That they can be worked out to allow light into as many as these as possible, that would be great. Although a lot has been done already. And then on some other issues regarding the redesign not the redesign, but the new project more properly state. One of the things mentioned in the complaints by the neighborhood and others is that typical finishs in the neighborhood are wood, brick and stucco and some of the earlier renderings had a lot of glass, concrete and metal base. I do really like the way this is redesigned. Although i do architecturally like the richerlooking base and other elements that were present in the project that was rejected six months ago. And i had asked project sponsors architect that it may beble to to look at that and how that would look with the new project with its current massing from the project six months ago and certainly have the neighborhood and others comment on which of the designs that they like better. The other thing im assuming is that we still have
It places you under item 8 for case no. 2005. 0694c, 2554 2558 Mission Street, request for conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners. Rich Sucre Department staff. The project before you is a conditional use authorization request for a planned urban planned Unit Development as well as a conditional use authorization request to allow development on a lot exceeding 10,000 square feet, to allow accessory offstreet parking at a ratio above 5 Parking Spaces for each dwelling unit, to allow a Building Height exceeding 65 feet along street frontage on Mission Street, and to allow a former hadly retail use doing business as alamo direct house [speaker not understood]. Modifications to the planning code requirements for rear yard, open space, dwelling unit exposure, street frontage and offstreet freight loading. The project proposes to demolish existing story giant value store, subdivide the subject lot into two lots, construct an eight story mixed use building and rehabilitat
A statewide requirement to provide housing for all income levels and in particular county or cities. But it does not necessarily have to be inclusionary housing. I mean, you can use other methods of doing it. From what i understand, and maybe you could comment on other jurisdictions within the bay area . What do they do . If they use inclusionary, what sort of percentages of ami are they using for their rental and housing or ownership units . Are they similar to ours . Are they lower percentages . Well, there is an ami level and there is also the 15 onsite and 20 offsite . Im afraid i cant comment on that. I am not familiar with Inclusionary Programs in other jurisdictions. That is a problem for me, because when i am asked to vote on this, i have to know what other places are doing and i think you are doing a good job, but i dont think i can support it at that point, because i really dont have all the information. If it comes up in the future, i would like to hear about it. I also want