Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 19, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT

9:00 pm
i wanted to say, we are thankful for the work of planning staff. their outreach has been wonderful. we have attended community meetings. the community is very excited to have the potential for these guidelines in place. as you know there has been a long history of working to save the businesses that exist and support businesses coming in and support the businesses that are there. we hope you support these guidelines. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. >> couldn't hear a better outcome. congratulations to all. i couldn't be happier to support this. >> thank you. thank you so much to the
9:01 pm
community and the staff for engaging in this robust and exciting and inspiring process area i think it was actually said, this is a large piece of a larger equity displacement strategy. it's going to be an ongoing effort. really grateful that we have made the progress that we have made, and really excited to see, and be involved in what is ahead. i also want to thank mr. francis for including an equity assessment at the end of the presentation and bringing the work that is being done back to our land -- lens. i appreciate it. >> one of the community comment discuss homogenous architecture. what was discussed at that poi point? did they define what they meant by that? >> yeah, you know, actually on
9:02 pm
the slide come on that page, you know, a couple of comments wer were -- an architecture that is exclusive, like there is a lot of discussion about very glassy façades. those are some of the comments we were hearing, during the community workshop. we didn't get into an end up discussion because we were not proposing anything at the time. >> from an architectural viewpoint, 24th street is quite diverse architecturally. >> this has come up with a lot of the guideline projects we have done. there is some worries that guidelines are going to make things more the same, they're going to make them a little bit more generic. it dumbs down the architecture to looking more alike in some way. the intentions, with these
9:03 pm
guidelines is to enhance our differences. enhance the qualities of the neighborhood. the guidelines are really meant to be not prescriptive but more performance around the qualities of the place is a big list already. making the variation be like the neighborhood already is it. >> is that more comments to not make it homogenous? >> it could be to make it consistent with contacts or looking like the generic city. >> understood. >> this is great work for you to think is fantastic. there are other sections that might consider adopting this from a cultural point of view. an awful lot of work has been done on this. i think it will help stabilize yet another piece of stabilization strategy we have for the community. as mr. papadopoulos said, sb-330 is written, i would override
9:04 pm
this. i would urge you to call senator skinner, senator weiner, and tell them to yank that portion out of the current legislation. i would hate to see all of this go to waste. >> tagging on to commissioner richard, this work, not just the guidelines themselves the -- is strong enough to send a message to sacramento that the city has a lot of neighborhood voice. i would support your recommendation to send a note to sacramento to be aware of that. the other comment i would like to make is, follow-up, it is the buildings that we had to grou group -- approve on valencia street that had big battles, which created the reaction to architecture. you may sometimes want to look back, commissioner fung and
9:05 pm
those modern buildings we fought tooth and nail about. they were truly destroying the character of the street. the street is struggling to heal itself with better approaches with these guidelines. there were specific buildings that were absolutely -- i want to be careful -- and i think we can learn from that. >> one last thing. these design guidelines are not intended to make projects less viable financially which is potentially what i believe senator skinner is intending to. we are dealing with paint colors and different things area even if 330 passes i would urge us to consider the process regardless. >> thank you. i want to give kudos to staff, and also to you, director, for your leadership. i think seeing the outcome that
9:06 pm
we have before us, it is clear that the process, and the relationship between the planning department and the community function well. i think that is a really big difference. 10-15 years ago. i think we are seeing the outcome of having articulated racial and social justice policies. there is a an intentionality there that it has borne fruit. i really appreciate that. good job, you guys. thank you. we still have a long way to go. we are on our way. >> i just wanted to thank the, and the community, for working together on this. we will see the results in a few month. i'm really excited to see the actual sub sense of the guidelines coming before you.
9:07 pm
a comment about three and 30. it did have a lot of changes made. if you recall, the original version would have disallowed even any change in impact fees that were put forward after january 1 of last year. for example it would have nullified all of the impact fees that we just approved and centro soma. it did retain this prohibition, if i can use that word, on guidelines that were adopted after that date as well. i'm not sure why? but that remains. for the record, number one, i would strongly suggest to adopt these anyway. number two, we are talking amongst ourselves about how to implement them anyway. i fully intended that we implement these guidelines and any possible way that we can. even if that provision is not struck from the state law. >> this is not an action item. it is just information. thank you.
9:08 pm
>> places a us on items eight a. [reading notes] this is for a large project authorization and office development authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning department staff. the project before you is a large project authorization for office development authorization for the project at 2300 harrison. i am distributing some updated draft motions which reflect the correction to the hearing date, as well as to some of the findings yet the proposed project and lose the demolition of an existing surface parking
9:09 pm
lots, and the construction of a six story over basement garage. 75-foot tall, 77365 square-foot vertical and horizontal addition to an existing three story, 40-foot tall, 68,538 square-foot office building. the addition will result in a mixed use building within 24 dwelling units. 2,483 ground floor retail. 1,117 square feet of arts and activities retail space we had 31 additional class one bicycle parking spaces, eight class 2 bicycle parking spaces and a total of 41 offstreet parking spaces area in total, the project will result in 95,005 and a 55 square-foot of office use on the project site.
9:10 pm
the project includes 4876 square feet of usable open space. pursuant to california government code sections 65915 65915-six 5918 the project answer has elected to utilize the state density bonus law. to date, that apartment has received comments via e-mail expressing concerns about gentrification, height of the building, loss of offstreet parking as well as environmental concerns related to site excavation. the sponsor held a community meeting on november 28, 2017 and has been working with united to save the mission, and southern pacific growing to discuss and address community concerns. the project consists of 24 dwelling units with 77,365 gross square feet of which 29 to 34 gross where feet would be residential.
9:11 pm
under the state density bonus all the project is requesting three processions including rear yard, ground floor height, acts of uses. under the state density bonus law the project is requesting three waivers and development standards, including height, narrow street, and mass reduction. the project at 2300 harrison street, the base density would permit a residential project that would include approximately 23,057 residential gross square feet. 79% of the project is equal to 19 dwelling units. the on-site inclusionary rate would be applied to 19 units only. the on-site inclusionary rate for this project is 16.6% which would result three below market rate units. they will be provided up 50% of ami. in addition to the three units, the project sponsor has volunteered to contribute one additional unit to the inclusionary affordable housing program.
9:12 pm
as based on the conversation for the community members. the project includes an addition of approximately 27,017 square-foot of office. office uses within the umu zoning district are subject to the vertical controls of her office uses which is not allowed office uses on the ground floor and limits the number of stories permitted based on the number of stories of the building. based on this, the project is allowed a maximum of one floor of designated office base in the existing three story building. the existing building has three floors of office base including the ground floor. as of october 2018 there is approximately nine and a 4,000 gross square feet of it small cab office development space. planning codes action 803.9f
9:13 pm
allows building with 5-7 ways to have two floors of office, the project is permitted to floors of additional office. staff recommends approval of this project based on the following. the project will provide 24 new dwelling unit to the city's housing stock including 14 one-bedroom and ten two-bedroom units designating 16.6% of the total number of the base proje project, dwelling units is part of the inclusionary affordable housing program. will replace an existing surface working lot. currently the project site does not possess any housing. therefore no tenants will be displaced the project also expands and office use which will provide new employees and workers to the neighborhood. that concludes my presentation, and the project sponsor is here and also has a presentation for you as well. thank you.
9:14 pm
>> good afternoon. from day one our intent was to see if we could do something with the underutilized surface parking lot portion of the site, eliminating the parking use and creating a mix used project. this is not a luxury project, it
9:15 pm
is 24 units of rental housing with a bmi units on three floors with an average unit size of 830 square feet. it is also not a tech office project. we are proposing a modest amount of office on two floors, about 27,000 square feet. the reason for including some office is both physical and financial. physically the lot is about 245 feet in with but only 56 feet in debt against the existing office building with no separation. this is an important part of making the project viable. the existing office use with 6800 square feet has existed here for 20 years. a decade before easter neighborhoods on a decade after. we are not changing the existing office we are just proposing an addition. we have ground floor retail space and community serving arts activity space. the project does not include any pdr.
9:16 pm
the last time this site had any pdr was before loma. the site was rezoned a decade ago with the eastern natives and to umu which is intended for a vibrant ask of uses. the purpose of umu is to be a buffer between residential and pdr district which is what the cases here. the density bonus program allows us to add about 7 feet in height adding that six floor and the additional six unit which gets us to a total unit count of 24. because of that, the required pmr units would be on site and they will be affordable at 50% ami. the project answer themselves have a long history, in san francisco, with many contributions. they are committed to making this a good project. that is one of the reasons why they had been at the table talking to the community for over a year now. our first meeting with the united save the mission was
9:17 pm
february 2018. to put this in perspective, this is a relatively small project. we realize this project alone is not going to fix the housing crisis. we also believe it is not going to be one that will dramatically change the neighborhood. we see this as an opportunity to eliminate a less desirable surface parking lot use and replace it with a mix of uses. i've handed you two sheets. the first sheet has the n person meetings we have had with usm which is a total of nine meetings the second sheet is a summary of community benefits. ideally we would have signed an mou with usm. we don't have that, but we do have a benefit patchett -- package. some of the items you see on the list came out directly from our discussions from usm. we want to thank them for those discussions. i want to briefly go over that list. first we are providing an additional on-site bmr unit.
9:18 pm
second you will see that there are about 1200 square feet of ground floor arts activities raise along mistral. for a term of ten years plus two, five year options area the ideal preference on priority would be for a mission based artist or. third, we are committed to retaining and funding a muralist to develop a mural along two areas along the mistral street façade. working with usm with respect to artist nominations and design ideas get we would continue to allow carnaval to use the existing parking areas at 19th and harrison courtney during their event in late may. subject to them providing indemnification and insurance as they did this year.
9:19 pm
we have made a number of design revisions based on usm's reque request. those are in the plans that you have in your packets. there is a small summary of the one that they asked and we incorporated the we are providing, we have agreed to make a $20,000 donation to the san francisco housing accelerate fund that could be used for off-site acquisition or other purposes as they see fit. last but not least, we have had a lengthy ongoing discussion with a nonprofit culinary incubator for their potential use of the 2,003160 square footage of ground-floor corners raise. the project architects did a study to see if the space would work for them. we then priced it out with a contractor which we are committed to doing and we have provided this in writing to them as well. we would be leasing not to them with an initial initial rate of $3,000 a month which is $1.27
9:20 pm
per square foot. for a term of ten years plus two, five years option. we would also be willing to pay tenant improvements for the build out of that space in the amount of up to $488,000, that is $200 per square foot and that is on top of the warm shell. it should be absolutely sufficient to get them into that space. we are very excited about that. there is one item that we would like to read last in any motion you may take today. we would like to ask for one modification. we would like to add a condition that in the event they do enter into a lease agreement to occupy the round floor space, the exterior area that is immediately adjacent to the space on harrison should be provided with one surface parking spot for their use only. it's an existing space that we would like to retain. i will that the architect not
9:21 pm
eat. >> good afternoon, commissioners area i will be presenting the design at 2300 harrison. the project is located at the corner of harrison street and mistral street. it includes a surface parking lot with an adjacent three-story office living. concerning the masking for the building we focused on creating a three-story volume with an additional three levels of residential above. by setting the residential back from mistral and harrison street we were able to align the face with the surrounding context. in addition we provided a break in the upper floors to break down the mass and provide outdoor amenity space area as part of our initial architecture development. we want to understand the types of buildings in the neighborho
9:22 pm
neighborhood. the existing neighborhoods are a mix of commercial and, institutional uses, multifamily housing and residential with the buildings adjacent to the site. the scale and architectural styles very considerably. large consistent windows, multifamily residential buildings have varying styles and breakdowns. while this mall scale residential has regular proportion. our design mixes a scaling years with the neighborhood with a lower three levels looking at the surrounding office links for this impulsivity massing. our apple -- upper levels more vertical proportions of the all scale residential buildings area our proposed design marries these mix of uses and architectural -- architectural
9:23 pm
expressions of the neighborhood. the ground floor and whose retail, community serving arts bases and the office and residential lobbies as well as widening of the site but -- sidewalk and the addition of an. we have acted uses along all three reit frontages area this is a long mistral of the residential lobby and community serving hours bases as well as upper-level terraces for the offices and residents. eight units per floor with a combination of shared and private outdoor base and a shared amenity of the fourth level. the residential have open walkways to access the unit to allow natural ventilation to the kitchens and entries. only one out of the 24 units will have five bedrooms. we have met with and collaborated with planning to
9:24 pm
improve the design. we've had a more detailed to the ground level including canopies, concrete pallets and recessed entries. we lower the camp -- canopy of the retail to provide appropriate scale, increase the size of window framing to close the -- [inaudible] more moldings to the office windows and change the pattern to a horizontal proportion in keeping with the existing neighborhood buildings. lastly, we've added two rows of private terraces to create more shadowy details of the top floors area thank you. >> we will now have public comment on this item. i have two speaker cards only, if other folks want to take on this item please come line up on the left side. i have leonard, and victor.
9:25 pm
come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners area i wanted to speak to clarify what has been said about the potential community benefit of its status where they are very much interested in a proposal with this space. it was given to them last friday with insufficient time for review, revisions and discussions. the idea that the project sponsor who has been actively working with them is misleading. the project sponsor reached out initially to them on february february 192 asked them if it was okay to say -- they were
9:26 pm
told by the executive director that this was a nice idea but there were no details and that there would have to be i direct agreement with la cocina in the project wants her before he could even be presented for community benefit. during the time to the next outreach on may 28, the project fonts are told usm that la cocina was not interested, they did this a second time at a facilitated meeting at the supervisor's office area on may 28, they reach out again and actually ask and i quote elko if la cocina had been tracking the project planning commission the last few month and if this was registered on their radar ". this is two days before the hearing.
9:27 pm
and then on june 5, la cocina told them, we are still interested but nothing has been presented and we don't know anything. on june 5, the day before the next hearing the project sponsor sent a letter of intent and it was very preliminary schematic plan that didn't have any details based on a very early disc session on february 19. la cocina executive director was out for much of june, they are on book tour. they are back and they were happy to have discussions. so last friday they were presented with something. it was very clear to them that it needs a lot of design work it doesn't have the functionality that they need. they are very much interested in discussing it. but the details need to be worked out in the amount that the project sponsors talked about is about half of what la
9:28 pm
cocina expects it to be. but without working out the details it cannot be actively determined. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i am leonard are with carpenters union local 22. i'm here to represent 39,000 cal for get many live here in the city. the men and women of local 22 are in full support of the construction and harrison street. 562 mission street has agreed to retain a contractor for its construction needs, creating much needed jobs for the city. a lot of our workers were here in the city. at 2300 harrison street, with no
9:29 pm
rental housing, office base, ground-floor arts and retail days, the project sponsor has had extensive discussions with the community. a package including community benefits. we encourage her approval on the proposed 2300 harrison street project area thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> chris lawrence. i have concerns on how this project was pushed through. the original plan for this meeting was before the community plan was even out to the public. i know it's been pushed forward a little bit. this project needs to be re- looked at and have a real meeting. the information we are getting is not updated. no new information can be added to these packets. i reach out to monica and she basically said, she put in what she could, but there is a lot
9:30 pm
more people in the neighborhood the height -- beside some special interest groups that are getting bonuses. there's neighbors on the block that would like to have more impact on information in these packets. it seemed to be set for approval before anyone got information. i think it is worth looking at as an environmental impact and the massing of a project on the block it is on. it's on very small alleys, there is wood shop for this goal. removing huge amounts of offstreet parking that has been discussed. i think it should not be recommended for approval today. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commission president and commissioners. my name is victor, i am a
9:31 pm
resident of san francisco. i am a member of the local 22. i appreciate jobs like this that are close to home. these projects that pay a living wage and benefit will enable me to support my family and continue to live here in san francisco. the city needs housing. this mixed use project will provide homes for some. i am in full support of this project. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> if i could have the overhead?
9:32 pm
>> good afternoon commissioners, kelly hill with united save the mission. with a recent office allocation discussions at hearings, considering projects of all sizes. the one comment here is the vast amounts of public and community benefit on office projects coming before this commission. we see here, in the overhead, these are publicly available images of how 2300 harrison space is currently being used. right now, one of the primary leaseholders is sublet by several startup companies. the amount of office densities clear. our concern is by architecturally combining this new multiple floor space with a
9:33 pm
69,000 square feet adjacent space likely delivered empty because the lease is up next year. we see the potential to bring 96,000 high-tech office space all at once. the community feels like this quality project qualifies at least an impact being at the small cap is 50,000, this is almost double and should be ringing a real tangible amount of kin -- -- community benefits. [reading notes] i was standing outside of the school yard, was really easy to see what a large towering
9:34 pm
presence in building will have. the scale of the new element will tower over the existing base and lose a 75 foot tall wall. it makes it look like the building is set back, but it's only setback 10 feet. 75 feet over the garden space at john o'connell. the benefits offered which will need to be eventually guaranteed need to be more than mere tokenism area -- -- tokenism's. [reading notes] what is offered here is a lot weaker than other project. we are trying to negotiate a strong agreement that benefits everyone. on the project sponsor's own website say they excel in developing under developed properties. [reading notes]
9:35 pm
i encourage them to stick to that, work with your community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is dan carol, i am the secretary of the red zone label temple tenants associati association. it includes many tenants who work with the community on latino and underserved populations are represented as organizations in the building. we are very concerned about the populations we work with, including tenants in our building being just lease -- -- displaced. i am urging that you approve a continuation of this project.
9:36 pm
we see more luxury market rate housing offsetting, or driving up rent. the income is the chief driver of the housing crisis area we haven't told that rising tide lifts all boats, since the 1980s. so far i have the -- i have seen no evidence of that. the affordable and low income housing crisis is continuing to get worse in the city. i do not see the mission needs more high-end office space for giant tech development. i very much see this as needing a continuance. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again commissioners.
9:37 pm
i encourage you to approve the project that you've got in front of you. conversations have been going over the last, sounds like six months or so between the community members and project sponsor at one of the things when we see these projects we always really like to point out, i know it is something you really find valuable if these conversations happen. how are these projects changing as community input is happening. what are the actual changes that we see? what are the negotiations, or just the overall process? what does it look like? are people actually happy? are we moving in the right direction? when we see things like an additional below market rate unit, we are of the belief that all housing is good, all housing is a community benefit because it means somebody gets to live there. in a city where we do not have enough homes, more homes are
9:38 pm
better. when those homes are bmr's it's even better. it's in the right direction. the downstairs space, trying to get away to make sure we can find job opportunity is really radical. their murals, the developments and design revision. again, these are things that are moving projects in a really good direction. the biggest fear we always have is that we get to a point where it doesn't work. the practical reality, we want to make sure we are getting good projects that does have everybody as happy as can possibly be. in situations where that's not necessarily the case i think it is a hard look that we have to take, does this make the community, our city a better place? you know, my experience working with united save the mission folks on this project on her, everybody wants to get to a place where this will make our
9:39 pm
community better, and make our city better. we certainly believe that is what you have in front of you here today. we wholeheartedly encourage you to approve the project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident here in the mission. if i could have the overhead, please? i wanted to point out this is the government code section for the state density bonus. it begins with an applicant seeks a density bonus for health and development. that is a housing development. definitely by the plans on here, if you look at the residential gross per square footage that is 19,000. 19,000 square feet of where people can live and sleep. 27,000 gross square footage of office. this is not a housing development. this is an office development
9:40 pm
being use to leverage of the state density bonus. there are four concessions of the project sponsor is requesting right now. they have been mentioned here in the project plans. one is regarding the rear yard. another is regarding the building height. the narrow street height limit. under the state density bonus law -- you are required to provide three concessions following specific criteria. from what i can see under the plans we were given there are low income housing given under the inclusionary ordinance. that would place them under receiving two incentives are concessions for the project. there are two hear that you are about to give that you do not need to give. the justifications provided for the concessions that are being offered -- most specifically
9:41 pm
regarding the narrows reit height limits on the ground floor height. both being proposed for the justification of providing a level so that we the existing building that has already 60,000 square feet can connect with existing second floor of the new building that is to be named. connecting to offices is not a necessary building housing. raising floor height so two places can connect is not necessary for building housing. this building can get bill without connecting the existing building with the new building creating 95,000 gross square feet and potentially creating an accent of four large office space usage in order to further incentivize and put money in the pockets of developers. looking at this as a project of saying do we need to get housing built on can i get built? those two concessions are not needed i will not preclude the physical construction of the building getting built. i would ask, at the very least, you do not provide those two
9:42 pm
concessions. at the very most, you have a large object authorization to look at. part of the code says looking at these uses in making sure those uses conform with the use of the environment. 95,000 where feet of office does not conform with existing environment of a umu district that is largely residential and pdr base. if you a power here. thank you. >> good afternoon again, peter papadopoulos. i want to actually touch on this a little more generally. i do think there have been significant design improvements on this project throughout. from united save the mission and other folks including the planning department staff who requested some of these changes. i think how we got here today
9:43 pm
ended up being a little bit at the last minute. i think we met with them after a continuance a while ago. we still had not really heard back on this project what their thoughts were on the proposal put forward by our team lead until this monday when the supervisor's office was good enough to host a meeting which we were all happy about to go over. we got an offer from them which was very last and it obviously, especially considering we need a minimum of 48 hours to even vote on something. that is how it is in a large coalition. we did say, hey this is very short timing we will do what we can. we got some feedback and we gave them a tentative counterproposal. we haven't even heard back on that yet. for us it sort of, you know, floating out there with the last in. it looks like it could be quite beneficial in a lot of different ways to get we do think robust
9:44 pm
in terms of what of the impacts are going to be here. we did ask can you commit to early on. can you commit that this office space that is going to be a huge three-story opera and floor plan office base sounds a lot like a perfect place for a tech headquarters. we have our own tech program, right? we are interest did and what are the impacts of 600-700 workers that are making several hundred thousand dollars a year on average yet can we commit to another use? they are not willing to commit to another use which we can understand. let's make sure there is some significant community benefits around this so that we are not going to be the displacement we are worried about. we are seeing, a long list of items here that they are asking for as part of this area this
9:45 pm
will be legal, nonconforming office, right? this is not going to be a large office unit. the ground floor raised ridges purely for the purpose of making it a better open layout. there are a lot of things they're asking for and we are seeing part of this, is to do with things that they are proposing for some of the state programs you get i guess i just want to close and say we made a counterproposal we have not heard back and we wish we had one more week to talk about that and that is where we stand. >> thank you mr. papadopoulos. >> sue hester. i basically want to follow up with united save the mission and
9:46 pm
matt has already talked about. this project is not ready today for your approval. this site as well as the surrounding area is struggling with food processing, which is ironic coming back to la cocina. this area of the mission was zoned cm. in the 80s, crop them had passed and really locked in office development as a use, it was defined in the planning co code. so, when ucsf took over the building, they were exempted from the planning code. university of california san francisco operated this building as a billing facility for many years. so no one was being attention to
9:47 pm
making the site comply with the planning code, because ucsf is exempt. they need to pay fees, they need to go before the planning commission. none of this ever happened. today they are trying to clean the whole thing up by building a bit of housing on their end, maneuvering some office space. i would ask you to please continue this hearing, get la cocina's agreement, really nailed down. hey, of all people, are beneficial to the neighborhood and provide jobs and resources for the community. they are good people. things like that need to be
9:48 pm
nailed down in the conditions of approval. no one should ask for things to be approved by volunteer group, or low income nonprofits. there is something that was just given to you to adopt. the developer asked for a continuance, they should have asked for a continuance today. the community is asking for a continuance. i think you should not give a one-week continuance, you should have a come back after your break, so people can have enough time to look at things and really look at the committee -- community benefit your giving away in the object to the new developer. i want the city to get the entire fee isn't that should have gotten all along, out of the object. thank you.
9:49 pm
>> next speaker, please. >> i don't usually talk about things outside of noah valley. i did know about this project, it reminds me of 1647 sanchez, just a four-story building that looks over a playground. they will have fabulous views, in per per unless they get rid of the playground. when i look at this and see they are across from john o'connell, they will have unlimited sunlight, unlimited open base, and that is very valuable whether they are rental, condo, or short-term rental, or whatever office space is there. that school is not going to go away, unless they build on the playground there. i can't imagine they will do that. that is public lands. getting a fabulous and if it that everybody would love to have, perpetual sunlight. thank you.
9:50 pm
>> thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. >> i, too, have the same question in terms of the ratio of office base to housing base. it is called a housing project, yet we have 2-1 office space in it. is this even considered a housing project? eligible for the city bonus? >> it is our read of the state density bonus law that it applies to any housing development of five units or more. there is not the same ratio environment that the housing accountability act contains. >> okay. my second session, it appears
9:51 pm
the concession, or incentives, further helped the office development portion of the project and not actually building housing. is that also an exception to the state density bonus law -- can you have exception for offices to be connected? >> commissioner, i think i will let planning staff talk about the relationship of the office on the housing. when there is a date density bonus object that has 15% or more of the on-site unit at 50% ami, they are entitled to three and then have, or three waivers in unlimited incentives. it applies to the housing development. oh.
9:52 pm
>> maybe this is my perception of the state density bonus law. i can see some perverse ways people can add five housing units and build a big, honking, something else, pig farm, i don't know. the incongruent definition between housing accountability act and the density bonus really bothers me. i actually have a problem now with this project. >> just to follow up. the sponsor has provided us with the necessary background to justify the concessions and incentives that they are requesting. in terms of connecting the office development with the need for the concession incentives for the project as a whole. >> can you explain? >> for example, there requesting concessions on incentives related to the office project. they have provided the sufficient background to connect why they need to build the
9:53 pm
office to help find housing. >> i'm sorry, to press the iss issue. are those financial reasons? >> yes. which is the bar they need to provide. so, they have to show, for those concession and incentives there is a financial connection between the office on the housing project. >> can we see those? >> i do not have them on me. i might differ to the project fonts are for the site planner. >> if you look at the last few pages of the revised motion i sent out of those yet -- -- those are attached. >> i wanted to say something which i artie said in june. the fact that this particular package does not provide us wi with. [inaudible]
9:54 pm
makes it look sketchy. i think that's an understatement. the primary purpose is to discuss this as a state density housing project, but we have been given basically color-coded blocks of space which are labeled "residential". normally, we do not accept that. i appreciate the architect the initiated design changes. we are only as good as pictures project on the screen, because they are not part of our submitted package either. i have said in many other and senses, i personally feel obligated to approve something that is really, physically been given to me. i pointed out, in june, and i see him nodding, that this project would be better served by us seeing new plans which i
9:55 pm
do not see. i appreciate the design changes made by the community, but they are only shown to me today. i do not have any ability to consider them. >> commissioner fung? >> probably accepted of of the program. i am not accepted of the proposed road putting a housing slab with a very minimal setback from a narrow street, and i think this is very poorly, very poor concept in terms of the urban design aspects of the
9:56 pm
overall project. i'm not supportive of the concept that is currently proposed. >> commissioner johnson. >> i would love to hear some commentary about ms. hester's comments about the history of the uses of this project, and the current uses of it and what we have been able to capture and legalized? can you say more about that? >> so, the existing building that is there is basically considered legal nonconforming office space.
9:57 pm
9:58 pm
>> so i can see, a few years
9:59 pm
down the line, this being an upside down b.m.r., and i'm wondering if your client is open to doing a little better than this. it just seems like this is something that i could see three -- a couple years from now will just not work anymore. >> let me adjust this first. we actually have talked with them about some of the specs we got from may 2018. we have worked with them. we did have an in-depth discussion with them last friday we went through some of the studies and how that fits in. so we all agreed that the next step would be for us to get a kitchen designer involved and get into the next level of designs. right now we have conceptual design, we have the specs for the space, we have the pricing for the space, but we need to engage a designer. they have been very busy. in june they had a book tour, so they have been very busy.
10:00 pm
there's one person going on maternity leave who we will be discussing on august 1st and then there is another person coming back. i'm a little concerned that we're not going to be able to come up with something more with them very quickly. we have indicated that we are definitely committed to continuing that discussion and we know what the next steps are with them. >> i am wondering, because i don't think that -- i am just speaking for myself and not my fellow commissioners, i'm not expecting to see a signed lease agreement, i just want something in writing from them. so right now, i believe that you are being honest that this is an adequate number for the tenant improvement, but and it may be for them, too, and they can finance it. we just don't know that. anything from them that would be , you know, like we are working on this, it would be great. i don't think