affordable housing as a threshold above which the project will not be heard i think 9 months it is good trial period whether to rescind the policies in place i'll defer to staff to see if those are in conflict with each other if they are we'll have to reconcile the two staff preapplication meetings good idea and navigate i'd like to be there i've attend a few you see what happens and the

truth really is a lot of times misrepresentations occur before us after i've been at the same meeting that was sad so it is a good thing to have this kind of thing and i think moderate sized projects don't need to epiglottis conditional use process i understand putting it on the larger projects for this even if this flies in the face of what we passed in the eastern neighborhoods and mission the mission district when we tried to fight for 10 years to make rules the rules are not good enough and the productions of housing is not causing the problem i think those are the mine things inch think in here and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but properly crafted those controls may have some benefits.

>> commissioner wu. >> thanks. >> i could be supportive of some form of those today the devil is in the details it somalia's the suggestion from staff is to include the staff review the information submitted this is a good direction and treat the 33 percent level i believe i heard staff saying no need to rescind the previous policy in conjunction with one another. >> to the question of the language other than public safety heath i understand a state law that may require that putting that language in at the at least i'd like to see the reference to the eastern neighborhoods community impact

assessment that is a piece of work that was done to talk about what the public health needs i'm open to include the project and the 18 months a discussion for the commission. >> commissioner moore. >> i first time to thank staff for carrying this as strongly and consist it is difficult particularly after seeing the november outcome of the november election keeping this in focus it is quite difficult because you have to deal with a lot of disappointments on people's part i would support a number of points made in this interim legislation and glad they're keeping it alive including the staff preoperative it is absolutely a fundamental necessary it gives more

transparent and accountability i'm interested in the land dedication of 33 percent i'd like to note and it might have been applied the land dedication is in the mission. >> there are sites in the mission and the requirement they decade a dedicate a piece of laundry. >> some people might dedicate that in lieu of and say we have another one that site should be within the mission i assume that was what was alluded to. >> yeah. >> the timeframe of 9, 12 or 18 months 9 seems short 18 might be too long because of the mission action plan i don't want to see any constrictions for the

interim controls i want to make sure we're creating a critical balance 9 months is good short and lastly i'm concerned about invoking the language proposed for public health and safety as written i think this commission didn't have experience in the metrics of what that does and doesn't mean but you for the reference to the san francisco language about public health and safety we'll understand we have not yielded much used the healthy neighborhood tool in the last 3 years it is become harder to use and for example, we have unlearned how to use it.

>> commissioner richards. >> interestingly enough let me read something to you december 3rd young latinos leaders in the mission district for thirty years the heart and soul the latino communities are to preserve it as a hispanic constrict as the others have seen this they've building that the latino flavor is delatitude 1990 it is going on this is in november the chronicle and i was floored to see that issue come back as far in terms of number of requesters we're talking about 25 years the time is right to adopt those today let me make a couple of comments for anyone to say we should not be be changing the planned we've cast in concrete

in 2008, and another market octavia plan we are thinking of upcoming zoning the hub we have a presentation it is disingenuous so the directors comment are on target circumstances cvs have changed and we're to respond to the changes and adopting interim controls is appropriate for this plan today, i think commissioner moore's comment the 8 months seems two short and 18 months is too long so my proposal 12 months give us enough time and the reports should be coming up come out of latest spring early summer that gives us a cushion for the admission 2020 plane other things we have going on i know this is the 6 meeting we've nailed it staff thank you you've

taken the district comments and crystallized them into something we work with and i like the pipeline i know that to the point of the projects, however, the level of review and the documentation necessary is really what is the quality product no a conditional use with a necessary and desirable but we'll make a decision that will help us make a better decision. >> somebody brought up the 20 unite or units thresholds but the 25 cut off points for unit likewise, the projects were 20 unit maybe director can help? >> i don't remember the specifics of 25 by the similar circumstances and parts of city. >> it was the sireers conversation estimating 9 previous the large project

authorization threshold was 25 thousand square feet i mean it could be 20 or 19 unit. >> okay. >> it didn't address the units but - >> yeah. trying to translate twov 20 reasonable person 25 units. >> great but the projects for larger project we're actually requiring the conditional use units an approval can you help me there. >> i know there a different route. >> it's counterintuitive this is emry rogers the smaller and medium sized projects the review that is associated with the large project authorization is limited in scope and barely limited to the vision plan the conditional use is aboard and necessary and desirable and i

was looking at the overall decision and that was pretty much the february at previous hearings from shawn and on the cu is burdensome. >> for projects yeah. i'm note and support is it the meeting in projects are about half it is exactly the same impact i understand the burden and not put good many burdens we have for developers i like the staff at the presupportive that he meetings that make sense i do support the rental stabilized housing study the project kind of is on that we need better data an rent-controlled units i like the decade change i think to the nexus study and to commissioner antonini's point from where i

understand correct me if i am wrong staff what the basis we charge for the fee it is city policy and should be true and correct and out there for public just the scrutiny a demand for every affordable unit you go to a coffee shop and the person that pours your coffee might be generating the need for that unit they live too far away they don't have enough people for southern income levels the work they need putting the eastern neighborhood assessment reference is a good idea i have a question for staff on the health and safety word verbiage if you can go maybe give us the give you a little bit of background what we'll do >> i think that is an item worth discussion as you may know commissions your heard from the

public they want to you consider the general plan that is actually before you every time you take a action part of the resolution includes the comparability with the general plan and the impact of the section 101 of the planning code and we weigh those projects against those plans that other was meant to drawing your attention to other law in the explicitly in the resolution but does always ply of multi housing unit and the housing affordability explicit undermine our general plan it is something not explicitly in other resolution not necessary for it to be in the resolution other than it helps you and the public understand the other laws for the projects. >> thank you. >> i said have two other things to add for the fellow

commissioners to consider in the under 4 under the controls two section two c and d i would include a note in there we talked about do morrison study it has something that says overseeing market rate housing will require those many affordable units get it out there in plain view that is a need for them and any part of needs toad be creating that need i'll add that in there and in the housing production as well i'll add some type of a small area that talks about within a quarter of a mile of the project what kinds of displacement like the ellis act so we see the people moving in and buying houses and the people, evicted to said what is happening

economically in the neighborhood two additional changes thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you also supportive and moving forward today with this over the 678 or seven months we've passed the policy and i think we want to make sure we are actually going to be doing something that the useful now in 2020 is coming up and things that the legislation hopefully, will be seeing in the next 6 or seven months yeah, we need to be doing something sooner than later so i have a couple of questions some of them are upgraded changes hopefully, we'll look at it as we move forward. >> sure. >> lean forward. >> okay, here we go that's all right. i want everyone to hear me

all right. so in no particular order so the first in terms of some questions slash changes we are requiring some additional information if he were to pass the interim controls from both medium and large sized project i have a comment only the first is on the affordable housing production sort of sect of information especially for medium sized projects i'll ask the commission i mean, i, be supportive of it more information is less than or better than less i question how useful it is because what it says discuss whether or not the affordable housing could be provided on site 0 through various means public finance and money and housing trust fund and other financial incentives and

the state law or other legislation we passed and i think that that is i don't want to put a top metrological i think all technically is yes but, find new money or produce an incentive or developer in many, many cases could tuesday morning the bonus law or pass a local bonus legislation in other incentive but whether or not they tampering of that and whether or not we should consider that in the approval of the project i'm not sure i'm not sure it is useful for us to get into what can sometimes devolve cerebrothe project not sure that is helpful i will actually want to see a little bit of

destruction whether or not you agree i'm happy to keep it in under more information better than yes. >> technically you could more incentives but what i'm not sure very much the second is on the tenant displacement it asks again additional information of medium and large sized projects whether the rent board we had a presentation if the rent board and asked them a lot of pointed questions with who information and to they do their best to track it they don't have great information on the buy outs owners are offered a buy out this f that possibility public school these things happen under the table here i'm give you a one ak and they don't report

that the rent board guy was saying that i am not an advocate not useful so i think we need to keep that in there we need to have it with a grain of salt and asking whether or not they're having beauty outs we'll get accurate information and when looking at whether the approval project we don't have the same information every project on that fact some project may have it most of them not based on the reality how that works similarly on i believe this is the large projects only we asked for information other than economic pressure and again provide the information about the hours for

the evaluation how 9 effect of affordability so indirect displacement a nice idea not sure we'll have consistent information and even we have it i feel we're going we'll be questioning the basis for every time rather not have pieces of information on its face none able to agree so on the economics pressure i actually would ask we strike that one and rely more heavy on the total housing production and each other production information ask and take the economic pressure off the table because it can't add to the conversation this is the 3 point on reporting additional information from

these projects on terms of size i don't think we have i'll make the comment 234089 a lot of argument but why the 25 make it 20 a certain number of projects i'll argue to keep it at 25 one a moving target and we've seen smaller projects at that level and the other thing once you start to go smaller and smaller again, the information is less and less useful for example, affordable housing production when. >> have a building 15 or 20 units is difficult to have once that hours have a conversation about the land dedication you're talking about small lots it is challenging conversation to have i'd like to keep that conversation to where the projects were actually really

relevant and meaningful to the neighborhood it is to where we're talking about a kickoff of things here port the staff meeting sounds like something in the budget i'll support is it be clear why the staff is there the meeting you may say it is marketing we don't get accurate information there are i don't want to mix up 9 developers are project sponsors responsibility to prevent information to the public with the city's responsibility to also present the information to the public and make sure we go through our process i definitely see a contention project people trying to super 150ed never mind of the planner with what will you say it is the project manager responsibility when you don't believe what they're saying come to the planner on the case come to the commission

we'll talk about those hears i want to make sure those things are very, very clear different purposes in terms of housing disapproval we might might have answered 24 from the response of ann marie and the questions we've heard strike it we compile with the state law whatever it applies to what we're doing as far as the city of san francisco u city and county law and not sure why we're calling on and on out one thing it didn't change anything about our ability to say yes, so i'll say take it out pdr so 24 fwoz to another reporting requirement on yeah - so we asked for

additional information about the displacement and demolition of certain uses this point was brought up by commissioner antonini touched on that if you have a lot where there was not accordingly, you saw it for years and years and years i was the last business was a generation g ago but tenants making use of use i think where we can clarify it on c's we ask for when we're doing occasion of pdr space or if you're going to displace it for inventory of similar uses i wanted to see a clarification of similar uses of tenant or something like that you know, i won't want to say if you have inventory similar

people say 20 years ago a automobile repair shop now we need an inventory of how many repair shops are there right now but keep to the current tenants a b and d are the current use for additional information how you, your raping that the relocation that works those are the changes i would recommend in terms of length i'm definitely not 18 months sounds like the conversation is not in this direction i support the 18 months because i come from the school we see the 2020 the information in march another six to eight weeks we have other legislation that has been coming to us in and we'll have the

opportunity a upgrade the sgrmdz 18 months is enough time and to know whether or not we're moving forward on other pieces of legislation and policy you know, i think extend it beyond that gives us a construction to say well, we, take longer than because of grrmdz it is something that is unfair to franklin to the neighborhood and to the city so finally protecting not going to let this drop i think it is one as commissioner richards said people we're on tv people like coming here yeah you know we have to continue to look at other things as well 0 outlet types of evictions move in those are the things are has nothing to do with with the things we're talking about the community is part of conversation otherwise they're not talking about how to

protect those people outside now and even when they do the new development is not the problem but how to displace people are there thanks and the changes will - >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you. >> first, i echo some of the sentiments commissioner johnson talked about and i appreciate our comments it is a complicated issue we too often get down to where a project is approve or disapprove so i'm glad we're meaningful to talk about others percentages i think we should been talking about 18 months ago instead of moratoriums but trying to increase increase the production of affordable housing through bonds or leveraging

commercial development and things like small site acquisition and how rent-controlled stocking can go along the same lines we're getting somewhat away from the discussions over the past year and moving on to a more productive avenue to increase the affordable housing or the percent i'm supportive supportive of the interim controls i like the changes generously i don't view them a tool to stop unless displacement of actually pdr things we can make projects better like increasing the percentage, i.e., mean increasing the affordable housing in replace lost uses

some specific questions on let's see the specifics the timing that was braibt brought up i agree 9 months is too short 12 to 15 months a while before not only the mission plan is approved by legislation that will be evolved from if plan when it comes to fruition can i get a sense from staff whether it is adopted or legislation that enacts the plan. >> you'll see when we have a plan the measures of the programs and tools it will take this time some were actively rolling out but others we need to endear up legislation it is going to be this is at plan and this is what we're doing. >> i know there is a bit of a disagreement but not 9 by 15 is

reasonable i on that ground with sxoks strike that with the disapproval of housing we'll come up with whatever findings so i'll strike it section from it in the studies again commissioner johnson taunted i agree with her on the large projects from the developer is doing the study their not going to tell us their project is causing displacement so i on the studies have useless so i don't know if frs there is a way i'm sure their spend 5 or $10,000 to underwrite the studies we're doing on rent control again

we've been in the debate whether or not now housing causes displacement i see the studies being done like rent control in better avenues to produce more affordable housing those are more productive studies so you know, i think i can go either way but get rid of of the studies but find something to replace them that are objective studies who people are going the inclusive like choosing between fox news or nbc do you want to comment. >> sure i can comment emry rogers we anticipate first and foremost not a need for the developers to do an economic need or hire the consultants the

controller's office report we've had a series report by the uc berkley and as well as the mission specific that the department did can he used a basis we'll be pulling out references and making them as applicable to the project for the most part. >> so the specific information about the project is useful but the broader studies people can key off who is the existing studies. >> and on the land dedication option can we priek that lane dedication option or at least because again, i think you want to encourage i'm with others to encourage the land dedication but it results in 33 percent explores so by definition does

that. >> the amount of area under the option various in the mission by zoning district we're going to exempt the interim controls any conflict that provides anything loneliness 33 percent affordable we've heard the 32 percent is an affordability level that is so you get by prop k that was in your responsibility to do do landlord use controls you need to meet the minimum codes so there is agree minimum 35 percent you'll need to do do higher needs to it if you choose that. >> we add it to that dedication of land beyond the that that results in 33 percent affordable housing. >> yeah. >> could we audio that. >> i'm going to look at the

city attorney we were suggesting to be more simpler that any project that is needing a 33 percent affordability amount of the hours actually any of the options afford through section 214 under planning control. >> i wouldn't mind calling out land dedication we want to encourage the developers to do can we add providing that land dedication with the dedication of 33 percent. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles yeah. i think you should be specific that is only found in section 419.5 and 6 so it is not specifically included in the general provisions that the inclusionary housing and if you want to have

the threshold of 33 percent i don't have that table in front of me but the land use is 33 percent. >> the code flo i don't have it in front of me but the detailed chart. >> the amount avenue land that can accommodate 33 percent whatever the percentage of the principle project as affordable. >> what's the percentage and. >> what you're suggesting it provides 33 percent of the units. >> correct yeah. yeah. >> so that's not the law. >> i mean, if land dedication is you need to provide x percent of the landmass. >> no, i don't have the code

in front of me we talked that at the da it is it results in a percentage of - it says they needed - there is a certain size and tier to this different tiers quality to thirty percent units if their smaller are 35 or 40 so it traffic signals them into units that's generally - >> not the land based on the unit. >> correct. >> so are you recommend we say instead of thirty, 33 percent. >> so the one option is not an option. >> correct. >> okay and then the issue about pdr like medium sized project and their displacing it came up a

couple of times the pdr use is it defined where it is active or has been active. >> it is not defined but you can define did in one of the sections we have sorry i'm trying to look at look for that if it is a principally permitted use we typically do have those definitions. >> if it has not been active even though in a pdr building and i mean there are other rules we're trying to preserve pdr for displacement of existing pdr so can you help us would it be appropriate it's been telegraph hill used in the last two years we can't make the time two

short. >> you can use the threshold conditional use as a threshold something has been vacant for 3 years but if so a threshold of a 3 unit threshold you could use that. >> okay. >> i'll try to craft a motion to see if we can get an early start i move to approve the adopt the interim controls with the modifications of the additional moichgsz that we increase the time there are in effect 15 months and again, we, talk about that. >> we include a existence for pdr an actual use within the last two years i don't want to put in or this in the resolution but encourage the staff to be

here in meetings for leaguer projects and given staff comments i won't move to eliminate the - those kind of broad studies. >> second. >> we have - >> so under the land dedication option that results in 33 percent of units being affordable and strike that entire photograph no. of. >> city attorney. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles again on the land dedication only one type of project that has a thirty percent requirement and all the rest are 35 percent or more up to 40 percent we want to say 33 percent or weather you know anytime of 33 percent or

whatever is currently required i don't think the the president to reduce the requirement. >> correct. >> i guess we're allowing thirty percent up to 33 percent and the other ones stay at 35. >> i defer to the decoration we'll exempt them in the interim controls if they're doing the city's goal of 35 percent. >> the project results in a minimum of 33 percent in a number of affordable units and and then from the requirement was 35 or 40 percent. >> the landlord dedication option we'll encourage. >> commission more clarification on - you can turn your mike on. >> i want to ask commissioner hillis if we were advised for pdr and how it is i don't know

if this is what she said. >> item i think again, we're trying to avoid displacement and you know the timeline for a project to be approved and were you might displace it to me 3 years sounded long that's why i put in two years. >> second. >> i'm sorry commissioners that was one other item the staff wanted clarifications two alternative your case report requires the developer to submit the information we've been discussing and on the overhead was a the alternative we could get the overhead on sfgov staff looks at the materials i'll talking about the second bullet point and add language under the staff review the planning department staff will review and get the information and provide an analysis on that information to you so we can accept it as

submitted or also looking at it with our assessment we'd like some direction. >> did you say you want to include in our motion. >> yeah. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. it is understood in the same sense we would allow the project sponsor to utilize existing studies to answer those questions maybe coming before them as far as housing production production of affordable housing they don't have to do their own easement this comes up and as far as displacement pressures again that is pretty conceptually or conjectural i don't know why they'll have to have a story

their displacing people the study by the ted egan kind of talks about that all right. that's understood in the motion they'll not have to produce those things and let's see i think everything else was fine can i ask mr. - sir answer me from there 15 months is that going to work for you guys? >> i'll borrow from someone else's statements you don't i can't remember but the short time but we don't have it, too short 12 or 15 i think it could create a process.

>> i'll tend to be supportive of 15 presumably that is mission 2020 in place by the time and give them more time i think i'm in support the only thing i'll ask has nothing to do with with that particular thing although a basis for the affordable production i'd like to see a copy of the kristen mary's den study from 2007 and see the connection between units being generated and the need for housing units i see the jobs being agenda it is a local or regional demand where it the connection and wouldn't inherit if we have someone commissions to do one that is more current this is almost 10 years old. >> the controversial study is

the required nexus study we have to do to support the housing program programming that was done in 2007 we're not complete yet we just want is to we're in the process that was why may i have a motion commissioner richards mentioned it in the actual language i'll not recommended recommend we're trying to nail it and not putting a number would be a useful part of exercise and if members of the public could refrain from secondary conversations we'll appreciate that thank you. >> so, anyway this is important i'd like to see that revision and hopefully it will answer a lot of the questions i've raised how regional how close that housing is to be not part of this approval today. >> may i have a motion on the

timing it very well be that permanent legislation will come forward from the 2020 and from the commissions purview to rescind a portion of those from the permanent controls were to address the issue so that is certainly those are totally under your control. >> commissioner richards. >> i have a couple of friendly amendments one that we take the 3 years pdr from the date of the hearing back instead of two years. >> a clarification when you measured the 3 years is it from our approval dates or when the application was submit? >> i think what claudia was talking about what we consider the building vacant and the last non-conforming that is a band of

use but not the right used to be abandoned the last legally permitted use unless you define it. >> the one we had last week, a shop that applies we have some on the projects we know that were pdr they left a year ago preponderance of the evidence the approval from the dates date of the approval 3 years back. >> on the approval date. >> right that gives us the up to three years ago. >> is that okay. and and the second amendment to add the two bits of information on mary's den with the request through the displacement rates within a quarterly quarter of a mile gives us a complete picture on the pressure pressure. >> commission repeat

provide the displacement rates in a quarter of a mile radius in section four 2 c that's it. >> can i ask on displacement are reasking the developers to provide that information. >> should be included in the report. >> from the department. >> yeah. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay thank you just a couple of quick questions sxhifgdz commissioner hillis in our motion what did you say not make changes or make changes. >> i think staff said that my concern they can use the existing reports whether the controllers report but asking folks go out and make up new reports it is fine with the

reports. >> cool thank you. the second question on the going back on the pdr the current motion i think that is two years did you mean 3. >> 3 from entitlement date and i know but he's not accepted the changes. >> i was talking about 2 proclamations back i think that from approval back is fine. >> okay. >> sure okay that's totally fine and then we are including staffs refuse striking item 67 and then the displacements rate i'm okay with the radius it is clear from the department and woj one more time we get it but continued to get better information we'll not have a levied.

>> the quarter mail for both projects or the larger projects. >> both. >> very good. >> the other mention i have just a reference to the housing balance rotator report from the district the report it is very easy to get. >> is that okay. >> yes. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm in support of moving this forward the only thing i'll ask it requires more scrutiny from obvious this will have additional things to consider prosecute to the full extent of the law i'll ask that staff add did boundary map any other data it is substantive moving forward to any staff report as it come forward that is stwrag work but it is only forwarding again for us to have to figure out each

time we begin at the allegation edge of somewhere it will make it easier on us that's not part of the motion on a reminder. >> commissioner antonini with a 3 year pdr use from the day of approval that will not be a factor but made aware of non-pdr non-come forward use pdr spaces have been something else for many years the way this is written that will come into play that's not - it is good to know what is operated on site whether or not it is a permitted use. >> commissioner richards. >> question for staff so the intent of the history of the pdr use give you a little bit of background i'll weighing 3 years from the hearing date from the

entitlement of the approval and the original notation what is more effective to achieve the goal you've set ousted or out to achieve. >> i think if you don't two years from. >> the application. >> it could ended up being the same because it might take a year for the project to come to you it is knowing two or three years assisted a good threshold is the property bought or turned over it is probable better to capture. >> the goal so catch instances where the developers are anticipating the action and informally so the idea to go back to catch the 3 years it is said it is essentially roughly the same

the smaller projects it will be longer than they don't take as along to get in front of you. >> thank you. >> 3 years from entitlement i'll jooerp use the word entitlements. >> make sense. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there is a a motion to adopt the interim controls as amended to last duration of 15 months to include within the pdr section the definition it includes actually uses within a 3 year time period to encourage the staff to be present at large projects preapplication their land dedication provisions result in a minimum of 33 percent or a minimum whatever of affordable

housing to delete section 6, to include a study on ellis and o m i displacement within a quarter of a mile to be included in the medium and large projects within the report of district and finally including the staff amendment regarding staff submitted information did i capture everything there. >> if it is understood the use of existing studies to answer the questions are applicable. >> that was not prohibited in the controls >> it is included in the draft language and the existing studies we can use. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner richards commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7 to zero.

>> show a we more often commissioners that places us on item 10 the downtown area plan map related to the transbay plan one that is a general plan amendment only the ethics commission. >> kim with the planning department staff the the item before you today is to initiate the general plan amendments of the map 5 of the downtown plan the map in the map 5 of the downtown plan that are 6 lots in the transbay development area zone one out of sync with the current height limit that are in the zoning map and the did you notice area is the only area in

the city that has a health map in the downtown in the general plan and in addition to the zone height map we have for the entire city in 2006 when the city amended the redevelopment plan for the transbay development area there were amendments associated with that redevelopment of the general planning plan that map was all the time to be reflect the changes in 2006, however, 6 of the lots in that zone one the transbay development plan were left out of not notation that happened in the map and we're here to initiate to rezone the 6 lots to sync with the existing height limit basically 6 lots

that existing zoning height limit is three hundred feet this map shows 200 and then the the general plan the department is asking for another plan for block one and in viewing of that staff not the plan is out of sync so this week we initiate those amendments and these amendments are dependent from our review the block one height change i'll come to you in a month or so february 25th so the maps are where you approve the general plan for the block one. >> and basically 5 of these

lots out of civil grand jury are in block one and the other 6 lot is block two. >> so the motion to initiate the block plan up to sync with the current fixing height limit and the city zoning code thank you. i'm here for any questions. >> opening it up for public comment. (calling names) >> my name is jerry datson i live in the neighborhood and i release their not taking final action today on this mattered but it is paving the way for 4 hundred and 26 foot tower to go

only that site on fulsome the neighborhood is concerned and we think that we would like to express our concern what is happening in this area in 2005 the agency adapted the transbay plan they raised the height in 2 to three hundred needed for the arbitrary but it was for this is the height limit and it has specific plots for specific height this downtown plan the transit calls for the buildings to blend in with the existing height and character of the neighborhood at 4 and 6, feet the proposal will not meet any of these things definitely out of character and high

and then so most of areas building in the area are much lower one exception the gap building is 200 and 14 at the highest point and221 mean and 3 4g they are different i brought a just a brief map to show you what it will look like that comes if as you can see the tower the strange tower being proposed it will be really out of - right here just would be out of character with the neighborhood at three hundred feet to not as bad as the 4 hundred feet it also it is still at all and sits up there but at least not as much as an eye soar other 200

and 36 feet it is important to take into consideration i hope that is not paving the way also this will definitely shade the park it is were on city land it is illegal because of sunshine ordinance it has a loophole through the developer is striking trying to sneak throb we're opposed to that. >> i think that it is important to keep the waterfront area friendly to families and friendly to park this project i think will have a negative effect on the neighborhood so we ask you to keep this in mind this is not a good addition to san francisco thank you very

much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm steve a resident of san francisco relatively recent an thirty plus years no los angeles i hope you don't hold that against me, i'm here to talk about the one 60 fulsome building and spot zone the city planning as said spot zone a bad idea the guidelines of 2005 with the transbay state that quote variations from the plan with the development hurt controls shall only be granted because the unique constraint restraints and other treerld circumstances applicable to the property granting the vacation must be in harmony and the design of the development and the development guidelines shall not be material and detrimental

to the public welfare and injures to the vicinity no variations shall be given for the height and bulk regulations or the parking allowances unquote so limiting the proposal didn't meet the well, through thought through spot zoning therefore we ask you no to approve that and limit the height to three hundred feet the proposed building is out of character with the neighborhood isn't that true san francisco has an important waffling it is important to keep it this would be an attack on the city i think spot zone is a downward spiral a race to the bottom we have to be careful i'll ask you all to consider this factor thank you for your time. >> any other speakers on this

item? >> and, yes good afternoon. i'm alicia i'm a resident at rincon hill i'm here to also raise the concerns for the developer at one 60 fulsome to increase from three hundred to 4 hundred and 25 feet i'm here to talk about the shadows on rincon hill there are other parks in the neighborhood as you may know the sunshine ordinance present e prevents from shading the park rincon park the proposed building would be illegal unfortunately rincon park is on portland not covered by the ordinance we consider the loophole the developer is a trying to sneak through i have here a shadow study that shows you there will be

constitutional shades an rincon park as you can see here in red is the shade shadow of three hundred foot elevation on the park here on rincon park as you can see here on the left side this shadow will increase substantially on the park and extended all the way to sorry will extend to the waterfront we have talked about this that with the staff at occ agrees about the shadow i'm concerned about the shading designed combined with other plans and projects in the area that will substantially increase the

shading an rincon park prevision did a shadow study they determined there are 5 open space that will receive no shading from the one 60 fulsome project those areas at rincon park outside plaza on howard and fillmore street and howard and beal street and on the main street between howard and fulsome the latter is the treasurer transit center and rincon park when it is ready while shades faxing effect this is quite significant for the overall effect to the quality of life for families and elderly and anyone that wants respite from urban life in the park asking the shadows a

undoubtedlyly less favorable we ask you in the no approve the 4 hundred and 26 feet project that will madam chair the quality of life for elderly and families and children thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners donald and i'm also a member of sf behalf we support the increased height for this particular this on one 60 fulsome not block the lines to the bay the rincon park is more shaded in the summer for the people that needs the shade when is it 80 degrees outside as well the building the developers is offering i think the last time thirty percent new affordable units within the building and

not be any corridors the same liquor lobby and the shadow effect will be minimal caring the summertime temperatures and we do support the height increase that in complaining for the affordable units in the neighborhood thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners and members of the public i'm star child the party for san francisco and like donald i'm supportive of the federation and i'm i don't live in the neighborhood but a long term residents in san francisco 20 years a bay area native i support the limits we have a severe housing crisis and

concerned about the casting of a shadow in the park the only connection an occasional visit to the park i don't mind extra shadows i'd like to see people live here none likes now knows but unfortunately, the dynamics is that it encourages not in my backyard and people come out and find a rationalism to see what sticks the result the housing crisis we have today this is a serious ongoing problem in the bay area and beyond this project is closed to the transbay terminal you know in the heart of downtown and all kinds of transit and may not new want sunshine walk a couple of blocks

on the waterfront there is no reason not to approve and an increased height limit and allow for units to be built i strongly urge to build thank you. >> sue hester basic information is hiring missing you're not ready to go through invitation where is the map it is not identified and secondly, i spent the past two averages going through the redevelopment files with regards to this generic area and this review files on the building of gap building in this discussion

that there was extensive xhchgs on what the redevelopment agency was doing with regards to the park and the building in the park and the sunshine on the park and the site to be protected planning commission didn't have any jurisdiction 0 on the waterfront it was a redevelopment agency and there was enormous concern about a fight iconicly the planning department plan that he dug into the general plan policy at the redevelopment agency especially the staff in the hearings they having had multiple hearings how you will protect sunlight on the park that will be created a condition of the gap presentation the gap building not only had to

step down to the waterfront in the ceda but they were very concerned about the money that was going to be paid to the port to build the park when you see the redevelopment plan for rincon park the largest parcel is the park they were extremely concerned about the park and this you have a short circuit that is not supportive you're doing an intion or asked to do this is not ready to be passed today i'll ask you at the minimum have a map of what this law is do you have a different map than i do. >> no. >> i printed it out i went online this is what you get

online i tried various ways the basic things our changing policy without it bog disclosed to the public i everywhere else adopted the plan the transbay plan i wasn't here to do that but this is a huge step and not the way you're planning and doing it in three weeks thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a number of questions and one is respent a significant amount of time blocking street by street thank you. i'll repeat when we

reviewed the transbay plan a significant amount of detailed tension attention to fall into every aspect the plan and that has been projects being forward and the issued surrounded the plan were exempt my question is why is there a 10 year gap between recognizing that map 57 of the general plan was not amended to reflect over-the-counter height that were discussed the second point is it is correct that there is indeed missing information about what constitute blocks versus lots this information is not given and no were in the maps that we have in our packet the first map is the general map about height clarification and

outlines the zones in which it occurred it shows that is shown in the next map where those are relative to the larger map that is hard to find a way the map is small that aside between these two documents no reference about the specific lots in which did height reclassification will be changed that's correct the third point i'd like to make is as this is quite critical in terms of how we're moving forward i will see a gap between the detailed and good work the department has done in explaining the surrounding plans specific plan informs adjoining neighborhoods are in fact,

effected by the heights of the lots the plan is a very, very detailed and thoughtful plan, which specifically speaks about issues like power spacing be tower separation and shadow a collective composition of buildings created an indeed desirable extension i've not seen anything particular in the absence of their telling him e telling me what how the parcel was 200 foot buildings would compliment contradict the issues of a good composition of it all building i'm not saying that is it is a good idea to selectively add other buildings, however, i think under those more accountability necessary and i think there is a better kind of

planning effort necessary in order to just jump in and initiate the height amendment on those lots with we don't know where they are this is today is not a discussion approval or disapproval about the one 60 rincon hill project that was partially tied up into our discussion are things i think that would need to be discussed in the larger understanding what exactly those two hundred foot height of the amendments occur the last thing i'd like to say is i think that through any circumstances the reexplanation of shadows will apply to any of

the projects i'm particularly concerned over ideas of complete neighborhoods of moving through the south is clearly addressed when we are looking at adding height on fulsome. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm a little bit confused i've read the summary is about sound like there is zone one and two the zone was was both intended to have the three hundred foot limits and apparently it says inadvertently zone one which includes the areas on the map was not included in zone two when the zone was done in that area actually, i'm reading we're correcting an offer sixth amendment sight apparently legislation was passed the vote was taken to make that 200 or

rather three hundred it was inadvertently parts were ada some part are not 200 it seems to me that is a really simple thing has nothing to do with with the height of 160 fulsome that's not before us the sulfatide was pleaded at fulsome and fremont is probable 3 willed or 4 hundred feet i don't know the exact height maybe i know one of the blocks that is in question if i'm reading the map right maybe you can answer what is happening. >> the lots that are changing in the first paragraph the block

37, 29, 31 and 32 they collectively are block one and one lot 37, 39, block 4 a portion of block 2 so if you look at the numbers are not there but - >> they're all in one and 2 southern california but for purposes of public decision at all believes that were built in redevelopment that is one of them it is not - >> i agree we should have identified the individual lots the block designation was always there designation for all the particular blocks in place since the redevelopment plan was adopted when. >> 2006. >> and when we did the transit

plan it was different it over laptops some of the area didn't change any of the height in the redevelopment area we left them most of the projects were well underway so really did practical effect of the changes to change the designation for the block one the other it is clean power a map for the projects that are already improved frankly an oversight the general plan didn't get fixed increased to be fair a practical effect of changing the height in the general plan for block one three to four hundred feet that's the actual effect and the block is a function of how they identified those particular plots of land we don't have that's united states way they do it so we

don't have any control over and over that. >> okay. thank you i think that answers my question and it seems route routine this is not an approval of any project it is only rising the height limits to conform. >> i'm sorry just to be clear the redevelopment plan had block one to raise it to 4 hundred feet the annihilatiinitiation. >> sir leave the doors alone. >> raise the height from three hundred to 4 hundred your initiating the action you'll see f it in two weeks to consider actual raises the heights. >> just to clarify ethics

commission - initiation it didn't address it, it is just amend. >> i apologize. >> we're merging two maps the transbay map and making it one. >> okay. maybe okay. so clarify this i apologize it is confusing to me. >> the existing we are simply clarifying the making the zoning map and the general map the same. >> the same yes. >> so the and i ethics commission didn't effect the block on a lo

>> the ocii increased the general feet. >> we included that that is the reason we fought it basically says this is the reason we found out the map shows three hundred but change if to three hundred 10 years ago. >> we have that that is what the missing here. >> sorry i'm interrupting we'll go on. >> we know your familiar commissioner richards so the map is different by a hundred feet 200 to three hundred your skewing u asking us

to raise it. >> we're preparing and changing the first notion in that 5 and so we're including the blocks and saying those blocks the height of those blokes are controlled by the transbay development controls. >> the march is hear here and the block two. >> right go to the projector i just made them red. >> great. >> so the o the block entirety of block one and smaller portion of block two. >> all that; right? - >> right. >> (inaudible). >> right here. >> okay.

>> director rahaim do you have more. >> sorry. >> commissioner hillis. >> sorry just some clarifying questions so if i understand i mean what we're asking to do we're saying we're asking you're asking us to fix what was a clerical arrow the redevelopment plan controls and the redevelopment agency the ocii controls the shaded areas and the redevelopment plan had all those lots in blocks at three hundred feet or at least block one the intent to rezone block one and portion of block two to three hundred feet it would be helpful to show us the

the intent of the redevelopment plan and those lots would be increased to three hundred feet and a clerical error but they're under development oversee blocks are underdevelopment we didn't change the part of zoning so three hundred feet. >> no, i apologize if it was marked i understand i think that wasn't so, yes 10 years ago we made an amendment to this zone one of the shaded area on the black map and made the general amendments navigates the first notation in a block 1 is the first notation that left out the blocks we're expanding the first notation to the next block.

>> that would be helpful we're initiating so i think that would be helpful to show to the public and commission that was the intention this was referencing the block three hundred feet and is the redevelopment agency we shouldn't call it the redevelopment agency the intention of eject to come back and request an increased height for the redevelopment site. >> i have the files a general plan to change of the heights on block one from three to four hundred they'll go to the ocii commission for the decision before the ocii commission to you approve that and that will come back on february 25th before you for the general plan referral. >> and ultimate we'll have to approve the height increase from

three to four. >> the ocii commission has to approve that this commission is only has to look at the general plan referr. >> under the i thought redevelopment what make changes to the redevelopment but we didn't initially approve those changes in the redevelopment plan they can't unilaterally increase those. >> try not to confuse i apologize when you take an action on the redevelopment you're changing the action whether it is xhfbltd with the general plan. >> that's our approval action to increase the height one hundred feet we'll have the discretion not unilaterally. >> commissioner antonini. >> this sounds like clean up i think that is an initiation

there is more to come i'll move to anita that and have plenty of time to mull over the action when it comes back to us. >> second and commissioner johnson. >> thanks there is so many cliefrgsz i guess i'll thank the staff this is not unclear because it is the successor agencies planned areas and maps but basically what we're doing is the blocks that are here those are successor agencies for block but the lots that are included are noted only one lot we're moving to the transbay center redevelopment plan map that is not in block one that is so - >> yes. >> so 4, 5 in block one in block one the map we have and one that is not adjacent to block two and all we're doing is

saying the height and bulk requirement in transbay redevelopment area map applies to those monopolies before that was a downtown plan that makes it easier to make sure that everything is in alignment ocii initiated it asking for a health limit increase on block one so i don't know i mean, i guess sometimes, it is coming back to us i'm not unclear. >> correct. >> and i think that the maps conform if you want to create a map that shows the list of blocks that would be helpful but they can be confusing to look at i don't know personally in my opinion it is okay to name the block so you know which block they're in. >> commissioner wu. >> i'll ask for that map there is only 5 lots if you could blow

up the areas the two blocks; right? to label them when it comes back to the commission i want to ask purely in ocii is having their hearing that is not before us today, if the commission disprobable cause what will happen to their action. >> if not approved. >> they'll approve it it will have so still come back to you. >> we're scheduled to take an action. >> what did you you say. >> on january 19th. >> they go through the legislative process. >> thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> sorry commissioner moore. >> i appreciate commissioner

johnson explanation which was clear and concise bans their experience that leaves me to see what was given to me no attack on you including the directors confusion i believe any decision i make here whether is it larger or small based on the accurate information i can't support is it i'll consider it when i have the information but at this moment i can't. >> commissioner hillis. >> it is confusing i'll ask that i ask because of our explanations can you come back with better sites to the redevelopment plan or more you know whatever we're relying on it was the intent to increase the heights to three hundred feet we understand it is coming back to the request i guess i'm

just backing up why are we waiting to see whether we approve it and if we don't approve the three hundred feet why are we taking the interim steps we can resolve this at the time with the talking up the general plan. >> the plan will come to you on february 25th so the general plan amendment we need the initiation so on the differences 3 week basically - at least three weeks for the initiation approval looking at the calendar and scheduling we came up with the initiation for the amendments those are in block one, if in block one didn't get approved the height change at least the map will be corrected. >> okay.

>> sorry did i miss a motion. >> it was a motion. >> to initiate. >> i second it. >> sorry. >> shall i call that question and sorry commissioner richards. >> the motion was to make a motion to come back with is making map and different verbiage. >> my motion was to initiate a request i'm supportive to come back with a map for purposes 6 better definition. >> commissioner richards. >> why not wait another weeks ago to get teed up so it is corrected. >> commission that will not, a week but two or three. >> okay. >> we can get you the

corrected parcel information ahead of the next meeting clearly identifying the intent of that. >> okay. >> commissioners there's a motion to initiate the general plan commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards excuse me. commissioner wu no excuse me. >> and commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that passed 5 to two with commissioner moore and commissioner wu voting against. >> commissioners that places us on item 11 on third street this is a larger project authorization. >> good afternoon commissioner

president fong and commissioners the item before you is request for a large project authorization alters 2137, third street the demolition of two lots and a 7 story mixed use residential building totally one and 82 plus thousand square feet with 1 hundred and 9 residential unit with 3200 plus ground floor space and two level garage being automobile parking spaces and one hundred plus bike spaces assessed off of 19th street it includes accident mixed use of 65 one bedroom and 44 two bedroom and common, usable open space at a courtyard in addition

to a 25 hundred square feet deck at the roof of the smaller tower units will be located on site and remaining market rate housing will be available under the provisions for a large project authorization a modification of the planning code for the required rear yard exposure and horizon map reduction for official official design is it so complimentary to the sub front of the eastern neighborhoods plan the project is located east of the dog patch neighborhood with the unsaturated block a wide range of heights and uses in the urban mixed use district district including the commercial and mixed use residential and industrial use the wide third street medians contains the area for illinois

street foshtd shipyard for 19th street and illinois sgrshth typography is sloping downward towards the san francisco bay area the adjacent property to the north an 2121, third street is one hundred and 6 residential unit approved in 2010 and completed in 2011 did other adjacent property to the east on 19th street is an unimproved parcel used a parking lot and finally, the property to the south cross 19th street is a that building compleblgs occupied with industrial use to date the department has two letters in support one was received on the report and provided to the commission after analyzing all alters aspects of the project the staff said this

is the consistent with the planning department and the central waterfront plan the department wanted to clarify incidence e since it was published staff works with the project sponsor to bring the off-street parking into compliance and the design modification was made that incorporates the mechanic for the 34 residential space with a 4 to 5 rash per dwelling units as in the planning code section the department also finds it is compatible with the neighborhood character and the neighborhood is a proper massing and scale and has an exceptional architectural design the precise location will effect the waterfront neighborhood the project is appropriate in fill that adds one hundred and 9

dwelling units to the housing stock and ground floor retail formula in the zoning district where the ground floor uses are permit it includes in the front

courtyard system the result the lots coverage on the pronounce is 70 percent and thirty percent the area of the podium open to the sky that is greater than 5 percent as required other than the we note after working with the staff and the revisions on the parking we increased the electrical charging station wagons from 2 to 3 and increased car share under the code to have one car share we increased it to two we have so many amenity we worked with the staff to comply with the staff we'll hear here to

answer any questions >> thank you, commissioners john with the architect walk through the design presentation we'll start with site contacts the site is located at the corner of 19th street and third street it is currently a light industrial use concrete mason were built in the 1980s by the project sponsor it is important to understand this is an l-shaped noting lot not a 3 lot this was a reference in the planning text we have an ill i will exposure we do not a 37 wide parcel in the back of the parcel and unfortunately, the size will

slides will make it difficult to see we can or want to talk about the streetscape we're kind of at a transition in terms of how the basic make up 9 north are two recently residential kind of in a residential vocabulary that is common to that edge of third street as we move to the south this is martin building project the launch where they've maintained two of the mason building at mason vocabulary height of the building and a more contemporary in the back it jumps up to the height similar to what we're proposing next further did you observe the block is the american cam this a

classic industrial building with for ways that are very much in this building type of and part of what we pulled out in terms of incorporating the project so what we did here the intent to basically take a modern vocabulary so some of the historic elements in the building in terms of the promotions and breakdown and the materials but also give it residential character with the addition of projected bays and balconies to add to the modulation of the because of building this is the view of the building looking to the northeast under 19th street and third street the building our client a long time residents in the area and business owner this is a project he came to us to have a building of high quality

a of quality materials we've taken the material appellant a little bit unusual for buildings of this particular scale we've gone in the upper portion the this that sets above a base this is broken we'll show you how that hemispheres the exterior wall is a aluminum it is in color high quality we have special things made for this this which will give it additional relief and also serves in the balconies we're taking an aluminum played to put the building form and add to a kind of new pattern of the facade also a view from looking to the northwest at the rear the site again those are the property

line conditions we're trying to incorporate materials to the property line conditions that are complimentary to the building and a panel system that has relief and as you can see it actually is - if you look at the building directly along illinois the narrow basis for the residential is quite thin that open courtyard or court been open and as well looking at the slot of metal next. >> so this is an image of the primary this entrance i'm going to transition being so kind of the evolution the design in the discussions we working closely with the dog patch association on this project we went to the them awe initially and so much the dialogue really began to get

more that accident about the ground condition and that the street how the street worked a series of meetings it was consistent between narrow objectives and ours there's or here's the streets a bit for comfortable third street is narrow 10 feet so some relief and some scraping and some articulate the way we set this out a series of boxes we pulled the column back so we are able to look at the because of building to the property it give us an opportunity to modulate the front of the building so go to the next one. >> so in the discussions we end up working closely with the landscaping architect but there is a consistent