incredible building i hope you have an opportunity to see that i'm happy to see that as continued in the tradition i heard the elderly speak about their own philosophy how they've built as an opportunity to continue the legacy he was touched by what i saw and heard and hope the community finds the ability to publish a book about this remark building. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you really quickly why the variance for those ground floor ceiling heights? >> right. >> so, i mean in terms of asking - >> i mean the project sponsor or zoning administrator. >> the minimum required ground floor to ceiling is 14 feet

given the connection required for the adjacent building and providing the slope that connection wounded be feasible if they provided a 14 feet height so they're seeking a variance for the 11 feet 10 inches. >> okay. thank you. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion commissioner hillis excuse me - commissioner johnson. >> okay. >> i. >> commissioner koppel is commissioner melgar excuse me - commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and on the variance close the public comment and thank you to the project sponsor for a thoughtful presentation a great historical concept. >> thank you. >> commissioners item 16 abc d

and e were withdrawn >> (clapping.) >> which places us on item 17 a conditional use authorization on september after hearing and close p.m. the commission continued the item until october 13th with commissioner president fong voting against on october 13th without hearing continued the matter until december 8th commissioner hillis and commissioner melgar were absent. >> good afternoon chris townsend planning department staff the the item before you was previously heard by the commission on september 29th requests a conditional use authorization for removal of that single-family dwelling on cap street the project proposed to demolish the single-family

home and then to construct a new 4 story dwelling unit building and september 29th hearing the commission needed more information regarding the occupancy and the rental unit status as well as more information regarding the visibility of rooftop park equipment they requested the following one that the planning commission i'm sorry the planning department staff look at the rear interior for signs of occupancy two, that the sponsor contract the rent board for the rent-controlled status of building and provide a design for the equipment from the public right-of-way as instructed autopsy -

thorough inspection that was delipidated and totally unoccupied by any tenant any are rent-controlled units the project sponsor provide the documents included in the packet the ownership by the sponsor indicates the property owner if 1973 to 2014 was the california conference of the evangelical church with the current property owner during the ownership that a mario who filed a wrongful eviction and omar resided on the property the sponsor contacted the attorney mr. valentin well and the pastor of the church

next door that hired mr. valentin wall and as part of the agreement they resided on the property while the lease was terminated the churches lawyer maintained the property is not with the articulate ordinance because it was licensed re89 to employment they are not tenants but others this was referenced in the landlord response to the immunization that factored into further action and closed the case the staff believes the sponsor adequately r07b8d to looking this matter, however, ultimately the planning department couldn't definitely

determine if this was according to the rent board, however, no tenants in the buildings both vacant with regards to the commissions censure concern about the visibility of the roof they've provided a renderings that makes it clear that's not be visible from any public right-of-way since the last hearing no public comment and in conclude staff recommends approval based on the following that is consistent with the m district in density limits and the district is tied up to accommodate existing tenants and will have a net gain of 3 units making that a good project that brings four family-sized dwelling which are both served by transit the overall mass and scale is with

the residential design guidelines and the neighbors context that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions i'm available. >> thank you project sponsor, please. >> commissioners this is the second hearing 2 minutes and public one minute. >> i'm the architect for the project chris towns was very stark in explaining the project we have a delipidated single-family dwelling one path with a delipidated accessary dwelling in the rear our proposal to remove that believe and rasp that with four unit two bedrooms, two basket and two three bedrooms by code we've supported to do 40 percent we're doing 100 percent we feel it is lacking two question is is the

property soot to roll call no the were the past units only 40 inches tall not the old water roof they're dead quiet no noise and can't see it from the street another important thing we tried to work with the planning department and got gotten only positive comments so far from neighbors and planning is there any question that i can answer in the appeal. >> i don't believe so but commissioners may have questions later after public comment. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> opening it up for public comment not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i was the one that asked for the additional steps to do

the due diligence i'll appreciate the project sponsor and the comments report i think that kind of sets the standard when we have serious questions whether neither demolishing a rent-controlled i'm satisfied we've turned over every rock and move to approve. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to a motion to approve that with conditions on that motion commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 - 17 excuse me - 17 are 7 that places us on item 18 a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners

rich department staff joined with kate connor and corey teague from the department the the item before you is a conditional use authorization for the proposed project on 12th street the project requires a conditional use for major - the project includes the demolition of a second story industrial building and 80 feet tall measuring one and 44 thousand plus gross square feet with two hundred dwelling units and class 1 bike parking spaces and 2 class 2 bike parking spaces the dwelling unit includes one one bedrooms and two bedrooms includes 11 hundred square feet 11 thousand square feet of below grade along the street two private open areas and two roof

decks the project will adjust the lot line of the lots that results in a project site with approximately, one and 99 feet of footage along norwalk and along 12th street a lot area of 25 thousand square feet per the government code the project sponsor has elected to utilize the density bonus program which preempts a maximum of 35 density bonus program if at least 11 percent are affordable it includes a development as the right without modification for example, open space as well as opposed, etc. under the law the project sponsor is allowed waivers from any standard that following concludes the

structure at the density for the project on 12th street it has 98 thousand square feet of which 82 thousand square feet will be residential therefore, the bonus project has permitted square footage of one hundred plus square feet the project before you includes 200 dwelling units will allow 11 thousand grow square feet the project proposes waivers to the development for one rear yard two open space, 3 dwelling unit exposure and four height and 5 on-street parking loading things e shins the staff report the waiver for lot merger is not required per the code lot mergers in the w and zoning district which resulted in frontages large this this

require a conditional use authorization that fronts into the student it is less than thirty feet wide therefore the provisions don't apply those provisions apply to streets as opposed to to alleys relative the department has identified within ongoing issues with an interior coast guard 20 feet wide at the narrow it point it is seeking waivers for the development, however, the department recommended this coast guard is reorganized in order to satisfy the rear yard units for open space after analyzing the aspects planning department staff recommend approval that complies that the planning code and consistent with the policies of the general plan and project is in zoning district and full-time that

replaces a parking lot the project adds 200 new dwelling units to the housing stock and onsite affordable housing as part of affordable housing program and utilizes the area and pays the impact fees as part of addendum to the packet that i provided i provide a revised motion that highlights the change in the language for the draft motion and the public correspondence we received subsequent to the publication those include for example, letters if cc h o a letter from the going on university and the art institute and public correspondence that was e-mailed from the project sponsor and in addition the project sponsor provided a revised affordable housing affidavit that recognizes they'll provide the 18 of housing units on site only

11 is for the density bonus program that called for a low income household so happy to answer any questions you may have. >> that concludes my presentation. the project sponsor has prepared a short presentation. >> project sponsor, please. >> what else while they're setting up i want to tell the board one of which was alluded

to we have as i understand a letter of intent about the san francisco art institute to take one hundred units negotiating and expected to find an l l i with university so 100 percent student housing equip for the bmr requirement that are required onsite under state law the second thing that i wanted to mention we withdraw our - we agreed to provide the 18 requirement for the city onsite bmr and wrote you a letter are we ready to go - okay my name is patrick kennedy the other than of panning erratic building in fill housing in berkley and so for for the last 25 years

we have focused in the last 10 years on student housing homelessness housing and workforce housing and in each case tried to use initiative designs and new technologies to create housing that is affordable by design without subsidies and which can be provided by the private sector our most recent project was implemented in 2015 the building e building called the panoramic with the college of the arts addresses he does conservatory of music with one and 60 apartments in that project we had l l o i for the project before we got our entitlements and this is the case we're here today l example o i to take half

of the building but need an approval tonight with the second university and proceeded to a lease looking at the apartments in the project we learned on the project that smaller units with individual bedrooms were key troefks for student housing so our new project is all multi bedroom apartments with no studios and no micro merriment 135e89s a car free project and finally as with our last preservation spent several months meeting with the neighbors and businesses in the immediate area and have all unanimous record of support with the current residents of that part of town and i'm going to turn it over to our architect mark to talk about the project

thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is mark macy's the panhandle principle of macy's architecture and pleased to present the project to the west that is affordable by design and car free located in a highly walkable western selma rambo and trader joe's are collaborate and the street a block over it is served by transit this is a sanctioning of the neighborhood the earthal urban industrial context that is a view of the project within the context of the partial block of 12th street it was approved the

harrison project i designed a little bit about the building form the project draws inspiration tip metrological through the uc it was simply we reviewed this as high density and architecture this by the way, is a terrace bathroom another precedent wiener looking we did the walk up walk down and again an example if london now with the development as you can see it has an upper walk up level with a walk down level protected accordingly along the 12th street our own schematic resisting arcade turnd to the earthquake san francisco text

with walk up dwelling units and walk down incidentally arcade is 14 feet high here's a view along 12th street some more inspiration from the uc the precious urban land resources with the walk down gardener the uk those are below grade here's our adaptation trader to the san francisco environment we're all familiar with but walk up 3 to 5 feet above the sidewalk pare this with the walk down gardener we've increased the capacity by 7 percent from the frontages and ones we factor if we've increased only possible

b&b by the eliminations of a car we're not proposing can walk down unit below grade ours are half a story above the sidewalk this is the norwalk frontage 25 foot wide feet not two friendly not a single tree on the street only 3 and a half non-acceptable and compliant sidewalks our continued footage we're proposing to sobriety our building voluntarily 10 feet with the width of the negotiation and 35 feet for the full residential frontage we'll also be increasing the sidewalks to 7 feet including out board planting strip making that 100 percent assessable that is the configuration for the benefit it creates more breathing room along the alley and allows us to

plant trees that will not interfere with the train it and it softens the edge for the walk down unit by placing the sidewalk portion adjacent to the bed we've maximize the room for fire trucks and residents existing their doorways we like the potential of shared social space and currently most typical guidelines by the maximum missed floor area results in narrow stems that run parallel to the steps research perpendicular since we're setting back 9 feet along 12 troubleshoot we are able to reduce an updated variance on the scale one perpendicular to the sidewalk and serves the gracious shared

space and split between a fairly defined entry port some concluding remarks talking about the walk down units the 12th street frontage the arrows radio for the pedestrian entry and exit point of main building and the walk up units from the sidewalk those additional arrows represent the walk down unit 60 percent of pedestrian exit and entrance like at north e norwalk frontage the addition of the walk down increases the activation resulting in a friendly street this w you can accomplish for people and not cars. >> lastly i want to touch on the talking about the highly

liveable unit designed we have been steroid in 1920 to the mid thank goodness we're looking at austrian and the dutch and more famous new frankford projects all the projects were you on fundamental optimization and thirdly working in context with the sketch designs were highly influenced by frankford kitchens so here you see some of the two bedrooms units from 1920 and the 30s and at scale comparison with the two bedrooms and two plus bedroom units in the 20 and 30s we were concerned with the two

child households we're designed to. >> sir, your presentation time is up though the commissioners may have questions. >> okay sorry. >> it's okay. >> opening up for public comment to public comment elizabeth (calling names) and folks if you want to line up on that side of the room it makes that easier (calling names). >> hi, i'm elizabeth with the academy of art the san francisco art institute is the old nonprofit art school on the west west coast it is true month universities housing is an important housing tool we face the high cost of housing no now

more than ever in the history of our institution safe affordable quality housing for students is quite hard to come by every semester we have students that run into housing emergencies can't share the housing solutions additionally student housing is critical to the recruitment where it effects the desire community fortunately they're based on on the quality of other projects we're confident it will be providing residential solutions that will provide long term stability for you students the timing is critical our board of trustees this is a approved a letter of intent based on this proposal we're eager to move forward and take occupancy in fall 2019

even a small delay pushes back significantly and the vast majority of our student so we have the full support and urge you to support as is. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> and i think i'm the next speaker. >> you don't have to come up in a particular order. >> sorry to cut you off i have to get to class i teach at the university of california, san francisco and encounter those projects and hive impressed in principle by the innovation but in particular our students at the university he speak as a teacher and not as a representative of the university have desperate for housing this is the kind of project we want to impose and put in our voice we are spelling looking for

places for our students thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'm date of birth employed by contra costa electric and flaefkt i represented many of the highly skilled men and women of the building trades in meeting like this to be honest it is a pleasure to be involved in a project we know the building inspections and traders of panoramic an mission street and it is very interesting the way they combine quality, dental. >> and construction with initiative and efficient features they see involved the skilled workforce to support the economy and help the craft men of the future for the state approved henry workforce and th

this while alledgedly the need for student housing you've heard how for this project whether enhance the look of the area providing housing for students and serve it's resident both current >> future i speak in support of project thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is johnny rodriquez employed that contra costa electric and was involved that the panoramic the project feature itself you've heard from the architects of the current project everything has been offered the housing for the students all the

accomplice apluses are there people from san francisco are coming to work on this project the acknowledgment of safety the record is impeccable speaks for itself thank you. >> my name is bob tillman i'm a business owner and property owner in the mission but i'm speaking now as a father of a 19-year-old boy and a 23-year-old girl the girl as recently tried to find housing in san francisco after graduating if college and west getting a job she found 2 would take her two-thirds of here take home salary to stay in san francisco consecutively she's living with us i urge you - >> (laughter).

yes. i urge you from my wife's sanity to approve that and take the housing stock off the pressure of the university >> good evening my name is bob and i'm the owner of city show rooming on the corner of 15 and fulsome street 12 and fulsome excuse me - we've been in this building for about 25 years parking is always been an issue coming here today, i was not aware students parking so my hair is less but nevertheless, express that parking is almost unavailable in that area at this point to add 20 more cars or hundred more cars and buses to the academy is going to be a hardship in your business we've

had to close howard street due to construction with the units i understand the city's opposition to - for like to have a unit with no parking but i'm sure some of the students will be driving they're a parking lot exciting that can be dmoefrtd a parking i'll urge you to have consideration for some of the tenants been in the area or thirty years i've got a question on the i went the preliminary report i don't know if this is a final report and addressed the parking issues and the people driving around the block numerous times to find a location as it exists thank you for your time. >> hello, i'm reading a letter

on behalf of the peter who is one of the founders of the principal at cal commissioners, i received a copy of the letter and there's a copy on the projector dear commissioner no mystery the bay area has a housing crisis but the real challenges are more specific than affordability needs and workforce housing demands the challenges to find your honor, that what benefit in short we need to place housing in mixed use and transit rich places like san francisco to address the social and environmental challenges to focus the housing next year areas growing that jobs and taking advantage of urban living the access to silicon valley in has a workforce housing crisis that leader if across the bay

shouldn't ignore the urban enfill will help make this decide great this is why the 12 project is important part of a beggar solution one that focuses on housing and lifetime rather than suburban that was suburban parking free and reenforces while delivering the dents that city's needed need it offers small unit in our housing practices kwrgdz and roof deck and local places extend the living space for the rich thinks? not only good in

redesign it is initiatiovative (calling names) i'm here on behalf of the david to read a letter of the california college of the art dear commissioners realizing for panoramic interested proposed for multi family development in san francisco this 200 residential project will help create more capability for a city that guess in need of housing we've experienced working with the developer and confident the project their

envisioning will not only be of high quality but have new ideas how san francisco, california make headway on our housing crunch the units of design is a next generation version of the housing often mission the project we have our students living in 24 unit has oversized windows has the the spice up hitter of our student housing they've taken the lessons with the urban housing they've completed and advances that with backing and unit planning that allows them to achieve sustainable construction we think that is a well should resulting in the addition inform to our housing stock we

respectfully ask that the san francisco planning department support this cal street project sincerely david of planning thank you. >> good evening my name is alex i specialize in arranging projects like this i've worked with patrick on mission and in addition to providing the student housing and much needed housing this more efficient units of housing use requires specialized phillips that comes from a labor union pentagon so in addition to those groups thank you and we're in support. >> good evening. i'm sorry i

might be speaking out of or the i live and work in the mission and in support of this it as you may know there's a housing crisis in the city and i think this project goes a long way towards additionally that you're taking an industrial and empty parking lot area and putting housing there it a great use of our open space i think that is it good thing there is no parking here i think that is important to have room for humans not cars i went to school in an urban university and the on campus i didn't have a car very few of my friends had a car it whether not have an impact on the area closed to gorgeous and canals i don't think that should be a consideration so i support

this project thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, i'm david with backing even though capital a real estate broker i've worked with panoramic in the past and followed the project on hoifts that is strengthen thoughtful and high quality housing projects for it in fill sites one of the private developers i know of committed to delivering housing to low income and middle-income to san francisco i feel this project at 12th street is a treatment that will provide much needed housing for the middle-income thank you.

>> next speaker >> hello my name is ken i'm a long time bay area resident and syruper thank you for the opportunity on behalf of the panoramic interests proposed housing i'm the sculptureer committed to work on the panoramic at the ninth and mission as you recall i presented myself and any sculpture in 2013 i'll give a professional recommendation to patrick and to advocate for this project san francisco will squarely benefit by addressing want affordable housing needs and as you may know each project becomes a process which involves artists and architects and community resident and civic center leaders and funding agencies and construction teams the one percent for the arts

gives people increased opportunity to have more art in the community there is no down side one percent projects involve some but not all of the groups i've listed and the profits is more streamline and fluid patrick has been a deep appreciation for architecture and art we believe in good design and in tune with of the south of market and reflects back the importance and respect for the art and a to the community patrick's a professional person surrounds himself with intelligent people with incredible work ethics my project was never considered second-rate i had everything when i invited it was able to adjust with the team an excellent problem ceremonialers i highly recommend you approve

that the outcome will benefit the residents and visitors to san francisco our city is rich in textures it is a forward thinking city and the planning agency is a large part that have thank you for your time. >> good evening my name is erica i'm representing the contingency for a national nonprofit dedicated to providing tech assistance to cities for the brown fill project i'm speaking in favor of the project on testing streets of san francisco it is critical to our community and our environmental health many known benefits the reduction of green house gas emissions and the increased air quality by places that people need to travel and friendly

transportation like walking or biking or use of transit panoramic is encouraging active and sustainable participation in a fill reduces the stormwater around off like roofs and parking lots it flows off in large quantities educating pollutants the pollutant harm wildlife it is sidewalk vibrancy and the project has proposed stoops you've heard with setback and below sidewalk interaction and activities projects like this keep the students in the city in the mist of a housing crisis it is critical to our feature and environmental quality and student housing is a good investment that yields

benefits i encourage the commission to approve that thank you. >> good evening my name is mike hard castle with h and m fire protection we had the prestige of working on past projects are panoramic we're a san francisco certified lbe local contractor and panoramic provides quality save and affordable housing and also hires firms like ours and local workers and he support the project thank you. >> hello, i'm with charles building inspections we are a union based contractors working

in san francisco for over 50 years we will be panoramic believed oh, my gosh on the project and continued to use union laborer this is a site build 7 story concrete structure and not be a bad project i wanted to emphasize and we worked on the mission project and we feel confident we will team with them to bring high quality project to the city of san francisco in a city that is in dire need of additional housing thank you very much. >> my name is mark a senior project sponsor for the builders and a san francisco resident i was the project manager for the panoramic for the mission project of student housing that

is completed and a project manager i can attest to the detail that panoramic puts into the project definitely a lot of attention to what how the, integrates with the neighborhood and the quality of the construction i support in project thank you. >> my name is alison i also work with the builders and personally worked on the mission project first hand the benefits for the city with the opportunity for students to say affordable housing and the opportunity for people like me who moved to the city graduated to say an opportunity to get their houses had that will be taken by the students i'm in support of this project. >> good evening my name is in my name a david i've not spoken

in a forum like this i'm terrified but could not not be here this man man is an angel their incorporated me in their construction allowed me to take 5 thousand photos we think this is a beautiful addition i don't see any reason why we should deny patrick the ability to extend 12th street i live on ninth and mission i purchased those glasses on costco please let address the commission up to three minutes. extend this to 12th street none of hero on story on the

panoramic it is brightening lit and addition to the neighborhood and taught as a child to say perry it is not necessary it is a success i've taken one photos i know eucalyptus you'll approve that thank you. >> (laughter). >> a couple of more names sorry. (calling names) >> good evening commissioners my name is terrance allen the fourndz president of the entertainment commission and while i'm long retired i have a relationship

that the venues now make up san francisco premium designations for entertainment and food what was western soma was in front of that body and we negotiated compromises no more residential construction on the one block between fulsome and harrison it was done in the spirit of creating an be able of those restaurant and bars to continue their activation of night life then a year later president supervisor president london breed's introduced legislation that caused one more stop on the approval process the developers go to the entertainment commission and make sure you'll not screw up the entertainment community to exist by putting housing next to entertainment i'm happy to see they went to the entertainment commission there were comments and

additional testing he know they'll do whatever necessary to make the one corner of the building which sort of looks out over the back patio is necessary if you've been in the unit you close the windows and they're on h bs system it is ambient and quiet and with proper soundproofing in the doors and windows and doors this is the perfect kind of construction to back up to 11 street and norwalk alley he wish looking back we expended the moratorium we're not dealing with the chunks of land that run in the eagle and the one when - we have them i'll rather be in support of good projects with a respected the process and licenses to

they're neighbors and speak in front of you saying this is a good project let it go through and to the clerk some petitions the businesses in the neighborhood that want to sign their names to the be agreement let this go forward thank you commissioners. >> good evening. i'm green trip ballerina a nonprofit organization commented to transportation and land use to chief more ways to live and get around at transform we believe that all people regardless of income should have affordable communities assess i'm here to highlight how this project has which we haven't had certification granted conditionally and with the strategies currently included

green trip certification recognizes multi family development that reduces the transportation and green house gas emissions and keeps san francisco and the behaving more affordable one of the programs goal is to be more housing for people rather than cars this project has received our zero parking certification bus it is implementing the strategy of one hundred percent bundled parking - there's an exceptionally high-level of transit service around the site so future resident don't have to depend on a car there is bart and muni light rail and over 9 bus lines and other benefits two onsite sharing pods 40 bike being able and per unit with one

and 25 that concludes my remarks and a bike room for that 5 three hundred plus hundred biking spots over the outreach to residents we or less he recommend this commission support in and the low temptations that will will bring to the city of san francisco included in the packet you'll see a letter from the green trip program and certification and also the project evaluation report thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is michael olsen i'll not go so far to say that patrick is an angel i hold a high bar but a man of his word the reason i say that

i've invested for the last 15 years going back to his projects at berkley heels said and done what we said speaking the father of two sons in college in the bayview i'm happy to hear the local colleges have on the verge of nba all the units for those students i know that the difficulties in students getting those kind of units but i would ask you if i hope you do approve the project that i condition him to build those are apartments in other places of city not for school but kids moving into the city my boys will try to get a job like a lot of the kids in the surrounding area and difficult to find housing in an appropriate

condition i approve the project thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners my name is latisha i'm a owner of a property on 11 and fulsome and i approve this project and hope you do, too i know that housing is very important in san francisco especially for people who are getting out of college not only do they have a debt they can't find a job nor housing i approve this and hope you do too and hope they continue to build more housing like this around san francisco because the price is right thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm josh petersen a commercial real estate broker been in san francisco in 13 working in this market

neighborhood and seen the transformation over the last number of years and a indicate elective for this area will be thoughtful housing development like in this case targeted towards side lower and middle-income classes and students a great addition to the neighborhood and an improvement over the blighted area and support in project thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm mike the director of business and facilities for again and again faculty it is the shortage of affordable housing is effecting our students and the built to recruit future students to the city a continual topic that worked for me has buzzing been solely the lack of affordable housing and the worries how theo they'll pay the rents many have taking on second jobs and many

are dropping out to go back and earn more money to pay rent on top of their carrying a full 4r0ed in school this projects are exactly what we need to the city and exactly what we need to the higher education arena this makes student housing affordable for our constitutes in the years to come as patrick maintenance or mentioned a c o i and based on this decision we strongly urge you to support in project tonight. >> i'll call the rest of the cards (calling names). >> 4i8 hi i'll the dean of student delegate report for the business school at the again and again university and want to voice any supports on 12th

street i visited did existing panoramic site in the city and very impressed about the quality of the sacrifice and how careful thankful considered the needs of our students our students don't drive many international and the inclusion of the bike parking is a great addition we've found not 09 opportunity in the city that care for the needs of our students so this opportunity is very importa for us an entire n student housing we've heard complaints about the lack of affordable housing and - some of those who choose are commuting over one hour to two hours to get to school that impacts their ability to participate in the school

networks and the career development opportunities. >> become at risk for dropping out of the school the affordable housing we need to solve to attack the students to our universities what we've seen other institutions that have a master lease in san francisco have significantly increased applications and retention having little project approved as is will impact the ability of our students to stay in the program. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm sonya i live in the neighborhood and this project is a great idea obviously to a place for 200 people to live is better than what they have there now it is none and 18 percent below-market rate that is 36 below-market rate place to live much better than what we have if

we like the project i think we need a decision it is a good idea as in a couple of months and really excited to see do state density bonus program used finallyness a historic day thank you. >> hi, i'm josh to voice my support more the project i've been in a nightmare of the searching for an apartment supply is too although the prices are high. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> laura clark for for grow san francisco we need to figure out how to get projects with

clear benefits spend i think the obvious benefits you've heard incredible testimony about the environmental and all the benefits for the students in crisis in the city no reason this project can't move faster there the process thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm mark hogging an, an architect and small business owner and taught at cac i can see the need for student housing housing is more so than the studies and first one on students minds and the flyers you see in the hallway in the schools where depressing the students are commuting from fremont all kinds of things no where to live and also i think

he everything in this room agrees that housing has become a hot topic in san francisco and there's a lot of debate on twitter and live where we hear time and time again why not does someone would more affordable housing this is one of the projects on the scale not luxury housing the market-rate projects that building small unit and using a lot of good design methods to chief a project by design we should support it. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm danielle howard in support of this project i work in the city and in the special impact investing two areas include the education and affordable housing i'm not an

investor of connected to the project i'm here as a concerned citizen and a lot of points have been made i want to flag the dloefks for the 12rr8d engagement of this firm whether focused on the needs of students and the needs of community local builders and a clear commitment to the environment as well i want to highlight that and put my support forward to this project thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm daniel a renter in san francisco and want to urge you to support this project i'm not a student but a time i was and when he was i was lucky to live within the walking distance to

any they did students say they live out in outer parts of east bay that's they're only option to get to school this is obviously terrible for the environment and in the interest of helping young people out and improving the air quality for everyone in the behaving by wa* bay area they're affordable by design they're affordable it is small something i like to see more of i've afforded living no and move into the place that is pretty small and not as bad as people sometimes make it ought to be i can volume the place in 5 minutes not to bad (laughter). >> and also the developers are including a lot of affordable

housing below-market-rate housing they didn't have to they could of said jew it low income families can be priced out but including more market-rate so approve this project thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners joseph with the south of market human rights committee okay. let's put a stop to this we need to ask ourselves what is this project is it truly affordable by design and it's residential housing not student housing and it is subject to the 25 percent below-market-rate housing requirements inclusionary requirement for the inclusionary and requires 25 percent if so it

student housing it is not eligible for the density bonus program with just this one question alone you have to continue this project from more studies. >> couple of more points with proposition x that passed in november this science contains two story pdr building that means in the eastern neighborhoods subject to one more one replacement of the pdr next point that it says it is exempt from ceqa review because that falls under the eastern neighborhoods eir plan sorry planted planted eir if so it eligible for the state density bonus program provides 25 percent more units zoned for in sight is clearly needs to go through ceqa review if you go through a zoning to change the

height and bulk for this you'll have to go to a ceqa review in the compatible and not fall under the eastern neighborhoods planned area eir so underscore that and if this project is passed as is and state density bonus program is a tool to use what other projects are coming and how is this going to change the nature of the eastern neighborhoods that all in terms of its key impact needs to be studied not look at this as a one of this project raises too many policy issues not just a project the fact that is a side stepping the 25 percent in the continued legislation of prop c it is side stepping the pdr replacement if proposition x and the fact it is exclaiming it is exempt from ceqa review when it is clearly

an up zoning whether that is legal or not an open question because is that residential unit or student housing the ceqa issue can't be side-stepped either thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm cynthia a tenant organizer with the human rights committee joseph mentioned some of the reasons and to add to the reasons earlier this year with the human rights committee the affordable housing density bonus program we heard from hundreds of if not many more than that here san franciscan were nervous about this density bonus program threatening resources that were important to the community in that argument so to speak o specifically we're talking about affordable housing and rent-controlled units but at this site we're talking about

pdr the main interest as mention pdr is important to san francisco resident before us he said often provides blue-collar jobs for people that don't hold diplomas and keep the folks live and work and able to afford the unit that they currently live in the other thing i wanted to mention is that not only does this site violate that was passed in prop x one for one replacement but not achieve 25 affordable housing and while it provides 18 percent is commendable not meeting that requirement for the density bonus program under state law we are not here citing or in opposition of this project we don't understand the need more affordable housing or for housing in general we're a

tenant rights group there is a way to develop in a way that will not exacerbate that crisis we feel this had will accelerate folks leaving and highly recommend that commissioners you, you view this project and look at it important seriously thank you. >> >> next speaker, please. >> as of today, we see in the agenda this project has applied for a residential project therefore if it is a residential project should have prop c requirement for 25 percent housing if it is a residential project if it is a student housing it should apply as of today as

student housing and maybe there will be a question for the planning what are the requirement for student housing should a letter of intent into the universities be sufficient to say that is a student housing and also i wanted to get and perspective when everyone is saying affordable housing crisis or affordability by design you know the panoramic the developer itself i know they're a student housing developer and if you look out their website it is a 200 and 82 square feet that provides for 2 thousand 4 hundred is if with i call a student housing or affordable housing so let's put that in context not just use the word affordable because it is lower than the market yes, it is lower but it is not affordable thank you. >> so continue this project thank you. >> thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners my name is angelica i'm with the south of market action flexibility we're requesting the continuing this item for the affordable housing needs there is also a crisis on affordable commercial spaces which is why in november '60 percent of voters voted to pass proposition x that proposition requires the developers to provide space to replace any location zoned for neighborhood art small businesses or community services of certain size there were destroyed or sdrauptd by the government project within the mission and the south of market area this project will demolish the existing pdr and will disrupt

the existing businesses in the area which is why we want to see this project revised that will include proposition x and this is why we don't feel this project should be passed today with all the questions that was read to you today including not - including the proposition x proposition thank you. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. you know it's difficult to come up here and raise any kind of questions about that project after you've string this is a good project from a design we're in the difficult business of raising affordable to whom and that the city getting as much

affordable housing out of the project as possible i ask you as a couple of speakers you look at this project there the lens of the policy implementation not just an isolation on the apparent contributor to issues about this particular project we've had a fair autumn of back and forth with the city attorney this is about the density bonus program and about how it intersects with the back and forth this is a grandfathered project in prop c cut a deal not the new inclusionary deal of 25 percent you know the controller is fine tuning but grandfathered projects have, if you will, the old rules this project as hundreds after it will it is taking the state density bonus program a given not much you

folks can do it we're increasing the density but raise the question is there a capture by the city of a public benefit in exchange for the up zoning, if you will, the density bonus program is providing in this case you're not getting this is a serious policy implication can i have the overhead? and i've provided copies i want to walk you through through 24 bottom line numbers not an abstract thing. >> on the left-hand side is the project before the density bonus program one and 48 units and 18 inclusionary requirement and 27 units and blow the extra 2 back and forth and still with 28 inclusionary units that efficiently effectively drives bun the inclusionary from 18 to 13 plus that's what you're

getting a project with 13 plus or minus the question how and when and by what actions will the city rae capture that if you try try to recapture that 25 units and value tweeted out take an increase in the inclusionary to get that back is what you'll have a 25 inclusionary on the base project gets you 18 percent inclusionary across the project pretty simple math this will happen over and over we ask to you consider this and perhaps continue to consider it more thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners koreay smith on behalf of the boishgs we are existed exist to

see this i'm curious on the actual project it's the actual deduction e bonus is resulted in more beds for students this is a great benefit student housing has about the dna sins our founding 17 years 9 schools in the city between 75 to one hundred thousand ask the students and then 10 thousand beds that's enormous pressure with increased competition for the students if we are looking at within and 84 homes for that students based on the make up of two bedrooms we've looking additional 3 willed and 80 kids to move to the city and call our city home this is not a silver bullet but a significant number outside of students the rest of the project is subsidized for thirty more people to more often

every single person living in 2, 3, 4 project in its development is currently being underserved by the housing salt lake city on the housing itself i know the architects talked about the urban design and little walk down we are blown away during the research in designing it is a common thing in the cities around the world their skeptical first time with the privacy and views absolutely warranted our endorsement it is a car fee it an endorsement we agree with peter that's a lot about the density bonus program and when we look at it before the hundred and 32 homes for kids we'll add 52 for another hundred and tenable to live here the project

absolutely follows the density bonus program and in our opinion we don't have the lecturer of saying not to delay student housing please approve thank you. >> i'm a resident of city of san francisco and we have a regional housing crisis before us and the problem is that our neighboring cities and communities are ignoring the density bonus program law altogether so unfortunately san francisco is put in a position we have to set an example to communities like brisbane where they say they, build commercial office space and let san francisco deal with the housing portion and call it a day like palo alto so this is a great example how to change the conversation and shouldn't we

allow more student housing in the city anyway but you also, if we just set aside the density bonus program part altogether new look at peter cohen's projection k those are rentals and it is on page 15 not less than to households earning 55 percent of area medium income if i recall correctly this particular project for 50 percent of area medium income and certainly complies with the having percent bring i urge you to support the project thank you. >> thank you (calling names). >> okay

calling last public comment on this item last public comment on this item. >> sue hester you've been here some 10 o'clock this morning and dealing with the 10 thousand students universities i've been at the planning commission raising the need to build student housing about 10 years at least and it is so good to see the universities and the colleges coming here and saying they're willing to do student housing i love them for that if everyone do but some issues we have still here and peter raised them and joe smith raised them we have density bonus program state when requires affordable housing less than what we have

in san francisco we have san francisco low which needs to really be clearly applied to this project to make sure that we're not undercutting our own affordability requirement it in san francisco the other thick i'm aware of where the student housing has been built i've been at every hearing like a lot of people that is not the best served community i worked south of market i went to golden gate there is a large swath of land in the eastern neighborhoods plan the planning commission and the board of supervisors adapted a policy of

increasing circulation by muni in the south of market and we haven't done that there is an occasion service other than a couple lines north-south and heavy service on the number 9 and the splits but to us not very good and unless you are going on market street or mission street harrison not likely so one of the things that people from the planning department and the planning commission need to be squawking about it circulation think muni not more uber running around students you need muni and east west and needs to be connecting those two campuses so a you need to eastbound really focusing on building student housing which i've been working for and you

can't take a 10 thousand state university they've not been here together 10 thousand students not any building student housing at all i think you need to pay attention to muni thank you. >> any more is there any public comment on this item. >> okay public comment is closed. and director rahaim. >> thank you commissioners i think it will be helpful if we clarify a few issues that at least we know them i'll ask rich and corey to follow up on a few things it is confusing the density bonus program a couple of tings to clarify up front what is in front of you not a student housing project in particular district unlike the rest of the city the student housing requires a separate cu not before you what is before

you the project that rich presented a market-rate and we can go over the specification and number two not subject to prop x it only included certain zoning district and this is not one of them i can't explain why this is the way it is written many of the western edition was not included in the project o project and pdr requirement and the other question that is when - what traditionally happens with student housing in other parts of the city you approve a project leases are signed and universities will master the lease not require an additional commission action this particular zoning district it requires a separate commission action for a cu to approve is a student housing in the developer choices to come back as a student housing project needs to come back with a cu okay

rich please correct me if i am wrong and please if anyone else wants i think it is important to up front is clarify whether that he choose to today, we have to clarify. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> okay commissioner hillis. >> rich a couple of more questions so the - if they came back with a student housing project they're required to keep these state affordable housing units so you can't lease all those to the schools some will remain 11 percent that is required in state law. >> correct. correct we are working and still be researching the issue with the city attorney's office confirm the fact but for them to invoke the

density bonus program have to provide the 11 percent and very low ami basically the 50 percent ami so - >> city attorney. >> sorry her mike is off. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i this confirm the state density bonus program has applied and will be applicable to the student housing the affordable housing percentages there is a lot of back and forth what they are i think many mr. cohen had that right the 18 with the developers saying they're doing kind of voluntarily because of the increase in 55 to 65 feet is only on the base one and 408 units you. >> correct. >> when you take advantage of

the state density bonus program you don't center to do do inclusionary on those additional units so fact of the matter 72 hours 13 and a half percent the total number of housing units and i can out the two hundred units the project is appropriated 27 are below-market rate we can only political the affordable housing requirements to the amount of units as of right there is only based on that determination. >> i think that is where i mean - it is not an planning decision or a city decision? the application of state law on this i think are you know desire that the entire building comply that the 18 percent affordable inclusionary but we can't

enforce this is out of the state density worked and require the additional on the additional units. >> correct based on my understanding and the city attorney to dhiem in we can't political our promissory note bathroom, to the density bonus program so we determined it was one and 48 units our local discoloration program can be applied to the one and 48 and the extra united they get from the state density bonus we can't add additional burdens. >> i think that is an odd - the ways the state law works it is encouraging i know using this

an, an affordable housing tool you get points for applying affordable housing if in case and any case you'll ends up doing less affordable housing and taking advantage so clearly something is not right about the state law and i think two ways to fix it fix state law i understand that people think that difficult to change or like mr. cohen talked about adjusting our percentages we take advantage of the density bonus program you come back this to this program and some projects may not be able to take it that's a touch thing to figure out we spent a lot of time with the local affordable housing density bonus program here i don't know if this about work in this case i don't know if you continuing of this city's program if it is passed may not

this is still a better thing that is odd you know the laws out there for thirty years we find ourselves unprepared for applying the law we say steady the states and pretty progressive density program where we don't have density limits not one unit per three hundred feet like the density bonus program it puts us in an awkward position this is a good project i don't think that causes you were able to design it in a way the additional units kind of works i think but i foresee a cased it didn't work that two extra floors of height in a different context would not

be good i think that you know this site and the - i'd like you know it would be nice to see the top floors setback that is a bit bulky kibitzing if we do that a reduction in unit and could even go higher in order to get the number of units you need so but we've got to prepare for the time when you know how we'll deal with this in the future on projects may not work and - so as far as the project i mean, i don't think to me not a big - i don't foresee a big reason to continue we need to figure out and get the city for prepared for states density projects they're coming especially, after this morning sets the tune and

figure out how they work in the context of the city like we will do necessarily changes to grandfathered the affordable housing rates - sow design wise i'd like to see more setback on the top of units recognizing the top floors that may not be possible there was a you brought up the issue of the 25 foot corridor in some cases the - the kwlgd area if we were to take take your recommendation and expand that coast guard to be 25 feet everywhere what does if do to the project it seems like if looking at it quickly able to could shift around and reduce some of the two bedrooms unit and do it.

>> i'd like defer to the architect happy it overstaffs opinion on the matter. >> yeah. just provide additional background bans the kwrgdz 25 feet is the typical measurement we've seen in ios types of projects and in addition the 25 feet is also our typical measurement for endorse and rear yard that - so we see the same type of measurements concurring throughout the portion of our code but have the architects address the question.

>> can i have the overhead? this sort of shows the coast guard on the screen we should emphasis that the average width of the coast guard is 26 feet 4 inches wide there is 3 percent surface area of coast guard that which impillages on the minimum 25 foot dimension and there is one - there is no specific

requirement in the code 25 feet wide we appreciate the fact that the commission has typically look at the coast guard hey make that a minimum of 25 feet this complies that the code we've described in the presentation we're working with the neighborhood i know and made that maneuver to increase the preserved width to 35 feet along norwalk. >> if you go to - >> at that portion reader right here; right? >> that's the norfolk. >> an unusual alley we hold that back i enumerated the fact we thought that was a very reasonable sort of 3er percent solution trade off talking about

3 percent in their - so if we punish this is basically, the wall as it exists today across the neighbors as mentioned in the diagram different ways to push and shove around to require you know part of our design about very, very rigorous unit design that way we're achieved optimized construction costs to keep the rents as low as possible we're saviors about the mandate we're savior about norfolk and this goes to the building you can have it project to 25 feet with the setback for the section i want to say the setbacks in the alleys it shows closure to the neighbors and

setting the building back at the very, very slight detriment of the interior coast guard. >> if you go to the garden level plan you outlined the 20 foot and show that 26 with average. >> yes. >> can you pull that up the one on our package. >> a little bit better thanks rich. >> so if you kept to the red outline for 25 foot coast guard i mean two units that don't have that exposure. >> we're really, really dialoguing in super prooels for the main rooms and dwelling units bedrooms have to be a minimum of 17 feet each dwelling

units one and 20 feet we're doing that as well that might seem minor not plan but has four stacks of unit to do that market-rate. >> it looks like two stacks. >> which stacks can you point. >> that stack right there puts the bedroom over here obviously this one is closet we'll be dropping those units down to less than than the 35 percent bonus. >> you took that 70 square feet and turned it into a two bedroom unit. >> we can move that. >> your inches away our this

is what went through our minds this unit here is impillages 24 foot wide we thought the trade off for the dimensions and the setback the unit was worth having

>> we are loathe to give up bedrooms to students and that could potentially be 32 students. we think that the minor imposition here at 20 feet may even improve it a little bit because it provides a little more privacy to a little more with him and it's well beyond actually what would be required by code. if you want us to we can move everything to feed more into your folk >> >> no.. a change to that i don't get to know fourth trade-off. >> we have precise square footage cultivation is where

the parity of the overall dwelling units overall presidential stage in 35% increase in the swear footage of the bonus as well as just as close as we can get to it one-to-one parity unit types. we are trying to maintain that. we see the advantage over 2+. is our two-bedroom units could we one maintain that as well. >> but i think it's important, to get at the ground level and we've had this issue come up before at the commission and their small units. people are living in small units and it adds to the importance of having access to the exterior and light and air coming injured i think it compounds in little the fact that you got small units and also reducing the size of that courtyard. it's great for student housing we want to kind of make it against you i like the fact that you're working it's good there's good

things about the project. again i think the increased density here works with my not otherwise work. i'm generally supportivebut that i think is an issue. i get it. we cannot sit back-i think the opportunity for should be set back. to fit more into the context of the neighborhood but i think that's difficult and we end up losing units that we may have to add that so thank you. >> commissioner johnson >> thank you. i think we have more public comment. i'm sitting for this nine hours in this chair squeaks and it's short. >>[laughing] very frustrated but i try to pull together. >>[laughing] >>[inaudible] [off mic]ine hours later. >>[laughing]thank you. so i like that the student housing. i love that

it's in western soma. great project and its dense. no parking. obviously will student housing not capital letter student housing, but there is right now potential for a lease for students to get in the housing. so i appreciate that. i think we had a public comment who said projects like these should be sped through but i appreciated this one. it's come through this process because there are a lot of ambiguities getting many which commissioner hillis brought up at the state density bonus law. i will say i don't think a lot of the issues that we have with a density bonus law itself but with our application of it and how our policies and procedures in our planning codes in interact with the state density bonus law. i am hoping that we can use this-i don't think this is president seven because there's a lot of clarification and future projects will have more clarity and i don't necessarily

think we need to continue this project in order to continue working to get that clarity but i hope to look back on this hearing and be able to point out to this hearing about many things that we discussed in the future. so to that end, on top of the things commissioner hillis already as i have a few questions-suggestions about things that commission and the city should be doing to make our lives a lot easier. so the first question is on the affordability. so understanding that the affordability requirements inclusionary records can only be applied to the base project and then those units are accounted for somehow in the density bonus project and i just want to verify that the project how delighted -basically, where we are is the base project amid the density

bonus project would've had an 18% requirement. that 18% was then applied to the base project to get to a number of units. the project sponsor then opted to provide 14.5% or an equivalent of 21 units on-site and the other six units, or what would have gotten us to 80% in the base project, are being accounted for through payment of the in lieu fee. is that correct? >> it has shifted over today. in the packet that was provided to you, the sponsors-yes. the sponsor originally attended providing 14.5 percent on site and paying the in lieu fees for the remainder which there permitted to do. per the new of warehousing affidavit that logic sponsor passed out in a new package, they've committed to providing all 18% as on-site it rather than providing 21

units the providing 27 units on-site. >> okay. thank you. that's my first question i got answered by the thing-aall right. i guess the next thing then is what does that mean for specifically for the lease for student housing? meaning the club kept below market rate for some number of years but during that time period i'm assuming it's maybe 3-5 years. i'm trying to remember what we just passed that's two years. two years? the lease for the student housing does the affordability in all intense purposes actually mean anything? >> >> yes. for them to-i'll defer to the city attorney to correct me if i'm wrong, but for them to have the state density bonus

and to build up to the height of 80 feet, they still have to provide for the life of the project 11% of the units at 50% ami. or the at the very low amide. >> to whom is the project leased out to two university? >> deputy attorney appeared, clarify under the state density bonus while it's only for 55 years not the life of the project that the unit would have to be the amr units. >> yes i think i said some productive time but 55 years. i guess in two years-i'm getting like it the leases are renewed, i know at least for one of the -one of the universe is commendable to put their own project and so this might be shorter-term but i'm trying to answer that question in case it comes up again. what does the-i mean it 50% ami but the student

is paying as part of their tuition to the university. so who is getting the benefit of a portable unit if the project is leased to a academic institution? >> i will defer to kate connor are housing specialist. >> just to clarify-aassistant zoning administrator. if it becomes a student housing project than our affordability requirements will apply to it. the one he affordability the would applied by the minimum affordability requirements by the state law. but in that way, they would be required to provide is an percentage of those on-site units to the students at the rate that's required by the state law. >>[inaudible] [off mic] >> see however doing is confused? >>[laughing] that's my question. >> yes.

>> kate connor planning department staff. as cory was explaining, student housing is exempt from inclusionary housing program. but if this does move forward as a student housing project and wants to take advantage of the state density bonus this lab to provide 11% of those units wristed understatements in density locket i presume those would not be rented to student households. because student housing typically is rented out or the master lease is an actual educational facility. >> yes. >> we can maybe check in with the project sponsor if they have a different understand >> what is the understanding? >> what i said >> what did you say? 11% would have to not be part of lease is what you're saying? >> it would not be going to

actual students could it still be a student housing project with 11% under state density bonus that will be restricted under state density bonus law would not be leased to individual students. he was ou basically have do some quick math here. >> let's do some quick math. four units not for students and him i student units? >> correct. 16 not for students. he was 16 >> right but restricted under a supportable under the state density bonus law. >> all right. does that now hold--would that be in place-this is not student housing. it's residential project being leased to an academic institution for- >> no. >> right now this is not the student housing project director, for conditional use and receive a conditional use authorization to allow for student housing. >> what makes it student housing then? it was already presented as part of >> we should clarify what to find student housing. in san

francisco. the state law is silent on student housing as part is my understand your san francisco divine student housing is housing that is master leased or owned by an institution and is therefore not required to provide bmr units. >> right >> master leads are owned by an institution he was right not with the project sponsor presented today >> no. >> project sponsor. as i think we very clearly established, when this building is leased to schools, and becomes qualified student housing, there's an ongoing requirement to maintain 11% of the units as affordable units to low income households, right. those would not be student households. that would be operated just as low income households, affordable at the 50% ami level.

>> okay. then let's-then let's fast-forward. two years. assuming both institutions are however many institutions have moved on or on other spaces, this goes back to being residential? >> they >> if it does does that mean there are since you guys are doing on-site now, 27 years of affordable inclusionary units for 55 years? >> correct. weight student housing ordinance works, for the duration of a master lease with a qualified education institution, to use the building as student housing, the affordability requirements under the local inclusionary housing law is held in abeyance. once the master lease

is terminated and the housing is no longer used is a student housing, the inclusionary requirements spring back into place for the applicable percentage of the units. so here if you have both schools [5 years, you would then have been the obligation would be to increase the total on-site affordability to 18% as required per the local ordinance. >> to be held for 55 years as of that date? >> no. actually, the 18% requirement is under the local ordinance and under the local ordinance it's a lifetime obligation. so under the state i can on-site visit make your head explode but under the state law your obligation is to provide 11% of the units for a term of 55 years at 50% of ami. when that 55 year period ends

those state units become subject to the local inclusionary program, which extends for the lifetime of the project. >> thank you. thank you. okay i got that now. i think i am clear it am glad i asked the question. all right. so this leads to my next question that i will form as a declarative statement. thank you for clarifying the affordable housing student housing versus residential. that makes sense to me. so the weight at this project works, i think we already said this. we use a number of units calculated based off the base project. however there are a couple of factors here that i think i understand but i want to ask staff about just to make sure that it's clear because i think this will come up. this is a split height, lots of a

lot being merged. 65, 55, and it seems like the base project was calculated with minimum dwelling unit sizes at the d5 feet >> correct. >> then you calculate 18% off that and the project itself has not that much bigger but slightly bigger units at 65 feet. >> 80 feet >> add. i'm sorry. so my question to you is-i think i know the answer to the spirit why wasn't the base project developed with the maximum height allowed? it's almost like if there were no state density bonus, they would have gone for a cu to bs 65 feet. why wasn't i consider the base project rather than at 55 feet? we want to try to maximize-i think what i'm getting too but for you answer the questions we want to be trying to maximize

the size of the base project because that's the part of the state law that is not probably not going to change and i don't even think it makes trite sense to try to fight it. so what we want to do is work with and be clear about the base project. >> based on how we calculate the base project, we have to basically look at the project as is basically. within this foot-height zoning districts, the only way you can go up to the higher height is with the conditional use authorization. so in this case since the project actually met the criteria of the split height zoning, that's why they are seeking the conditional use for the major deponent or the height bonus. so when looking at the base project they can basically build up to 55 feet in height without any kind of entitlement and or variance basically. the base project had wrapped a beer yard. had code compliance exposure code and

find exposure. as such of it in this zoning district we don't have density control by lot areas and the density controls by the physical aspects so meaning open space, rear yard, exposure. that was a calculation that we had to use it about the base price. >> okay. thanks. i make sense to me. this gets my ardent why i think this project we should make a decision one way or the other today and then just take some certain things underlies them for the future. this is the first one and in a couple others. i think it doesn't make sense. so under the state density bonus project sponsors are allowed to ask for incentives concessions or waivers against the project. but because the cu remained-the cu was possible with the base project. they cover the base

project forget about density bonus they could've said i want to get a cu echo to 65 feet. and for this project it was the cu was triggered anyway. so that's not a development requirement or process requirement that was waived or otherwise not happening. it seems to me that we should have built the base project with the development standards that would've been required with the cu. right. that wasn't eliminated from with a concession a waiver or an incentive. so what we should do is this project requires a cu so the base project should've been developed for the cu as well and then you be comparing apples to apples and then in a density bonus project would have gotten other uighurs were concessions or incentives. if that make sense? to me that's the piece i missing i don't understand why the base project wasn't developed at as if it would have come with a cu because the density bonus project