Afternoon hours when the park has maximum sun light exposure. The variation of the shadow cast would vary throughout the year, with new shadow being present for a high of 138 minutes and an average of 78 minutes. New shadow would not be present throughout the year, and no new shadow cast throughout the winter. New shadow would affect about one half of the garden plots in summer and onethird of the plots in spring and fall. This is why the park and Rec Department find that the new shadow cast by the proposed project at 7th street would not have a significant adverse impact on the use of Howard Langdon mini park garden pursuant to 295. Additionally under the large project authorization, some things to consider. The overall math and scale is consistent with the changing context of the i cant irrelevant and Residential Development along 7th street. Lankdon streets historical facade will be preserved for the main buildings entrance. And it will provide a code complying rear yard. Overall, it provides for contemporary and consistent architectural design, and the use of high quality building materials. The projects ground floor on 7th street will contain the retail to provide an active frontage, and as previously mentioned, lankton street will function as the main residential trench which will activate lankton street in that alley. Overall, it enhances pedestrian experience, encompassing street activity. The new parking is provided at the edge of the project near 7th street near an existing vehicle Access Corridor on the adjacent property. This consolidates the off Street Parking at the location to ensure pedestrian oriented for the remaining of the project. It provides 3800 feet of open space. Street trees and class 2 bicycle parking will also be provided for the project. The Department Recommends approval with the conditions and the basis for the approval is it is consistent with our planning priority policies and general plans. Its located in a Zoning District where residential 2 permits are admitted, providing an appropriate massing and scale for the subject block. It is an Infill Development that will add 40 new dwelling units to the citys Housing Stock, as well as approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial retail in an area of high density housing and continuous ground floor commercial frontage. The designs of high quality will complement the rapidly changing nature of its location in western soma, provide five permanently affordable rental Housing Units onsite, convert an under used site to a productive mixed use, development, fully utilize area controls and pay the appropriate developmental impact fees, and it complies with first source hiring program. That concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. Thank you very much. Vice president richards opening it up for comment im sorry. Project sponsor. You have five minutes. If we can share the presentation. So good evening, commissioners. I am the project sponsor, from cullis wallace. We were the founders. I wanted to add just a few comments with regard to the presentation that kimberly just made with regards to the history of the project and highlights on the design. So again, the site is on 7th between howard and folsom, backs up to landton and frontage on 7th, with the Howard Community gardens on langdon. Again, its a sixth Story Building that was proposed to replace the kpichting building. 40 units, five bmr units onsite. I want to highlight some significant modifications to the project since we first introduced it to planning staff and the community in 2014. Specifically, the original project had a four Story Building on langdon and a four Story Building on 7th street, separated by a courtyard. In conjunction with working with staff and the community, made it a position to eliminate the four Story Building on langdon pushing the massing of the building on 7th street, significantly reducing the shadowing that is casting on the garden by 32 , and enabling the preservation of a portion of the existing building on the langdon frontage. This is a visual of the elimination of the fourStory Building and pushing of the massing toward 7th street. It enabled the creation of essentially a pure pedestrian and cyclist entry point on langdon, which you will see is important to the neighbors of the Community Garden and langdon. This is the entrance of the langdon which will be visible the courtyard itself will be visible from the street, and there will be the primary entrance to the building. From a Community Engagement perspective, as i mentioned, we introduced a project in 2014, had Community Meetings starting in 2015. Worked extensively with the Community Garden to obtain their support, and they have endorsed the project. They came to our hearings with the rec and park mission as kimberly mentioned. The San Francisco rec and Park Commission has voted to recommend the project for approval, and neighbors have expressed support for the additional eyes and ears on the street that the project represents. Ill highlight a couple of things with regards to design. Again, this is a visual of the frontage on 7th street. Some visuals of the existing building, both on 7th and langdon. As ive mentioned before, that facade is being preserved. The i and i will highlight that in the process of redesigning the project, we also reduced parking significantly from 29 stalls to 20. I really would, you know, at this point, open it up to any questions that you might have for me with regards to the project. These are some visuals of the rear courtyard from the interior of the building, and the again, the facade on the langdon side. Vice president richards thank you. May whi we may have questions after Public Comment x so open it up for Public Comment on items 16a and b, any Public Comments . Seeing none, commissioners . Commissioner moore . Commissioner moore yes. I think its turned into a very interesting project. I think its much more exciting and unique than it was before. I appreciate the variation to langdon with the courtyard, and i think it will complement the small street. I think it will make it truly residential, rather than just open the back of another commercial building, and i dont see anything other than moving to approve. Second. Vice president Richards Commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson with this one, i think id like to continue adding the trend for three years. Vice president richards like we did in 2018, change the verbiage. Commissioner johnson two years. Vice president richards two years. Clerk so basically changing the first clause to say up to two years . Commissioner johnson yes. Okay, and is the second clause and third clause still remain the same. Commissioner johnson that one, too. So you want the same kind of language for first things and the second. Vice president richards is that amenable to the maker of the motion. Commissioner moore i would like mr. Michael to come to the mic. Im not sure if you were in the room earlier. We asked the previous architect if he felt that was in line with standard architectural and trade practices. I dont want to throw a wrench into the realization of this project, but im asking for your guidance in terms of where you know where you are in this project. Vice president richards so before we go on, do you understand what commissioner moore he was in the room. I saw him. I think two years to get a site permit is a reasonable period of time, and that seems to be the standard by which if you dont have a site permit for two years, youll schedule a hearing to find out why and consider a revocation, and i believe thats a reasonable position to take, to have a site permit within two years. You know, as the prior attorney mentioned, there are a lot of things that are outside the projects control, whether financing dries up, whether contractors are available, whether dbi timely processes permits, but i think the two years to get a site permit is a reasonable standard ro. Commissioner moore well, architectee just stepped into the room. Architectee, the project is up for approval. Commissioner johnson is trying to add an amendment that site permit should be issued under two years. Im asking for guidance from the attorney general or for the attorney for the project. Two years for site permit is probably reasonable for this project, of course. Commissioner moore i will move to. Vice president richards with the secondary, you move for that modification. Commissioner johnson two years. You were making a motion. Mr. Fong was the secondary. Supervisor so i see what youre doing. I see what you want to do. Its transparent. It its obvious. I get it, but i think we should tread lightly and have a real discussion from staff, from other folks and other professionals about throwing that around, and i guess what youre trying to do, and im going to put the screws to building more Affordable Housing and living up to the mayors mandate, but i think that last project was special, and whether we start throwing this around for every single project Going Forward either tonight or next year, i want to know exactly what were doing to these projects and what it does economically reducing it by putting it on this project from two years to three years. Commissioner moore youre talking to commissioner johnson, i assume, because youre looking towards me. Commissioner fong yeah, because she had an amendment. Sometimes it takes about a month, month and a half to get the nsrs together and get all those documents together. I dont know enough about try to pass any suggestion on that, thats why im cautious about it. Commissioner moore i share your caution. Supervisor so youre not going to second that . Commissioner fong so i, with due respect, not going to second the motion and add that to it. Commissioner moore then the motion stabbeds as it does without the modification dense dense great, and i think this would be a great item, jonas, to add to the mayors directive. I was going to chime in, commissioners, that maybe that we do some internal research with staff to look at some dates for what were commonly seeing in permit review, basically, and provide some input to the the either Commission Officers to present back to the commission at a later date. Vice president richards and include the dbi improvements with that, not just what theyve been doing. Thanks. Commissioner moore can can i Say Something real quick . Vice president richards yes, please. I guess what commissioner fong is saying, just from my perspective, i said this before. I have thought about it before. I think it is well within our rights and responsibilities to ask projects to make progress in a 24 month period, and a revocation hearing doesnt mean thats whats happening, its a discussion hearing where they present progress and hopefully, if we do move forward with that as something that we do more regularly, those hearings will be very uneventful, and theyll either be continued or taken off the calendar, and then, the ones where we need to have it, thats what happens. Its just a shift its definitely a shift. Personally, i felt ive thought through the ramifications of that shift. Okay. Totally agree and totally worthy of a full discussion. Vice president Richards Commissioners, theres a motion and second to consider that motion and adopt secondary findings on that. [ roll call. ] so moved that motion passes unanimously 60. Item 17, 2014001400 enx at 275019th street. This is a large project 19th s. This is a large project authorization. Good evening, commissioners. Im ellen, Planning Department staff. What ive just distributed are copies of the cp that was that has a typo in it but has been corrected, so thats whats being handed out to you now. The request before you is request for authorization of a new construction, 68 story mixed use building. The project site is the corner lot at the intersection of bryant and 19th street. The project is located within the Mission Area Plan and is subject to the requirements for a medium project, pursuant to the 2016 Mission Interim controls. The project proposes the econo demolition of a six Story Building, and construction of a new building. Of the ground floor commercial space, approximately 2,500 impair feet would be operated as a limited restaurant use that will function as a culinary business use restaurant accelerator in partnership with a Community Based organization. The project would include approximately 4,800 square feet of common open space, 24 off street vehicle Parking Spaces in a below grade garage, 81 class 4 bicycle Parking Spaces, and 20 class 2 bicycle Parking Spaces. T it locates the rear courtyard to connect with developing midblock open space. The ground floor provides pedestrian oriented commercial space on both frantages, retains the original bring facade of the industrial building and the project will satisfy the requirements of the inclusionary Affordable Housing program by having Affordable Housing onsite equivalent to 11 units and has elected to provide 20 of the uniting by adding one additional unit above what is required by section 415. As part of the large project authorization, the project is requesting exceptions from the planning code requirements for rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, and transparency for the street frontages, and this is to retain the brick facade. Compliance for each of the criteria is described in section 329 of your packets. Staff believe it is warranted in overall design. In regard to the 2016 Mission Interim controls the project sponsor provided a summary of compliance for these controls. Staff reviewed the sponsors submittal and has spot checked that those originated from qualified independent professionals. The motion important topics for the commissions consideration would be the construction of new market rate housing and a mobile pdr space. In regards to the housing, the project will not demolish existing Housing Stock nor displace residential tenants with the construction of new units. In the construction of new market rate housing on project and displacement, the project sponsor cited two studies from the market rate controls. Based on these reports, the project sponsors analysis concludes the project is contributing to the supply of housing and likely has no direct or indirect on housing displacement in the unit. The project sponsor discussed the effect of pdr business and the effect of commercial activity in the neighborhood. The existing pdr tenant, Fitzgerald Furniture Company is part of the project sponsor team as the owner of the property, and will voluntarily relocate their business. The project will include space for new business and Community Serving retail, including the culinary Business Accelerator space that will promote new Business People to develop their businesses. Although the project will remove existing pdr space, the Department Found that this project, which includes new market rate housing, inclusionary housing space complies with the general plan related to the mission zoning control. To date, the department has received a significant amount of public correspondence after the original correlation date of the packet. To date, the department has received communication from the united to save the mission, calle 24 latino cultural district in opposition of the proposal. They have done so because it provides less than 25 of the units as inclusionary, does not have a commitment to hiring union labor and does not provide replacement pdr space. They further find the project to be contrary to the mission of the plan, and that it does not contribute positively to the neighborhood and the affordablity of housing. They also raise concerns that the environmental evaluation was inadequate because of the eirs assumption on the number of units built. Neighbors are concerned that the height and dense kit is inappropriate for the neighborhood and requesting that it belowered to three to four stories. Additional comments concern loss of pdr space, the lack of commitment to union labor, and encouraging increasing onsite parking, and the amount of retail space. The Department Also has received 51 letters in support of the proposal, including from the Mission Create merchants association, three local business owners, and four from the Fitzgerald Furniture Company which is the owneroperator. They expressed support of development of housing in the neighborhood and the proposed Development Package to create onsite business, restaurant accelerator space and a commitment to hiring small and local businesses. The project sponsor has also provided a list of 64 signatures in support of the project including those employees of the Fitzgerald Furniture Company. In summary, the department supports the project because on balance, it meets the goals and objectives of the general plan, Mission Area Plan and the intent of the mixed use district to create a mix of uses in the neighborhood while maintaining the characteristics of the formerly Industrial Zone area. The project adds 64 new units to the citys current Housing Stock. The project exhibited overall design that is compatible with the diverse character of the surrounding neighborhoods, and meets all the applicable requirements of the code noting those exceptions requested through the large project authorization. This concludes staff report. I am available for any questions. Thank you. Vice president richards thank you. Proje project sponsor, you have five minutes. Good evening, commissioners, my name is annie, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We appreciate all the hard work that you and the planning staff have dedicated to our proposed development. We are pleased to present a development that presents 64 homes, and a Robust Community benefits package. The design and the programming are the result of several years of concerted planning effort and dozens of meetings with various community members. We developed an innovative project benefit. At a high level our goal is to expand access, exposure, and the opportunities for local businesses, resident students and entrepreneurs and artists. We are pleased to have partnered with eight siblings of the willen family who own the site and have run the Fitzgerald Furniture Company since 1980. To retain a connection of the buildings history, we have greed to maintain the current brick facade and will name the building appropriately the fitzgerald. Over the last months we have had multiple meetings with community groups. We have greed to provide a higher percentage of units onsite than required. Third, we have reduced our parking by 47 . Fourth, weve programmed the ground floor as a pdr retail flex space. We made these changes without sacrificing any of the other Community Benefits that were proposing. We received widespread neighborhood support including 52 letters and 64 signatures totaling over 115 supporters for this project. I would now like to introduce steve perry with perry architects. Thank you for your time. Good evening. My name is steve perry and i would like to demonstrate how were creating a building that reflects the neighborhood. This image, you can see we looked at the urban fabric, and we tried to understand what the textural feeling of the street was. Both understanding the richness and facade and working with the neighborhood neighbors request, we intend to keep the existing facade as a major component of the design, and im going to move kind of quickly here, skip over some things. Going to our bryant street facade, weve clad the upper floors in a dark metal panel with deep contours then, to reinforce a two story expression at the windows, we use a light color panel at the slab edge and also utilize the parapets. Then, going to our 19th street facade, we have a different expression at the end of the building, and at the ground floor, we create a location for a mural and a garage entrance to the right, clad in the same materials as above. And then, ill leave you with a street view that really adds to the vibrancy of the street, and well work with street artists to create a variety of forensics. Now ill turn it over to monica. Good evening, commissioners. My name is monica. Im a San Francisco resident and im here today to go over a quick overview and the scope of work completed in the Community Benefits that includes the design, implementation, monitoring, tracking, as well as goals to create, expand and enhance longterm partnerships with local Key Stakeholders including business relevant cbos, high schools, both high schools, as well as other resources to be able to bring other resources to the table. This work has occurred over the last 18 months, if not longer and it focuses on four core areas focusing on eight distinct areas. Going to quickly jump into the first one which is excuse me is Economic Impacts associated with opportunities contracting opportunities for lbes on this project, both in the design phase and the construction phase. What we are doing is voluntarily layering on ocii, sbe program on this project, which calls out for significant participation by lbes. Next project up is going to be the local, as discussed earlier. Local culinary arts program. It is a program that takes the Small Businesses from incubation to accelerate and provides space that is heavily developed with barrier removal strategies to maximize the success for these entrepreneurs including 65 to 100 million, flexible licenses, no personal guarantees, these are strategies we will be employing. Next one up is Community Arts. We are working closely with had Community Art representatives to design something very innovative for this. We believe this can be more than a location for only a mural. We believe theres opportunities inside the building, outside the buildings to curate and rotate and constantly revive this building with new buildings, new images, new themes. Lastly, i am thrilled to say that we are wrapping our arms around those high schools to bring in opportunities and professional service firms. Im very sorry that its been cut so short. Thank you for your time. Commissioners, i have a note that we granted organized opposition for this item, so we should provide the same time same time, seven minutes well, we didnt even use seven minutes. Okay. So youll have five minutes. This hasnt been heard before. Right. We gave the project sponsor five minutes for or excuse me, six minutes for a presentation. We may have questions, mr. Weaver. We still have several items left. Were trying to make sure were not here all night. I understand. So with the proposed project is in a small working class neighborhood that has a smattering of pdr, and its slowly being gentrified up on harrison and pot remember orer beast up on bryant and were trying to preserve this. We have 64,000 square feet of commercial space thats going to be converted to high end retail. Even the proposed accelerator space doesnt have any price points as to what the rent will be or duration as to how long the arrangement will last, so theres no question with 80 luxury housing that this is going to have a gentrifying. Unfortunately, mr. Tillman has lowered the bar as to what an acceptable project is. Were asking you weve asked the developer to put in 25 affordable, and to have the pd ground floor use at vetted by Community Organizations and with assurances that rents and the duration of the tenancies there will enable Community Serving organizations to occupy those spaces. You have to decide whether meeting the minimum requirements is enough. This is a minimum requirement plus one, in terms of affordablity. And we submit the conditions should be included that would blunt these impacts higher affordablity and conditions with respect to the ground floor space. I think im going to have to yield the rest of my time since were running short here. Jerry ortiz, united save the mission. This has been been a lot of bad faith negotiations that have gone into this. The reason we have 20 of this now, is we had to press for this and it had to be continued on. There has not been much effort to try to work with the community, so this project, as mr. Weaver mentioned, is 80 luxury development, so i think it to really kind of help mitigate that, we need to have that at 25 . Also, i find as a graduate of two Workforce Development programs, both located in the mission district, i find it deeply offensive that you have a program that teaches kids how to gentrify their own development, so the other projects is not fitting in with the neighborhood. This space was traditionally mdr, not a high end restaurant and accelerator. Until we have an mou in writing, or, like, yeah, until we have it in writing then it doesnt mean anything. Theres no local hire, and it doesnt comply with the Mission Interim control in conjunction with the 2020 plan. Good afternoon, commissioners. Eric caballo, callente cuatro. The only way that you can stop from being advanced gentrification to exclusion is Affordable Housing, and that has been reached and documented. We saw that its getting much more difficult to get developers to create more Affordable Housing in the neighborhood. We are also concerned with the the space thats going to be used below the building. It weve had a lot of working class businesses along that street that we lost because of the other developments that came on across the street. We also want to make sure that this program is secured somewhere in an mou. We have to think about those kids and their families where theyre going to live because if were not going to have those kids in the neighborhood, there is going to no program, and were seeing that a lot in other areas. Vice president richards thank you. Additional Public Comment on this item . Okay. Sorry. My name is deedee savella, and im fourth generation San Francisco resident in total support of this project. Everyones worked very hard on this project. Its been a few years, and development in this city is needed and i have total support of this project. Thank you. Vice president richards thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good night or good evening, i should say. Im marypat willen. Were at a phase where we need to down size or capacity. Not our employees. The 15 employees with us are totally on base, and are looking forward to a new location, so i ask that you please endorse and support our program and thank you. Vice president richards thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Im alex lipco, and im born and raised in San Francisco, and ive been going down to this location my whole life, and im fully in support of this project. I love how they are going to keep the original facade nervous, and i think the Community Benefits package can do a lot of good for the community. Thank you for your time. Vice president richards thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Peter pavodopoluos. Im here with the Commission Economic agencies and i want to hit on a few points about this project. I want to talk specifically about how because theyre citing the code, and we love the code, and we love the area plan that we work under, so lets look at the mission plan area plan objectives that this project is not in line with, 1. 1, strengthen the missions existing mixed use character while maintaining the neighborhood as a place to live and work. More than importantly, 1. 7, maintain the missions role as an important location for distribution, activities. We all know that the urban mixed use zone is being prayed upon as an easy way to make money in terms of what is the best way to convert your dollar, and unless you all here decide to protect that zoning and particularly within that use umu, which is the production distribute repair spaces and the jobs that go with it, were not going to have those jobs left, and sf made and other folks can tell you, the demand for that space is up, not down, and that was a misunderstanding of the earn neighborhoods plan that was not foreseen, and we want those blue collar jobs. We want those blue collar spaces to stay, and thats what allows our mixed use character, and if we allow for that to keep getting that wiped out, its a strategy. The Community Team offered them very specific kind of goals in writing, and those goals, as i understand were not met and turned down and nothing was signed. So wed like to see something significant there, in addition to the affordablity. What is actually in writing in the longterm is really whats going to happen. Thats how were going to provide these opportunities and jobs and choices for our immigrant community. Theres only one study that matters thats going to kmirm the anecdotal evidence. Look whats happening around 1979 Mission Street right now. Well, there is a study thats happening, and its being done by the San Francisco Planning Department with u. C. Berkeley, and the results are not in yet, so we look forward to seeing what those results are. I would ask that you seek more confirm outcomes with the community, something in writing seeks the outcome that weve laid out here. Thank you. Vice president richards thank you. Any additional Public Comment . My names roberto hernandez, and i already spoke to you earlier. Im not going to speak about the same thing earlier, but what i do want to say about this particular project is if you look at the mission, the mission has been very rich with art, and when you look at the number of artists who have been displaced from the mission, i want to address that today. We have 313 artists who have been deciisplaced in the missi. We have nine arts organizations that have been displaced from the mission, so one of the things that weve been asking developers to do is to have give space for artists, and its great, you know, that they talk about galleries and rotating art, but whos going to be that . Is it going to be latinochacano artists . Well, we found with one developer, its not latinochicano. Its white artists, upscale white art. We dont want that. Were trying to preserve latinochicano art, so i think thats something you should ensure for this project, that its latino chicano art, its some people have a been a part of this community. We dont need outsiders coming in. We have created the most beautiful murals in the world here in the mission district. Were known internationally for our art, and thats what were here about today, is preserving that richness and that art. Somebody approached me last week and said hey, roberto, why dont we make a film about the art in the mission and have some of the people who are featured in the in the murals that can come out like live, you know, all of a sudden, its like you see this mural and the person just comes out live, right, and they start speaking about im going to be whitewashed one day, because thats the other problem that we have, is weve been fighting just to keep the current murals that we have in the mission there because people are starting im sure you read it in the Mission Local or in the chronicle or the examiner, our murals are being whitewashed. Its like erasing our history, erasing our coexistence, so in addition to the arts, i think whats really important is to have art space. As you know with the beast on bryant, right across the street, they gave 10,000 square feet as part of our negotiation with them. What are we getting here today . Thank you. Vice president richards any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, opening it up to commissioner comment. Commissioner melgar. Commissioner melgar thank you. So i had a question about miss wilson. So you have been doing this for a while . Correct. Commissioner melgar and in your experience, is it common to have a Community Benefits package thats not signed, like an mou or attached to any sort of commitment . I would say where were at that weve developed on paper that documents the framework of the programs for each and every program that weve developed to date. We have shared those with the for example, the School District. I notice you had the School District letter there. Weve gone and met with them to go line item by line item where were at to this point. The goal as an example with the School District and with many of the programs would be to use the next six months or the First Six Months of 2018 to refine the plan, to enhance it, but be able to implement beginning in fall of 2018, so what were looking to do is make enhancement to the framework that weve developed, to the plans that weve shared, to other documents that have been created to then be able to enter into something more formally. I dont believe personally, in terms of developing something and having it executed to you, i dont think that it would be a problem to deliver something th like that in the near term. Commissioner melgar but you want the approval today, and i guess im just questioning because i see the letter from the School District actually, no, emily. But, you know, Everything Else that youre talking about, you know, the incubator, and you know, participation from lbe, Community Engagement, so all of that is good stuff, but you dont really say who, when, how many, you know, that i mean, and so i guess im you know, because you want approvals today, i would feel much more comfortable with more robust level of commitment than just the framework because i could come up with that. Im more personally, and i i would stand behind that. For me, thats a fine request, and a fine ask, and something we can deliver upon. I can just speak just briefly. Theres a condition of approval specific to the culinary incubator that nobody has pointed out, so im going to put it on the screen and read it. Its a really good question. What guarantees are there that the project sponsor is going to be held to. I think its really informative and i think it will answer your question. Can i get the screen okay. Its condition 25. Its on page 32, if you guys want to look at it for yourself, and it says the project sponsor shall conduct neighborhood notification for a change in tenancy for the termination of the limited restaurant use. Thats a 2500 square foot limited restaurant use as a culinary business restaurant accelerator with a Community Based organization, so parsing through that, we have to have a Community Based organization on board to open anything in that ways. We have a Community Based organization that weve spent a lot of time working with. Because that Community Based organization doesnt want to get involved in politics, theyre staying to the side and i think we should all respect that, and certainly, the project sponsor does. Culinary business, , restaurant accelerate tor, thats very specific. We have to find somebody that can deliver that. Monica can go into more detail exactly what that means, if you want to hear that. And thirdly, if anyone else wants to go in there, they have to come back here, assuming that the people in the mission are paying attention, its a dr process, so notice gets sent out, and then they can depending on who the tenant is, they can decide if they want to come back here and talk to you guys about that, and then, the project sponsor or the future tenant would also have to come in here and tell you why they would be a good use to go in there. Thank you. Vice president Richards Commission commissioner johnson. Commissioner johnson thank you. So i think commissioner melgar hit on the exact issue that i was going to bring up. So im on my high horse about revocation hearings, so im going to go to my second high horse, which is project Development Agreements. So we have been ive said this over years, but i think that there should be a process to be able to have Development Agreements, if only because they happen routinely for really, really big projects. For the smaller projects, people argue that its too much process, but it allows you to do things like that, and as a veteran for Community Benefits agreements from my experience in community development, there are ways to write these that are specific and binding, and you show what youre going to do by when and what happens. All due respect to the project sponsors representative, but i read the draft motion, and it doesnt say what he says. Neighborhood notification does not mean that theres a hearing, it means that theres notification, and then, someone has to file dr on a project thats already there, and its happening, and then, it becomes very easy to say, well, we couldnt get, you know, whatever the case may be. Maybe its you know, that legitimately, you couldnt get an operator, you couldnt figure it out, but the buildings already there. So we dont have a process for projectlevel Development Agreements. Its kind of like brain damage every time because theyre typically used for really, really big projects where youve got suits voting and all this stuff happening. You dont typically doing that Vice President richards i think enforceable conditions agreed to by the community and developer are the way to go. Commissioner johnson i was going to get to that. Vice president richards great. Commissioner johnson i think that is the way we need to go, and im going to look at our City Attorney and ask her, since this is not a Development Agreement, how does the City Attorneys office feel about us doing that and specifically making more of a specific Community Benefits package a condition. I know theres some semantics there that are important, so id like to ask you about that. Commissioners, kate stacey in the City Attorneys office. The authorize of the city, the government is to impose conditions of approval that address impacts caused by the development, so something that happens pretty typically is a developer talks to the community and works out some agreements with the community that dont necessarily satisfy the requirements the government has to adhere to in order to impose them as conditions of approval. Certainly, there are circumstances in which project sponsors offer Community Benefits as part of their project description so its included in the commission packet. Im not sure if what youre suggesting is that all of these things that are listed in public testimony now become conditions of approval. If the city is going to impose what you are calling Community Benefits as conditions of approval, i think we need to look at findings about what impacts the project has caused that lead to this kind of conditional requirement. Commissioner johnson right. I think wed have to look sort of issue by issue in order to really ascertain what our authority is on the particular issue. Often, community agrees with the developer to do things that the city might not otherwise have the authority to impose as a condition. I havent studied all of these conditions or heard information that would that would indicate that there is a specific impact that this project is causing. Commissioner johnson thank you. That this particular measure addresses. Commissioner johnson right. Not to say that thats impossible, but im just not sure about all of these benefits and what they address. Commissioner johnson thank you, City Attorney. I interrupted you, and i apologize for that. So i think that you said that much more clearly than i had ever thought it or stated it before, but thats one reason why i had been such an advocate for a Development Agreement because the condition has to be related to the land use, and this is something thats different, and when you do a Development Agreement, you start from scratch, and you say were going to have this project, and you can do anything. You can condition anything on a legally binding agreement, so im im i think i say all that to say im challenged here with what we can do to require more specific Community Benefits, and i know that thats not very definitive, and people dont like that when people do it, but i wanted to put that idea out there that this is different than those bigger projects. I would like to see more specificity in the Community Benefits and have that be a condition, but im challenged with what the City Attorney says and what we can actually do thats more stringent in these conditions that we have here. Vice president Richards Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore just picking up on what commissioner johnson said. In this particular case, i clearly heard the Community Speaking about the memorandum of understanding, commissioner johnson, so i believe those things that were described to us in email form by miss stewart would have some foundation with a signature that these are not just an email and represented in verbal language today, but they would, indeed, have they would have been a facetoface meeting to agree and commit to these types of understandings, and theres basically a missing step today. While they were presented well, there was a leap of faith, which we many times have completed where a memorandum of undering understanding is signed by both parties, and thats why im concerned today. There are a number of missing things, and unless the community has spoken face to fake with the applicant, thats what we have to have to go forward with the project. That is he an essential missing piece. Thats kind of like having a cornerstone fore a building that isnt there, so im very cautious to basically move this project today because unless that particular memorandum of understanding has been agreed to by both parties, whereas only more than just in outline form by the applicant, i think i cannot really move on this project today. Vice president richards thank you. Commissioners, kate stacey in the City Attorneys office. I just had a couple more thoughts. One is we have cautioned the commission about getting involved in or making a condition of approval a private agreement among or between private parties. And so to make a private agreement a condition of approval for the commission is often fraught with legal difficulties. One other thought i had, and perhaps this is where commissioner johnson was going with the Development Agreement thought is that there are other circumstances in which the city establishes an Optin Program. Maybe home sf is an example, that a developer may choose to avail themselves of a particular set of benefits that the city offers in return for which the developer may offer more than is otherwise sort of the baseline requirements, so there are other mechanisms that the city could use and other circumstances where the city could have these additional requirements as part of sort of an Optin Program where a Development Gets a particular set of benefits from the city, and then, would agree to offer Additional Community types of benefits. I hesitate to acall them that, but thats another method by which the city could certainly look for additional requirements for a project. Commissioner moore i appreciate you explaining that to us because in the lack of, really, understanding that we dont have terms for Development Agreement for this type of project as commissioner johnson suggested, i am using the word mou as kind of a bridge for what you are describing as a more subtled way of looking for look that we could really resolve prior to having to consider this project for approval. There are too many openended things which have not been addressed. Vice president richards thank you. So a couple of things, first of all, to the architect no, im just making a comment. I read with great joy the document because it was so easy to read, and it flowed, and it was, i think, the best one ive ever read just because of all the outline stuffs that you have on the first and second pages. It just encaps ulates everything. It was a great job. Of the next thing is on the last item, we talked about facadism. As i look at this, i think its one of the worst issues of facadism that ive ever seen. Why dont we just demolish the old building rather than paste the facade literally on the new building. It just it doesnt work for me. So comment there. Comment number two, i think my prior commissioners comments, i see all these fabulous projects, mixed living and work and its getting late, and im getting tired, and theyre all here on pages 16, 17, 18, 19, in your draft motion. But when i actually see what the whats been done, these are just words, and i dont see anything thats concrete of whats happening. Weve got three retail spaces, weve got a strategy or a plan, but because theres no 15,000 square feet, theres no real mitigation that needs to be done. This is where i think i would send the project sponsor back to work with the community to develop some concrete things, and i would get rid of the facade, either demolish it or make it look like an old part of the building with some type of a set back, otherwise just get rid it. I cant support this project as is, right now, tonight. Commissioner fong . Commissioner fong well, we might be all over the place on this one, and it could be due to the hour of which weve been sitting here. I think its kind of cool. I like this comparison to 1880s to 1920s to 1950s. Its a precedent, and i think it does a good job of taking a modern approach but taking some of the brick work. I like the big roof top access. I think im a little bit crui cruise confused as to why we think theres a lack of commitment ce
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.