the previous conversation one of the improvement measures was to put in a deft element within the project itself to commemorate the lgbtq cultural sits of that area we want to project sponsor to talk about how they plan to do that and then i think we'll have other questions about the more generally about the project. >> project sponsor here? yeah. there they are >> thank you commissioners steve we're starting to put the interpretive program together were jan watson is working on that and convening an advisory group of lgbtq and interested parties not necessarily a plaque for interpretive gay but we're

trying to be innovative more of we're open to ideas we don't know what that will end up being and part of a one percent for arts money we'll decade to that effort so resources both from our contribution and from the interpretive program and something that is interesting alive and continuing probably more than a plaque okay. thank you. >> okay. maybe more on that a couple of quick questions before i pass the mike i'm not sure? project sponsor or staff i saw the number of parking spaces we have here about 80 for across the entire site? on market street and it is sort of right in that area there are multiple

discussions over the years about reconfiguring market street and directing very well traffic away from this this is a tougher corner turk coming to market street that tough angle can you talk about why parking here i think there is proefbl some reasons for the commercial says that the hotels the rational in general this seems like a really tough spot to have cars in and out. >> the garage entrance is on temporarily street away from turk and market street it is on the this project is replacing a larger parking lot more than 80 vehicles on it now it is reduce the amount of parking onsite as a negative declaration a study that look at traffic impacts and whether there are hazards

created by the parking garage entrance on taylor street that's why there was a negative declaration and eir the parking ratio is a low ratio the roast i've worked an on a project in san francisco no parking for the commercial and no parking for the hotel simply a small amount of parking for the residential and one level below grade we that this is an appropriate amount the principle permit amount in the c-3 is 5 we're below that and that particularly given the sponsor for the residential i question the need for parking i have a low percentage of stops to units why has not any at all ♪ location but we might come back around that my final question

there were some proposed ordinances from supervisor kim's office and there was planning department's recommendations on that ordinance and not sure you're aware of a few changes the planning department has recommended one on i don't know if so this the most important one but on the gray or non-portable water requirement that will save somewhat on construction costs the planning department proposed we not exempt this project from if requirement can you speak to why that was a factor in supervisor kim's ordinance you know why or why not exempting or not exempting and again, i'll say gray water is important >> a couple of things one from the inception to the proposal

was onsite inclusionary housing with the prop c trailing legislation or percentage is 13 percent at 31 units we were prepared to do 31 units onsite and the financial burden was a certain amount of money that was put into the performa when i communicate asked us to not do onsite they asked us to do rent-controlled units we investigated that and found a site we could purchase and decade to built that offsite 61, 68 as opposed to to 31, however, the financial burden was substantially grandchildren onsite units to what supervisor

kim worked with us on finding incentives to equalize the burden of ought with the land dedication and fees as opposed to to onsite inclusionary with the gray water the difference is north to $2 million to joy pledges to add that has a gift if we don't weigh the gray water it is up-and-up and up he within the even the savings is 3 and a half million dollars bids that's part of the calculation the community and supervisor kim thought that was more important to get more deeply affordable housing offsite than onsite in the case we with have done the

water and paid even though fee the supervisor asked us to visit the ought which is substantially more expensive and getting to equalize the burden including the gray water waiver it kicks in earlier this most on september 1st, we long thought to have a permit before november 1st the negative declaration was issued in january after an appeal was filed the planning department and the mayor's office decided to withdraw that negative declaration and didn't reissue the negative declaration until july another appeal in july we've been delayed by 7 or 8 months another performa that

compton compacted that. >> commissioner melgar. >> okay commissioner hillis. >> if i can follow-up on a couple of questions on the ordinance i mean one i appreciate your comments on the interpretation of the site not being static in a plaque by things happening in the tenderloin are still strong lgbt community and obviously heard that i hope the project sponsor and you the planning department will be able to work with some of the advocacy groups here today to come up with something appropriate that living because is not just history it is here but on the ordinance i guess i'm

trying to had had math and kind of reconcile what the planning department has provided us and like to look at cash to cash in one i want to step back and appreciate supervisor kim in the neighborhood and the developer coming together to try to find kind of a creative way to provide affordable housing we'll have a project one or two weeks we were getting affordable housing from additional height it is a trade off we've made prioritizing affordable housing and deeper ami levels it is worth exploring and supervisor kim does great work in this area and other projects but if we look at kind of what kind of fees would be under the current

rules there's the job linkage fields 4 police department million dollars and $15 million and then it starts to get gray that's 15.4 a pdrs purchase this chart is 2 point it gets up to $18 million. >> we've never proposed to fee out we never in any scenario proposed a fee out but a second column onsite unit that was not money tied in the chart doing the onsite feeds to be compared not a theoretical fee the fee has skyrocketed and the onsite percentage stays relatively close we went from 12 to 13 percent. >> you suggest the fee out there the existing rules for 15

millions is higher than what the subsidies we'll be opt out. >> much higher yeah. yeah. >> okay and can i ask you the same question i i mean is that your take we see most developers don't inclusionary but have to look at the value of what it will be inclusionary. >> kate hartley. >> 0 there was a study by the consultant that looks the cost of development and the costs of or the income of onsite far for sale inclusionary and what the developer will the trade off if they replace those units with market-rate, etc. from that study is valid the cost to the developer to do the onsite in

the neighborhood of $13 million that's their lot. >> in this case not purchase the nc r. >> just another follow-up question give us from your perspective on the ordinance and kind of the two options under the ordinance. >> uh-huh. >> again, it was your general take on it. >> of course the sponsor can speak for herself the direction to dedicate the land to the city mohcd will get income or get fee out we'll go through a normal rfp process into that perspective that is moses opinion for the community to

have 68 residential units at 50 percent of ami some 31 onsite at 90 ami we think that there's greater benefits even if the developer fee out the units are harder to maintain over the long term we maintain them as affordable housing but their harder because of reich's homeowners duce and other things we know the community really supports this housing we think that getting 68 units in the community is good there are uncertainties for sure you you know construction costs have rising and the financial analysis we did included to make it make sense financially that we will bring in veterans section 8 vouchers and that really gets us over the edge

into a project if we don't get the vouchers we'll have a gap. >> you're saying if you get the land value at the $4 million you get 15 millions in fees for the project your costs to build a 60 or $70 million what is the gap. >> we're randomly when i run the numbers the costs between thirty and $31 million we can generate 15 and if we get the vouchers as i mentioned we can generate $2.5 million and that leaves a 15 millions gap. >> all right. >> right. right so that's our uncertainty if we don't get the vouchers we want o can't leathern the debt but we want to

acknowledge the community and 68 versus 31 is a good thing. >> the developer will actually build the units. >> we're not pursuing that option all over the place bring a nonprofit developer that is experience and the tax credits on the vouchers that's fine that seems to be clear and easily okay you know, i have the seam concern that commissioner johnson had about the non-portable quart we're making a trade off to allow us to get additional affordable housing with less of a gap as possible. >> so i want to move 415 go ahead. >> commissioner hillis i wanted to say we're already

talking to al and ron to start the discussion so you know i'm all for working with them to create a historic district and we're going to take our concerns seriously we'll work hard. >> can i ask about the design issues maybe from the architect this is on ongoing process are the designs up and mr. johnson feel free to chime in. >> sfgov go to computer please. that's the original i mean this is been modifications over time; right? and that's the counties the notion i get it we face this

a lot on large sites and how to articulate them and make the building feel more contextual. >> my concerns i tend not to like dividing up. >> articulating a building but an ongoing debate here we have because it is done in a way it still one building but we're articulating to make that look like two rarely works and there are examples around this neighborhood where there are - there's buildings that are large-scale that have kind of quality materials but are represent testify flowed buildings like 200 building in the parking lot it similar to the large block wall buildings i

want your take on - i mean, you're an architect we've seen a lot of work here good work a lot of the buildings you've did done what you know what are you prefer on here and y whatnot wanting to put you on the spot why do you think the building works not articulated not made to look or appear like two buildings will that be to anyone elective on a building on the streets. >> in all honesty, as a design team rather than tracing to break that up to appear as two separate buildings the most challenging imagine if i can go back to the -

>> a lot of concerns along turk street feels imposing on the edge we have a lot of relief towards the middle of the block we indent the street wall a separation between you know whether the feeling like one continuous building we provide that area there that relieves it of the kind of size and the other thing that lets us do we provide a plaza at the base it is an open space along turk street we understand the concerns about the idea of trying to breakdown a facade or make the two programs different that is a mixed use project a hotel and a residential portion so we understand the need to

differentiate the two we just originally shown a more opinion an eloquent approach of transitioning from a kind of agitated residential portion to a flater almost a much calmer hotel facade but the two facade building we work hard it is still fairly successful i don't believe it is a successful as a strong concept that transitions from one facade to the next. >> okay mr. johnson if you can talk about those issues to me i'm not an architect but i sat on that commission for a while and dealt with the earth issues

i go to buildings i think that have worked in the city and i think where we kind of placed around a lot with that notion of making buildings feel lake they are different i don't - i cannot come up with successful believes in the city i go back with the potrero community with the design and architecture where advocated for less it more if you look at historically there is a pattern of buildings their repetitive similar kind of victorian and may not go an entire block but half a block i look at 8 octavia or with that project on fulsome some of the bigger promotions in the city they work with the

repetitiveness with the materials quality materials it is where i struggle let's break it up. >> we've been struggling with that as well and been in the intervene conversation for about 3 years about half that that with the design team it has been a discussion simply breaking the box it is really been about how to successfully acknowledge the program within the building to break down the scale to some degree and to acknowledge that there's a very different context open market than the tenderloin and the project has an obligation to respond to and reflect some of the qualities and traditions along the way we've explored a

number of different options it is constituent having with the scale the two mass differentiate the program and the components of building we've worked on other facade studies it is break the facade down vertically and yet a better way to introduce the pallet of materials this aspect of the design where we arrived at with generally those subtle gestures that are looking at the scale both valuable and across from the site we're helpful and appropriate along with the change of material we did push the project and consider looking for ways to

even to a modified degree she thought the scales to help further as a distinct element that notion is not present in the current scale but pretty much where we've been and how we've gotten there. >> thank you commissioner koppel i'm open to hear about the design we'll continue and possibly agree on i want to take a moment to acknowledge the support working through the packets there is many letters of recommendations from community groups business and labor groups not just the carpenters are here local 22 is here along with the

local contracting businesses not only will san francisco police commission residents be involved in the jobs while built but the fact that will be partly a hotel is a big job creator so gomez go a long ways camtc from a labor background and wanted to highlight this building this will be big for workers and staff and reception employees too not just a residential building but will house and employee people. >> i have a few comments and you know, i think the earlier part of this hearing in particular strong comments from folks and passionate comments we

do believe that is their district their history i know that we've asked you a couple of times about the programming more than a plaque i hope you take that seriously and allow this building to be the interest point the beginning of the district i can see hotel guests into the hotel and really spending a lot of time whether in the lobby or artwork and understand where they are and the hefty of where their spending the night and given an opportunity to teach more about san francisco history in particular the cultural district so i hope you guys execute that well with the communities. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to ask ms. hartley a

question. >> i'm interested in trying to get a better incongruence into reality of the land acquisition project and i'm asking the question which reflecting on the shifting of washington, d.c. i think the vouchers come out of washington. >> that's correct. >> when you talk about when you acknowledge that together with the $13 million gap the question mark is not just $13 million but a far larger question is that a correct interpretation. >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> if you don't have the section 8 voucher the reality of the project is a large gap of the 13 in the scheme of things as we sediment the section 8

allows us to serve- it allows us to leverage debt with the vouchers if we don't get the vouchers what that means we'll not be serving extreme low income people we'll be serving people at an average of 50 area medium income that is low income but not serving extremely low income it eliminates the ability to serve a broader range of households in need and then we also would not be able to support that we'll have a hole of somewhere between two and $3 million. >> i want to mention it because that reality is another problem which makes those discussion more complicated the

problem i personally have the planning department solidarity is where it is at the project is rich in communities benefits and a lot of support and that is great that is just exemplar and wonderful, however, that leaves the emphasis where the rest of the community will be having to pick up where the jobs industry fees are not collected and the gray water costs are not met either that he is basically shifting benefits a negative to the benefits and all of a sudden it is basically so what else is new i'm sorry to make that flippant remark, however, that raise large questions about the real depth of the commitment that leaves the rest of the community with uncollected fees

and shifts the future i want to raise that has an issues no answers but leaves me in support of what the department says the other thing you talk about the earth that i hope we'll not all sweep up in one motion i continue to say issues with the architecture that commission moved the project into continuous because the uniformness and size of the architecture where the project occurs i believe that is as market street as we know that will be alternated through a project that absorbs and aggregates 5 projects into one of the interest of the market street full of art is not as is snatch of the mega projects in

the spirits that project didn't address a number of concerns that the commission had when we continued it and this is for the project to be more responsive to the particulars of where it is two sides and the eddy street side emphasized not the address of the project the project is 950 market street and that is where it needs to be play it's most powerful role it could be a back building to the eddy street side but on the market street side i believe the project i sat in one meeting as i volunteered in the time when this project go came before the commission and commissioner antonini expressed interest he didn't join so i participated in within meeting where the department with myself

witnessing clearly restated the urban design this project needs to address particularly how they address market street and some of the makings and scaling of the building i personally don't see a response to the challenges and i'm kind of disappointed the department was not able to take that much fufrlt i think this is credibly important site in the district with many buildings left with the - i think this as this moment doesn't have the sensitivity to what is allowed i can't be clearer i'm concerned about the street the quality of this building parking space those buildings have a tendency to look dirty in no time their difficult to clean and adrenalin

i'm certain this building will not be the shiny white building as presented today, the interior along the corridor, etc. is a maze of corridors on the inside remind me of a suburban shopping mall that is is a harsh criticism sunshine 24 should be playing a more active role how it meets the street. >> i'm sorry did i miss a motion. >> schematics and i guess project sponsor and architect i want to peg back an what commissioner hillis said in terms of a tutorial by the boosters on architect we have to look at mission bay like that

starts the conversation about the potrero hill and the urban design guidelines this question i have would be if we if you're project was ruin through the urban design guidelines sausage factory what would it look like and i'm sorry if you can repeat that. >> we are a new proposed residential design guidelines we heard concerns knowing that maybe i should direct how does the project meet the urban design guidelines is that covered on the project; is that correct. >> giving me a general sense you don't have in in front of i flagged how the response to contacts in terms of scale of the object choice even if materials and the facade and taking away horizontally and

vertically. >> is there another building in the city we can reference of this scale that you can like this building. >> yeah. i think like we take a lot of accuses from commissioner hillis mentioned the flood building almost exactly the same scale and height that strong concept of kind of a repeating pattern along market street and also around the flatiron corner that is a flashlights edged building with kind of a second story reading at the base we've incorporated subordinate our project as well to continue that - we like to think of our project as a tremendous of that we utilities a punch system on the facades rather than a glass

transparent shiny building and that's more in tune with the context of the site. >> uh-huh. i i mean, i speak for myself i'm kind of sick of the same earth we see because it is different it is big miff their handsome building this building has a chance to be handsome and timeless to commissioner moore's points on the upkeep ability of the white building with that what do you think of that. >> we know washington technology has come a long way and design a lot of high-rises in the office and we employ this he's a punch window building a

lot of the concerts are the same. >> one pay your fair share seemed he like hours ago the building turns its back on market street and opens on, on a smaller street can you comment on that. >> that was a mattered we're not turning our back to market street but definitely want to bring attention to turk street and connect to the returned to district that's why the plaza is on the north side of the building to aid that neighborhood there i mean, i think that was a beg motivator to try to hold on to that mid block passage that connects market street to turk. >> a patch of open space on

market street side how so that going to be activated that is intended to be a spill over space for restaurant and cafe use you know the retail use directly to that beverage gardens was part of programming also very similar to along market street we have a lot of areas they have encroachment permits that allows tables and chairs into the sidewalks that is a continuation of that encroachment and wrapping up around into an open space eating area. >> one last question design focus on intervene it is late and the project level will benefit we'll talk about things that concern me if you had the chance to say you know we give you to get out of jail free card as a building to form into

something you like better as an architect what will it look like. >> without constraints on there again, the original idea was a very saline last year wrap around and a wrapping up around the building that would be great we went through the process and listened to the planning let's create differentiation that make sense to do that it is residential and there is a hotel portion of that so we really like the idea of transitioning between those two programs and expressing it on the exterior of the building. >> you did that with the change of shape. >> the change in facade a little bit. >> edges. >> exactly. >> we went through the

geometry of the residential clouding and a - smoothed it into something that is flater but added shadows to the hotel. >> contextually at the 1028 how does that relate to a building roughly half the size 40 percent smaller than block size. >> i mean. >> that was one the concerns in the internal revenue for 1028 contextually how this fits together. >> and intentionally avoided trying to be a class in the middle building and so, i mean forever that side that might have been okay. but for us we wanted it look like it fetus if the context maybe not a brick building maybe not windows but

we wanted to have a punch window we wanted it to have materiality that was closer to masonry rather than the feeling of you know - >> i'm not wow'd by the hotel design i'd like something different but that is up to the design folks. >> commissioner hillis. >> there's some design questions that is hard to redesign a building or pick i mean it seems to me to be some alternatives i mean - i'd suggest and maybe trying to fashion a motion that you know we recommend approval of the project and the ordinance recommend that supervisor kim or the board look like the value of

the the non-restricted potential water conclusion as part of the package of the affordable housing and that's a recommendation i think there is some disagreement what value is of that exploration so look at that when the board takes up the ordinance in the design i gravitate towards the original tuned design and maybe something we ask the director to work on the design with the june 2016 the basis in a articulating that and perhaps invites a couple of us to work with them and mr. johnson the project sponsor as report back since it is coming back for approval. >> commissioner moore. >> can i clarify your motion

want to go back to the single lapsing idea is that it. >> the starting point and ask the director to convene and invite a couple of xhifrsz in the past and report back. >> make the motion i mean ultimately you get too many people designing it is not a good product at the end and leave it to the architects looking start with the june 2016 as the starting point. >> i'd like to direct the question back to mr. jocelyn do you believe over the course you developed after our initial let's talk about commonly held principles that the recommendations that came from your staff and yourself have

been followed given what we see today. >> where that from our prefshg generally the answer a yes, we move the project further and that's a little bit academic you know we had that discussion about some other variances on this kind of theme we've arrived and comfortable this is why the project is here in that form and in terms of this element we still had concerns about the entry subsequence on both sides of the building and both the plazas and again a little bit of talk about the plazas on turk and enough programming and building for this project to

have two front doors in the way those potentially are appropriate right now we feel that the entries with not particularly pronouns and significant in idea of being able to read the - there's questioning around the small plaza on market business hours and food court is really the answer there and the fact there is a connection to the lobby and other connection on the street are supports reactuation of that space that's a conversation we are having. >> a question we've touched on in the let's get back to basics

ideas particularly the plazas on the market street side is the north side where seeking spaces much, much more difficult for all the other reasons as well the possibility is to send the project back to start with some of your own schemes i believe it is hard to go back to the june a lot of work has gone into this if you want to justify the june configuration then he couldn't support our motion anyway. >> i want to clarify this is the first i've seen this design i was at a hearing this project was here and we a long time a looked at the - this is risky

it is monolithic but we can go the path of at least risk and not sure that pays off i drive around the city and look at projects we approved or gone through the architecture gamut with you know community groups weighing in and departments i'm not sure they come out as good as they should and aspire to tie in the architecture of the city let the designers design and let's a little bit stay out of the way the

>> in response to the fact that we have historic buildings in larger and smaller intervals in this era which truly express the grain of market street and they have to you recognize will even if we do an ultra modern

building but that has to have a [inaudible] and a scale expressed in the architecture that's appropriate and recognized of the artists and i don't think that building does that. i feel comfortable being in the conversation and i have been in the conversations and particularly, it can lock. in fact we made some wonderful steps forward uncertain buildings. not a lot but certain tweaks which it created better buildings including getting the office and egg knowledge that. just that extra challenge and working with the department and some of us has, indeed created a better conversation about the building and i think we did not have enough conversations on this one and i hope there is additional chapter 1 we can have that. >> i will share my thoughts on design and i think that you can potentially overdesign

especially a design by committee. i'm not an architect but am an observer of san francisco architecture. always, did i think stephen architecture is conservative. i personally feel we can be more bold and adventurous than some other cities take on some more landmark buildings like the transamerica building. i think this is actually a great opportunity to take a chance on some aggressive different architecture. it's not a skyscraper. this is a modestly tall building. i think it's unique in that there is these corner triangle lots and if you look at the flat iron buildings in new york were san francisco the couple of building for example there's two different uses two different directions of traffic even. their monolithic. they match on both sides. so i do think church street deserved a chance to be the gateway off of market street using turk street to be inviting in that direction. so

unsupportive i think of commissioner hillis is idea of getting this project through. it's a long road to get this far. to challenge it because of the design on one side of the building and not the other at this point i think is detrimental. especially considering a hotel is well some residential units out of this. so unsupportive of getting it through and maybe falling back to the thing it's the june version. i think a little more monolithic than getting a small group together. i don't think we should abandon but at a lot of weight on not [inaudible] probably million times backwards forwards outside of your baby staff as well. commissioner, from this commission. . i think it's a chance to be a little bolt with architecture and again it's a medium high building. let's try it on for size 0 looks in san francisco. i wouldn't necessarily say this it was an aggressive skyscraper were

doing to be so aggressive but i think-yes? i think it's time. commissioner richards width commissioner moore, if you can indulge us about what is the difference between the [inaudible] building of the june 2016 version? what is the difference? ic commissioner hillis heard him say we of the buildings just as i'm kind of rhythm that goes on for ever and this would be an example that other than an indentation on turk street and things you would need to figure terms of the entrances on market street. with design point of view. can you help me their? >> are you asked me to compare to traditional architecture to modern architecture. it's a building off of the different skill with the building of a different use. the only thing i can say is that the older buildings are taller buildings where a larger number of buildings together form the

sparrow or market street of san francisco. they'll work with each other by size and floor plate and a certain amount of ornamentation artfulness and dinner some fell into an architectural style which at that time determined there were similarities between open and closed. it was an artful use of materials. there was a restrained craftsmanship which was very strong in pieces and yet very powerful when a kind of created what many of them are back log buildings they do not compete as much and i think this building competes with historic context. that's my be the biggest criticism of this building >> do think the june 16 version with those other versions go meet use of materials breaking it up etc., can actually work? as context because width no. i don't think subject i believe the challenges the department

choses and the discussions i had denied informal off the record discussions just about architecture with some other people in the department just deal with on detail and emphasis which is less than emphatic than what we see you. it does not have to be as aggressive or loud of building as it is. there are good parts about it when you put them into a large of a quantity they become overbearing. he . >> one last question. because we have two commissioners that were at the june 1626 it is her building in the city that reminds you of the building i could reference because look at this on these little a .5 x 11 is hard for me. i really don't like the september version. is everything we don't want it to be. >> there is one building, if the building of similar scale. we have no buildings of this size at this height anywhere in downtown on market street but [inaudible] did a beautiful

building on pacific which we approved and we were all specifically on pacific and jack's. that's a lovely go get that building is just so strong and its skillfulness and what it does, again to street [inaudible] two different environments would uses on the subject i can only think of that building of been really good example of how to design a modern building and the projects in this particular street of jackson street and stewart jessica do a good job >> do you think today we get this project through which i would like to, we could send it to as you said the small working group a couple of commissioners the project sponsor mr. joslyn, director ramp to make it moving more towards what you just said? this one up on pacific?

>> i'm using the pacific street as an example with this building should look at good i'm using as an example of >> it works. it works. okay. >> but i do believe that since this project has already been discussed for three years is that what you said mr. joslyn >>[inaudible] [off mic] there may be a little that of a disconnect here between some of the people who are talking to each other. that's all i can say. i would not be-i do not [inaudible] >> given that i want to move to approve the building. >> is there a motion >> can i ask a question of the motion please commissioner hillis. i heard you say about the water but i do not hear and

of the other issues raised by staff. is that part of your motion? >> of the approve the ordinance as proposed. just with the change. they look at the value-maybe we could clarify the other recommendations. >> commissioners, there are four proposed amendment to the ordinance. two of which you bespoke it is specifically today. the first being the gray water requirements and the recommendation from staff that waiver be eliminated. from the ordinance. he second being the clarification that $1.8 million is the correct figure that would be paid in connection with the jobs housing linkage

fee. that is the fee that appears in the ordinance despite the actual calculations. we are recommending 1.8 declare five is the correct figure. the remaining two are more technical but they are important. the first being that the ami's unsightly area median incomes for the off-site units be consistent between the two off-site options currently the ordinance is silent on one. we think that the drafting or recipient the final recommendation was that skate - excuse me - simply that we make the technical adjustments to the ordinance such that the project under either option is indeed required to participate in one of the afford of housing options. currently, it is not

required to. we would urge to adopt all four but of course commissioners, this is your decision. >> i take the last two that i think the first to get caught up in the issue of whether-what the value of that exemption is good because of its 1.7 million, i think this is we've made a trade-off with the ordinance with the ordinance is making a trade-off of some requirements for a more affordable housing and off-site alternative. so it's hard to look at the specifically and pick off one or two and change them without changing the entire package. so i take the recommendations on the last two and stick with my recommendation to look at the value of the potable water exemption. that value isn't that 3.5-$5 million. i figure of the supervisors going back and look at some these other tweaks to recapture that. and make sure that is equivalent to the inclusionary fee or the

inclusionary on-site fee. >> follow-up thought that >> no i'm thinking- >> i will second the motion >> commissioner jonathan >> [inaudible] >> director rahm >> if they've commissioners decide to move ahead become a discussion on the design and recognizing that i think the primary concern is if i could on this issue and the design issue was relationship to the tenderloin more than i think to be fair within the relationship on market street. it was the scale of the tenderloin and want to make sure that scale was properly address. so having said that, there's lots we can do it the commission chooses to move ahead to get the design in

a form that commissioners will are more comfortable with >> thank you. commissioner richards >> i like to recommend amending the motion to include mr. jeff joslin's suggestion of the entryways.. he had i think articulated very well. >> okay if it is acceptable. >> commissioner jonathan >> okay, sorry. if it does look like this is good to go back for some sort of subsequent review the decision tonight i would enter into my thoughts that i do think the design as propose which is what were talking about because i think would talk about september and june [inaudible] i think it works well. if you walk along market street that night 50 block nine are block right now, the articulation comes the variation in the storefronts have different banners but you take those away it is one of long

two-three-story building all the way up to the theater. i think this does a good job writing some articulation providing some interest and what can happen on the street level really depends what you do with the retail spaces. in terms of occupancy and what is there. unless about the design could i would actually have some restraint on that in those subsequent conversation. >> commissioner hillis >> we often can't talk about what the building looks like but most people experience it to your point commissioner moore, use. city hall on this to get it feels monolithic. it's a great design building if you step back and look at it but there's not a lot on the ground floor whereas if you walk around the flood building you don't get that same feeling because it's broken up into retail opponents. the ground floor tends to be what the most important of the buildings. >> commissioners, there's a motion seconded and i'm not sure i got the entire motion

correctly. so i'll let you restate what my understanding is that the motion seconded to who approve the project with conditionswith staff modifications to the planning code amendment recommending only the ami for off-site be consistent and to for it to be required in participate in affordable housing component >> and the board look at the value concurrence with the door potable water exemption. >> as proposed by staff? >> it in the ordinance. when they value that in the ordinance. so he was to look at the value of the graywater components >> the graywater component

>> commissioners, if i may commissioner hillis did you also want to address the jobs housing linkage fee in that >> the entire aspect. just the value of the non-potable water exemption is $1.7 million. i think the board is going to make not make tweaks to the new. it's 3.5 or $5 million, they are likely to. >> so we are talking out the ami to be consistent, the graywater issue, and then the affordable housing component. as those three recommendations staff modifications >> and the planning code amendment >> i think with the commissioner is saying that he's not exactly pick up staffs recommendation on the great water. with the job housing linkage. basically recommending the board should look at the value of those two items considered that in their final [inaudible] >> right

>> so the potable water great water issue you're just recommending the board of supervisors continue looking at it? >> and value that exemption >> understood. so commissioners- >> the amendment on the ground floor entryways >> i was just referring to the planning code amendment. as far as the commissioner use authorization the dozen project authorization >> the droning was because of variances. were adding the condition that staff and projects on to continue working on the design including stats recommendations regarding the entryways. >> we want that to be part of the motion not part of the recommendation of the working group. >> as a condition of approval. conditions of approval are to continue working on design and

conditioning the entryways >> right. as mr. joslyn outlined >> if i may can you clarify that were talking about defining the june 2016 designs we got some direction? we want to conclude this design exercise quickly and not start from scratch i think the motion june 2016 design was a starting point to further refine >> that was my intent >> commissioner mcnamara >> could you clarify one more time is what are not the commission is supporting 20 departments recommendations on those items are there only >> there are only two that the motion as i understand it are being recommended to be modified the planning code amendment. he was anti- >> the evaluation is a recommendation for the board to look at >> i don't understand why this commission is not capable of taking a stage and were only making a recommendation.the supervisors can themselves figure out as to whether not

they need to [inaudible] but i personally find it very unusual that we are deferring the decision when were asked to take a stand. there is nothing of our skin to make a recommendation to support what the department is recommending. that's not to say to be plenty of time to do the calculation at the board and their legislative aides to come up with a new recommendation indecision which is ultimately made in the board of supervisors but if we cannot even agree on supporting staff then i'm not quite sure why we are not doing that. i was very clear that i really appreciate the strong benefits package and what supports it brings from the community. on the other hand, the very valid question asking who is really paying for the? i cannot move away from that assessment perhaps does not have the [inaudible] what commissioner hillis is

suggested that i believe as a commission we are asked to work with our own department as closely as again and bring something forward which the board has the privilege to reject and modify. >> commissioner hillis >> i share those concerns but again [inaudible] portions of the whole ordinance affect other portions of the ordinance. there are things that are just-were baked into this ordinance to provide more affordable housing good i think if you push on one there is a legitimate concern that the project sponsor may have with the community that they should reduce something else. i don't think i'm prepared to make that choice good idea for affordable housing is a priority i think this ordinance prioritizes affordable housing by making some exemption to non-affordable housing

requirement could i just question how date-if we value those good i think the board values him and they dug up it is always out that's great but if they don't it could be an opportunity to get more funding to fill the gap or maybe less. i just don't know the data >> can we be clear what we are trying to do so when you just that would be in excess perceived value was at 1.7, should be considered the capture of? that's what your intent is? >> sure. i think also moly they are trying to have the value of the proposed ordinance equaled the value of the current inclusionary on-site requirements. to the extent they're not valued equal there should be some recapture of that. >> that make sense >> commissioner melgar >> we've talked about this a lot. just to chime in because i'm somewhat familiar with affordable housing thing. the

land dedication is something we've not used so much whereas inclusionary we have a framework for valuing the difference between market rate and affordable. there's a framework. with this one it's been hit or miss when we used it in my opinion. so i do think that putting a value that does allow us to compare apples to apples-i actually liked that idea. i also i'm a little bit afraid of these one offs things that allow for developers to not meet their full obligation because we have not quite figured it out how to value things. so whereas i do support

with the staff was going with this i also think it is especially because we have not really fully baked the framework to allow for these valuing in understanding what were you are getting when we are doing [inaudible] i think your motion is good. >> commissioner richards >> can we rephrase it to what commissioner hillis said is the intent. anything valued what we currently would've got under the existing regulations would recommend it be recaptured somehow. that would be the intent of what we are trying to say. >> director rahm or sorry mr. johns and >> sorry just want to check in this discussion about june versus september schemes for the civic reason is that part of what i heard in the making of the motion was that it was understood part of that

cleaning was an understanding that was the architects preference. that's not what i think i heard here. we had staff at a very specific set of reasons for pushing it in a different direction and specifically to do that contextual response with acknowledging this site has an obligation [inaudible] tenderloin and market which is a gateway to both as well as having this other esteemed neighbor, the work feels just a graphic relation to. that's what drove those decisions. it's part of what how we got there together. i guess i would simply suggest that perhaps it's worth a quick check in with the design team before locking in a scheme that day as well as we will wait from quite

a while ago. also, given i heard roughly 50-50 split on that tendency on the part of the commissioners. >> if i may come i just went to clarify. we worked hard to get toour preferences the june scheme. that's what the other is a little heavy-handed. we like the preference of the june scheme gives us. again to address commissioner richards, and we had a choice to go back it would be great to incorporate more of the june 2016 scheme into the design >> i agree. width commissioner richards >> i guess these commissioner moore's point, do you feel you

can be skillful in our: up to understand the impact of the design in the tenderloin however use some elements of the june design to still make it more skillful and playful but still respect where it is sitting? does that make sense? bind it to but combining the two solutions, somehow. color and texture? >> meeting halfway between the two would be tricky. i think the strength of the june concept was that it was a strong concept. it was a very bold statement that we try to make. chopping it up or trying to introduce other elements it's a common device and we've used it before. i think this is an instance where we try to limit that,, those devices or try to limit [inaudible] >> commissioner moore >> i would refer the commission to listen to the

department both mr. jocelyn who very well summarize the challenges that the department has posed and i consider them to be correct and i do believe that dir. rahm stance with the department as a starting position and in deposition there are number of things they can't change but to go all the way back to an unsolvable situation which is been tossed awake around for years i think is completely counterproductive and is not the support we 02 the department in this particular battle. >> if i may commissioners, in order to move this along, perhaps the best thing to do is not referred to either scheme. i don't hear any concern from the commissioners about the mass and the height of this building. i think i would suggest that you leave that open to for further discussion

and then i would specifically suggest you include that commissioners,, that to commissioners be involved in these discussions so we can resolve this and the subsequent discussion and i would suggest it's not critical to refer to either scheme at this point. do we simply have this discussion as we move toward understand the mass in the bulk of the building will not change >> agreed. i think that's a great suggestion >> [inaudible] >>we can't spend another year doing that. >>[inaudible] [off mic] >> right. because we really believed in passionate about design and architecture think we need to let the architect create something interesting. it's a concept that needs to stand. when you look at each city block in each architect has an opportunity to great something interesting for it.

otherwise if we cut it up the building into smaller sections in every box looks the same. each block. we want to create interesting architecture for san francisco. we want to draw their attention so this is an opportunity for us to be bold to do something interesting for the city and that is my plead, please >> i mean i am comfortable with the motion standing at the start import as the june 2016 scheme. i don't know with the commission's preference is good again, i go back if you look at this rendering, 3.2, which shows the kind of building that is before us with the articulated to building schemes , i still don't see that kind of responding to the more fine grained 8-10 different

buildings of similar architecture on the other side on the north side of that building should i get the need to articulate i can i get the need to have a strong breakup of the ground floor but i'm not sure that does with all due respect to the architect and department, does what we think we are intending to do. so i'll ultimately been the director sam but start with the june 2016 [inaudible] >> secondary agree with that? okay. commissioner johns and okay. >> there's a motion seconded. shall i call the question? >> one other thing i would encourage the project sponsor to work with lgbt community to make a historic district realize. that's all. i think that is an easy one. thank you >> okay. there is a motion

seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications to the planning code amendment accepting two of the status of recommendations recommended modifications regarding adm and the requirements which is an affordable housing component. that is the intent on the other the current inclusionary valuations. captured. that the commission conditional use authorization be approved with conditions that the sponsor continue working with staff on the design with the june 2016 being the starting point. as well as including staff's recommendations regarding the entryways that was expressed at the hearing and that the downtown project authorization be approved with conditions get on a motion commissioner hillis >> just want to clarify, i think the new the existing

regulations that community benefits package, the bottom line is proposed exceeds the bottom line the existing would have been that we asked they look at me capturing that. total community benefits with the gray water and affordable housing thing. something may change between now and then should let's leave it open. >> very good. for the total community benefit valuation. on a motion commissioner hillis aye johns and get koppel aye melgar aye moore nay richards aye fong aye so move. that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner mcnamara voted against >> >>[applause] >>

>>[gavel] >> good evening and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, november 17, 2016 i like to remind members of the public to these silence your mobile devices. commissioners we left off on a regular calendar. items 18 a - excuse me - a through their hotel and 19 a through fc numbers 2010 sunnydale: sf master plan project

environmental findings. the findings of consistency. general plan of minutes then encode amendment design standards and guidelines, development agreements, and shadow findings. as well as for case number 2010.0515-for the potrero hope sf master plan project general plan amendment, planning code amendment design standard guidelines development agreement, and shadow findings. you've heard several informational presentations on this matter. >> thank you. >> good evening present fong numbers of the commission a matt snyder departments that finally here before you for approval of legal as a project with sunnydale and potrero. as you heard you love about

exactly 14 approvals before you tonight and i will walk you through each of them. before i do a money handed over to feel miller director of the whole sf and then we lit that's the office of economic and workforce the moment not be back up. thank you. >> good evening chris. good evening mr. pres. and mr. director good pleasure and privilege woman movies decided have exacted the last few hours i tremendous respect for your interest resilient should all be very brief. the dapper oh because sonny dale sunnydale ever drove in a labor of love >> do you like to horse of them are speakers >> i'm not to comment but thank you very much good just to read through quick points. i'll do this very very briefly.

three things i want to say. number one on here on half of the mayor of the mayor's office and most importantly we have about 5000 individuals residence many who were here earlier today park and rec many them were not able to stay and hope sf is this amazing collective impact initiative that comprises so many different organizations agencies include of you guys and you had many informational sessions. the second thing i want to say on behalf of mayor jim eight wedding is on his weight is way to pittsburgh who broken public housing from is nothing more important to them than this initiative in many ways we are preparing a wrong that is been a blight on our city for decades. so i'm energized to be a. i know it is late but this incredible incredible moment for this. to want to thank you for your partnership and for your leadership in this. i really

won't go over these principles and details. i will be here for any questions. i will just say that our theory with hope sf and we have seen a bear to with alice griffith and hunter 0 to 3 transform community, if we transform these disconnected isolated communities of concentrated poverty a mixed income neighborhoods and poorly, we do it with the residents should we take in intentionality to community building, community leadership resident services are most important in some ways the housing, the built environment that will transform the lives of the 5000 and transform the lives of folks to come those neighborhoods. this is no longer want to the other side of potrero when the quote" swanson sunnydale with these are vibrant and amazing communities, resilient committees already but fiber and committees to come and visitation value picture. without all handed over to my colleague to go to the details of how to start and emphasize how important this is to the city and mayor ed thank you for your partnership over the years .. >> good evening commissioners. we will test with the office of economic and workforce development. i first want to

express the sports for these projects of supervisor cohen. she introduced most of the legislation before you tonight. she and her aides cannot be here this late but they do want me to reflect their enthusiastic support for these projects. i also as the oh so dumb i want to note the many residents that were here to sport the project and had to speak but on ford's lincoln not stay. so we are really grateful they made the effort to come out. i will also attempt to be brief but we are all here much of the city staff is here to answer any questions you may have but the very lengthy documents in front of you. first i want to mention a key partner in this project are the san francisco housing authority is partnered with the city and our developers to achieve this vision. there are currently the land owner. they are the property manager and the federal funding partner for these sites. they are signed to the development agreement and through that they will

continue their role as the federal funding partners. they will also conduct various types of land dispositions. they will execute long-term ground leases for the affordable buildings that are constructed. they will sell the market rate parcels to third-party developers. and they will dedicate you load ways and utilities to the city. these land dispositions are outlined in a separate master development agreement which is a companion document to this deal. so the sunnydale start a star with sunnydale first of either a few slides on each project you've seen this before. as you can see the site is extremely isolated from the surrounding community and the housing stock is an extreme state of disrepair. well past its useful life. sunnydale is

located in visitation balloted its the largest public housing site in the city at 50 acres could currently it is home to 775 public housing residents households. so the master plan for sunnydale will be developed by a partnership of mercy housing and related california in partnership with the city. the master plan includes the fine-grained street network with new connections to the surrounding neighborhoods. a continuous street wall,, the addition for the first time of sidewalks, the trees, bike paths and enhanced muni bus access. in the northeast corner of the site in blue, purple, and red you can see the neighborhood of. these houses were will house number of community facilities childcare centers program open space, retail and health and wellness center. the development agreement before you today prioritize the primary public benefit of the project which is a one-for-one replacement of the 775 households currently living on site with clean safe

and new housing. permanent housing. the neighborhood will ultimately be mixed income. the development - excuse me - the developers obligated to construct about 200 additional new low income housing units on the site. additionally the project includes opportunities for about 600 market rate units of housing. also through the development agreement the developer will provide significant package of in-kind improvements. 3.6 acres of neighborhood open space. 13 acres of new roadways and utility infrastructure that totaled 60,000 ft.2 of community facilities that i mentioned earlier. in this diagram here i want to highlight the plan to mix up the affordable and market rate parcels across the site. the goal here is to place both

types of housing throat the site and create a more integrated community. the affordable buildings that are in red will be owned in manage by mercy and related with the market rate parcels will be sold and developed by third parties. just finally to touch on the phasing plan. now that we are here how we actually are going to implement this great project. project implementation, we are expecting to occur over 10-20 years. the development agreement includes a phasing plan that is purposely flexible in its timing and order of the development so that the project team can respond to federal and state funding opportunities, maintain existing services to residents who are still living on site waiting for their renovations to hit their homes. most important, the phasing plan needs to be respectful of those residents currently living on site will be relocated into new housing

in phase. you can see all those considerations reflected in the phasing plan at some of the crazy allies you can see here because obviously are working with the site were 775 households currently live. so right now we have the phasing plan broken into three major phases and nine sub phases. i also just want to point out the timeline shows here was made possible with the help of the passage of the 2015 prop but also general obligation on which provided $40 million towards this project and is hoped the city and project team accelerate the first phases. onto pretrade appeared perturbed in next similar to study gail was constructed in 1940s. 38 acres currently housing 619 household. is in a similar state of disrepair is

similarly isolated from the surrounding communities could there's no retail and no formal dedicated public open space on either side. the potrero master plan will be developed by bridge housing partnership with the city. again like sunnydale the master plan actually reconnects the site back to the street grid of the surrounding neighborhoods with a continuous street wall various building typologies and again the addition of sidewalks. on potrero this site seemed natural topography has been a bit of a design john. were flattening that as much as possible and actually the new neighborhood center which is shown on the right hand diagram with red highlights and blue is an accessible zone that we have created so that residents with disabilities can actually access all the needed retail services. there will be bus stops to that area so we been really thoughtful but how we

can do with the site topography. similar to sunnydale the development agreement bases primary emphasis on the 121 replacement of the 619 existing households. there will be an additional 200 low income afford all units built on the site and the project includes opportunities for about 800 units of new market rate housing. then the rest of the in-kind improvements made to include 3.5 acres of open space spread across the site, 13.5 acres of new roadways, utility infrastructure and transit connections. local serving retail and a 30,000 ft.2 community center with a recreational and cultural service outlets. so the potrero project phasing will hopefully be implemented over the course of the next 10 maybe 15 years. like sunnydale the phasing timeline was able to be accelerated with another $40

million to the same general obligation bond passed last year. you can see here that the project phasing will start in both the south and north ends of the site. the fourth and fifth large phases are in the center. that is where the slope fits so it requires us to tackle that all at once. again the development agreement is a phasing plan that is flexible to respond to those topographical challenges and also be responsible and respectable the 619 household currently living on the site. i'm going to leave it at that and we are available for questions. i do turn back to matt. again i want to emphasize the board public private partnership nature of this project between the san francisco housing authority,, the city and the two nonprofit photo housing developers.

>> all right. so as you know this commission has certified both environmental impact reports. the sunnydale eir was certified in july of 2015 and then the potrero was done last december 2015. also in december for potrero we also adopted ceqa findings in general plan finds. you did that because we were ready to move on one of the blocks which we refer to as block x appeared at the southern - excuse me - southeastern most portion of the site. then you approved some for limitary resumes for that project. so for tonight what we are looking for you to do for sunnydale is to the first action be to adopt the ceqa findings. ceqa findings of course include a statement of overriding considerations in the adoption of the mitigation monitoring

reporting for him. he second item for you for the sunnydale project will be the adoption of findings of consistency with the general plan and with planning code section 101.1 which you do for all your actions of these pastoral general plan finds will be referred to in your subsequent actions and we also confuse these findings brought this project that we can refer back to for things like land that occasions a general plan referrals and the like. for both projects you will be adopting planning code text amendments. the text amendments will create new special use district for each of the projects. they are almost identical in structure. the special use district will provide special requirements for land use and then for some of the major building standard requirements within the districts but would defer much

of the actual standards to a separate design standards and guidelines document which wire will also talk about in just a minute. i should mention that the planning has now recommending some changes to the text as it was originally introduced by the board of supervisors. that is in your packets. the draft motion or resolution before you does acknowledge those changes and indicates that you are accepting of them. the changes were planning to clarify and make sure that there is consistency between the suv language and development agreements and also provided some provisions allow some interim or temporary uses that might be necessary as the project gets billed out. he second item for both of them will be map panning code map amendments which simply list the new special ways use district on the [inaudible]

the 40-660 height and bulk this. the third action is to approve the design guidelines - excuse me - design standards and guidelines document as i mentioned before, these will provide special provisions for building standards that are key to these unique sites. the design guidelines also provide provisions for the design of streets and open space and how they all interact together. finally-i mean not finally we have a couple more. at the fifth action now is to approve the development agreements and you heard a lot about that from lee. then the final one is to adopt findings from planning code section 295, which of course is the shadow ordinance. we were before the park and rec commission this morning. they passed a motion - excuse me - and resolution that recommends or finds that there is no

adverse to mitigate impacts of the project on potrero rec center for potrero and for origins of the clearing part specifically glenn eagle golf course and hurts playground for the sunnydale project recommending you make the same findings. i think that is it. i am here to answer any questions you have. members of most oewd the housing authority, project sponsors, and william pollock who is a master architect and the authors of the design standards and guidelines are also here in case you have questions for them as well. thank you. this concludes my presentation at >> thank you. «a project sponsor. >> this to project sponsor.

>> the project sponsor for sunnydale >> hi. my name is rainy darren project developer for mercy housing california and related california for the sunnydale hope is that development. we are so excited to be here today. as you know we've been working on this for i think eight years. so we are really appreciate you allowing us to reach this point. the sunnydale master plan reflects the golden ideas of the residence and our neighbors and as you heard, we did have a group bank of your day to speak but unfortunately they could not stay. but the residents are very excited about having this point in the developed and are just trying to figure out how can we move quickly. i want to give a shout out to the planning department for its partnership over the years. the figure planning to carmen has been working on this as long as we have almost. do the ceqa process the ceqa hearing to sunnydale. working on that

design standards and guidelines. working on how we can create processes that are streamlined but yet colder developers accountable as we try to implement the master plan over the next 10-15 years. we very much look forward >> good evening we are the master developer for potrero. we started our day at 9 am this morning. at the park and rec commission it was an inspiring meeting actually to hear. both residents spoke of their desire for this change and transformation and hear the reaction of the commissioners and the that meeting with the unanimous support from this park and rec commission. part of what was said by residents and neighbors at that commission hearing and if you

would hear if they were here tonight you would hear them say it's time. it's time to move this project forward. after eight years of community organizing participatory meetings outreach engagement focus groups, it is time to move this project forward. we have bridge housing are honored to be part of this initiative and very very excited to be taking this next step with you as the planning commission with our city agency partners. with our funders and lenders and most importantly with our resident partners at potrero [inaudible]. i'm here to answer the questions you may have and thank you for your consideration >> thanks. opening up to public comment if there's anyone here last?>>[calling public comment cards]width good evening commissioners. and

director rahaim. this is thrilling for the housing authority and for me. actually i've been with this process for the past eight years. it's been a dream of the housing authority and the residence to actually rebuild these sites that new housing for residents. when we started eight years ago it was right off the bat a collaboration between the city our developer partners, the community and most importantly our sunnydale and potrero residents. everyone has worked very hard to get to this point and we are really excited and welcome your approval of all the actions that you have to take tonight. this will truly transform the severely distressed and dilapidated public housing sites into two vibrant mixed income communities that will have new housing for residents and other of for the housing market rate housing community amenities,

open space, and is just really exciting for us. i think you for hearing these items and hope that you will approve them. thank you. >> thank you. >> again corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition and kudos to everyone involved for eight years. we are in sport >> thank you. any additional speakers on this item? >> i forgot why i came. >> i think we did, to >>[laughing] >> my name is fran martin

associate with the visitation valley greenway and visitation valley planning a letter we been supportive of new housing at sunnydale since 1999 when our community rated the planning to address when you sent transportation issues and visitation valley beginning with [inaudible]. historically our neighborhood has been systematically barred by the powers that be. sunnydale is a blight and on reputation of us city and a poster child for social injustice. [inaudible] long-overdue new housing will help remedy that situation. this photo shows children from sunnydale boys and girls club that we work with their outdoor education program. they represent those who need to protect nurture and give new homes are focused social values one of the wealthiest cities in the world. we support new development at sunnydale do not want to hinder it going forward. at the same time we hope will be more attention paid to integrating it and surviving war permeability with

mclaren park and [inaudible] as a project it spelled out in greater phases of construction. that can be easily accommodated when the time, spirit i urge you to support this project. it's been far too long for our neighbors to live and horrible substandard conditions. thank you. >> thank you. any additional speakers on this, these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> commissioner moore >> this project has been so strong for so long practically no change in the staff. layering the information. informing us all along. there's not even a single question i have because everything has been said. editing has been laid out. everything is as solid as it possibly it could be and it's a project which obviously no question with support from anybody anyway. i can only be delighted we are

here. another good holiday present. i'm very supportive of it and hope we will approve all the various aspects which are in front of us. the only one question i would like to ask him and this would be to the person representing the housing authority, this is a question i've asked ms. hartley on another project just about an hour ago. are you for seeing any possible changes in direction from our newly constituted pending reformation reconfiguration in washington dc which would affect what we're trying to do here? >> actually were very optimistic. we are to have our disposition applications into hud pick worldly to have them approved very quickly. we been working with hud and that will actually give us the connection we need to all of the subsidies

for the affordable units. >> would that be before january? >> that's what we are expecting, yes >> [inaudible] >> kate, you may want to-our partners from ocd since we have been working closer with the mayor on this. >> kate hartley. so just like were very concerned. hud staffs is very concerned, too. the key to this project is something called section 18 approvals. the housing authority and sponsors submitted their applications and i heard from hud staff that they are trying to push them forward very quickly. usually they take much longer time and he did give me a two-week time frame. he said don't hold me to that and don't tell anyone. so for the record >>[laughing] for the record were hoping to get back in two

weeks. where is the camera? no. >>[laughing] they support the project. there's great stuff behind us. they want this to succeed. we may see a diminishment of federal resource. [inaudible] are especially at risk in this section a program which will be the key to this program is the strongest program. it houses millions and millions of people, banks all over the country rely on its. so we think that is something that will continue on well. and that would be the key to this project. >> thank you. i hope we can approve that in the next 5 min. >> commissioner johnson >> i can get off with a motion i would just say them excited to see this. i am also excited. we had that pier 70 project

come to us a couple weeks ago and i was heartened to hear the looks of some options for temporary housing on the project site. i know that was a major issue where are the people going to live what were doing all the phasing. so i'm going to look commissioner hillis did you want me to do a motion? all right. let's get it. do we need to do sunnydale and potrero separately? >> it's entirely as you wish. if there are provable as is you can approve all them together. >> altogether. >> they were both called together >> i'd like to make a motion to approve all of the necessary approvals. do i need to say them? >> i got it. >> okay >> second. >> one question. member of the public wrote us about potrero project and i'll ask ms. hartley were project sponsor and the concern they had was in the advent of moving forward

with driverless cars, ride sharing bus services connecting to the rest of the city why the need for one for one parking get just a question. i support the project but why do we have one to one parking moving into the future? >> doug just said don't screw it up. i'm been a try to not screw it up >> i'm going to vote, yes so answer honestly >> so the zoning consisted of the citizens provide the maximum ones one parking. we have not-we do not anticipate what one apartment in fact we work with sfmta eight under transportation demand management plan which of those goals which are far lower than

once one parking but there are requirements both for the affordable housing development and more poorly for the market rate developers to reduce parking supplied there were to be the root quadrants of that plan. so we've added address that >> great. you do not screw it up >> commissioner hillis >> i want to congratulate everyone involved your we've seen many large-scale projects even a small deck set up more controversy than this. obviously it's in a complex environment where you have residents and urine existing neighborhoods and building within them. so it's a testament to you all and all the works that gone into this. that we are here today and for us it's an easy job to approve this but thank you all for your work >> thank you. director rahaim >> visit to our knees were the biggest projects to be approving in a very long time have no opposition. they have this great sport so i think that's pretty incredible. if i could besides thanking everyone involved would do a shout out

to matt snyder is been involved for years and years and done an incredible- >>[applause] incredible attention to detail on this link obviously many many people in this room have a lot to do is that i want to recognize all the residents were here earlier were not able to say that were here to tell them how much they want to make this happen, they supported this. i would make sure we have a shout out to them as well. they do all. >> commissioner johnson >> director rahaim set up for me but least one commissioner people sitting outside residents come for the park and rec commission try to waited out as we struggle to the last item for hours are long that was. they were super friendly. they were super excited to be here. i spoke to a couple of them and i'm sad we were not able to get them on the record here tonight but i want to acknowledge they are here. huge accomplishment >> commissioner moore >> i'd like to give a shout

out to the architect who did a stellar plan [inaudible] and going back and forth in the beginning and standing by the project. >> commissioners, there's been a motion seconded to adopt environment so findings in an overriding consideration adopting findings of consistency, a recommendation for approval for general plan amendment, recommendation for approval to the planning code amendment by design standards approval, development agreement recommendation for approval and findings adopting shadow finance. on that motion commissioner hillis aye johnson aye koppel aye melgar aye moore aye which is aye the motion passes unanimously 6-0. >>[applause]

>> commissioners, that will place us on items 20 a and b for items 2016 conditional use authorization zoning administrator will consider case number 2016-001512 at the same address. please, note on august 4, 2016 after hearing this matter in closing public comment you continue this matter indefinitely. at that time, commissioners melgar and koppel you were not seated. commissioner johnson and fong were both absent. my understands commissioner koppel and melgar have not been able to review the previous hearing but commissioner johnson, you have. which will leave us with

the quorum of four required for this. commissioners koppel and melgar you're welcome to stay be happy with jews participate in the hearing itself were active on the matter >> we need a motion to recuse both commissioner? can i entertain a motion? >> second. >> think. on a motion to recuse commissioners koppel and vanover hillis aye johnson aye koppel aye melgar aye moore aye richards. thank you that motion passes unanimously 6-0. speed is good evening house and bank departments that. the item before you is a conditional use authorization request without

the renovation of a two unit building can't allow to demolition and the development of residential units and a density of one unit per every 1500 ft.2 of lot area. the scope of the project has changed since the commission last observed it in august. the project sponsors no longer proposing a merger of the two existing dwelling units and said is proposing to reconstruct the two dwelling units approximately the same location. as it existed and then expand and convert the garage into the new third dwelling units. a variance is required for the additions and conversion of the detached garage into a dwelling units as the garage is a noncomplying structure in the rear yard. since the august hearing the planning department has received one letter of support so for a total of 35 letters of support of the project. with that said the department finds

the project necessary desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as will result in an increase of one dwelling units on the property. the two units we've replaced with units of comparable or larger sizes. the density and massing of the replacement buildings is in keeping with the development pattern of the neighborhood and on the residents being displaced. this includes staff presentation. i'm happy to answer questions at the project sponsor is also here to answer any questions. thank you >> thank you. project sponsor. >> good evening commissioners get my name is richard miller. i am the property owner and project sponsor. i bought the property in the process began about 2.5 years ago. i recognize it as vacant and run down an opportunity to create quality housing. i've done this a number of times over the past 10 years or so finding obsolete rundown sometimes vacant properties. modernizing them

make them comfortable make them desirable and that's what my intention was with this project as well. as ms.---said we've altered the proposal to rebuild the existing two units, plus, add a third units in the structure that is currently the garage building. we look forward to adding the units good i'm very familiar with the neighborhood. i live just a 10 min. walk away. i spend every morning at corona heights park with a group of neighbors who have become friends could i talk to a lot of neighbors. i have not heard any opposition to the project. as a matter of fact one neighbor was here earlier and asked me to present a letter to the commissionom