Point of is because were talking about affordability for the project in regards to parking, parking makes housing more expensive. Because of the shape of the lot youd have to excavate floors to have more than 16 spots even when were talking about moving electrical and mechanical equipment here or there but that may get you one or two more spots in the floor they have already in the plans for parking to get to approach. 3,. 5 Parking Spaces for 95 units, youd have to excavate two and three stories down and that would add a lot cost and potentially make the project not even pencilled. Its not only a design but feasibility issue. I think people need to be aware of that. I think sometimes it gets lost and a matter of us saying more parking design but its a feasibility issue and adding a lot of parking for this site means we probably wouldnt have a project. I want to move quickly to talk about the other ways cars and automobiles are used for the project which is deliveries and shared Ride S
And this is a case where i would want to see that happen, and we can talk to the City Attorney about how phase approvals work. I dont want it to just be an excavation project and they put a backhoe on it and thats it. I would want there to be the hearing is scheduled, unless there is a Serious Movement towards phase completion for the project. Commissioner johnson supervisor do i hear a second . Commissioner fong well, i make a motion. Are you adding that second . Commissioner johnson yes. Supervisor shall i call the question . Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore id like to make a general comment for the record. I believe the state density bonus law has flaws with it, and if you apply it equitably across the state of california which is experiencing growth, were never going to get where were trying to go, so i want to leave that sitting in the room here because there is something which needs to be considered at a deeper level regarding the particular provisions of that bond. Commiss
Again, this corner is highly, highly trafficked at most times of the night. Its not the kind of corner where people can stop and jump out and get back in. Its really challenging. Thats going to be it doesnt mean dont do the project, it just means theres a challenge. The last thing ill comment on in terms of affordability, i concur with the staff just to go further the project has a gray area with affordability. It gets the density decontrol it would have had with home sf which requires 30 but yet not there. Its also not at the inclusionary level that was passed this past summer or even the inclusionary level passed that was mandated temporarily through the last version of prop c. So i do think that theres some benefits being conferred here that are positive. We want to see more units but at the same time, its not giving the affordability we would have seen through home sf or if the project were subject to the affordability in the recently passed legislation so im supportive of the staf
Thing the project could do is discuss completion of the work relative to the approvals. That would be a little hard to guesstimate, but if you gave us enough direction in terms of the metrics of where you want to see progress, that might be something to add into this. Loper . Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Just to put some context on how long its taking site permits or Building Permits to get to a construction phase, 18 months is very tight. Bob tillman has actually already filed his site permit, which you should probably take as an indication that he is doing as much as he can to start thE Construction process if he gets through the approval process, but 18 months is a very, very tight turnaround. I know it doesnt sound like a tight turnaround, but it is. And a lot of it is actually outside the hands of the project sponsor. The city Planning Departments colleagues at the Building Department are completely overwhelmed just the way city planning is, so sometimes Building Permit
On where the parking is. I think people will be surprised how little of an impact this has when it actually gets hit on the street. The design is vastly improved. I dont know if you did the earlier design but if you did you vastly i am improved it. It remembers of van ness. Originally it was a good design but didnt not turn out as as well as originally planned and part was materialiality. I think your balconies add texture to it which they dont have and it looked like an office complex. I like this one but i hope we dont cheapen the design. I thank supervisor farrell in working on this and getting it to where it is. Hopefully the retail will be active. It is a tough corner but youre wine shop is doing well and making it there so hopefully that retail will add to the vibrancy of whats there. So very supportive. Commissioner richards. I didnt make the motion but id like to add the condition we have carshare spaces. The planning code only requires one and i think what we would say is the