Skip to main content

tv   Planning Commission 22516  SFGTV  February 27, 2016 12:00am-2:01am PST

12:00 am
maximum 200 foot building at waterfront to a three hundred foot building one block away from the waterfront you saw the animation but let me show you the existing waterfront. >> the 4 hundred foot building first three hundred foot building and then the 4 hundred foot building that is not a tapering down but sticking out like a obscure thumb interrupting building are great the right space and the right place this is right at three hundred feet. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> game-changer commissioners director - my name is danny a wretched the sheet metal workers
12:01 am
r0 this allows for more units of housing and below-market-rate housing which guess balanced nee needed the city tishman inspire has been a great partner we look forward to working with them i'm note this is 100 percent units a union and has our support this is significant i mean local folks will be employed making good minimum wage and for our youth through our student apprenticeship programs i can't stress that enough we urge you to move this project forward today by recommending it for approval to the board of supervisors thank you for your time.
12:02 am
>> thank you. >> commissioner president fong and commissioners my name is alicia i'm a resident of rincon park and a member of the safe house the park and the association i'm speaking in opposition to the proposed one hundred foot height increase on fulsome i'll focus my discussion on a financial deal the city is making with the developer to increase the height from three to four hundred feet this deal is a grateful for the developer it is a steel is a very bad deal for the city i'll point out 3 facts the developer is on record he's jenly providing below-market-rate housing as you may know the law states to provide 35 percent we must be clear the developer is giving me the city an additional 5 percent of affordable housing for this project not a grateful for the
12:03 am
city but the developer gets to build an additional 91 additional square feet of luxury apartments with an estimate o three hundred plus million dollars profit and number 2 the developer gets a subsidize for units of housing this subsidize is a trade of the public land valued as $19.2 million basically getting public lands for free this commissioners is a gre great deal a steal by the developer not only is the developer getting the lands for free he gets the plan to provide bmr units we call it double dipping and number 3 the loss to the city that the additional one hundred feet to the city casting shadows on the rincon park on the waterfront, and think be traffic signal park adjacent to the building and the increase in traffic this is immeasurable and
12:04 am
also permanent we all want affordable housing the city by getting 4 percent additional bmr units wihile giving away city land for free while the developer profits by $300 million plus in that a steal for the developer and it is not worst the permanent environmental lost to our parks and waterfront and neighborhoods i urge you not to approve that project thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners donald a resident of city of san francisco here and i just want to point out the fact that rincon park is not a city park in the city and county of san francisco it is a state owned piece of parcel of lands
12:05 am
on the waterfront so the normal jurisdiction about par rec and park is notplegic in this case and secondly, the bay bridge casts more shadows on a daily basis than any building in the transbay district let's be clear about that acknowledging the public at the last november '75 percent of san francisco voters passed the legislation the majority of sf tenants agreed the density make sense and protects the complooifks and health and bonus of the bay what i like about the one 70 fulsome is it enhances the sites of bay added 4 hundred feet tall the below-market-rate housing will be mixed throughout the tower instead of the lower floors of the building the developer a local developer has
12:06 am
been for many decades will subsidies hoa for residents they're not house poor paying their hoa dues and the spot zoning with 40 percent spatial units where a cost of 16 hundred square feet to own a one bathroom condo created social equality in the transbay district community thus creating neighborhood equality and social sustainability worthwhile protecting our local compliment will be a great density instead of instead of disadvantaging the urban sexual and it school /* is green and confident and sustainable and traffic is lower than normal by creating more
12:07 am
spot zoning it will bring down rents and first time tenants and evaluation elevations that is affordable for young family from low income inform middle-income please approve the additional height were 're in a state of energy emergency with our housin shortage. >> i'm with local 3 the operating engineers and like the gentleman said earlier we're for this you know to add more stories because obviously it will create for housing we have a big housing shortage in san francisco and will create more affordable housing as well and not to mention you know
12:08 am
tishman has been fair with labor so there are making this fair it will create a lot of great jobs for locals the city and help people afford affordable housing that is desperately needed it is hard to find the correct balance i'm sure but i think this project is doing it right and we're behind it 100 percent thank you. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> nor. >> next speaker. >> i'll call a few more names
12:09 am
(calling names). >> give this joel with the electrical workers local 6 our entire labor management committee is in full support of project as property with the height increase we've been involved with tishman projects for decades now they've been a strong contributor to the what is shrinking middle-income fiber of san francisco we've been involved with similar projects in this neighborhood and see side transbay district as the place for at all commercial buildings and at all residential buildings ideally working within a walking distance or within blocks of heavy used transit center and before i forget tom
12:10 am
o'connor president of the love 798 ferries is here had to leave but wanted to commissioner mccray his support thanthankmcc >> i'm lauren vice chair of the transbay advisory committee and am president of the directing with the rincon hill benefit the new itself cdc by the way, i live 3 blocks from block one, if you accountability the project i'm delighted to look at this and as speakers mentioned this building has a long way towards meeting the goals it not anyone legislative it provides be affordable housing i'm looking
12:11 am
forward to bringing in more families we need more families a few details mentioned we want to say the 40 percent below-market-rate housing being proposed the height increased to 4 hundred feet this is huge i can't imagine other people the city - this is something that will be a tremendous benefit citywide othanother benefit thea plan again mentioned but i want to calling your attention how do you allow families and other people in below-market-rate housing in those residential high-rises afford the hoa dues it can make a difference and tishman has been working to come up with an initiative plan that can be rolled out into the other projects the city i commend the
12:12 am
city staff store their analysis on shadowing and the impact of the skyline fortunately shadowing is a non-on or about i actually took a secretly through the park yesterday by the boo and arrow i mean, i'll be conscious of the increased shadows but the studies and the video shadows negligible this is not a shadowing issue i'm sure you deal with that. >> in short i hope you'll approve the increase of building from three to four hundred feet for what it did oes for the below-market-rate and the traffic for the skype and our neighborhood thank you for your time and consideration. >> we should be supporting
12:13 am
that increase inform affordable housing it is dense and green and beautiful to look at i think the shadowing has been clearly demonstrated as ethnicinegotiab need to stop the shadowing over humans we need to support the fact that people are coming to the city and current residents are displaced this is an emergency and we need to stop prioritizing people's views over the actual families that will live in those units i beg you to support this project the higher it is the more people we can support ♪ city this is exactly the kind of smart growth we need to embrace not the already dense urban places thank you very much >> good evening, commissioners
12:14 am
my name is mr. apprenticeships i represent 4 thousand members the city and county of san francisco with the neighbors and i urge you to support this increase for the tower to our members to work on and have an opportunity to live in their work and building and have the opportunity to live in the same project i urge you to support this project thank you. >> hello commissioners tom from the operating engineers union we represent over 10 thousand members in northern california the amendment will allow for more storage and more units of heirs below-market-rate that is needed for working families the infrastructure percentage will
12:15 am
go to middle-income working families the people building the structure and - tishman is great with the i'm not sure and the good work they do this ey have a good bale been luxury and affordable units for those who are making the 6 figures it is nice and people can build it and live there and build the next one and keep that circle going we need to increase the salt lake city supply of housing this is a good way to do it thanthank >> good afternoon. my name is a lance i'm a homeowner and taxpayer in san francisco welcome and nice to see you
12:16 am
commissioner president fong and commissioners i want to express my opposition strong opposition to this plan changing the city's height limit from - some such spot zoning - we think even without additional height of fulsome to more than 4 hundred feet is a violation of the waterfront plans and casts shadows and critiqu creates an eye soar the building scale is inhuman and the impact san francisco already is over built over commengested placard bill ugly high-rises so i urge you to stop manhatt manhattanizing san francisco thank you.
12:17 am
>> of this commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm adrian field represent with local 22 and my oracutcome is at different in an the last speaker we hope you'll support the general amendment today because more stories equals more housing and many that housing we get more below-market-rate housing that supports housing for workers which our carpenters i represent about 35 hundred carpenters here in san francisco will have the opportunity to live in and we look forward to working with tishman inspire that is a great partner of local 22 in san francisco for many, many years thanyears thank you.
12:18 am
>> good afternoon is commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm an lbe consultant and the program director of sea we'd a program that seeks to provide opportunities and exposure to first generation college students interested the real estate and public gave me i'm here to support the general plan amendment by way of context we want to present i've been working with tishman spire close to 18 months on their sbe program and prufrment as well as their training preamble both instances not only do they design and implement those programs successfully but far exceeded the goals and program requirements with powerful and impact wins and opportunities
12:19 am
for the participation for the local community and young adults in san francisco in terms of shared urban design communicated based all the way we engage the community groups and where we bring and how to get the best outreach done and available to initiative strategies to maximize opportunities those are powerful elements of the program in terms of what it delivered what are the deliverables i can say that again to the sbe program is the participation by lbe's they're at the 9089 percent excuse me. strong and participation by woman of the businesses and women owned businesses as well as the structure team on down very strong they've absolutely embraced the existing lbe communities with the programs
12:20 am
that have been helped to shape the lbe program, if you will, based on the feedback and participation they'll develop a program that is double what the city program is at the 89 percent and the training program side again not knocking it out of the park ed that provided internship position for 8 young adults first generation college students and students of color and delivered over 21 hours of technical training excuse me. with auto can do with site inspectors spreadsheets you name it a powerful opportunity for me as an lbe that does grassroots work i you know this is probably one of the most powerful projects the commitment was strong and initiative candidates to the design implements it shows the results thank you very
12:21 am
much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'll call some more names please line up on the tv side of the room (calling names). >> good evening commissioners my name is ms. district attorney's office he am one of the sea we'd interns underneath monique who had did pleasure of working on this project i fully support this building rays up to 4 hundred feet for a couple of reasons the biggest reason it provides a lot more affordable housing with san francisco needs san francisco has run into a problem we're not looking at as much hours especially to those on a protecting scale so we
12:22 am
definitely need to provide housing for these are lower income this creates more affordable housing and especially at 4 hundred feet the tissue man provides a solution to this i do believe we have explore hthis the best way possible and as far as creating a differenceable and 44 more families that what move into this housing project if so raised to 4 hundred feet and one speaker talks about whether or not it is worth it i strongly believe that raising this from three to four hundred is worth it because a allows for people ♪ san francisco who are here and fighting to stay have the opportunity to house in those affordable units
12:23 am
it is very important that we take solutions opportunities like these seriously and not try to stop process ocii was very fortunate to see the benefit of - their helpful in seeing the benefit of raising it to 4 hundred feet to see it will ultimately help the housing process and projects here in san francisco so - they were able to help progress in that way i hope you guys understand this was going to help and benefit san francisco as a whole especially the fathers and mothers in san francisco thank you for your time >> thank you. next speaker, please good evening, commissioners i'm peter hartman a resident
12:24 am
homeowner and also chair of the ocii transbay advisory committee as you've heard the citizens advisory committee approved the height increase in our january meeting the main reasons why we did see were first and foremost because of the increase in the number of housing units 73, 60 persons will be below-market-rate and felt this was extremely important given the current issues of the cost in our city we secondly, we found the effective shadows on rincon park and the other parks in the city to be amuse we found the higher building height is really very much in keeps very much with the surrounding character of the 74th annual memorial day neighborhood as development whethn we came up wh
12:25 am
the original plan 13 or 14 years ago that was surface parking lots and at that time, three hundred foot building seemed very the idea of a three hundred foot building is bold now it is modest because of buildings from 4 to 5 hundred feet and much higher throughout the area and finally we the committee felt that the increase in height increases - enhances the long time design from gang studio so we ask you approve the height increase thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm carman i am going to be one of the persons i mean, i'm getting below-market-rate apartment i
12:26 am
now am one of the persons that will be using the extra units in the building i am a project engineer for the mechanic company in the transbay terminal and as well as in the sfmta i do comedy and a by reason of of shows i am a person would not been able to live here if not more programs like the bmr program so to say extremely for the only they know i hear against maybe the building making the building bigger i don't know if i ska can change my life you'll walk our dog and have extra shadows is infurther i don't know how they can say
12:27 am
that - this live make the place beautiful from the outside and inside. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm a affirmative in traffic design i live in the mission units to be built by tishman prior i bought this unit two years ago before i bought this i was homeless for 86 days with 3 family members my wife and niece and my 80 years old mom we were
12:28 am
the victim of the ellis act my formally landlord kicked me out using the ellis act even though i pay rents on time but his revolution i couldn't imagine no bmr program i'll not be able to get a home now i can provide shelter for my father and mother because of the bmr program without bmr program i have no way to get out from beg homeless and no way to support my family so the united states diversity amongst the diversity different income and diverse the most important living together regardless of households income this income diversities is necessary in san francisco we all can live together i strongly support broke o block one to
12:29 am
extend additional 44 unit for bmr. >> i do favor the highfliers since it is more affordable to san francisco the higher tower the more people can live shadows is in nature thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please i'll call the last of commenters (calling names). >> hi my name is robert i'm a sales associates on mission which is another tishman project that provides one and 90 homes for affordable building i helped carman and who just spoke and cocoa that spoke getting an accountable home in san
12:30 am
francisco i would like to read a letter from small business or from i trapping that couldn't be here she's another homeowner on mission and she writes to whom it may concern i'm unable to attend the hearing but like to voice my so forth for the new building proposed by tishman spire i've been told the building will designate 40 percent of blmr this is a huge opportunity for current san franciscans to purchase a home and remain outlining in the city i work in education and love any job my salary is december sent 92 but not compared to my jerry friends their value and subsidi substance in what i do there are many people we volunteer on weekends and listen to give attire over community and pay over bills on time with good why
12:31 am
we don't we don't have of figure salary so we can't say hope to buy a place and be a permanent recipient i don't mind renting i hear landlords will environmental impact tenants, etc. and this will vufb be priced out of community i love and call home a lot of people attribute the pricing up to developers which is accurate they steam from san francisco inadequate supply of real estate lowering the construction of this new this will help with the mid-market remain in san francisco especially, since 40 percent of the units will be designated as mr. rose bmr when assessing consider the positive outcome on the san francisco residents thank you. i tran bmr owner as
12:32 am
of february 2016. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm jerry dodson i live the neighborhoods of fulsome and i'm here to represent some neighborhood concerns we have about this project number one is spot zoning is bad policy number 24 hundred he 46 tower will shadow two parks rincon park and the plan for main and fulsome and i've also - brought a diagram to show shadow a substantial part of this one was september 27th as you can see
12:33 am
the diagram there come down and shie shades all the way to the bay this is a three hundred shaides the park ant but just the edge it is a significant shadow the earlier comments doesn't show is not true this is regime has a substantial shadow and also the posted building will not tarp down it is 4 hundred and 26 feet a block from the water not tr p tapering most of building are up to 275 but 4 hundred and 26 feet is out of dhashg for the neighborhood it is windy and this at all building will turn into a wind tunnel also the building will add traffic to the area that is
12:34 am
xhenldz because of the traffic people going to the bay bridge without a dough the building will attribute to turning our neighborhood to shading and windy and traffic will be from the stand point it is not a good thing at all also i wanted to point out it will not be family housing the vast majority of 92 or 96 and to percent of the podium are 1, 2, 3 bedrooms not a family-friendly sedime sediment and the developer is supplying 40 percent this is not true the developer is getting free land he is only san francisco board of supervisors budget & finance commission 20 percent quotes naffordable not percent affordable the developer in my view the top 10 floors are 91 thousand square
12:35 am
feet if you put that in a minimum of a 2 thousand square feet we're talking about an additional 1 and $82 million of gross profit and knocking off the expense at least one and $41 million. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> next item, please. > thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello morgan coalition for san francisco neighborhoods the coalition has neighborhoods neighbors all over the city we comment on buildings all over the city right now there is a lot of interest and conversation around affordable housing on tuesday we heard at the board many developers talking about
12:36 am
how a 25 percent inclusion affordable housing would make everything unfeasible to build in san francisco and a little bit later today, under the affordable housing bonus plan we'll hear the same developer say they'll be able to build thirty percent buildable under this that is confusing to what is going on in this particular case on fulsome the developer all right. is obligated to provide thirty percent affordable housing so a 10 story variance and one and $50 million is providing 20 extra unions of affordable housing on this project this is the sixth if affordable housing is the crisis that we know it is for an extension of this amount there should be a significantly higher contribution to affordable
12:37 am
housing there is simply no reason to allow this below-market-rate developer to have another 10 stories for essentially free thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners director. >> my name is mark english an architect i'm on the california council and board of directors here to read a state from the american architecture in support of project and the amendment quote the design of this unique residential tower joining low rise building and the inclusion of streetscape plaza and terr e terraces on fulsome street by the studio gang raises the bar the high quality the proposed design as a refreshing rip
12:38 am
egging quality that meets the skin. >> nefldz into the glass towers and equitable integrates 40 percent of the units as affordable housing moreover it is the twitype of building begd that brings the general plan seeks to exclusiachieve we supp project and the finding the planning staff as submitted thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> game-changer rob topool speaking on the on behalf of the businesses individuals members so tishman spire presented this in october 2014 and at that time, 40 percent affordable housing was unprecedented for a single-family building and our
12:39 am
residents were supportive of that and the design and while we like it then we feel 2 has improved more up to the 26 floor and did a good job with the hoa fees and the open space contribute to the streetscape and the activity and the open space as well i don't think anyone disagrees the tower is appropriate to us the benefits are clear 73 more homes in transit in a walkable neighborhood and 60 percent of 44 is the permanently affordable i wish i would do better for the teachers and first responders 440 more homes for those people that is clear to us now i understand the opposition and the concern about views and shadows on rincon park and the
12:40 am
comment i guess question brought up to the occ hearing stuck with me a handful of bmr i'm pair fraying are they worth destroying the quality of life if this means 44 more accountable homes for teachers and firefighters and postal wor workers worth changing the views of a few neighbors and shadows on rincon park our answer is yes, we support the affordability in san francisco and building that is a good policy and provides for opportunities and choices to a variety of people that point and need to live here has to a terrific project we hope you move forward thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners my name is strike i'm a resident and architect i support i'd like to
12:41 am
speak in support of this height amendment as many of us noted this provides much needed market rate housing and additional affordable housing and in addition i think we the added heights improves this studio gang design and the pardon slenderness of the tower and i think as we fill in the transbay parcels those are extremely transit rich areas that really should support more density, in fact, i think we're at risk in looking at this in 20 years and wish weed gone for more higher towers thank you. >> hello, i'm andy i'm normally speaking that about affordable housing but i'm speaking as an architectal designer this by studio gang she's the reason i decided to
12:42 am
study architecture an incredibly high profile on the stage of architecture and known for her not only design brilliance but social driven urban development housing promotions all of the above this project approving it and getting it into the spotlight 4 hundred and as the man said 6 or one thousand feet that will set the standards much hire a phigh profile architect known for theoretical design raises the bar for architectural if the future no look at that one that is good earth all over the world are looking this building and we're raising the bar and setting back the precedent tishman spire and the studio
12:43 am
gang have tbeen working on desin and outreach it is a disservice to san francisco and future residents and current reliant for the architectural community to negotiate it down into something less thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment speakers. >> good afternoon commissioners sdwrjohn certainlm here to urge the project approval for the 44 percent new hours it sets the stated a standards and clearly is a great one it is middle-income housing i'm glad to see that middle-income is dpivend properly as one side of the aisle of ami not some higher number
12:44 am
the clearly the faefblt that high percentage is results from the ulcer traffic luxurious projects on the waterfront but important to know how to workouts ociis land swap for 76 units this is 200 and $75,000 a unit and the developer will packing pay the full costs that are more than 200 and $75 a unit when you adjust the math certainly over 33 percent their taking a look at the land swap of 33 inclusion level and on behalf above 33 pe is the precedent savings account and demonstrates the feasibility for this special ulcer traffic product to really do that high a level of inclusionary housing i think this is important to
12:45 am
beamed as we talk about the inclusionary housing i want to talk about the shadows the shadow on the restaurant roof will not terribly impair the park and important to note in the feasibility that this developer is patricking paying melrose fee for the transbay district a substantial fee that is funding new porks a parks that are being built in fulsome and, of course, the sky park as you may know our what we feel anytime this is a shadow on open space you should require developers of it is last week this an incident to either improve the shadow part and increase it's feasibility or somehow provide new office space this is happening here the melrose is the mechanism that is
12:46 am
making it happy we strongly support of tishman proposal and urge you to approve thank you. >> other public speakers please. i'm john, i wanted to talk about this project in particular today because i used to work in a business at one 50 fillmore the business i worked for schfs an animation whatever slash party space the 90s and early 2009s it was an important hub for artists a place for people do to do dance classes and make creativi creative things in a elevator of savings accou settings the parking lot we took the entire parking lot we made
12:47 am
it into a drive in movie experience with thirty projectors on the wall of the adjacent building this was the arts playground represented from people in the parking lot when inin any event towers came in we were not krooeg about them killing our lives we live in a staying city we're going to build and make something cool a testimony time a piece of art the architect that is going through wants tobacco a good neighbor it going negative impact and providing affordable housing so everyone i talked to the owner of the business and others people hundreds of people the people are happy to have this building when you look at studio gangs website and watch their video they care about the areas where they put buildings
12:48 am
it is true they think things through we're very much in support of this project my time is up. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, this portion of the hearing is closed commissioner antonini. >> thank you that is a wonderful project and what we're here to do, of course, is find it is consistent with the general plan and also to you know continue what we've nifrshd as far as correcting the 5 in error that's the scope of what we have but there are- we have to have finding i think there are quite a few i was fortunate enough to be on the commission in 2004 when the inin any event were approved before the rincon hill plan was approved and there was a huge debate about the
12:49 am
height and you know the 4 hundred feet of those the taller of the towers there were 4 towers 2, by anyway you look at them they look not dummy but small in relations whto what is around tm a lot hysteria about this so we have to have a quality project then it should be approved and the other interesting thing is the position of the taller turn over alcohol, tobacco & firearms inthfinity tower is further to e south between fulsome and harrison rather than to the
12:50 am
north of fulsome so if you go to the waterfront you'll notice it begins to curve towards the rest so actually, the 4 hundred foot tower that was already there and the taller tower of infinity is closer to the real waterfront at the same height so also as was pointed out a lot of was twas blocked by the gap building and this proposed building does tarp at the top one speaker said it doesn't but that does it's a beautiful design it has it is white clad that is nice craft what we've seen on the glass buildings and nice it to see a white clad building that has punched buildings and looks at more traditional even
12:51 am
though it is a phase that is cleaver a clever and will be noted their widening the sidewalks, their contributing almost 3 thousand square feet of public open space so a lot of things that on that and as far as the urban form which was piloted rincon park is one feet high so as mentioned number one rincon hill is the tangible it it is essentially seven hundred foot tall if you count rincon hill and then the both 6 hundred height of this building you've got it to the south and step down to 4 hundred feet and step up higher to the transbay tower
12:52 am
1040 prornld height for that one and going towards the waterfront you step down to 289 for the gap building and the lower structures on the waterfront this building was not on the waterfront so that's an important thing then the shadow analysis was quite well present and i think the .34 increase often receptor rincon park and the maximum 45 minutes on february 23rd larger on the top the water - ttop the estaurants there with .003 and the top of transbay terminalres
12:53 am
the top of transbay terminal and the effects on the poland parks were small and then a comment about traffic increasing you always hear this when you had a residential building but it decreases because as was mentioned we had a speaker and woman that is an engineer at transbay will probably be one of the residents there and to make the point she is going to be able to walk to work this will be one less car on the road and less traffic so we'll be providing housing for a lot of people working in doubt san francisco and people that have cars don't take their cars out often i railway see anyone coming out of the infinity between 4 and 6 o'clock they take a lot of walks so it was
12:54 am
overstated the affordability someone misspoke said an increase of 2k20 units that is 44 it is 60 percent of the new units are affordable and spread throughout the entire building with the expectation of the top third of the tower and they're affordable hoa's worked out to the hoa's steady a certain amount and the rest will be subsidized to make it more affordable for the by way of e below-market-rate and this is built without a government subsidize that was but given to a nonprofit if they built the affordable housing this is not the case not a subsidy this is
12:55 am
$21 million saved right there that is certainly this is a big salesforce and much greater because the subsidies is about 200 and $75,000 per dwrunts u units we know everybody acknowledges the cost in san francisco is $800,000 average and the building like this it most are above one million dollars it is a huge subsidy that the buildier is giving to the city if downe through a nonprofit that will have to be subsidize so i think that is in melrose their contributing to melrose and the business improvements district this is a significant amount and finally, the general plan amendment in terms of what we shouhave to with map 57 all we're doing it
12:56 am
voting on what we initialed only a correction of mapping that was in error and passed and should have been as noted three hundred feet map 4 speaks to the fact that what was marked 80 x or in some instance should be received to the transbay plan should be three hundred feet all we're doing is bringing it up to date that was proposed at 2005 on that part of our action so i think this is a very good project and i'm very much in favor. >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you. >> so, yeah i mean there is a lot to like about this project as a stand alone project the design one of the best we've seen in a long time for a
12:57 am
residential project and also the fa fact we're getting 40 percent colleagues, can we take those without objection? inclusionary housing is great but i think that was mentioned i appreciate it is important to recognize i didn't before i was able to acid with ocii and hear this presentation i know getti it clear how thing view between zone one and two
12:58 am
and the fact that zone within the heights were set keeping the zone two heights as overflow room was the planning code and went throw in substantially increased in height in zone 2 which can i think allows us to look at more heights the zone one a question i have is the infiniti and south of here were all the limousines south of fulsome street melrose and the rincon hill how did those workout 80 to me the infiniti heights but i mean it will work the context of here this is a question to how those jogging our memories how those sites cameable >> good afternoon josh with
12:59 am
the department staff i worked on the rincon hill the infinity and lumina were entitled with before the arriving plan as commissioner antonini point out in 2004 those projects railroad proposed i think actually before i started the planning staff 15 years ago just around the time doing the rincon hill plan worked their way through the police radios independently before the rincon hill was approved so it was the top of the hill was already kind of taking into context what was happening on fulsome street with the financing finest sites those are predated the roifrn plan essentially. >> they were done what was the 5 m compared to the zoning. >> they preceded the adoption
1:00 am
of redevelopment plan by a year or two. >> they feat would be helpful that enembarrass is tht given the context how even the last decade or 19 years the heights have evolved here i don't have is big issue i think that you know staff has done a good job but the question is why not zone the rest of zone one here and i think the answer will we met with a lot of that is entitle and built given what happened in zone one and elsewhere in the district i think that is appropriate for the additional hundred feet the other question i have is on the affordable percentages and getting clarity on what i mean
1:01 am
if i look at the projects and what was built and entitled that is a wide not wide but range the affordable percentages inclusion percentages what is called for the plan i mean what's the baseline that 1re789 has to do in kind of - what's luger for the increase some t of it, it is ocii owns the land but the additional height. >> if you look at the redevelopment plan for the individual projects it required to build 1 percent the project. >> that's the developer cross subsidizing with their own - >> anything above it is a matter of negotiation or ocii subsidy it is done that way with the other projects if you look at block 8 an example that was a
1:02 am
recent closing in december that was 27 percent negotiated and box 6. >> just a question about 27 percent was achieved the ocii go subsidize. >> yes. >> dollars amount to get the 12 percent and for this project just if you could summarize i got a little bit off so at three hund what would the affordable percentage be. >> we negotiated the e n a 35 percent. >> so the additional hundred percent - >> 4 points. >> i think also the units dispersed throughout the building. >> yeah. when we excuse the e n a no dispersonable and all the units bottom 3 floors.
1:03 am
>> stepping down to the waterfront we're stepping down from transbay and the transit district stepping down from adopt will be a lot different from millionaire but this hundred feet with the design i like the additional inclusion but you know what we're focused on the height and i believe that works. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> thanks for a thorough presentation it was incredibly thorough and questions were asked maybe some of the public examine xhrmdz on the urban design can you talk about how this fits the urban design downtown i'll
1:04 am
appreciate it it seems it was hours ago that was hours ago (laughter). >> >> just want to make sure i have the publics concern and i understand the correct answer to those. >> great. >> briefly walk us through through that one more time. >> with respect to the shape of the city as viewed from affair and viewed as just the image of what san francisco is you know we have the urban design element of the general plan the 19 san jose a groundbreaking piece of - helps to protect san francisco to insure the development in san francisco is in alignment with these very clear urban design principles we have two, that stand out in this case, the
1:05 am
first is the concept that the waterfront should not have a wall should not have high-rises blocking the waterfront like the fontana tower side from the rest of city from the city that is on the hill, the city withat locks down towards the waterfront the second issue the height of the buildings should be on top of the hills to accentuate the natural typography of the city in this case we're looking at the a portion of downtown that san francisco a portion of city it is urban and higher buildings and extends from traditionally called well, maybe since the san jose and 80s the downtown mound
1:06 am
when you look at a postcard of san francisco generally see the bay bridge and over mound not really a moped up not a hill but it shaped last week one because tour financial district and downtown our skyline so when we did the transbay plan we contemplated steps up to the plate that mound we're careful about how to do that and then out of the transbay plan as josh mentions flat entitlements of the alumni projects the rincon hill came out and following the general plan the activati we ca think rincon hill so when we are looking at the urban.
1:07 am
>> adapted by you in 2012 is calls for a dlaechlgs it will be rincon hill and the typography of the urban landscape escape the high-rise or so and the mound the financial district and keeping link fulsome that bridges the two together a saddle and that is till when we did our analysis we don't see a differentiation we don't see a building that sticks up but in alignment with the building that are surrounding it the 4 hundred feet at the infinity and the alumni across the street but in context of the transit district
1:08 am
plan with 7 and 8 and one thousand foot high buildings within a few blocks and ac we can't. >> it sets aside my concern it keeps the moped up intact and also stretches to the waterfront we heard speakers say will be reaping upwards of one and 80 millions a double dip can way talk about that. >> i think you showed figures 66 percent. >> can you thrills how you arrived at that. >> you know on the public figure for the public benefits it was 31 millions and you think like i
1:09 am
said, we worked would go margret consultants and worked with some financial outside financial consultants and came up with that number you know as in terms of of what it represents the had 4 additional units excuse me. additional bmr's that are as a result of the incremental feet of height this is the defense between the value of those you know at market-rate compared to what they sell them to as bmr prices that's how we came up with that figure and for the vertical benefit he heard the one one and 30 to one and 70 millions i think they maybe referring to say the gross revenues but how we looked it was for those market rate housing market rate housing that are provided the
1:10 am
incremental hundred feet we ran a performa working with the consultants to came up with what the profit is on those specific uni units. >> okay so the value captures the cost the construction cost. >> the revenue not only the constructions costs but you'll related direct and indirect. >> the dispersible of the units. >> so one more thing we heard double dip can you tell us why this not the access. >> it is not the case i as i mentioned on the original deal in 2014 they would give us the cash for the lands that closed psycho $19.2 million and hold into the money and subsidizing the project okay. and the
1:11 am
amount of 29.9 million and provided that subsidy at the time the podium units were cricked thas as their constructed giving tishman those funds we're getting the $19.2 million but putting out 29 point plus difference in terms of how much we're getting for the lapd's the new deal we south said okay. your still close on the lands we're not getting the cash but in return we'll not provide did subsidy for the podium unit affordable projects so that's why it saves us that one point that plus million dollars and it is acceptable the redevelopment. >> yes. it is typical. >> to bridge the 16 percent affordable so the numbers workout for me, the supervisor
1:12 am
is going to be co-sponsoring the legislation i'm sure they ran the numbers i'm satisfied the shadows i wish the building wouldn't cast shadows i looked at the analysis and i see this 45 minutes on rincon park on between february 23rd and october 18th i think kind of have to come back and say this is not a prop m park i wish it didn't cast shadows but the additional housing units will creativi creati create shadows and the additional melrose funds and the open space for the street opening and things that mitigates shadows i'm okay i'll approve this
1:13 am
height increase. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm not sure how to start but the building is a braefkt fresh air in the project it is thoughtful the design and has a number of things my obligation is today to look at the building and the context of what occurs and it is part of the carefully crafted redevelopment plan that had a normal amount of the highly qualified architect on broad to craft something whas i harmony with the downtown plan and so many people that originally created the downtown plan and projected all the larger ideas into this area and out of which grew the rincon hill plan and this is can gets
1:14 am
difficult for me one i think by increasing the height an this particular sites we're purple heart into question any larger projects that deals with the development agreements and d-4-d design and confrontational guidelines that shapes those this project will be the last site in this assemble i won't be out of question but indeed the location of where the tower is and next is an additional block that is block 4 which inadvertently is setting us to look at another height increase by raising the projected height from block one that is supposed
1:15 am
to be 200 and 41 or three hundred feet now to 4 hundred feet we'll, looking at a building on block 4 on the far side on the north side of park that is scope of 4 hundred and 50 feet by which those two buildings will be pretty much the same height and start to diminish it the idea of tapering up the skyline i'd like to ask mr. camp bela as to whether or not you've thought that but with a strong presentation in favor of the approving the height will be comment on that. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> the question is looking at block 4 as one of the projects - one of the blocks that has not been yet developed or planned in
1:16 am
a detailed way as mentioned any diminishes and members of the public doing basically bringing block one think into a health of the infinity cross the the way look at the other parts of the transbay plan and see if the heights can be adjusted the answer is most of them are already designed or under construction and the heights have been arranged with the exception of maybe a few block 2 and block 4 block 2 is south of the park and it is designated for one of 5 at the highest and from the shadow prospective we'll not want to go higher south of the park creates a higher shadow ratio but the question is regarding block 4 north of the park it's crossed any mind less than of a shadow
1:17 am
impact if we go higher on block 4. >> i'm not talking about block 1912. >> for obvious break ins when you look at the confrontatimpos height only block 4 when you look at it from bay bridge towards the three hundred versus the 4 hundred foot height similar heights is detrimental to the skin. >> >> to answer our question yes looking at the block one and the height increase and look at it. >> could you ask the people to be quiet we're the middle of another conversation. >> those persons entering the room please do so quietly and for those people that are standing and can't find a seat
1:18 am
we've arranged for on overflow room overflow room 416 you'll watch and listen to the proceedings and future the commission will be taking a break following this item so if you're hear for items 13, 14 or 15 there is will be a break between those and the item 15 not to itch later and again, overflow room 416 you'll be able to watch and listen to the proceedings i appreciated usual cooperation thank you. >> commissioner moore to more quickly answer our question yes, it's crossed my mind personally for belong 4 it has crossed bye my mind to be considered higher if we were to do an adequate study and analysis and present that to you we radio not ready for that yet. >> the reason the redevelopment plan is specific
1:19 am
there is no variations in height allotted given the fact that 3 alternatives for 9 redevelopment plan more buildings and slightly lower heights versus at the extreme fewer towers with the specific number of towers this is a eczescheme on which the cut plan as shown to us by now picking one side what's the composition of pieces for the hall and making it taller wut reflecting open what inadvertently happened next door is something i have a hard time with and looking back i'll have to say many people that represent other developers and have projects on this site i'm questioning the validity of the agreement and the d-4-d which is port part of this particular development i know the urgency and we know the urgency of
1:20 am
affordable housing but is this the way to do it i have my questions partially because it has a large question unanswered for me i think we'll do o ourselves a great disfavor base of the unresolved questions not having a clarified attitude to dismantle the strength of this plan and nilly-willy add a hundred feet here, etc. was only viewing in an emergency i looked to act fast. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you i think it is not an easy discussions decision to think about the increase of one hundred square feet i hear the arguments that commissioner hillis and commissioner vice
1:21 am
president richards made around zone one and two the ability to negotiate a different kind of deal because of ociis role i think i ask that if we approve this today that ocii really looks at getting overall goal of more 35 percent in zone one and two the 100 percent i'm sorry the hundred additional feet is kind of the ad on; right? i don't want to it to to go towards the 35 percent. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. my understanding is the 35 percent is already been de done and done for a long time the overall affordability of all the transbay projects collectively there will be some at 15 percent they have to do and some that are very high as
1:22 am
this project is a because of what is negotiated i think wisely which will help us to reach that goal that is a high goal and not changed it is sort of a like where the rules are we like to play by the rules and not change them in mainstreamid but as far as future projects this is a very good project the hundred feet is a good addition for all the reasons i stated had i first spoke but there maybe concerns about other buildings as brought up by scomploer but i think those have to be looked at as they come forward and ocii will probably have jurisdiction over the block in question and they'll have to make that decision as we will too and it may not fit into the
1:23 am
urban form you have to look at the skyline as you move north rise in height not too far you come to one ti fremont and mission the twb towers and mission and first that is nine hundred or 850 something like that with tall buildings that is something we'll consider another day that is a good project for all the reasons stated and i'd like to move forwato adopt the environmental finding and approve the amendment to redevelopment plan for transbay redevelopment project area to increase the height from three to four and because that is readopt the general plan finding that make
1:24 am
this a good project make it something we can support and to recommend this amended transbay department plan to the board of supervisors for approval. >> as amended by the staff and city attorney's office. >> yes. into play the second part we can do them together. >> you're doing the general plan amendment. >> yes. for now but certainly move map 5 of the downtown plan to make things easier with the changes that have been brought by staff the amendments to that plan map 5 was in error and corrected map 5 it reflects the three hundred to the initialed about a month ago with the corrections that have been recommended by staff. >> commissioners the city attorney has advised us if we
1:25 am
take them up and will be considered separately. take up map 5 general plan amendment first and the adoption of ceqa finding and the recommendations for approval to the board of supervisors second, however, we can take them both together. >> let's do them clef it seems to me the order of agenda sthey should have been reversed. >> my motion will speak to that to make that motion before i make the motion but make of cleveng e collectively. >> they can be made together. >> your motion for both thank you very much. >> did you get that jonas. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> supervisor campos to commissioner moore's point if you can take your page 44 and
1:26 am
draw in what commissioner moore's was saying in terms of the increased height and effect the original plan i'll appreciate that i'm trying to understand this is block 4 incidental she was mentioning. >> on the screen you have page 444 from the power point presentation. >> right. >> that shows cross sections of heights permit projects that are not net built and projects that are built the future of this portion of the san francisco skyline the fulsome is a cross section shows the heights near in the vicinity at 4 hundred that match the height we're proposing for this block one and then additionally a block between main and barbara hale the northern portion of the barbara hale block is block 4 a. >> where is that on your cross
1:27 am
section can you pencil it in or mark it if you need a hardcopy you can use mine to mark it. >> it's a little bit hard to describe whether it says t b two is on fulsome transbay block 2 on transbay between main and barbara ha beal those will be podium block 3 is a park and the structure behind that that is outlined in silhouette is block 4 which is zoned as 4 hundred and 50 feet in height that's the location of the block.
1:28 am
>> so then i think commissioner moore's points and help methinks it is last week taking the building on block 8 for a 5 hundred foot increase and moving to block 2. >> within - from that cross section. >> one block in. >> got to. >> what will it do to the original plan. >> what commissioner moore may have been representing following that line that could be done and the tapering. >> i'm letting commissioner moore comment. >> excuse me. the slides 46 and 47 estates to any position by increasing the 450e9 on block one to 4 hundred feet not committing to something on block 4 it is that what it is we're
1:29 am
having - i miff page 46 and 47. >> a hardcopy and point with your finger or pen an on the screen the prevention from the photo that commissioner moore was mentioning hold on a second and it's on the overhead. >> overhead here's - >> great. >> okay great. >> so maybe mark it or pencil it in what she's referring to. >> i don't have a maker but block 4 is here and block 4 demonstrated as a massing it is further away to the it is higher from that prospective.
1:30 am
>> where is it again. >> that green kind of cube. >> okay. >> that will be just as at all as supposed to be as at all as that building if he approved this. >> no 50 feet higher. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm saying looking at over to the left with yoyou're creat belching out something indeed the tapering down of the mound in terms of overall skyline form that's the intent of the plan a deliberate move to make that this maximum and that is where my objections the ideas were to strong only on affordability didn't quite make it for me the alumni was approved before this plan was done basically not diagnooing us any photographs i
1:31 am
dethat's a great question from the quality. >> so the blue building sticks out. >> yeah. basically built before this plan was infectenac >> and the building shown on postage 47 the block of the cube if we were within one hundred feet how tall is that one 80 hidden it. >> one ti is around seven hundred and 50 feet in height i don't know if councilmember glover commissioner moo commiss paye appears more sculpting going down. >> i don't believe i can engage in that decisiiscussion should have been thought through and i'm condescends there will be another battle figure out out
1:32 am
in front of that commission to raise the height of the other site for the same reasons and that's not mofor planning or us investigating strong disagreement d-4-d that shouldn't be governing large projects. >> do you want to comment on that. >> i mean, i have no comment around the height in the redevelopments plan for block 4 is currently hundred and 50 feats. >> commissioner hillis. >> i wanted to comment on that i share some of the concerns that commissioner moore raised but what is driving all this we planned a relatively small area that zone and redevelopment we did that it was the pubically owners parcels and that's why i got comfortable with the 4 hundred feet if we want to monitor morning quarterback we
1:33 am
should have done so but a evolving process as we went on and that's why i asked when i met with ocii staff that same question why not look at everybody in this zone to see if we can increase i think the problem was because i actually recommended you do that but the problem they're built or being drawn or entitled so this is possible but certainly the issue of block 4 can came up that is the only one not entitled and hey hundred additional feet make sense it might but this is something you look at down the road you don't know i don't think we want to lock that in being doing that or not federal and state that's not a reason were not moved on its on make sense in works and it was particle
1:34 am
particle partly we took on the seven hundred and 9 hundred feet that allows this to happen i'm supportive still thank you. >> commissioner moore i'd like to say this building is one of the last will as kid coming to the block in this area those those who came first followed of what is an extremely strong plan that has a 60 hey set of plans and the last one asks for an expectation we can't give that kind of atheistness this could have been brought of early on and in a deft way i don't believe you reon the whole
1:35 am
thing. >> infinity was built after looming in a but the heights of the various towers the two sets are essentialessentially the sa >> cities where they have water near chicago and negotiw will have at all buildings and they feel the benefits of those buildings will out weigh the height and negative effects we have even less buildable areas than those cities we could support larger buildings and the other they know that is important the transbwb plan ther
1:36 am
speculation why one is built a block away there is a separation and if i look at the map provided where the towers are those tower sites are operated dwieb from each other and mistakes the 60s two many buildings and two class we have hysteria mid sized buildings with block shapes we have had been better off maybe having fewer and have more separation on those i think this is what is happening i'm very much in support of this. >> commissioner hillis. >> not to belast yebor but i if the plan area was broader a 12 block areas that was peace mill and then rincon and two,
1:37 am
that was the context he looking for being able to approve. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the general plan amendments, adopt the environmentally ceqa findings and recommend to the board of supervisors with the amendments by the staff and on that motion. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore no. >> commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that 5 to one with commissioner moore voting against. >> jonas we'll
1:38 am
1:39 am
1:40 am
scrape plan increased or there the provisions for are large project authorization we're seeking modifications to the planning code requirements for rear yard scomploer and off-street the projeng is located the east soma neighborhood by light industrial and commercial uses interstate 80 is one block south and the moscone center are 3 and 4 blocks to the north respectfully and the vic error block is near this includes two automobile repair shops and multi dwelling units and nick
1:41 am
coordinating from harrison and the properties to the north cross claire are an industrial building and two industrial parking lots the commission approved the communication of a new 80 feet mixed incouse build with seven hundred square feet of commercial secret at october 2015 hearing and the two commercial parking lots that were previously mentions 6th street have sediments applications phobia similar mixed income project keller or currently under review over the past 4 most is a extensive design revenue and the scale of the massive lot the proposed are several 3 foot grae breaks that are framed with concrete to divide the massing
1:42 am
of the block and provide a cornice the ground floor has a concrete base and incorporated high quality materials with awning to kickoff the identify the convert storefront the corner of the building is dlaevendz there the elements and more are material two ground floor between are proposed along claire center the comparable with the scale of the narrower superintendent carranza width the knowledge is designed to enter the courtyard inform provides light and air to is that faces on it and a significant amount of common spice that is easily assessable. >> finally access to the basement level provided through a 10 foot driveway. >> since the report was published the department has one
1:43 am
letter of support and an endorsement by the housing action coalition the commission is provided copies of these today after analyzing this project the project is consistent with the planning code and the general plan the project is an appropriate in fill development withat will replace othe station for the housing stock and 6 hundred plus square feet of commercial space for high density development near downtown entertainment centers an interpretation of the contemporary architecture in between we've come a long way and how often to the surrounding pedestrian with the sidewalk widening and bulb outs the postage will provide 12
1:44 am
affordable units on site proposed for rental the project proposes a parking ratio of .73 parking spaces or 73 spaces blow the maximum permitted 75 and the project willfully utility the eastern neighborhoods area planned controls and contribute near one $.6 million for the public benefit fuif you find based on those the department staff recommends approval with conditions the project sponsor is present as has prepared a presentation i'm available to answer any questions and great, thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong, commissioner richards and commissioners i'm will joined. >> joined. >> joined by bye architect
1:45 am
we're a workshop one residential design team for harrison as doug mentioned 988 harrison is a proposed 8 story building consisting of one hundred unit 44 of which are family sized two bedrooms can can we get the presentation up 4 are family sized having at least two bedrooms with two bedrooms and 12 are designated onsite affordable and provided 66 hundred square feet of commercial basically half the building as well as one and 34 class one bicycle parking spaces and 73 automobile spaces in a basement garage retrofit addendum parking the project is located in south
1:46 am
of market at the corner of 6th street and harrison a half block from 280 the site as frontages on harrison, 6th street and claire street it replaced an former gas station that was vacant for 10 years this is a view of the property from a long harrison. >> this view is from carrot 6th street and the third view from the corner of 6 and claire i'd like to note their 80 feet in weight and chairing a east west additional 35 needed in width and ante on harrison two all shops and several apartments building and a hotel the neighboring properties to the east include plastering
1:47 am
forces one of the all repair shops and a building with 5 levels directly across harrison street the night club and next to it a construction supervisor both of those proposaerties back up agat 280 on the same side controls of a former car wash and cross 6th street extremist /* 6th street a sheriff iron statichevron sta. >> with the 1 and 44 dwelling units. >> because shadow from the new developments concern and the first thing we did when designing this project to conduct a shadow analysis we hired adams to look at the buildings potential impact on
1:48 am
jean friends recreational center and victor park we started by generating the malayans model we asked them to develop a shadow envelope that identifies the parts of buildings casting the shadows on the parks we reduced the massing of the building to fit this involved the overall height and stair and penthouses and stepping back portions of the top floor it was a this with no shadow impact on the parks since filing our initial applications in may of 2014 we have conducted a rain of outreach our project male and female with the neighbors and community-based organizations and hosted a preapplication meeting near the staite and recreation center and printed flyers and distributed them day
1:49 am
to day around the neighborhood and contacted key neighbors for meetings this included the outreach to nearby night club with the help of the entertainment commission we further engaged local advocacy bike coalition and the housing action coalition for input on the design during even though outreach no concerns about the project and most everyone supported our plan witho i'm going to turn it over to mike to talk about the building design. >> good afternoon, commissioners this is an image of the site at the corner of 6th street and harrison and this is a rendering the property project as will mentions it is unique with 3 frontages we've become accustomed to multiply frontages this is the best approach to
1:50 am
keep the palate and the details simple while have variance to the theme that is the approach we're taking with this design for the material palate we're proposing memoranda tone colors with a high textures panel i think a sample was a passed around to you. >> the secondary material a beautifully poured concrete xroes the structure their deficit into structures with framing each of the expose concrete structure win each is wood american people plains and in addition to providing each recipient with a small step out the decks have sun shading and a constantly shifting for the movement of the
1:51 am
shadows throughout the day with glass railings and a soft panel when locked above the elements tare double-stacked the building sits about a double height base and has a concrete cornice within the high ceiling commercial space with residents above continuing the discretionary those residences have sliding doors and jill yet details that are appropriated with the same wood panel. >> the perforated panels is the lobby and a ground level residences at night the perforated panels transform by more transparency. >> another view look at the intersection 6th street and claire street.
1:52 am
>> to combliement the building we worked to design a lively streetscape as shown not ground level plan a large sidewalks do you believe for the bench a residential lobby and a large commercial space there we go and the devisual space can accommodate people with the size along claire street proposing two recipient that set above grade with recessed entry stoops with height restrictions at 60 feet as a response the building only extends 60 feet from the corner voir dire's those restrictions along claire street address a 12 footed setback on the northeast side levels 2 to throw 8 contain
1:53 am
month is of buildings residences their orchid around the equaled 40 feet across wby 50 to 60 fee wroos with mid block office spaces open spaces. >> the project open space located on a roof deck keep going there you go. >> as shown here with that, i'll pass it back to will. >> so in conclusion we're here to request approval of a laxative with expectations for rear yard, dwelling unit enclosure for 6 unions on the building courtyard and off-street parking requirements we're also seeking the proappro for a conditional use with the former gas station regarding the conditional use the key issues we raised the finding one of the former gas station was closed
1:54 am
and the tanks remove almost 10 years ago and two an active certification across the street the chevron station no less than 5 gas stations within the road of the project site with that, we'll conclude our presentation and take questions. >> thank you. >> okay opening it up for public comment susan farrell. >> is there is there any additional public comment? >> whoops there we go rob pool. >> good evening again commissioners rob pool with the action housing coalition banana of the housing members force the
1:55 am
first time we didn't knthink we were prepared but fortunately it is a much improved design over members to support the project the site obviously is clearly undertook i'd like and in that it make sense to have this vacant with all the job centers and transit and based on the affordability requirement we absolutely support that as policy if they can increase if by using another policy we'll be more supportive they're going with the pretty much as of the parking ratio that is fine we look forward to less parking space but the bike ratio parking is high this is improved since we see it what the massing the ground floor is solid additional they've worked well about the massive to create a more pedestrians friendly
1:56 am
enticeme environmentalist is bulb outs and the shaping we hope that if approved that as that moves forward they can pursue so features that address water skepticism and you know conser communities that are active and prostitutes ♪ area we feel the project sponsor has done a good job with working with the community and posting to try to get feedback and we think that when it comes today it is a very good project and strongly urge you to support it >> susan mercantimercal.
1:57 am
>> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm ann shash i don't wilive in in district i'm concerned out of the one hundred 44 two bedrooms especially commissioner antonini said it had been family sized y what about the three bedrooms for families and we know that a lot of people in the area live in sros and would welcome an apartment more than 12 percent should be what i suggest i know that you know cuts into the profits of developer but i think this should be a consideration because of the area and the need thank you.
1:58 am
>> sue hester you've had a series of projects to come through on the east side of 7th street between fulsome and harrison the last hearing it was a joint hearing with rec and park there was a grateful made of the fact the shadows are cast open the argued that we we playd it was not opened at the night time but as well as the particular lay out of the grounds make it is important and imagine when rec and park made and presentation at the eastern neighborhoods cac in january saying the playground was about to be redesigned totally obliterated and the hours change they honestly have hours because of the baseball coward venue
1:59 am
they were specific that the plans would be champed not only for hours but for lay out this project was one of the 3 projects cumulatively shadows planning department should be upset about a shadow impact on park that you were quite frankly i won't use the word - mislead but the rec and park commission so someone is way there is a planning effort from the city on a building that is definitely under prop c definitely not even last week you had item 12 so you have to apply prop c, you have to know what the hell is happening with all the development on the east side of 7th street extremist and ha 6tht
2:00 am
and it is next to the playground when i look at the files looking for information on that and that kind of information is obscure not present hidden how much attendance is staff pga to the fact that you have assumptisu c development for fourth street to harrison and it effects gene friends the effects the liveability and the last speaker said in the youth and family zone second amendment your as opposed to be building family sized howsoever you, a make a lot of people money so the developer can build up and at all and make a lot money it is innovanot your job so see th people are making love money but k


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on