think we've complete that one of the reasons i'm asking for a continuances i have an interesting thing you guys should think about we're talking about demographics change a lot of demographics it connected with income and so the latinos community you know is on average a lower income communities than others so when we're thinking about demographic change the more affordable housing we can have it helps to mitigate the amount of demographics chunk i know we're at 25 percent i'd like to see if anything else can be done and get something arbitrate higher than that like i said, i think as marie pointed out we had some good conversations that week but we feel there is a ways

to go and so i would ask for a continuance number one because of that and number 2 i think you've seen that still there is a lot of opposition to the project from the community regardless what the coordinating cultural district thinks so a continuance will be well served for everything thank you very much. >> hi there i'm sorry my name is annie i often come to speak in support of housing project i'm speaking for the neighbors before i came down i counted did steps from any door to the ned of the building was telephone two doors up from the north facade and 12 steps up i support in project i don't support a

continuance or any delays when i first heard about this project i was excited i could lobby for a project illicit in any backyard and i wanted to learn about the project close to my house we met up for coffee he learned about whatever iterations six or seven months and a lot of the conversation was you know you should work to see more affordability in this project and said you need nor affordable units the project was not union at this point we mind you know there - if you have union labor on the project that is a positive thing we would like to see and you know, i come into a see the project sure enough those things are addressed and much more affordability 0 now

and different and better in my opinion design than months ago and union labor in addition seeing the trade stores over is first floor an influx of housing to the neighborhood my apartments is one of those that will have my full view of bernal hill completely obstructed any entire street will be in shadow and i cannot be more excited what offers in the community in having those kinds of mixed income that are walkable and liveable and we can plan news we can be so close to nature and live in urban lifestyle and not a better microcosm than this site and part of neighborhood i'm a bit offended by the people in

opposition saying no supports from the communities on this project a lot of the neighbors that i've poling to when i learned more about it almost immediately 10 personal letters in support to the planner just the folks that want to learn more what is 0 going on i think that you know we've heard from one of the other folks earlier that we have a housing crisis and displacement criticized i completely disagree this is an foolth crisis adding a lot of housing. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm anthony with the settlement local 104 a union representative

in san francisco we local 104 support in and want to see that happen a few things that a lot of people have been talking about that will stimulate and provided middle-income jokes for the union construction workers and local residents and also the career pathway for the state certified apprentices a good pathway to be on this project and also military veterans a lot of the trades it will enhance the neighborhood by replacing electrical warehouse and the big vibrant residential projects and other good things that is close to public transit we need this to happen and the sheet metal workers will support this project and does not supports the continuance thank you.

>> joel a local 6 thanks to commissioner antonini for his years of services an honor to speak but and address you i want to start off by staying that was an honor to share the microphone with pat mcmillan a generational legacy of a local business i've shown up to his office and tools and a dispatch ready to go to work and he's as i understand any checks and helped me to build this city an asset to our industry and our groups wouldn't the same on that note i want to say good paying union jobs with health care are anti displacement tools for us

like blue-collar working-class people and recognize all the workers in support wearing the safety vests us as a building trades are proud of that project specifically we did knowingly last november support a no on i campaign knowing there was not a good chance to work on a lot of the prosper we specific the transitioned probably wouldn't be good not good with access we're not good on the 26 harrison project we will be good think this project so we didn't reach this deal yesterday we mediating met with lennar months ago and as i understand an agreement for a full union building trades project which is neverned in the mission not been one private funding

fully agreed an in the mission ever this is the financier we've valued our community involvement on with the past couple of projects and value their support and their input we've think we're part of community here also i would like to urge you guys to act on this project tonight and approve and i as currently proposed thank you. >> good evening commissioners i have a should not will accomplish to key policy goals to encourage new hours and make that affordable to low and middle-income earns and for sufficient space for pdrs in other words, to support a

diverse economy and provided good jobs for residents the plan was a response to the 1988 legislation that enabled the developers to buy lands cheaper with the rapid gentrification and no where was the problem more pronunciations than in the mission unfortunately despite a number of goals in the plan a critical pdrs component was stripped out of umu zone and the plan never had the teeth to achieve the desired balance between housing and pdrs use we end up with anything goes zoning and the speculators were given a pass for market-rate development on cheap land not unlike the bad old work days the mission like other eastern neighborhoods is bleeding pdr and the jobs that go with that

the 2020, 25 projects projectors may in the planned eir been extended the project levels for the mission was for one thousand plus residential unit but the community studies dysfunction for the project indicates that has of february 2000, 4 hundred plus units were approved in the pipeline that is seven hundred and 55 units over what was approved with an unanticipated level the residential development the cumulative growth environmental analysis don't account for the impact on the population and housing recreation, transportation, and other infrastructure this reason the communities bland exemption is not appropriate our phone call eir

is required thank you. >> good afternoon tim colen, san francisco housing action coalition. and first thing first on behalf of the coalition i want to express our deep gratitude for commissioner antonini for his dedicated service commissioner because of your enormous contribution the city is better we've reviewed this stevenly a balanced rich area the project has gone through any changes we commend lennar for responding to our feedback in a better proposal improvements for the corner of 26 and van ness would be a big benefit they put together the most comprehensive ground floor plan we've seen from a project sponsor those

trade shops you've seen will be discounted and provide opportunities for small businesses that will enlighten the neighborhood we commend lennar for the subsidized housing including providing homes for a range of incomes this is achieved despite the enormous amount of - this is beside the point? great two years into the game of trying to get approvals one of the strange things having to repeatedly august that increasing the housing supply rows the pressure in neighborhoods despite of overwhelm evidences from all the main streamed the most achieve environmentalists as much as

some folks time not possible to address the mission district in displacement by presenting new housing the changes happening in the mission district go are not concurring because of new housing the planning department has extensive deep evidence and years of the vicinity reports that shows that the mission is one of the lower producing neighborhoods of all all the neighborhoods produces the housing yet the housing it is endorsing the prices not because of the- your going to have to get our hands around the idea that the mission needs lots of new housing displacement will be bad this year and the next and probable the year after that as

long as the employment pressures continue two years is enough time it has been delayed a few times you should approve it today thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is 101 rodriquez i'm with local 33 and nature residents of san francisco raised any family here and still here and you know i've been in the city my whole life the city has constantly been changing sometimes, i was furious at the changes but is changes continue i guess your job and our city government to make sure that change is done make sense and for the good of the city lennar i listened to love developers they come before us with the unions. >> talk about project they'll

build and lennar has been up to now anyway one of the best ever listening to us as unions wanted at the they worked with us and sat at the hat and when the hat said they should add shops along the lower levels and should change some of the design of the building they listened and now from 12 percent which maybe 15 or whatever now 25 percent so i think they've shown goodwill to try to do what is right and lay all the ills at lennar's feet is not fair, i think you know that and i think that those i read somewhere the state of california in the last 25 years has been really bad about housing we have governor jerry brown trying to do the thing

bypass the eir and the stuff if this was certain types of projects i think that sometimes people overreact like politics the scare you so you say yes or not to delay something i ask you to look at what lennar has done and use common sense and approve that project. >> thank you. >> all right. i'm rick hall again, i'm asking you to continue this project the latino cultural district a special area it desires ever deserves a project and a appropriate monument to make that compatible with the district. >> thank you john for setting

up the meetings so for and i think there is progress made i don't want to sit here and bash the project i think some time to continue we can actually come up with a project we agree to so i would like to just counter what i keep on hearing from the build build build people block by block displacement is real it is starting to show up in some of the studies and you don't need the studies to tell you what you see i mean it is just you know - you can see it. >> you can see what happens when the high rent things go up or the google buses come in and the high income folks and the

businesses start raising their rents i mean it is not a secret and not going to be solved by build build build the problem i don't know how it will be build but building unless we do quickly build 200 thousand units in the city not be helped by the build build billion anyway, i have to say i do want you to continue it i think we can work together, however, if you approve that i'll start for the record i associate my comments to supervisor wiener and obtain too this project as presented no lp a or c p p necessary and desirable not necessary and desirable and over passed with the respect to pdr loss all

phases of pdr have been exceeded, etc. >> okay. >> oh, you have time. >> incompatible with the mission plan thank you. >> (calling names). >> hi i actually live on 26 street i'm sure why it is built industrial none of it shows the neighborhood on this side of south van ness only one other building the mechanics shop on the corner a small cafe kitty-corner a laundromat everybody brings their laundry sunday morning

cars going up and next door a couple of housing around there as far as the neighbors i'm sure there is people building this is a progressive city it no longer is and i want to challenge them to see if they know where la palm and the mission calculator center and if they know folks about their neighborhood and physically involved do they know what caravel and the mural that depicts is caravel an 24th street and south van ness that was advocated by folks to preserve a day laborer in that vicinity used for a lump berry yard i picked up someone to help

me move any stuff i don't feel that building lecturer housing none what afford it why we have people if the labor union they'll not be able to afford it nor probably vote majorities don't live in the city i feel like trying to continue would probably be the best because the community can have more creative solutions about what can happen in possibly move the sfmta red tap over to south van ness probably have maybe the 14 or the 49 going through caesar chavez and help the seniors and the elderly as well as help this complex but not enough time as right now to fourth what we want to do as a community

i feel like our neighbors and myself the only thing we have in common our zip code i'm a brown person i walk different in the world and feel great comfort of feeling my other community going to 26 and mission and buy my food and anything else you'll not be able to get i'm not anti people but we should look at this. >> thank you. >> (laughter.) clark grow sf i brainstorm to be nice today, we talk about the indirect effect of buildings on communities but not the indirect effect of not building on communities and the indirect of not building on community more pressure on that

existing communities i don't know how many of you commissioners read kate she's a friend of mine in palo alto decided the cost of living for her as an attorney and software engineer her husband is too high for them this is a regional problem we have chronically under built for thirty years it is fraen your job to turn that corner and to bring more units on board faster to address this shortage i'm just to quote from her because i think that applies to every place in the region palo alto is unaffordable for an attorney and a software engineer it is clear that professional like me can't raise a family outline of the teachers and first responders and service workers are in dire straights we already see openings at the

police department we can't fill and numerous teacher contract we can't renew the cost of living is too bad if things keep on going palo alto streets will look like they we were decades ago but a sense of belonging community will be unrecognizable the impact of not building housing on the existing units u communities is absent terrible tragedy and your job to right that wrong and build those units as fast as possible to address is this crisis i agree with the previous speaker this will not be addressed by build build build but build 200 thousand units immediately and build 200

thousand units immediately thank you. >> my name is magic do reflect one on what the lady said that is block by block rebellious the people that are part of this cultural zone it the board of supervisors did create a cultural zone to maintain the latino community there and also, we almost had a moratorium on luxury housing there was a majority not a super majority by a will in the government to stop the takeover of the city i think the mantra needs to become we can't afford the luxury we can't afford the luxury this is been declared a zone to protect the cultural of the mission and it will definitely create nor displacements we can't say afford the luxury

this project will undoubtedly create a domino the tech boom and the twitter maybe tweeting its last tweet i'm glad to see the union folks here to hear the people's voices none it condemning the men and women of the unions president work but now you've heard what it does in the long-term when our jobs are over a community is decimate we want places for union workers to live the tired old saw that opposes the people of the city is sad we need to think outside the box match everyone in the room and their heart of hearts wants a colorful funky fun city that maintenance a connection to the roots it is

ours and culture and arts and people the working people even the homeless need to be thought of today it is a tragedy what is happening in the city everyone in the room can come together as a community we don't need to be enemies pitted against each other in your heart of heart we want the same thing come to an agreement that works for the city thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners my name is marie an organizer with cause i'm here to i couldn't for a continuance to the project so the community can be able to have a conversation about what qualityable developments in the communities it is currently fighting multiple evictions we had a

family evicted yesterday's we want to make sure they are in a home over 25 owner move-in evictions happening those are families we're trying to keep in their homes families who luxury development does nothing we build and build and build luxury development does nothing for them if we want to build housing it needs to be affordable housing it needs to be deeply affordable housing it needs to be 100 percent rates that working class san franciscans can afford we've been telling this commission for years we've been trying to get across for years when working-class of color are telling you the housing that is being build is fotsdz adequately meet our need and not meet the dances it should be listened to there's a lot of people that are telling you we need to build anything that is what will bring

down the housing costs and san francisco has been building housing the mission has built nor housing than millionaire we've built 2000 unit that are in the pipeline more the 9 regions of the 9 couldn't of the region that is not brought down our housing costs when i have moms when i have families telling me what am i supposed to be and go i try to send them to the affordable housing list they can't say afford those i'd like to see all 2000 of the united 100 percent affordable to people making less than $30,000 a year this is a non-starter conversation let's build the housing luxury housing didn't make an equal city most of

housing units they're vacant not housing a simple person let's tackle this issue and have conversation between the communities and developers and see what are the opportunities to house people what are the opportunities to meet the demands that exist under our neighborhoods no demand for luxury housing in the neighborhood no demands for luxury housing in san francisco we need the hours that is current not built so let's build housing and make sure that is deeply affordable for working-class san franciscans thank you. >> good afternoon my name is christine i'm a member of latino community in san francisco that's how i choose to introduce myself today it less and less popular everyday to have any

concerns about preserving the latino culture in san francisco i thought that a value of mine and something that the people don't value we've heard many of the people today that's okay. >> because i don't expect that it is possible to change people's minds when it comes to that value we heard recently someone staying i saying they're a member of palo alto planning commission and hope to convince their friends for the housing no palo alto and maybe convince the people to - i'm here relight at the end of the tunnel i feel the dye has been cast and the project will move forward prop c unfortunately grandfathered and projects like this in the

mission district and most of the large project that have the greatest impact ambassador grandfathered in we're not protected in prop c me when is sad we need workforce housing and housing that includes people that work in the restaurants mare spoke of families she's working with many are being adapted no place to go and people burned out of many of the units in the mission are latino residents they can't say afford anything and now there is being built in the mission district they're forced out of city into the richmond many work in different service capacities their children tenant the public schools in san francisco and so they're losing their entire communities but you've heard all that before i thoughts i'll come out and show solidarity with

those who are concerned about the devastation of the latino community i hope you continue it i hope it gives lennar and others in the communities to speak about a project we need to really is fits the needs of most people that work and live in the communities before i leave i the president to mention michael commissioner antonini we agreed once we managed to maintain a civil dying dialogue and went out and had coffee a couple of times good luck to you it is hard work. >> many people don't know the work into the latino community. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners adrian carpenters local 22 lead

organizer in san francisco we fully support this project and lennar and their commitment with the carpenters and all the building trades to do a 100 percent union project i have to say though i haven't heard one argument why there should be any sort of continuance together it is the same old swan song the same old story we were heard about deep, deep affordable housing all about deep pockets and what we can get over lennar they went above and beyond what they are to had made the candidates you know there is on one way to get more housing and commissioner antonini said it in the first 5 minutes of the meeting build for housing that's what we need to do you can sit

up under and question, talk this to death like every other meeting or look at the carpenters behind me and look them in the eye and tell them it is best you don't go to work on this one and maybe move into that place well twoobdz we'll leave it a warehouse; right? and the other thing someone please explain to me how you can displace somebody by tearing down a warehouse and putting in hours up ; right? in you a wall even though he give you hundred and $57 did i displace anything in our wall even though none lives at 11 south van ness and build one and 57 units what do you got you got room and one and 57

families meaningful and 25 percent of those will be below-market rate that's why we support this project and everybody understand i know i understand that and we hope you'll support it,too thank you. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> hi, my name is raul i put my card in the - i'm rafaeli live in the mission and speaking today in sponsored of this project i believe we need more housing in san francisco and speak as to the particulars it is an example of negotiations that the developer and the

construction community and the communities that lives in the neighborhood went through a long process we're now i'm watching this project with interest because this is one of the several projects in the neighborhood and lennar came to the table and made an offer and i think a much better offer than any of the developers in the neighborhood made if we approve this project quickly as of today it sends a signature to others developers to move forward if they make a deal that gets enough people on board and doesn't have to be every last person in the neighborhood but shareholders that are happy with the project that has good reason to approve it and approve that quickly the housing crisis is urgent and project like these will help you

think we've talked bit earlier how projects that - projects with expensive housing signal to the landlords they can raise their rent but the landlords in the mission know the market-rate housing is very, very high i know my landlord know we don't have to worried about that the uc berkley studied u studies mentioned that adding market-rate housing reduce the displacement more. >> market-rate can help too so i hope you will approve this project tonight thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public

comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. very much i appreciate all the comment but one thing i won't miss is hearings like this because i appreciate everybody's opinion but oftentimes you know as i will point out in some of my comments not based on fact and certainly is a them but adrian said what is not to last week about this project it is a good project i was happy one different thing a lot of the same people opposing but tell her people from the area in supports and made the point while we appreciate the efforts of the latino criminality district and the fact they represent prodi preservation al 24th street sector of the

community and these people made it clear that they're the community and speaking for more diversity it is what the opposition is talking about the diversity this is the diversity more people owner move-in into the mission district and making that a more diverse neighborhood with that said, should find particulars i'm talking about one the speakers brought this table about all the housing in the mission nothing it built this table has all the frontages that have taken out their initial environmental documents moab anybody what do that we see tons and tons of projects that pull their environmental papers and don't make in to the hearings four approval process when you look at this instead of showing there was i know two, 24 hundreds taken outs environmental only 5 hundred

have been approved under construction or completed only 5 hundred housing units within the not - yeah, only 5 hundred and these categories 34 percent wharves analyzed under the most restricted analysis the preferred process on 1697 i've spent a lot of time and energy with adrian and others to get the correct documents this is we don't need to hear the misrepresentations but in terms of what was completed 200 and 27 since the eastern neighborhoods was approved and 34 percent are affordable and we approved another big project but none was here complaining or commenting

the as a matter of fact we have displacement there is so little being built and pdrs being adapted less than one percent of pdr we analyzed in the eastern neighborhood plans for the mission has been approved under construction are built so almost negotiable amounts so again a lot of talking about things that are not happening so some of the details about this project first of all, it is taking place in an area that didn't allow pdrs to non-conforming use of people wanted pdrs they have not have pdr they provided trade shops they didn't have to do they're doing and in addition to the support a few people that came out in supports that live in the

area 36 merchant in the area gave their support as well as another neighbors that sent in letters to me and i read those i mean, the same 15 or 20 people in opposition but people take the time to write letters not form letters but often letters that are written strild to show their feelings but regardless of the popularity contest i think that you have more displacement without new housing than you do with new housing that make sense people are buying units anticipate the mission and paying high prices and their moving somewhere else and buying a bigger house and often adapted this is unfortunate but as adrian said you build

two-hundred and 57 units you are you're not taking away but adding this is to reason to talk about a continuance what you see is what you get two years in the works and changes from fairly late in the process but i mean a good reason for that the reason is that you you know the developers need to get approved by invariably the appellants appeal to the board of supervisors are the environmental piece so oftentimes gets skrooesz squeezed for more a lot of the developers don't get all the cars on the table but this developer caught up with as much can be done with something that is he's grandfathered but not using the grandfathering he's

choosing to conform if there was not grandfathering all the people that came up many who are in the opposition don't allow grandfathering in the mission make it 25 citywide when it is 25 percentage citywide there is no good attitude with no market-rate unit it is excludes a lot of the population i don't support that kind of mentali the other part gone on for two years as pointed out senior affordable i think you have a really, really high percentage of income restricted housing within the latino cultural district we're hearing about this means that, yes projects and other buildings are in this i don't have the percentage but it is a lot putting more

pressure on the non-restricted housing and forces up the prices it is not luxuries but market-rate what people are willing to pay if you don't build it will put nor pressure on the existing housing needs so i like the idea of trade shop units will be 50 percent or $2 a square feet can't ask for much more than many and all of a sudden the opposition is not referring anymore to the april 2014 nexus study we've heard about but not talking about it it exactly represents what is permissible the study was done a nexus study but is city and county of san francisco to the affordable housing levels and the study actually not only

justified the 15 percent that showed that the are rental units in areas one new units one hundred market-rate housing produced the needs for 19.5 affordable units from direct it was indirect effects much higher having you have to translate it into the inclusionary it is based on one units inclusionary to one hundred units of totals housing direct effects you'll need 16 percent of those to be affordable and if you take into account indirect and direct effects than that's 25.2 percent it is the particular project presented here with a lot of

justification and the right documents they need a co-pays agreement they have to get things and giving back that is entirely with the occasionally agreement has to do this study nobody is talking about justifies the fact there is evidence around for quite a while that shows a canned generated for the 25 percent it is you know one - it is not all in san francisco because in the mission district parking control officer that it is in day city to go to costco or other places but this is a what staff prepared the city prepared by occurring ton martha's

associates and the basis for this their entirely correct i think that is a project which we should approve tonight and you know without further ado, for the opposition i mean, i want to have the district be successful he thought you to preserve as much and help people stay there and businesses stay there but not a gatekeeper for the neighborhoods this is involving the entire city so i'm in favor of the project. >> i asked to go to second on chairing the meeting to the director about the eir planning exceptions and over on the number can you comment on where the line is drawn i know we've covered this before. >> commissioners that is presented to you before half of the liz list it projects that

have published not approved and the other half of the list not approved and community planned ceqa process so in about 4 of the projects are 100 percent affordable perhaps more so this is these are only housing projects these are projects not yet approved i think the other thing to remind us all the eastern neighborhoods eir looked at about a multiple uses and it also considered and anticipated a lot more housing office development than existed and has been produced in the mission so when you look at those total impacts of the office and housing developments we're not yet reaching those threshold those numbers are accurate if you think of everybody in the pipeline built close to the numbers in the

mission but highly unlikely everything will be built. >> it is interesting i sit up here with those hears a supply and demand question the existing chases the displacement if we don't build or if we build and increase the supply and demand still causes displacement so the green i keep on experiencing and no, i think that is probably some of both i don't think that is one or the other to commissioner antonini's point actually with the effect of the market-rate housing is on the need to have additional affordable housing this is playing a big role with that said, with this project i'll ask staff does this satisfy the proxy 15 or 5 percent ami and 10 percent at the 100 percent is

this a prop c. >> under the trailing legislation the project will be required to provide 13 bus due to the grandfather so only one .5 percent greater than what was required. >> existing on the existing trailing legislation will it be required. >> under the existing legislation if they filed they're first entitlement proclamation today, the number will be i think 25 percent. >> exactly what we are getting. >> okay. thank you. >> i'll cut to the chase i'm here two a continuance and approval i'll ask the organized opposition a few questions if they could come up. >> we heard a project where you were supportive of that are you and hearing a project now your not supportive can you tell me what you're sticking points are. >> one point we're not against

this project per say we are wanted to really have more of 0 conversation with the project sponsor making this the best project possible and the things we're looking at to continue the conversation with the pdr space and configurations one of the spaces on the corner of 26 and south van ness to create a coffee shop there is a coffee shop across the street so that will effect that business across the street the owner is okay with the building he will be effected because a lot of the businesses think that if they have another building they'll go out of business that's not on the case that's one piece and use that with expanding the pdrs or creative with that space in a different way. >> okay the chapter concerns are huge 80

parking spaces and the mta's directing all traffic florida from mission and shakespeare's to south van ness to diverted that traffic into mission street so a lot of congestion with more additional cars. >> and also the parking can be used for more affordable housing we encourage folks to you know to ride the busses and get on bikes it is transit rich mission street not to far and fulsome street the design the design you know that is completely out of scale with the neighborhood it is bulky and really didn't does not fit with the mission of the latino cultural district it can be giving homage it is historical and a better fit and again that neighborhood is a mix of residential and pdrs uses you know a lot of auto shops in that area or car detailing shops a

unique neighborhoods we're trying to maintain that unique mix and make that interesting and also you know we want to continue to talk about the affordability piece there is we want to talk to them about trade off to increase the affordability piece we're talking about the latino cultural district we're in the creation we talked about having higher percentages for the latino cultural that is designated by the city as a special place to have occupants stay there we're looking at 25 percent it a minimum of prop c but didn't cover the vision for the latino cultural district by creating more affordable housing in that area to be able to talk about that and looking trade offs and how to use the space much, much better. >> okay looks like a lot on the plate you want to have a

conversation and includes the conversation with the traffic concerns and parking, traffics between affordable housing pdr and the design, and then the affordability percentages this is a big plate. >> the question as a commissioner we get stuck sometimes, we try to get the project perfect only to have an appeal before the board of supervisors and the developer gets soaked more if we granted you a continuance you got 50 or 60 or 70 percent you might appeal and where are we this is stuff we kick the can down the road can you comment on that. >> there is a way to appeal we come to an agreements everyone is in agreements with and we're with the city salvaging and move

forward. >> september or october and discuss and hash this out it will not be perfect but we're well comfortable and move forward with that. >> another question on comfortable how do you know when our done where do you draw little line. >> right we're going taking into consideration and seeing with the needs of the communities to balance it auto as best as possible. >> i'm a cynic and the developer and said you looked at the books in the room over here you saw the profit and still it was piloted i'm trying to figure out why to have a continuance. >> can i comment it was made

clear at the conclusion of over and over negotiations this is not over and the people in the room and expect to appeal this this will be excluded we don't feel that was on the communities and the city was fully involved and acknowledging not come to a conclusion that of spoken in the room we'll see what happens at the supervisors. >> project sponsor thank you very much. >> project sponsor we've heard with the community said can you give me had your thoughts on a continuance. >> they're saying they need thirty days they said they'll not appeal what are your thought. >> thank you for the opportunity to address this we've gone through a moratorium and controls and trailing legislation we've weathered all overseeing debates and quite frankly a

development not pounding their fists on the table saying we don't believe in the process this is wrong we let the process take its place and now to honor where the city came to with the trailing legislation we stepped up to do 25 percent to answer your question i have reservations i have concerns that we are going to get appealed i feel strongly there is a high probability in some of the meetings they acknowledged if we can't get to their affordability level they'll appeal to we can't get to their affordability level and to address their concerns to continue to negotiate we came out of yesterday's meeting and

had conversations with the commissioners had conversations with staff, we had conversations with other members supervisors, mayor's office we stepped up because that is the direction that we got if a broad section of the community a broad section not just a samuel group i'm not surging the latino communities represents a small group by the total population we've heard loud and clear through a moratorium and vote on prop c 25 percent to the commissioner antonini's point supported by rational research and great data is the number so what we did today we went back we worked with the capital markets group i was not being disingenuous when i met with them with the director rahaim and then following substantially with the city staff that we were

at a blank i have smart people that are able to help us get to a level quite frankly i didn't think we could get do we're there and don't think that unfortunately, we, give them what we want i'll say that i was really just like the opposition group very pleased with the progress we made in the last week when we first started this none wanted to sit down especially is small group and talked about the trade shops and talked about the design the youth authorities opposition if not to engage until we came up to 100 percent so i just don't think this is a strong probability of us resolving us with them unfortunately until we're in front of the board i hope doesn't happen but to your point

often does. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much first of all, i'd like to thank all the public comments the organized opposition sort of the neighborhood voices that came out per a little bit different we are here from the projects like this and i would say for those were talking whether other people were talking about that is undemocratic and in my head if i hear any more there are no through the chair not okay everyone's voices are to be heard i want to start off with this project on the merits the project is great i looked at the actual i liked the design changes i know i'll get to the organized opposition and the design is evolution has been good for the number of units in the site we have here and where

that is along mission street going up up to the south van ness is a broad boulevards 4 lanes off the buses works and i appreciate the evolution there so i look at you know where the parking community-based organizations - i'll ask about car share in a second more more importantly for the project i'm open always at this point i don't think i can support a continuance and the former supervisor caught the dye was not cast not how i operate i don't think the commissioners operate that way but to really

support this for the continuance not i got this huge packet and thrown up given to us during public comment i took an opportunity to read the support on the planning process for the quatro group and after last week's hearing he knew that was going to come up i took an opportunity to read it i'm sorry i don't see where in our last hearing in the previous hearings before last week this commission and myself that in particular have been clear we wanted to make sure that if there were continuances and further discussions have to have around specific areas i'm not undertaking in favor of open conversation but the guidelines that the project has been on the agenda and come before us for

discussion specific guidelines to continue a project an on and on what it say we expect when we see it in the future and my reading on the reports on community process and my hearing of the opposition today and again, with the organized opposition coming up and ropdz to commissioner vice president richards acquires i've not heard about the project will change i understand that more affordable housing is one of the elements that group is looking for but sounds like they're not going to be much movement on the fronts at any rate 25 percent today which i do believe that there will probably be a special use district with the affordability requirements will be higher and potentially other areas of the city that's we're not there yet but thus for a ballot

proposition prop c that created a requirement of 25 percent for new development it with would been been grandfathered but chosen to the higher level i believe we're at a level but is proclamations agreed on by the voters of san francisco and beyond that i again, i'm listening and trying to hear it i don't hear or see in the documents given to us in weeks past what exactly will be the project will change with the development and latino cultural district hive to the heard it i want to invite you to come up again and address this but at this time i can't support a continuance on one item it seems not much movement and not seeing e seeing this material changes

the project. >> do you want to know specific we're looking to move on number one the affordability because of latino cultural district the ability to be able to trade off and i think we're not looking you know 50 percent with the latino cultural district originally created a vision to seek 100 percent in all developments in the cultural district as time moves forward on we went down to 50 percent and now 35 percent so we're looking for something that will be able to sustain the latino cultural district the reason wear presenting that if if that's the number you are looking to hear that's the number we are working towards and compromising because we originally started with one hundred and moving down for the last year i'm not sure the

documents you're looking is the community report that was done in december of 2014. >> yeah. >> or is that a letter. >> in the whole report. >> that tells us what the latino cultural district and the community impact as far as governance and the focus groups were created the stakeholders umu were done and inputs to see how the people wanted to be governed and how they want to be created and preserved so that was the report you are looking at once that was done we created the council and the council based on that report is looking at ways to give to move forward that preservation and looking at the business preserve and how to create nor affordable housing and protect the housing in the

area moving a bracketing document that is being development this is the because of community how the way we got the information with the mayor's office mayor's office of housing and community development. >> all right. so one last thing on the document it's been given to us this is not how it is present i understand it is the planning process and more work to be done. >> policy goals stated in the document what the event full what is latino cultural district is how it impacts it was about focus groups but this is a summary of the policy goals of the latino cultural district you have handed this to us to use in support of what is different about little project i've not seen that. >> correct that is telling you

that is a community process we went through and what the is expect us. >> let me add a few thoughts i'm sympathetic and understand the communities frustration the mission and city is changing and born and raised and feel that change but it is happening and it is going to continue to happen i think on the surpass surpass this good a middle ground a there create activation on the street and activation in the corner it is frustrating to have goalposts and this particular project is patient and moved to try to accommodate 25 percent a healthy amount looking at from a developers hat

it is i'm not sure how much people what push, push to the point of no project no project and vacancy i was out there parked my car and tried to have a discussion on the corner there was activity we know the situation is not the best situation for the neighborhood i i'll be supportive of project and not supportive of a continuance i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say this is a good location and good for freeway access and more importantly very importantly. >> it is rental and not for condos the idea of absolute this luxury housing is not the case. >> commissioner hillis. >> again, thank you for all that continue to talk about the complicated issues of gentrification and displacement and how we grow your studied

erroneously you're here week after we've got more work to do week and helping us and the board of supervisors and to the tackle the issues everyone knows the solution are complex and i particularly want to thank miami for going beyond this to address some of the issues that is extremely valuable and we've tackled the issues from adu to rental units and building 100 percent to the interim controls in the mission that allows us to try to get better projects than kind of baseline projects i want to thank the developer here because it should you know we should note this project has the highest level of affordable housing onsite that we have seen today would you tell us city subsidies or zoning increase it

is actually a level we've heard from any other developers couldn't be done when we passed prop c so you know and i think many of us the neighbors the board oats mayor's office the planning department you know are push the envelope and this is what we've received but a huge step in the right direction and i appreciate you shois how this can be done in again, it is more than we've seen on any project anywhere in the mission or elsewhere in the city so i'm very supportive i appreciate the trade shops i worked for a nonprofit who's job to provide spaces for artists and nonprofits and we can't provide them as $2 a square foot i appreciate that also on balance this a better project than the with an we saw a lot of people were supportive

you know that one had no inclusionary housing onsite a fema we hope to go to a small acquisition project 25 percent of the units that human resources will be built onsite in the city affordable that is going beyond when what we expect double what you're required to do in the code and a huge step in the right direction i'm supportive. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to ask a couple of questions to director rahaim you were in negotiations with the other project with the same group of people what is the major difference here i mean, i know what it is like when you come to referee and something in the way you held the position in the end created the consensus

people of the supported where nobody dbes everything necessary want is that the timing that sounds like a reasonable offer came in at the 11th hour what can you explain. >> the biggest difference the size of projects i think you know the way i character it a loss of two market-rate housing units 10 percent of project the project is only 18 units but i think and there has been - i'll be frank i think at the meeting on monday, i scolded both sides for not coming to the table sooner i say those guys are at fault i know there are community meeting but not productive discussions until late in the process that is true and bodies might wag

that that's part of issue i think parts of it i on the biggest issue the scale differences of the two projects i do think there were - it is this project is clearly much larger at community sees this as closed to the heart of district i think that had been a long-standing relationship between the communities and the last developer as talked about earlier you know on the first of the meetings on mondays not a certainty over what the affordability will be and he developer cack as promised on tuesday and made within offer and made another offer today another person it is hard to fully answer our question but there was a longer standing relationship with the previous

developer and some of the recent kind of specification about how the project was to perform happened this week. >> you know i will also is that you know if the commission choose to act on the project there were things i'll be happy to be part of ongoing discussion to shape if you choose and whether you continue it or not i'll be happy to do that if you approve that within the perimeters of what you approved but i'll be happy to have continued discussions either way. >> i appreciate you saying that has a opening position that leaves on open-end position for the aspects of the project on one thing that is something that comes to me easier i believe that the architecture project leaves a number of things to be desired relative to the size and the appropriateness that is one

thing i'd like to see the project take a further approach to desensitivity and relative to scale and different facades and conditions that needs when you walk around the side from all directions and number 2 i'll agree that looking at the trade shops for the last minute offering what i like the idea i'd like that to be investigated more thoroughly relative to height as well as size and numbers of shops at that moment 5 or 8 hundred whatever i'd like to see technical justifications how that implemented itself for example, someone wants a slightly large space it might be that trade shop that wants a bigger area and the building was

predicated on residential design so for the addressing of the variance in size was simply a number of trades shops equally important as saying six or eight spaces or whatever the thing that is always difficult i'm not making the judgment but talking about the psychology of negotiations if i have an agreement and in the mom moment got it and on the on the same page that's great if someone makes a concession i didn't have time to think about it is harder to swallow that's what i sense it happening as director rahaim explained leasing leave us the ability to continue or take the definite acknowledgement of excellence process in other project as an

invitation to see the director lead the discussion on where there are differences i don't believe that given what we know and how we're seeing prop c and the variances of this project will be 100 percent affordable project that is really hard to believe i also don't believe we're in a position i'm looking with question marks to the city attorney to voice any opinions about the percentages of affordability other than what their current are will go late by the things that effect what we're allowed to do we can have opinion buzz not put in conditions for approval are

disapproval we can ourselves not create or push for percentage we don't have the tools other than that is currently available am i saying the right things ms. stacey. >> commissioners deputy city attorney kate stacy commissioner moore you understand the basics that the board of supervisors has adopted this comprehensive framework within the city operates maybe extraordinary circumstances that is different but i think the sponsor as articulated here is a volunteer change to the project so this additional affordability is really part of project and not the same kind of requirements as the code required amounts of affordable housing but that'll they will be included in part of

project and the project sponsor has requested that these additional units be part of costa-hawkins agreement and treated like the other affordable units because of the benefits that the additional modifications that are part of this cu permitted allowed the project to be longer than that would have been. >> i appreciate your instructing and clarifying that for us in and of itself speaks to a concession for which we on our own would not have influence over the developers stepping up owe proposing that that being said i could go either way i support an ongoing dialogue with under the direction of director rahaim i do support an ongoing

refinement of architecture design and particular uses on the ground floor facing 26 street and the residential a scale that are more in the scale and the general direction of the cultural district and that is why i'll i'll leave it at that for right now. >> commissioner antonini. >> in terms of trade shops that is part of arrangement all along i believe that 5 thousand square feet and $2 a square foot that is also been not changed what was changed the increased in affordability the other thing unique in terms of the mix interim controls is it satisfies all of that no housing loss that doesn't apply and the other part help with the relocation of the existing pdrs and the purchase of the lands from mcmillan allotted mcmillan to build a

bigger and better project still within the mission and still within the latino cultural district employing 75 new employees what is exactly what we've asked them to do and the other thing that is important about this and makes it a better project is the affordable is 15 percent lower income it is the amount that is required in the additional amount of tenor percent is middle income something everybody asked for housing for middle-income groups the nurses and others saying we can't afford to be here and other groups if so the kind of group that equals not qualifying for the affordable so i'm going to make a motion to approve with the prolong sponsor continuing to work with staff on design and

working with the director on any modifications that could be maids within the perimeters of our approval as an example you can increase or decrease the number of housing units a certain percentage but certain things can be done after our approval still in effect but the director and project sponsor and interested parties can make adjustments particularly design i think i heard from commissioner moore that's my motion. >> second. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> one question for the director i'm sorry, i didn't release you were - given the punch list meeting with both the developers and the communities groups do you feel this is something that is the goal line or we too far apart.

>> thank you. i was thinking about that very thing i mean this is a combination i'm not sure what we - two things will be the most challenge we can address the issues that the gentleman raised around some of the pdr space and should say trade shops based on the specific location of trade shop clearly work on the design issues the two issues that will be challenging if you choose to approve will be how we address the traffic i mean, we could look at issues where the industry and tweaks there if you approve the project with 80 parishes the traffic is a what they are in general and, of course, the affordability and whether - you know if you approve a projects are 25 percent affordable we'll not be in a position to increase that there the negotiations that's

the proportionality of what you're approving that's my sense of belonging it actually in conversation with the city attorney about this question. >> i'll cover for you while you finish. >> commissioner vice president richards if i can ask for clarification i know you addressed the pdr use and john mentions that we would do ongoing work regarding the design it is the departments understanding that the community was also requesting the areas of the pdr space be. >> - >> perhaps that it would be good are for the neighborhood groups to confirm whether or not this is something we want. >> one last times organized opposition one last times we're down to 3 things we can't solve and we'll video to solve them right here on floor it traffic,

the pdr and affordability are any of the comments we can't do anything about the affordability the developer said they're right there are you there - are you well, i think we're getting interest we'll continue that conversation. >> so i'm not not an expert there are other possiblies there are tax credits opportunities that expands the number we've not discussed the kind of things we would like to talk about and get the right people in the room the creative finance people. >> anything else on those 3 items. >> well the pdr space we're looking. >> the pdr. >> trade shop. >> pdr. >> (multiple voices). >> trade shop our the parking

a. >> the discussions to expand that we're looking to reconsider to make that better for the kind of work they're kind of small 6 areas they were 8 hundred square feet each so we're going trying to make sure - we were looking doing a trade off maybe reducing if pdr more and more affordable how to create them do that. >> anything else good parking was a bigger issue we were looking reducing parking. >> to data to more affordable also. >> so project sponsor one last times and looks like a motion and a vote or another motion and a - and are you close enough with the punch list looks

parking the traffic issues and which are related and this affordability one of the speakers mentioned the tax accurate finance for increased no affordability what's your thoughts. >> thank you for the opportunity to address those concerns or suggestions ; right? let's talk about tax credit financing about too years hiring someone previously employed to help us figure that out solution tax credit expert at lennar we're not able to figure out the capital stack because we are not a nonprofit tax credit specialist additional not for profit specialist we are a pubically traded company this as shares not layer on those levels of financing so that unfortunately removed ideally an

80, 20 deal and do better returns as it relates to the pdrs we have grade issues anyone that walks along shot well and along south van ness excuse me - worked clooinl with the staff to fought that stoop ores that was difficult no and access to pdr so the only is off of 26 advantages in the meeting one others space to look at one of the members of the lcd suggested that the gallery i said it right in front of the staff happy to have those conversations we looked at it is with staff in our architect specialize the square feet happy to have that conversation with them and don't

think you know as i tiechld if they guarantee to our point guarantee that someone will not appeal us then we could figure that out and a couple of meetings with staff and move on chances are we'll get appealed and have a couple of months to figure it out if i don't have the right team to fourth that we shouldn't be in business the answer to john's point we can step up and continue to work with staff offender the design i feel we've accomplished those as it relates to the expansion of affordability excuse me - of the trade shop outside of that area is not possible >> i think what we're landmarking at this point items that can work with the directors office in trying to - i think

that is crazy to say they'll be no appeals to speed this thing i agree with the motion to continue the conversation on the items to be continued where there is a big gap no purview and no legal power to sit down and we arrogance guarantee not appealed that is not conversation for another day and place. >> okay commissioner hillis. >> i want to echo i'm supportive of the motion but you know, i want to echo commissioner moore's comments about the design it is buck i didn't and you've done things that may not be necessary i know that is through several iterations and people talk about the iterations so but i you know want to encourage you to work in good faith to make that more

contextual. >> commissioner moore. >> as apart part of motions are we including the idea of the potential gallery space into this motion i think that would be an interesting thing to veggie understand the response on glades access to trade shops but a gallery space that indeed helps with cultural identity and local arts that maybe indeed an important thing to consider as it also han has an expression relative to the building itself. >> for example, commissioners the project does include a small corner retail and for our purposes a gallery will be considered retail in the zoning district up to the sponsor. >> we heard someone talk about

a coffee shop and another 1 across the street coffee shops are like a stretch for me and indeed pursued something like a gallery definitely more to add variety and cultural relevance to the area. >> commissioner moore department staff during the process the pardon may have mentioned the idea of having a cafe or coffee shop to the best of my knowledge is not something that is definite and part of this proposal and see also imany use that inhabits that will be consistent with the mission street nct if you have a gallery that is larger than the principle permitted area that will have to go through the conditional use authorization process. >> if that were formula retail but the point i'm hearing and

there was an agreement we should work to maximize the trade shop and maximize the space that is consistent with the latino cultural that's the commitment i heard and the request from the communities to get as much out of the space that may include a incremental. >> in support of policy statement with more genuinely needed to the district. >> i think my motion has enough flexibility if there were an increase in trade shop space could be done up to the limits of what we're approving i think you can do a trade off make that consistent with the motion. >> would you want that has a condition. >> yeah. we should make that a

condition and allow staff to work with the project sponsor to maximize the trade shop space. >> or gallery use is consistent with t latino cultural group. >> and the design. >> commissioner moore. >> that is sliding in the face of because of grade differences as is applicant said limitation how much i heard that the variation and size of trade shop units is indeed what is flexible so we're limited by grade for x amount of total, however, the subdivision didn't have to be expressed in - >> the smaller increment at that moment might not be exactly what is best for the street and

this area. >> correct. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> one last next thing i want to make sure that the communities and one of the commissioners go former commissioner mentioned this was fully baked i came in here with open mind and getting the developer back to the table to see if we can narrow i hope would have about think a smaller gap the game is beyond our purview and two vague i think having the director work with the community and have other conversation and try to figure out where this goes to the appropriate venue i'll vote yes on is motion. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded. >> sorry one second. >> i'm done. >> okay. >> that doesn't work. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions and to

continue to work with the design pdrs uses consistent with the latino cultural district commissioner antonini oar commissioner hillis commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore are commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> you guys want a 5 >>[gavel] >> >>[gavel] >> good evening welcome back to the planning commission raided a meeting for third thursday, august 11, 2016. commissioners we left up on your regular calendar an item 15 item 14 has been continued. item 15, conditional use authorization

>> nick foster department staff. one of congratulate commissioner antonini. thank you so much for your public service to this commission and the city at large. etc. before you is for conditional use authorization to allow for story vertical addition to its two-story nonresidential building 50 feet in height with our and zoning district approximately 5000 ft.2 project site located on block by broadway to the s. oak st. to the west by lego street to the n. market st. to the ease located in the rn-two residential mixed moderate dent density zoning district and 65 were of subject has 36.5 feet on frontage on broadway and the depth of 137.5 feet. the site previous he occupied by two sport building and limited commercial use on the second

floor. the proposed budget would provide six two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit for a total of seven dwelling units. the new 18,580 gross square-foot building five stories over drudge would retain seven ground-floor parking spaces at seven class i bicycle parking spaces and provide open space for each of the dwelling units. the vertical addition would've a very fun setback with no setback at floors-1-4 and 42'6" at the sixth floor. additionally the project library rear yard setback of 9 feet .8 inches at floors 13, two and this is the buildings existing condition before he feet 4 inches at the third floor and 44 feet and 4 inches at floors 4-6 under. setback new vertical addition is in the set billable area and as such we are yard variance is not required for this project. the significance fun setback on the upper floors were in juice of the project first was admitted to the planning department in 2004. excuse me, 2014 as to illuminate any shadows onto the

part which is a rec and park property located across from the subsequent party. the project requires conditional use authorization for two pursuant to sections 253 and two agreed to allow the structure to exceed 50 feet. even though the underlying bulk and i district would allow for taller structure, the of to 65 feet in the case of the property the code requires approval from the planning commission nonetheless. today's determined cards missing to letters in opposition after the packet deadline in those letters have been distributed this engine the letter speak to the proposed site. generally incompatible with the neighborhood contacted on balance but i find the project is necessary in order to startle and compatible with the neighborhood or community with the project as swelled and 12 units to the housing stock great new resident units in the transit rich area. reinforces prevailing street wall with the vertical addition i will not cast a shadow onto the rec and park property. and includes

streetscape improvements along broadway reduce curb cut as well as installation of 2 new st. trees. the veteran has recommended the standard commissions approval tuition insure the building is not adversely impact the residential character of engine based on these findings, i recommend approval of the project with conditions as proposed project complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code is consistent with the general clinton that concludes my presentation should i am avail for questions >> thank you. project sponsor, please >> good evening commission commissioner antonini thank you for your service. it's been a pleasure having you as part of our lively discussions over the years. the project before you is a at 1452 broadway st. is a great example of an urban infill adaptive reuse of an underlying site along the major transit corridor adjacent to a thriving neighborhood commercial district. distort

resource evaluation was prepared by architecture and history in 2014 an existing building was found to not have any significant having been built as a one-story workshop in 1907 and subsequently use as a blacksmith shop machine shop and paint shop until it's present use as a ground-floor parking and second-floor offices. the current building and the desk described nondescript stucco with [inaudible] residential use which is more consistent with the neighborhood and a ground-floor parking would be retained and residential units would occupy floors 2-6. originally, the design called for an eight unit building with a 10 foot setback at the front and however shadow study prepared by provision design determine the proposal would reduce the were produce approximate 24 min. of shadow after 7 pm went to the corner of the basketball court at

helen will spark across the street to the southeastern increase the .01% shadow on the court from a-charger for the direction of a kind we redesign the upper floors to incorporate toy for foot and 51 foot setback to the before to avoid the shadows on the project is reduce the proposal by about 4000 ft.2 and facilitated the removal of the eight unit. the revised proposal before you allows the design to read like a four-story structure from broadway street to be masking the upper floors and doesn't require any parking exemption for the unit. having a street frontage of 36 feet along broadway the building is unusual in its width so the design is intended to emphasize more traditional san francisco proportion and rhythm. we the vertical element to the west recessed balcony and a main body to the use that's also finally articulated with recesses and material changes.

this provides multiple benefits given the elevation compositional that provides overproduction to the south facing windows and provide an open space for several of the units. the building lobby is designed located to maximize visibility on the ground floor and the second means of the rest to activate the pedestrian experience. in addition to the required outreach meetings we've had several follow-up face-to-face meetings e-mail correspondence and phone calls with the adjacent neighbors during this prostitute we have modified the designs to mitigate privacy concerns raised by primarily by the neighbors to the west of these modifications include providing frosted glass to the light wells frosted glass privacy screens about the gargoyles to the west, side of the property and setting back the roof deck on the property line at the upper floors. the proposal before you increase the use of an underdeveloped site along the major corridor and neighborhood commercial district at 57 additionally needed residential units to the city supply provides one part

bicycle each of the unit could contribute positively to the neighborhood character and the suspect oh to its neighbors. it will include the streetscape along broadway by reducing the width of the cut and 15 u st. trees in this proposal completely code compliant asking for no variances were exceptions we all the requirements of the planning code. recently it's come to our attention some of the community would preferably maintain the eighth unit from the previous original proposal. if this is also the consensus of the commission and a parking exception can be printed as part of the approval process, we can work with staff to maintain the extra or envelope as proposed in the current design were to get the eighth unit back into the interior design. however, as we have to remove the primary stair access from the sixth floor to avoid casting shadow on the helen will spark it will acquire finessing that the lower floors requires consultation with fire and pediatrics at the for the integration of the eighth unit be handled at the staff level

after the granting of the conditional use if that is the desire of the commission and suck it thank you for your consideration am available for questions. >> thank you. opening it up to public comment? >> good evening. i first want to thank commissioner antonini first 12 years service on this commission. i tuned in at 10 pm at night when i got back home and unwind and sure enough you're still digging in and asking the tough questions. >> thank you good actually 14 years but i appreciate it. >> sorry. so, on this project broadly supportive of adding housing at this location. however, we think there is changes that could be made. one, he was just mentioned by department staff and sponsor this the transit rich area. so, why are we having seven parking spaces. yes we follow the plane when which the code but the zoning administrator does have the ability to grant an exemption from parking so we would ask for a little parking as possible. we can say transit rich and then say we need one to one parking. so that's on parking. we also think that

this site can have more than eight units if that is possible. if that's a bit of a stretch than we really insist on eight units at this site. the unit sizes are quite large. my understanding is that this is going to be a first sale project just give you some sense . new condos are selling in our neighborhood for about $1200 a square foot. that's $1.2 million per thousand square feet. you know you have to start picking about affordability and one weight we can tackle affordability is building smaller units that can come to the market and be more marketable to wider ranges of folks. and that will be our comments here. we would like the sponsors to perhaps have

another trip back to the department, work with the department, to try to get more units unless parking out of this project. we think it's possible. we think that they've done a lot of great work. they've done outreach to us and talking with us. i just want to get a phone call in a couple of years that says unfortunately there's been a bad traffic accident because somebody is coming out of the broadway tunnel and you have cars coming out of this site. i just think that's a bad location to have seven cars coming in and out. the city is investing a massive amount of money into brd along van ness so the great transit of our neighborhood is going to get better. so let's try to be creative with this one. let's try to make some easy changes to increase the unit count and reduce the parking and i think that will be in line with the city's overall transit first

policies and would also improve affordability. so with those comments, we'd ask for the commission to make some modifications. thank you >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. mike, thank you for your years of service as lucky as i like to echo all the many many comments here >> thank you, sean >> it's been so long a lot of good stories and a lot of fun. anyway, i appreciate the comments from oh and the project sponsor at working together for the last several months on this. if i could have the overhead just for a second? this junk. oh that illustrates the bite that had to come out of this project when it was an eight unit building get to satisfy the requirement of no shadow on the part. the project sponsor would love to have eight units. we are dedicated

and committed to working with for that eighth unit. it would be our preference, not to have to come back in front of this commission again that eighth unit would reduce our parking ratio could we would now be less than 1 to 1. that would take some work on your behalf. but, i do want to acknowledge that front staircase does not access all the floors anymore. while i am not a building code expert, i know that each unit has to have a passive travel and get you off that floor to staircase appeared that grates a little bit of an unusual challenge on that pass through. we have your approval, they would be dedicated to working with staff and working with the community to obtain that eight units and i think that would go a long way towards all the things that we support thank you >> any additional public comment? >> my name is greg wilson get i'm just a resident

>> use them other microphone if you mine? thanks >> i live on alejo street just north of this building site. the pictures that we've seen they look good. the focus of this project and the discussion in the packet in the planning committee has been on broadway. it's been on the impact on broadway where the shadow that casts on the helen will spark that was removed. but there is also a large shadow that goes the other direction is much more significant and impact a lot more residents. immediately to the north of the site is a courtyard that is owned by a large apartment complex but surrounded by a lot of common buildings in the courtyard provides clean space and light and son for a lot of the units that surround that courtier. including mine on vallejo

street. that is our primary source of sun and light to those units. we get that from the south. as you know. by allowing this conditional authorization for this building to go as high as 73 feet, the structure, it's going to cause a lot of that some in a lot of that blue sky that we enjoyed to be blocked by that though. it's pretty much directly in line if you look at sort of just south of the little south west of the courtyard. afternoon sun and afternoon light is going to be blocked by this building. so the focus has been again on broadway and we look at the pictures and the building looks great because we don't see the three stories on top of that structure because of those setbacks. but those three stories will cause this great light blockage and shadow on all of these units that enjoy that courtyard. it will have a big impact on a lot of the units on that side of it. we

had-they did have an outreach meeting as was mentioned and there was that good number of residents at that showed up there. i had e-mailed the staff planner mr. died expressing the same concern back then and i know others from the meeting also have some concerns. i don't know if they expressed it or not in writing but in the packet, it said that no public comment has been received. i know there was a transition on the assigned staff planner from mr. died to the current staff could maybe those comments were lost, but it's a little concerning that the packet there's no public comments were received, which i know i get comments to him and i believe other residents also had the same concern. residence that border and surround this courtyard. so i would hope that the extra height will not be

granted. >> thank you. any additional public comment? not seen any public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> i would like to ask a couple of questions. questions which in the context of a project which uses a similar pace condition for design and that is 4069 pacific st. they are, we talked about the issue of double dipping where under article 1, use of a noncompliant structure, was mixed with new construction which falls under a different set of rules. in the end we were working out with a lot of hug and told that indeed, there was a variance for the introducing a residential use into a noncompliant structure. i would like to ask mr. rowan,

how that particular observation that particular case applies here? on pacific street we had eight old manufacturing bakery building which had been there since the end of the last century. no. the one before. in a neighborhood which is residential in through the new construction, first through trying to retrofit that building we realized it was basically new construction kit that we have that here, too. we are retaining a noncompliant industrial structure and were inserting new construction without really examining where the dividing lines are in particular the request for variance in change of use. i have a problem that this

particular building is envelope maximizing envelope driven and the reduction in shape and size is only basically driven by preventing sunlight-shadow on the public open space across the street, but because it is a see you it is not really allowed neighbors to weigh in which you have when somebody could file adr. i think there's a number of questions in this particular project doesn't answer. i am concerned about its height get i'm concerned about the amount of parking. i'm concerned about not the average unit size, but the excessive size of unit number seven, which has 3008 square feet with decks over 1300 ft.2, which somewhat seems a little bit odd given where this

project six. there are some other more detailed issues about light well matching light well and light weld depth on the drawing a-five unit seven to the west side has to show the light well. that is not deep enough. it notches-it starts with a 5 foot 1 inch light will do seen it to 3 feet in an area with the adjoining building has a day which indicates living space and basically barely 2 feet of the façade of those of that particular pay window. it's a privacy issue going to a 2.3, so there's a number of issues i believe this building

needs to answer a couple of questions and needs to make some modifications in order to fit the circumstance. >> commissioner antonini >> i generally like a lot of things about this project. first, in terms of the parking. i mean these are nice units. they can be for sale units and i don't get into a situation where we sell self-selected, people can live in san francisco. once you don't have cars or want to have cars. i mean if you do buy a unit in its going to be a nice unit of ghana one have a place to put your car and people going shopping or taking your kid somewhere if you have any or probably not going to want to go over to van ness invite the students from galileo per space on the bus when you go down van ness.