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 came with a cu.

>> i can try to address that a little more simply get essentially base project has to be with the project and build to the code that would pensively committed. the additional height would be principally committed even though there's an option to obtain it without the state density bonus block it is not just like you could also obtain rearguard exceptions and exposure exceptions and other ways to expand and enlarge the building, there's other things become possible under other avenues in the code, but that was not principal permitted project. so when we consulted the city attorney on this issue what is the base amount and using the base height limit in the district that is allowed to be used until he permitted, is what we used for determining the base price. >> i think it's a fine point because it makes a different get 10 feet is probably an additional few units if you applied the inclusionary percentage to it. the reason i

say that is i think we are where we are with this project and i think it's fine. but in the future, that is something that is highly confusing that i think we should seek to clarify that i know the state law says the base project must be based on the principle he permitted zoning that i think that we can do better to interpret visibly permitted especially when we are talking about lpa's or see use with the state density project is not getting out of that. it still needs a cu or lpa. you should consider the basic project would have gotten acu or lpa anyways. to me that's a conversation issue which i think is neither here nor there for this project but some that we should consider for the future. so the next thing is on-there are five ui. i want to get it straigh because concessions and

incentives require financial benefits. waivers do not necessarily-there are five waivers here and one of them is weird. it's a [inaudible]. that's not there either not >> correct. just to clarify upon further reflection since publication of the staff reports we determine the lot merger coalition in the code doesn't apply to this. so they are doing more of a lot line adjustment and their specific frontages under-that provision of the code applies to street frontages and in this case they front one street and one alley. so the alley piece of it would've been the trigger point for the code provision. however, it is not-that code provision does not apply to alice. only applies to street spirit so the planning code defines alleys as 30 feet or less. so norval alley-n. oak

st. is aptly defined as an alley the planning code and that 12 street is a wealth street. >> thank you. that was way less confused. i'm really sorry that i did not read this like 15,000 pages for this we. okay. i think that make sense. obviously will have future project and i think we should be keeping track of what things are considered waivers but that answers the question for this one. i do want to move on it i think finally to talk about getting back to duty-i forgot what i was going to say-waivers luck mergers. last mergers. oh, yes. so back on the base project, i think-i can't spend

a lot of time on that cu issue we should also be looking at unit size equivalency there. i think it's a little bit odd that you have basically two different configurations of units and calculating inclusionary in one and not the other. so i see a couple more people. i want to make sure i get my last point correct because i did have one other one. but we will move on and i will get my thoughts together. >> commissioner moore >> in the confusion what the project is in front of us today i don't know if it student husband i got an e-mail yesterday afternoon at tree 50 2 pm with the word student housing was mentioned for the first time. before that it was residential project and for me it still is because that is the documentation that is in front

of me. while am interested in looking at as a student project, i'm very perplexed about the great difference of interpretation. i'm going to ask mr. cohen so i can ask him a couple of questions. mr. cohen, when the issue came up first, you were the first one coming out of the chute same on the state density bonus student housing is not applicable and since you spent a lot of time in sacramento, in the battle about the state bonus law, could you take us through that interpretation again, including how we are looking at affordability here, 25% and what the steps are that are required we >> thank you commissioner. i would also say i don't know the student housing interpretation. i think it's the gray space that's troublesome here. state don'ts in the applicable dowsing or not? i'm nicely learning as conversations like

can't claim to be the expert on that interpretation. but i can't claim to know a lot about is what's happening in front of you i think is a very simple story and it's very troubling. it is one frankly we been talking about in summertime and in your informational month ago which is you are now going to see as a matter of standard practice the roman projects will be using state density bonus and it is a de facto of zoning of every single project you can quibble over the right height or the right whether there's a cu but the fact is it's want to happen as a matter of standard course. maybe increase density by virtue of state preemption is applying fine thing but it raises the fundamental question of how is that undermining your affordable housing policies as a city? if you put those into place based on a certain set of assumptions about sony parameters and density and if you will a public benefits trade-off, with private capital, and in this case the entirety of the benefits by

virtue of state law is been conferred to the private developer and you are left with no tools at your disposal by virtue of the state to capture that back. the only thing you can do is to have a higher inclusionary anticipating that you're going to recapture it in the provision, commissioner, that we have pointed out to your staff and edit only as an interpretation from the city attorney, which i think frankly is just this is a lawyer doing a fantastic job. bob c legislations that is a grandfather project uses state density bonus law both the planning staff and the project sponsor this we got to come to you and pass a laugh test why they can't do 25% affordable which is the new rule. that's what the legislation says. that was the intent. it's pretty

much of a late thing. you get grandfather. you take extra value. why are you doing more week that the basic question but that did not happen. my understanding is the interpretation is because they are using a quote waiver instead of an incentive and concession. this is semantics, focused this is legal semantics. the point is, how are you recapturing the value and not undercutting your inclusionary. that's the question before you. i think it's very troubling to think that this project is sort of a one off that also the president of very limited ability to get an exemption. >> thank you. my problem is i am a strong believer that the student housing work done by mr. kennedy and his architects are a great example, exactly what we need to do. however given the overlay and the complications just documents got even more complicated, make it impossible for me to sit here and look at this project and approve it given that there is a housing project in front of me. if it is a student

housing project, i would have a couple of other questions for this project particularly, the common area, lounge is that we see so comfortably added on the 1391 project at none of that is here. so with the word student housing only been dropped on the yesterday at 3:52 pm at a very hard time separating myself looking at this project in a different way. i asked that we give ourselves time to figure out what the subtleties are going including what state law the state bonus law says under about student housing and the affordability and have this project, have stronger letters of intent or agreements and it comes forward as a cu and a student housing project among or it is something that i personally need more

information. i am totally confused after to be very on. it's very late. we been sitting here for him was 10 hours and this is too complicated to just decide and let it be. the first visible project of what were going to do in the future i cannot personally, do that. i have all the trust in this particular applicant that he can sort out the questions we are asking but i do believe that all answered in a manner that they are simple questions and simple answer. everybody's kind of guessing and hedging and again, the project in front of us is not the student housing project. >> commissioner melgar >> you are complaining about your chair? yes. i've got to admit i'm very annoyed that this is a-we've been looking at this for a couple of weeks. in preparation for what i thought was a residential project and as of yesterday it's a student

housing project. there's lots of public comment about student housing. so that annoys me. but, to the point earlier of whether it's least it'll be 11% and if the lease ends the mud then it will go up, i have serious questions about the logistics of enforcement about that. because when a building has inclusionary housing, there is a deed that is recorded on the property that ensures affordability for that unit. at the time, the subdivision is recorded right. how is that going to work? if attached to a lease, that the lease then terminates and then there is a higher percentage of bmr units. does that get recorded? the logistics are actually troubling to me because i don't

know how we're going to enforce that. i don't know how dbi is going to-there's too many questions for me with this wrinkle of whether it is student housing, whether it is residential project. i agree. i'm not ready for this to approve this today. it is late in the day. i do think that is going to set a precedent and i want to be more careful. >> commissioner richards >> i guess, to try to understand commissioner johnson was trying to ferret out, we were residential project before us today with effective rate of 14.5% i believe. 18% local on the base and zero on the top. effectively gives us 14.14.5 i think you said 13.5. okay. if we approve this project today with those to come back for a cu which is not be built reclassify the student housing would we be at 0% on the local

because state density bonus doesn't require-we don't require--we don't require affordable on the local for student housing but students [inaudible] requires 11. that would be it we are positioned to put as ingrid actually be going down in affordable units just by design of these two applications, these two definitions. >> maybe it would be helpful just to do a little bit of background on the way the student housing program works because i know that some commissioners were here with the student program, student housing program, was enacted and others were not. so to be clear the entitlement in front of you today is for housing program-for housing the moment subject to an 18% inclusionary requirements on the base project

and the intent is that in the future this will become student housing for both golden gate and the san francisco art institute with an affordable housing percentage of 11% remaining on-site during the buildings use as student husband >> so we go to from 13.5 211.? what would the equivalency be? >> the point of the student housing program, the id field idea behind it is that student housing development should not anticipate in this standard inclusionary housing program for a variety of reasons one is that it can be difficult for schools to absorb the expense and the administrative difficulties of renting bmr housing to the inclusionary program. >>*lot, if we were to come back with us student housing proposal

we be going to his entire discussion again on the height? >> no. we would-i think a good way to think of this actually is that you often see buildings come to you as core and shell recent approvals for an office building for a residential building, with ground-floor retail and then you may subsequently get another entitlement is an actual tenant. comes in to fill a retail space at my restaurant there requires a cu, a former regional use or something. something along those lines. right. the logical first step to this commission is to approve the building and note so somebody can get a product out of the ground and actually attract those tenants. that's really all that we are doing here except that we have a little bit of a jump start on being able to tell you to our future tenants are going to be and so i understand that there's a little bit of a complication, when you think of it in those terms, it's really

not something that is that outside of the box. >> sure. give me your take on a waiver versus a concession or incentive? there's this semantics going on were allowing something to not- >> is actually not a matter of semantics is a very clear distinction in the state law between a concession or an incentive which is something that helps the project defray affordable housing costs to make the project economically viable. that concession or incentive may or may not be a waiver of a good omen standard. it could be a fee reduction. it could be any number of things that help with the project and the developer is required as a condition of asking for a concession or incentive, to demonstrate that in fact it

does help with affordable housing cost. so that is one category of things that you can get under the state density bonus law. this project is entitled to two concessions or incentives and has asked for an object that is one category. in the second category, what you have is the state density bonus law that says if you do x percent of for the housing on-site you get x percent bonus. the city is precluded from applying any development standards that would prevent the project from being built at the bonus density. >> the 25 feet is standard not code requirement? >> >> yes. it seems like i did you know you have a 55 foot building and appeared to build bonus units on top of it, you

know you're going to need an exception from heights because i limit otherwise physically prevents you from realizing the bonus density. the standard for those levers of development standards is simply the project sponsor demonstrates that there physically necessary in order to build the bonus units and you don't have to provide an economic analysis. this is something that is clear both in the state density bonus law and has been also upheld in cases will murder versus city of berkeley, where this issue was clarified. so i do-i take exception to the characterization of that as being simply semantics. it is actually the law and words have meaning and different words have different meanings. they matter. >> so what is your take on one of the public commenters saying that under prop c we should be sitting down and demonstrating

why you can't get to 25% overall? >> yes. i think, actually, if you give me a moment to shuffle through a couple of papers here. so i guess i would start by reminding the commission of its particular-of its recommendation about the code language in the trailing legislation that spoke to this requirement for sponsors to make best efforts to meet a 25%

affordability standard. so your resolution to the board of supervisors on this subject said the quote the planning code should establish standards and requirements and should not have big language. the best efforts clause may set unrealistic community expectations that are unachievable under state law. they lost circumscribed the city's ability to deny a density bonus two projects providing less than 25% affordable housing or imposing hiring inclusionary requirements that density bonus project. this was of course referring to the context of grandfathered projects that are not subject to the current 25% requirement and that is this project. this discussion actually tacitly acknowledge the holdings in the latino-case

which held that quote 11 that county to increase the minimum number of affordable units required for density bonus would conflict with state law and that's really exactly the result that this best efforts language is aiming for. it's inviting the city to require logix to provide a higher density bonus than they are required to provide or that they can require a sponsor to provide under state law. i would say as a last thing last point on that, notwithstanding the conflict the problems with the vagueness of the best efforts clause, the affordability percentage for this project has increased over time. when we file this application and when the land deal for this project was underwritten the affordability percentage was at 12%. we are now here asking for and approval with an 18 percent

affordability level and i would also remind the commission that of that 11% of the units are at 50% affordability rather than the 55% allowed under the inclusionary housing law. so i really-i do think you have the information in front of you to show that efforts have been made both by the department and the sponsor over the course of the 20 months we have been at this to meet the intent of that provision however problematic it may be. >> thank you. we are on that on this is-i love higher percent but were getting more than we were going to get. i would like-pop x does not like i like to 25% in the block out those are my life. we can project that is innovative.. it's innovative in its adoption of it establish traditional design with the students good i like the design. i've obviously

got up positive in our mental effect it creates life in a dead zone. i used to take my husband down to the eagle in the morning in or to drop off stuff that he works for the aids foundation [inaudible] and got very scary street in only a year or two ago so i think the development is going to be good for the street. i think the quality project. i think the unit sizes whether we argue with other affordable by designer not what that means they definitely serve a [inaudible] not been served whether it's residential or student. going through this whole student trying to get more student housing here. maybe after every 10 hours of a bit cranky because i sat here for hours and hours and hours on affordable housing density bonus program and-i'm tired-we went round and round and round we sent this thing is kind of skeletal remains of whatever it was to the board and they approved what they approved, and part of me says you know,

it's time to move on. let's move on. we need to change the calculation on the effective affordability percent let's if we don't take it it's lower. if you take the next bonus it is how did okay. i think there's a time and a place that's probably soon if that's what we want to do in order to get the affordability percent up. also i think it lights a fire under us to get a real density bonus program pass because i keep remembering jim: appear arguing against hunting on this item saying, at least we have the state density bonus program and scored to give the chicken are going to come home to roost and here we are. so i honestly let's move on. i think hunting this doesn't do much good would be arguing this is that the courts decide whether we argue -i would like to move this out of here today and let's use this as a learning experience for everybody it i think it

gets us to move to get things rolling and stop sitting up your talk at the same issue month after month after month. so i am prepared to move it forward today. >> commissioner johnson >> thank you. i agree. i think is a learning exercise and we can occur five things for the future. i gathered my thoughts. i passed cranky like five hours ago. so to your point commissioner richards, i think that was the thing that was i blinked on good we can look at carrying the inclusionary requirement if you take the density bonus then there's one set of requirements under base project. if you don't there is another. but i also think it might be worth looking into-i think there was some initial work that kiersten had done on packages of concessions and incentives that can make

providing more inclusionary financially feasible. i think it is worth looking at. how do we package up certain steps of concessions and incentives. so if your project is x either-we could do it lots of different ways. lot unit density or number of units or height or whatever. if you opt to a piece in concessions and incentives you can provide this level of inclusionary overall for your project that if you don't you get the regular programs. i think that's something that also worth considering rather than what we will get which is every project we don't know what concessions and incentives were weavers we may see up until the day of a hearing. if we can find ways to put those in a box of little bit more and quantify them to get projects sort of selecting packages, will have a lot more consistency in terms of what inclusionary will see up cross density programs. the other

thing is we have not talked about a lot because i think this project physically the project for me at least works the density and all that, but there were weavers that were requested for exposure and rear yard. i do think--and you can also make the leap and throw inclusionary in there-i think we need to get super clear as a city what circumstances would be make certain public health and safety findings to request changes to those waivers concessions were incentives. right now we're kind of in a no man's land--thank you-in terms of basically really wanted a courtyard that was 25 feet versus 20. what findings would be make to require that we we don't really have a lot. that would be my final sort of learning objective for our future work on this is that we need to date and find what is

good to back up those specific findings.. i do believe it can controllers report we saw over the summer from prop c and some of the work that was done around not 2020 can probably inform so maybe findings around inclusionary housing and i think we should get really creative good state law is what it is and i think there's a lot about it that's really positive. i don't think we should be running to the city lobbyists just yet to try to get that changed. but what we have to do is clarify our standards and policies and procedures so that we can do with state density bonus. with that i like to move to approve with modifications. >> bifurcations. >> condition >> with a motion amended motion prior to as well as the 18% on-site affordable. >> 18% is in this amended motion? >> >> correct. >>

>> yes. >> second >> just accreditation is that include the 25 foot >> 25 foot? >> no. it does not >> i think the one stack of units you can configure you can get that one stack that's most impacted by it i think you can do one stack of units, that had freckles although it we can be beef configured to allow that unit to have a 25 foot courtyard. i think the other ones are slippers and looked out onto other areas. >> with appia modification to be a motion? >> yes. if you want to take that as a modification >> they still need a waiver for the exposure because they bothered new units that are slightly >> yes. >> so modifying the waiver for exposure?

>> can you just say it? >> the order quickly just we very clearly understand what the area question is. >> exactly >> would talk about that one stack of units just to be clear. >> yes. however you do it >> yes. if there were no opportunity to take out some of the area over here outside of the 25 foot boundary that would be amenable to the commission? >> yes. you're okay with that? >> yes. width >> i agree with commissioner richards of the is anything we can do. it's unfortunate that the application of state law that's to provide more affordable housing actually is up with less affordable housing as a percentage on a project that we go from 8 feet you can contend you can even build 29

which but we end up at 13.5. i think we would all say that's a little odd. that's how you apply an incentive program that supposed to write more affordable housing. so i agree but that's the way state law applies to this. is nothing we can do. you can certainly like you agreed to provide 80% on the base date agreed to provide 18 overall but we know that's not necessarily a requirement but i think our efforts are better focused on how we make the rules and regulations that these apply to the city to get kind of the levels of affordability we all expect or change in state law that we all expect. so i am supportive of the motion. just to clarify, >> just to clarify the project also volunteered to change that these. that part of the project before you. >> just on the student housing issue, the student housing will come to us as a cu, correct? >> correct. >> which is discussion of your

we could take up some of the impact that soon housing would have here and you can make appropriate changes based on it they see you the correct with make findings the student housing is necessary and desirable. critically within this neighborhood. >> yes. >> aggie. >> commissioner richards >> noah want to make sure [inaudible] >> approval with conditions for the waiver to exposure [inaudible] >> called the question please >> very good commission to the motion that an second to prove this project with conditions that have been amended and submitted to the commissioners also requiring that that one stack of units be reconfigured jury to provide for a 25% courtyard on a motion hillis aye johnson aye koppel aye melgar nay richards aye

follansbee a some of them that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner melgar voting against. >>[applause] excuse me, both we have additional business to attend to. excuse me everyone. excuse me, everyone if you mind holding it down would love some additional business to attend to hear. if you could leave the chambers quietly we would certainly appreciate that. >> commissioners that a place

is on item 19 for case number 2015-009460 - excuse me - me, folks can you take the conversations outside, please? >> 830 eddy st. and 18. 815 b van ness avenue. conditional use authorization >> good evening commissioners planning department staff. you have before you a request for conditional use authorization at 830 eddy street and 815 van ness ave. the proposal to the motion to level accessory austria parking garage and to construct a new 120 foot tall building of 119,050 square feet and containing 126 residential units. the project requires conditional use authorization for planning code sections 253 253.2, 303, and 304 to construct a building within 100

feet zoning district and the b van ness special use visit that the frontage greater than 50 feet wide and a height of about 50 feet tall. the project is also taken exceptions from the following sections of the planning code as a planned unit development. the vision of the rear yard, the extent that vertically orientated architectural features may project over the public right of way the exposure of 10 dwelling units onto open areas. street frontage of the pertains to 1.5 feet of >> particular ingress and he was on eddy street get provision of one off street be loading space and 2.5 extension to the maximum diagonal dimensions for bulk. the unit makes the one on 126 new residential units includes 22 studios, 65 one-bedroom units, 38 two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit. the project is also subject to the city's cluj and i housing program and will provide 14.5% of the total units as on-site rental bmr units good to provide on-site rental limits the project requires a cost of hawkins

agreement with the city a copy of which was included in the staff report. the un-inclusionary housing requirement, the project also pay up roughly 700,000-738,000 in impact fees good since publication of the staff report department has received four letters in support of the project when of these letters is from the owner of the commercial conwho convey support for the proposal that stresses the importance of the existing drive-through for their tenants. the second letter is from the owners of a 10 eddy st. also requesting support. finally both people labored and the cathedral hill neighborhood association is committed support in writing physically after the project sponsor agreed to reduce the proposed accessory austria parking by 25 spaces. the motion before you addresses the initial proposal of 103 austria

parking spaces of which 63 spaces are dedicated to the sites residential uses your 40 art dedicated to at the site nonresidential uses. after meeting with neighbors this past week, the project sponsor is now proposing to reduce the total amount of accessory austria parking proposed by 25 spaces. this is equal to the amount provided at the lowest basement level of the current project. should the commissioner wish to approve this change, the commission would need to approve the draft motion modifications to reflect a decrease in accessory austria parking spaces are 25. the department is recommending approval of the project as it is as a provides necessary and his rival housing units at an underdeveloped site as to the city's supply of affordable housing by providing bmr units on-site, is a properly designed in scale for the neighborhood context and because the project complies with the general plan planning code. this concludes my present it. i'm available

for further questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> good evening commissioners get michael-sensible ability we are local developer. think you for hearing r-m today i know is that a long day. my partner vasquez is sitting behind me and her architects dar and winzip architect jeffrey miller associates are here tonight if you have any specific questions that i can answer. i would like to just quickly take you through some of the project design could touch on high points but before i do that i didn't want to say something about the site. for those of you that don't know the site is not a particularly scenic or attractive building today. it is a two-story concrete parking garage that was built as part of the redevelopment land. i think was called the a-2 western addition redevelopment plan at an error with this commission and others were demanding a lot of parking. this parking was built as part of the adjoining office building at 15 b van ness which is a burger king drive-through

in the ground floor. when we came across this site it's a little intimidating because the title was smothered with conditions and typewritten notes about the parking obligations and i think a lot of other developers shied away. we actually approach the owners 815 s. >> me >>[inaudible] [off mic] van ness the office condominium and spent a year negotiate with them on agreement where we are reducing the overall parking at the crotch to service that building. the counterweight working with the zoning administrator and staff to provide legal replacement parking but reduce the overall parking from 62 bases down to 40 and if we do and are successful in negotiating the purchase of the burger king, we will eliminate the drive through and remove those retail burger king spaces as well. we are still providing some parking for the residential result obviously an amazing sight right near the van ness the rtm as we learn from the neighborhood associations: -

excuse me - me - excuse me - cathedral hill are parking was an issue for them, we negotiated a reduction i think it's 14 for everybody. so just to recap, big of the garage, neighbors that rely on that garage. i think a complex reasonable negotiation to place the broad provide them some replacement parking provide reduce parking for the residential and we hope a beautiful design. this is an image of the proposal. we gone with a very very simple or modern expression could you might ask why do we need an exception for architectural decorative feature. what are one articles mistreated to a simple formula texture and relief so that macro xo grade is what i think i call it on exterior of the building provide some relief to those both the inside of the windows and there's this great event altogether provide about 12 inches of relief this week light and shadow on this building i think will be quite beautiful. this is the building and is constant is an area of the city that's a lot of light basically does we try to echo that vocabulary. the ground floor before and after. this

charming garage entrance drive-through entrance and what we hope to produce on eddy street which is really well that's double height lobby inviting lobby, to stoop units double height you can actually some residents vastly enter off of eddie to a pocket park there in front of the building and then the garage screen-a screen garage entrance except for the drive-through which would be open, of course 24-7. this is the eddy street treatment where we done a series of setbacks about 6.5 feet from the existing right-of-way. we've lined - excuse me - to create a new audi environment we step back the building an additional 20 feet at the suggestion of the planning staff. so the building create some nice there and liked along with low which could become one date vibrant pedestrian alley. this is a close-up of those stoops and how we are tending to activate

willow street. this is the site plan could i just want to point out might be hard to see on the screen but one of our proposals are thinking it was taken really well took his we are proposing to redesign and related legal the burger king courtyard which raynaud's anywhere the garbage is picked up. you can grow and get some quick franchise there's a large transformer. our vision is to turn this into an attractive place so the tenants of the office building the visitors of the restaurant, our tenants, and the adjoining a 10 van ness apartment building. if we are successful on the bushes with a burger king orders we may have the opportunity to illuminate the drive-through in its entirety and expand the courtyard to make that into more inviting place. the underground garage, we just

chopped off a level that it was originally could be 105 stated negotiated maximum of 80 spaces. if we are successful in getting rid of the burger king will have a .38 parking ratio. we can get rid of the burger king love appointed residential parking ratio. this just gives you a sense of the cross-section of the get you can see willow street and eddy street and how the garages tucked underground. you might ask, how do you accommodate a drive-through and residential building? you do it somewhat creatively. that entrance would accommodate both individuals who want to access the drive-through but it would also allow people to go into our garage. then this is just the general floor plan of the building. we have courtyard of both sides of the building and as many units as possible fronting on willow and eddy street. finally we propose a pretty dramatic roof deck. this building exceeds the open space requirements by about i think 2700 ft.2. we are excited about the opportunity great a beautiful view deck on the top of this building. these are

more details about the landscaping plan which i really think is going to change this block and make it up place people want to hang in as opposed to avoid. finally the infamous burger king drive-through that is the attention somebody people in the neighborhood, if we are able to urges the burger king franchise we are exporting the idea of creating a micro retail suite as are left with the architect described you can walk it off of van ness and go to one of the small retail shops and then we would preserve the larger restaurant space and look at detecting that. i do want to emphasize something that's free important. we do not own the burger king space. we do not own the franchise. we are not the tenants. we are working with the tenants can we hope to do something with them. this very important no matter what we are preserving the rights. so there's a debate about whether that drive-through is even an easement a lot of things but we are taken more neighborly

approach of will do everything want to accommodate the drive to get we've heard loud and clear from every neighbor that we talk to they prefer it go away. that is not in our power but you'll notice the entitlements about variance where that is a possibility. so we are trying to preserve the option could i do want to emphasize would love to actually get rid of the drive-through if we could. that's not up to us at this point in time. this is the view of that we formatted will be called the burger king courtyard but this is the space to be between the office building and her new apartment building if you are willing to approve us tonight. that's the extent to my presentation i'm available if you have any questions did they do so much for your attention. >> thanks. opening up to public comment. >> good evening commissioners to present a metal pole neighborhood association. also. tonight. behalf of cathedral builders who want to be here but could not hear. we enjoyed working with bill krupa on this

project. our chief concern with their initial lands was the amount of parking. if you take a look at van ness and rc-three rc-four zoning will parking is required. so we approach projects and we start from no parking and then you tell us why you need parking. i think that's a fundamental difference of attitude with some sponsors who try to say, how do i get the maximum amount of parking. here, we came to a think a good resolution and we would ask the commission to support the project with the modification that the sponsor mentioned get a recap of 80 spaces. there will be future projects in van ness the will call sponsors we would like zero parking and we think it's possible. i look at the building that i live in it the new development just the last year. most people are taking a cap, taking and spielberg taking a look.

they're walking to their taking the bus. it's imperative that this portion of the city and our neighborhoods are transit first. because if we can't do transit first in this part of the city, i mean then we are really lost. because were definitely not going to do it on the far west side. so we really got to work hard on this and i appreciate that bill was willing to work with us on this. also we understand there are limitations with the burger king but we really view that drive-through as a danger to pedestrians, two cyclists, and to motorists. also we think it's and of a product of a it's and of a product of a brother another time. the micro option is very promising and we hope that the parties can reach a bigger shaded settlement where every one feels whole and that proceeds. also as the

project and it goes through construction, one of the things we mentioned to the sponsor is that transformer, which is part of the office condo, they might be able to actually move that an underground that on willow street which would open up more space. next project site is kind of a another sauce that it's kind of a dilapidated hotel. so that might be developed at some point. she could really have some nice development with portal units on-site which is really good. we are very supportive of this and we are-all the groups along van ness are working together to have a strategy about community orientated development that really works. so urge you to support the project to date with the modification to your motion for the reduced parking. thank you. >> high commissioner's. i'm at

a mayor also with the middle polk the birds association. i'm the director of planning and design. i wonder reiterate our support for the project to recommend the project sponsor for meeting with us on very short notice and being very responsive to our comments and the quick turnaround in his response to our comments. i feel to be a great addition to the neighbor did it a beautiful building. i think it's handsome dignified building with a beautiful façade that has layers and depth to it. i like the way that the building steps back on willow and i just want to reiterate mr.-point about the drive-through. we really don't want to see this burger king drive-through continue to operate because we really feel that this is not where the city is going. it's fast food drive-through is kind of a

relic of a bygone era and with the project team has done with the site design in terms of the micro retail along this kind of arcade is really nice. so we hope that we can see that come through and thanks. >> sue has a bit please listen to mow jameel. he did you a service by highlighting the issue of surround parking. when the van ness plan went to the planning commission when [inaudible] with staff there was a lot of conversation by the commission about eliminating parking and all projects. on van ness ave. right now i get at least one e-mail a week about the van ness

including project good their changing lanes, battle going on for a couple of years. so you are doing a lot of projects on van ness good i know you did [inaudible] about two months ago. you have the mcdonald's site coming next year and you have 50 oak st. which is the same thing as oak and van ness very fast. the more parking is provided on van ness the more traffic is screwed all. the venice is a state route and it has enormous problems with traffic. it's going to come down it's because of that factor. so there are trucks on the van ness. they're not going to go away. there are cars that are going through the city to the bridge. they are not going to go away. the more housing

provides parking, the more rates of the housing goes all. the fact of the matter is you pay for the parking when you buy a condo. so starting with ground zero parking is the appropriate praise for the planning department staff to be and they are not supposed to be the developers. they're supposed to tell developers how to-the guidance you are giving them to please, give the guidance to your staff that says on van ness ave., no parking. how do you make van ness attractive for people that are dependent on transit? there's so many places in this city which you can't go around easily on transit because there's mountains in the middle of the city. that's a fact of life. but van ness ave., there's no excuse for people living there. a lot of people that are older citizens that

need elevator and you transit, they can be accommodated easily on van ness ave. were franklin or polk street. so listen to -he's telling you could stop. no parking should be the starting point and people should have to give a rationale for every parking space beyond their own. thank you. >> any additional public comment? public comment is closed. i agree with sue hester. >>[laughing] parking on van ness is not necessary especially. it's good. i like this project the aarp i'm a fan of their style. i think it's good. i'm curious burger king is actually technically building next-door, correct? if the burger king would be removed, what happened to the drive-through area that sort of a alcove cutout? vestibule

area? >> this is a- >> i asked the question because i would not be turned into a little dark-dead-end alley. >> this way to show the image on the computer it would be helpful. >> if sfgov tv can go to the computer? >> we have a rendering of what we would do this is an elevation of that drive-through. it's actually -it's pretty unattractive place right now but if it was treated correctly with paint and if you opened up the small retail and lit it up properly, and you turned the rear area back into a garden court, >> it's rarely initiate? >> yes. it being extra nice visit were also proposing as you can see in this image punching a stairwell up to willow. you can't do that today said he could during business

hours you can move from below through the little courtyard and then into the retail. once you're down in a courtyard the retail the burger king drive-through becomes a little arcade. so it's a great opportunity in the reason we been talking about is because this a single developer site for purposes of the planning code. our entitlements would be recorded against the 815 van ness property as well as the garage property good so the binding on the entire two properties within the development site. >> thanks. unsupportive is a handsome project to mr. hillis >> and it's a great prospect for site so much hinges on the burger king. i feel like is the eighth commissioner. commissioner king. you better hurry because at some point in time try this might be the store. the laughing you actually don't see a lot of them . i have fond memories my dad take me to the drive-through. >> commissioner hillis i'm sure you agree that charge.

>> yes. if it were not serving poison. but i think it's a great project and you done a lot to kind of accommodate for the eventual loss of the burger king which we all hope goes away. i think the design is great. commissioner fong, and it simple modern confessional. transformative. so that it's a great project and i moved to approve >> second. >> is nothing further commissioners is a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. does that include the parking? >> yes. >> with the reduction of parking. hillis aye koppel aye melgar aye richards and fung >> aye so move the motion passes 5-0. commissioners that are placed on the item under

discretionary review counted item 20 was continued. so i am 21 the case number 26 in-00547 739 bryant st. mandatory discretionary review. >> good evening president fong and fellow committee justice department stop. the item before your parcel mandatory discretionary view for the proposed project at 739 bryant st. the project was mandatory review pursuant to planning code 202.2 to establish a new medical cannabis dispensary doing business as 4 seasons care ctr. in suite 205 previously use of an office week of the second level the entity will not be open to the public and will serve as an office the delivery only dispensary. no parking is required and a fiscal expansion is proposed. suite 205 will serve as a principal place of business for the lack of

activities may include administration delivery dispatch minor storage and compliance inspections for sf dph. no one site sales no consumption does not signal cannabis plants will be cultivated on-site. we package items for delivery we stored on-site. commissioners, the evelyn has revised the requested square footage from 200 ft.2 to 120 ft.2 and to date of the palm has received six letters of support which i supplied copies here today and one phone call from a neighbor discussing general opposition. as a product proposes ncd within 205 by patients and increased levels safe access to medication for their ailments no smoking on-site foreman finds the project to be compatible the intent of the district complaint with the criteria section findings of 202.2 and advances the objectives and policy of the general plan. the department recommend the condition to prove approve the project is

proposed with conditions get this concludes my present am available for questions shouldn't be any. >> project sponsor? >> hello commissioned thank you for staying with us this evening. we think of it are subject to be heard this and were grateful for the chance to come for you today get as described in our submitted application materials 4 seasons care ctr. seems to be the premier model home delivery medical marijuana to qualified license patients in san francisco. 4 seasons care ctr. has medicals include providing the best quality product and service to the underserved residents of san francisco and this greek fashion. all while conducting a nondisruptive low impact on the neighborhood legally permitted business. by operating as a delivery only ncd or seasons care center love minimal impact on the coloring and character of their neighborhood. located on the second floor will maintain any storefront advertising or

signage. there will be no increase in foot traffic or vehicle congestion by patients because patients will not be granted access to the unit at any time. there will be no consumption or growth on the premises of any kind. 4 seasons care ctr. model aims to be local and maintains discretion for safety and privacy purposes of delivery vehicles be unmarked get the drivers will not wear a uniform and packaging will display no medical marijuana labeling. the customer code of conduct will be enforced including assurances medicine only are delivered to member patients. will not be redistributed to not patients. will not be accessible to children and only consumed indoors and private property patients will sign the agreement to this and never ship will immediately terminate any violation. in addition 4 seasons care ctr. will consistently maintain a stock and bright wide variety of products for spectrum of care options to accommodate all the ailments we don't delete ease by proper medical marijuana use. it'll just not that trendy or popular or more obscure were specifically tailor products to treat all conditions common and

rare. this business model by design will primarily benefit the underserved medical marijuana patients in san francisco. others value in allowing patients to meditate on premises, ibbotson not have a brick-and-mortar location nearby innovative medications are not comfortable playing prescriptions medicating in public. many patients confined to their homes or cannot afford to brick-and-mortar. patient able to meditate in homes will benefit immensely from this style of delivery only ncd. about the location, ideally located to ensure three ways to ensure speedy delivery and traffic limits the traffic impacts. the building is designed to accept and distribute products and has the initiative. deliveries via the alley behind. [inaudible] for drivers who to arrive at work in plenty bike parking available for them as well.

private parking for delivery vehicles will be leased it will not be street parking. the business model is largely consistent with planning commission for the sally disappeared is not a retail type business were people coming in and out. this was no residence there on the block. regarding security, 4 seasons care ctr. will so wired cameras at all entrances to the units visible within the building. they will operate a drop safe throughout the day. only the manager or armored car love access to the safe. alarms will be installed on doors, windows, and a proximity alarm to the safe will be in use in case someone attempts to move or relocate the safe. cars will be equipped with a gas camera. all employees be trained in sales consulting management and overall safety and security. additional item will be installed and upgraded outdoors as needed. toby keith that's all the entrances. logistically all orders will be run through the location. product will be stored on location and brought

in to replenish as needed. four seasons expects to employ between 5-10 people product sales accounting and tracking will be conducted via eight c2 sale point of sale system. point of sale systems visibly designed for the medical marijuana industry will cover patient management inventory, control point of sales and delivery tracking. drivers will be operating from 10 am-10 pm daily. sponsor this to rick's, has been in operating - excuse me - operations therefore the largest independent master dish sugars the food service industry. sponsor mr.-has accepted background in opening and running day-to-day operations of restaurant industry. he also opened 1/35 restaurants on the west coast. thank you. i'll be available for questions. >> thank you. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards

>> i just have-sorry. i did have questions on the security plan but you have concerns but you actually were able to allay those concerns diminished virtually none. i moved to take dr and approve the project as i wanted >> second. >> nothing further commissioners, on a motion to take dr and approve the project with conditions, commissioner hillis aye johnson aye koppel aye melgar aye richard aye fung aye so moved the motion speed meets the motion passes 6-0 in place on general public on which i've no speak regards. >> any public comment this evening squeak seeing none, public comment is closed. and the meeting is adjourned in memory of the tragedy in the open fire victims.

>>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >>

>> all right. good morning, everyone welcome to the transportation authority plans & programs committee for tuesday, december 6, 2016, i'm katie tang chair it is supervisor avalos last transportation authority plans & programs committee thank you for your service and, of course, aaron peskin hopefully joined by commissioner farrell and commissioner breed and thank you from the sfgovtv