tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 25, 2019 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT
flashy show that we got. one of the problems with the planning department is the website shows planning -- toys for the planning department, and the public can't find it because it doesn't have any consultation , were the planning department does not consult with the public. consulting with the clan is not the same thing as the real people. with this hearing that you just had, it was two hours ago. those are the public and they are very concerned about housing i'm very concerned about housing and very concerned about building housing, but the housing i pay attention to and existing housing right now that
serves a low income and water and come is very important. you have people that come in and say, pay attention to us. and you have people that are paid to bump the department about getting the project through. the planning department, in my perception, listens to the group of people who -- they want to get the permits approved very fast without any real input from the public. and you are it for the planning department. you have a role to play to tell the planning department, pay attention to the people that are really struggling to stay in the city to get housing that is affordable to them, not housing
affordable for people that are dumped from the buses from silicon valley into san francisco. we are building the housing and everywhere in silicon valley. if you don't acknowledge that, you are not really paying attention. you are about to have the first hearing ever on a 43 site project. there's nothing available. i have been bugging the department. and you are going to approve the project. you have been told you will approve the project and there is nothing from the building department. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. anyone else for public comment?
seeing none, public comment is closed. >> two questions. your flowchart has a threshold of two units and above. was there any discussion in terms of creating a two tear between large projects and small projects? >> thank you, commissioner. i think rather than setting up different time frames based on the scale of the project, the mayor's directive showed -- chose to have it based on the level of environmental review. while it can be counterintuitive , you can have a smaller project that has a more robust environment of review and a larger project that may be able to be approved on a building permit if it is 100% affordable. yes, we did tear it out based on the character six of the project , but it wasn't about the number of units, it was about the level of environmental that we would expect to see. >> second question is, what will happen with the flowchart when
you move to the new permit center? >> we want to take care of some the issues we haven't tackled as of now. particularly in terms of customer service, but it should give us a little bit more elbow room to think about how we could differentiate the process for different types of projects, maybe alterations versus larger projects, so we might be able to use that to do a little bit more over-the-counter approval for some of the more complex work. it is still early days, i'm sorting all that out. the city ministry to has been a good job keeping us in the loop, but we are looking forward to using that for everything that we can take advantage of to make the process smoother. >> is there a group that is looking at the impact? >> the city's administrator is triply charged with designing
and designing the new permit center. if you recall the way it works is there will be a major reception on the first floor of the building and the permit center is on the second floor. all of the departments that are issuing permits will be on that second floor. one of the biggest accident -- advantages to the public as they will have to -- they won't have to run around to five different buildings. it will all be on one floor, on one building. >> next year still? >> we're scheduled to move in in mid to late summer at this point >> are you seeing an increase, or is that the predominant way applications are being submitted online at this point. >> not as of yet. i think people are understanding it is an option and no one wants
to be the guinea. so some folks are trying to get some of the kinks out and there are growing pains. right now it is not the predominant one but we are seeing more and more as we go through. people are realizing that people are trying to get -- show amendments and then that wasn't working so well because there are new projects coming forward. people realize that and we'll come forward. they say i don't have to wait in line and -- >> we are seeing them and able to work out the kinks on that? >> we have several standing meetings between our intake staff and we are processing the information and trying to get it assigned to a planner and are in for -- in-house technology staff has others and we have made a number of changes to the way that we are setting up. >> okay.
can you quantify that more? what are the bigger issues? is it designed generally leading that way, or is it... >> it is revisions to the project that are happening in response to comments they are hearing from the community or because their financing considerations, or whatever it may be. i think, you know, he alluded to this. is about the planning process that takes so much time. what we learned was so complicated and difficult is you may start getting environmental review with staff working on it east on proposal pay, and then you have proposal be, proposal -- proposal d. and you are essentially starting over and redoing work. it may seem like we are delay the beginning of that process,
but we have environmental review staff working on this since day one. once we are gelled and stable, then i can see how the consultant is going. we are just kind of doing it in a consolidated process where we are trying to put things in writing. it looks like that takes a long time, but that is because there are a lot of considerations, a lot of voices, and a lot of people who are doing this at the same time. >> if you are spending that much money on the front-end, or are you seeing reductions on the backend? for a no secret project, or an exemption, because you did that work and are we seeing reductions? >> it came in under this process and they have been approved before the mayor's timeframe hit
, which is maybe an indication that that nine to 22 month maybe overly generous. we can look at that after we have had more time. the other thing that doesn't necessarily show up is a 1-1, it is all of the my mental planning staff who are focused on the projects that are right and ready to go, rather than spending the time on the ones that are regenerating and changing. that is where you see the improvement, even on projects that aren't under this new process. >> of those projects, like the 65 projects that came in in the timeframe, how many of those require mission approval? do you know? >> off the top of my head i don't know. there are quite a number that do not. >> it would be good to get some information on those. but how long they have gone through the process on average, and maybe by tape of unit or the ceqa approval process. i know we are not looking at
projects before that, but comparing that with the year prior. we can show that approvals are happening quicker because of this. thank you. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you. very great questions. i will say thank you to planning staff, to our planner technicians and support staff who have really jumped in to organize and make this happen. we are continuing to get better as a process, what really appreciate fast commitment to bring these systems into more transparency and accessibility, and really looking forward to the community conversation. thank you. >> one quick item. on the public notice, i think we will see that, but that is great
i get those notices on my home, and as someone who set up here for six years, sometimes they are not easy to figure out what your neighbor is doing. i know you wanted to change those and the department wanted to change those, but they are not working for people who care about what is going on. i am glad that is a priority. >> great job, great presentation thank you very much. >> if there's nothing further, we can move on to our next item. before we do that, i would like to call item 21 out of order. i just received word that both parties have agreed to make a continuance, not withdraw, but a continuance. >> it's impossible to hear you. >> i am going to call item 21 out of order. to 20 san jose avenue. a discretionary review.
it is being proposed for continuance to october 17th, 2019. if i could have a motion to continue, we can take it off today's agenda. >> move to continue. >> thank you. on that motion to continue item 21 to october 17th... [roll call] we should actually take public comment if anyone would like to take public comment. >> would anybody like to provide public comment on the continuance of this item? no, okay. public comment is closed. >> thank you. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. that will place us on item 14 a and b. 2300 harrison street.
this is a large project authorization. an office develop authorization. please note on july 18th, 2019 after hearing and closing public comment, you continue this matter to today's date. you were absent on that day, so in order to participate you would need to acknowledge you have reviewed the previous hearing materials. >> yes we will limit the project sponsor to three minutes in public comment to one. >> yes. >> very good. >> good afternoon members of the commission. i am with planning department staff. as jonas just mentioned, on july 18th, 2019, the planning commission continue the large project authorization and office development allocation for 2300 harrison for the public hearing on august 22nd, 2019, with a
direction to provide more information or clarification -- clarity for the project. the project includes the diamond -- demolition of an existing parking lot and the construction of the six story over basement garage, 75-foot tall, 77,365 square foot vertical and horizontal edition to existing three-story 42-foot tall 68,500 and30 square foot office building. the addition will result in a mixed-use building with 24 residential dwelling units, 27,700 square feet of additional office space, 2,480 square feet of the ground floor retail, 1,117 square feet of ground for arts activities and retail space , 301 additional class one bicycle spaces, and a total 41 offstreet parking spaces.
the project includes 4,876 square feet of usable open space or combination of private and common open spaces. pursuant to the california government code sections the project is requesting preconceptions and incentives for rear yard, ground-floor height, active uses, and active uses. under the state density bonus law, the project is requesting three waivers from development standards for height, narrow street height limit, and mass reaction.
furthermore, no waivers, incentives, and concessions have been requested. this concludes staff presentation. the project sponsor is also here and is prepared with a presentation for you. >> thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. i represent this project sponsor i would like to thank by saying -- thinking the united states and mission for the time they
have invested in the discussions we have had over a year. we do feel we have a robust unity benefits package that does address many of the concerns, particularly given the modest nature of the proposed project. i just passed around a sheet that summarizes the community benefits. all of which we are committed to with or without an agreement with the united states. the last time we were here, there questions about statements to -- i will address that with the waivers and concessions. next year's projects are expressly committed by the program, in this project, from the very beginning, has always been intended as a true mixed-use project. if we are not using the program, the exceptions that we are requesting will typically be requested in the context of the l.p.a. waivers are typically -- or they are physical items. first we are requesting a waiver
from building height. we asked for an additional 7 feet in order to build the six residential floors. second, were located on a narrow street and we are required to provide a setback starting at a 40-foot height. we provide the setback, when it starts at height 41 feet and 10 inches. so an exception of less than 2 feet due to floor alignment. and then third, we also are required to priced on the massing. we do that, but we can't make the cut 63 d. -- deep, which is required since the parking lot is only 60 for -- 60 feet deep. concessions are financial items and we have three of those. first we are providing 100-foot deep rear yard setback instead of the required 40 feet, however , on the fourth floor, we have some of the existing mechanical systems. technically we don't comply because -- those obstructions.
relocation of those items would be at a considerable cost to the project. second, the new ground-floor height is required to be 7 feet deep. we propose 15 floors. and then third, it is the ground-floor that requires active uses for the 25-foot deck that would eliminate all the parking and income from that and it would also create two large commercial spaces on the tiny alley which we fear would be mostly vacant. those are the concessions and waivers. lastly, i want to mention we are retaining three of the surface parking spots along 19 and harrison. we would ask for you, in your consideration to include the retention of one additional parking space that is closest to the retail space, and that is in case they end up occupying that space. we do also have the architect here who could provide more detail on the residential plan if you want to ask us to come back or to provide that detail.
we haven't seen the summary that was just provided to you. we were here no further than the last hearing, but we shouldn't allow this to detract from this toxic project. using the density bonus to build tech office space in an affordable and housing crisis and claiming hardship is the real a few station. you can see for yourselves the games that they play with the only community significant community benefit that they have seen interest in providing. the same tactics were used by the land use firm a few weeks ago. they make a show of being engaged, they prevent a u.s. agreement knowing what it takes for us to vote on an agreement and provide rapid and circumvent offers to gain these entitlements. we need -- they are still waiting for details. >> your time is up. >> thank you.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i am directly across the street from the proposed project. we are in production, distribution, and repairs on that block. there is a lot of loading, and a lot of trucks. is a lot of kegs going in and out, this is a very small street and having the driveway on that side will not work. and needs to be -- harrison street is a narrow street. there's a lot of traffic. i reached out to bernie davis. they have no dialogue and then say listen, this is the project. i just received a shadow study, it is not really a study, it takes place shadowing our businesses, and the patio. i can reference -- they said
that basically they can't do any litigation, but they didn't do a shadow study to see how they could make it. i think it would be helpful that driveway would be mandatory. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm a business restoration workmen. i spend my time restoring the historic housings dr. i'm the last thing on the block on the right-hand side. i do want to echo the negative impact. you be huge if they are allowed to put the parking garage entrance there. it is very congested. they are concerned future condo owners will be upset and complain the can't get in and out.
the firm that is in charge of this has had nothing to me. if chris hadn't brought this up to me, i wouldn't know it was happening. that has been no e-mail, no phone calls, no outreach whatsoever. it is going to be able he myth of a project. so those are a couple of main concerns. if they are going to be proved -- approved for construction, they should play nice with the neighborhood and also hopefully residential, in the parking entrance would be over on harrison because we make noise. is part of the way we do business. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> i wish i could have brought iced coffees for you all, but thanks for this. i have been in the mission for about 25 years. i love the mission, i love this city. the cities are very important to grow and change. they are efficient machines.
change needs to happen. when you do that development, we should take care and take a second to talk to the neighbors, look at all of the planning uses p.d.r. is something that is important to facilitate this mixed use. this traffic pattern that is going to be created is already challenging right now. we have a thriving business and we will stay here. we would like to stay here and would like for you to take a closer look at this development. modest is relative. i think it will make a big impact on all the neighbors around. it is worth it to look at it one more time. just a minute for that would be helpful. thank you. [please stand by]
>> good afternoon, president melgar and other members. i am a local here. the members of local 22 in san francisco and the surrounding bay area strongly support 562 mission street proposed development at 2300 harrison street. the project will create much-needed construction jobs that pay living wages and provide opportunities for local apprentices to begin their careers in construction, beginning women, minorities, and helmets to hard hats. this will provide a new space that will serve the community. san francisco has becoming increasingly unaffordable to newcomers. the proposed development here is
truly mixed use in scope and this project aims to create opportunities for permanent jobs in addition to -- >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> the dog whistle continues. when you have p.r. firms that act as the go-between on trying to -- on doing projects, then there's not a lot of listening, which is what happened in this case. the project sponsor -- in working with neighbors -- or not working is the case is, they're giving you an impression like they're listening to you, but they aren't, they're just there. and then before the hearing, they decrease something and then want to ram it down your throat
without any discussion. it seems like that's more and more what's happening with projects these days, where is there is no give or take, there is no dialog, there is no nothing. it's an empty project. we don't need more office space in the mission. we need more affordable housing. please send the project back. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. cory smith in support of the project here today. you know, i know that there's been a lot of conversation and has been a lot of engagement on this project. these are the types of projects that we need to see try to get a good-quality mixed use, lower parking which is something we're in favor of, and really excited to see people utilizing the program -- i'm sorry, i can go quickly. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> no, mr. smith, i ask you to
speak louder because of the fan. that's all i was asking for. >> good afternoon, commissioners, tim colan on behalf of the project sponsor. i would like to note first the delicious irony of having this item preceded by an item of process improvement and streamlining for a project before you now that's in its fifth year and fifth planning commission hearing. this process that we have for this project doesn't serve the city well. it's given us a housing crisis. this project is modest. its benefits are incontrovertible. it's intelligence resurfacing of a parking lot that brings community benefits and tying to get non-profits in. this project also fits into the larger discussion that's going on in california of sb50. the question is: what role is the state going to take in a process like this where projects
go on and on and on when we say we want local control of land-use decisions only. this is what we're defending. we're defending something that makes no sense and increases the cost of housing for everyone. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commission commissioners. i want to speak really quickly to what was mentioned with regard to the concessions and waivers. first of all, under state density, only two concessions would be obligated by this body if they found that one of the excusable reasons were not provided for this project. so of the three requested, there is one that there is not an obligation for you to go ahead and just rubber stamp and approve. waivers can be denied so long as they will not have the effect of physically precluding the construction of this
development. many of the waivers asked for are for alignment of the second and third storeys which are office uses, not residential uses. something being more expensive is not the same as being physically precluded from being constructed. if they can build it, then it is not a physical exclusion for them to build a building. we should hold them to high standards. also, they have engaged in the behavior of ignoring and dismissing yourself and the community. what kind of precedent are we going to set for these projects moving forward? >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the mission economic development agency. i want to pick up on a few points too. i think this is an example of how for starters we don't have a housing crisis as much as we like to say we have an equitable development crisis. this project is essentially making the argument that we
should build a tech office project in order that we can fund a housing project and create a vicious circle if we're driving rents higher with higher incomes, why are we building office to pay for housing which is going to pay for office and use office to pay for housing and on and on it goes. you have the discretion to disapprove this project. you have a large authorization which can be disapproved. 100,000 square foot tech office hub in this neighborhood with half of our mission area plans first series of segments policies being about p.d.r. retention. it's not an appropriate project and we ask for your disapproval. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner richards. >> so could staff dissect the
concessions and waivers and legal requirements that we have. we have one speaker say they're only required to give two waivers does not preclude the building of the housing. could you elaborate? >> absolutely. the density bonus provides a project sponsor with up to three incentives and concessions. incentives and concessions are used to identify costs for the project. the project has been able to provide at least 15% of the units on site at 50% after a.m.i. or below. so that qualifies you for the maximum number of incentives, which is three. the density bonus law also says that the waivers -- you can --
the project sponsor can seek waivers from development standards, as long as those waiver waivers -- they do not -- as long as the -- and the city can deny them as long as the waiver doesn't preclude the project at the density that's allowed or the incentives and concessions that have been requested. so in practice what this means is you can kind of tear a waiver off an incentive. as long as the waiver is facilitating the project with the additional density and the incentives and concessions, then it would still be considered a viable waiver. >> so could you elaborate how that cascading effect works in this project and what the savings actually are and how it makes, please. >> so in this project there are three requested incentives. the first is rear yard incentive. the idea being if we enforce the
rear yard provisions that they couldn't comply -- they wouldn't comply because of the existing mechanic on the rooftop of the existing office building. relocating that mechanical would incur costs to the project. >> we have an amount on that? >> it should be in the case -- do we have the financial? i will have my colleagues locate that for you. >> okay. no problem. keep going, please. >> sure. the second incentive is the ground floor ceiling height, and again lining up the lower floors would incur costs for the project because you would have to do some internal ramping and some other measures to make sure that all the floors lined up. so that would incur costs for the project. the third is an active ground
floor use incentive. the planning code requires that there are active uses of the ground floor for a certain depth of the floor plate. in this case the active uses would be very challenging to find tenants to locate such small spaces, and given the vacancy rate and the location of those spaces they could result in cost reductions for the project. in tearing the waivers off of the incentives, without a rear yard incentive, the request for additional height and the height on narrow streets and alleys would tier off of that rear yard -- request for a rear yard incentive without the ability to kind of move the massing towards the top of the building, they would have to go back into the
rear yard. similarly, without the ability to exceed the setback on the narrow alley, they would also have to go into the rear yard. >> can you explain that a little bit more, maybe with the overhead so you can show us. i really want to make sure i understand this. >> if you go to the sheet g03, it basically outlines a little diagram that shows the three concessions and incentives. we can pull it up onto the overhead. >> thank you. >> i appreciate it. thank you. great. lift it up a little bit more i think. great. thank you. if you can just show us how this works. >> sure. so the rear yard setback you can
kind of see is here. if you were to enforce the rear yard requirements as they're in the code, it would require the relocation of these two mechanical pads. >> can you explain the difference between rear yard and open space. >> sure. rear yard is locate at the rear portion of the building. open space is a quantitative requirement about how much usable open space is provided per unit. >> got it. so rear yard is just exposure? >> they're also tied together. so exposure -- you can comply with exposure by having -- facing a code-complying rear yard. you can put rear yard in a non-complying rear yard. the rear yard is just the amount of setback that's required. >> so rear yards, you don't have to walk on them, sit in them and
throw frisbees, but open space you -- >> yeah, generally speaking, the open space is supposed to be usable. >> so this setback they're asking for because this mechanical equipment gets in the way? >> that's right. >> can you show us that and explain it. >> so if the rear yard setback were strictly enforced, it wouldn't be compliant with the rear yard requirements because there's existing mechanical features there. rear yards cannot be obstructed by anything that's not allowed in the planning code. >> so do these features also service the new building or just for the old building? >> i believe they would -- >> both? >> both -- oh, existing only. >> okay. >> and so the requested waivers for height and height on narrow alley are also to continue to facilitate this rear yard incentive, because without the
ability to build out, they're seeking the ability to build up. and requesting a waiver to do so -- by requesting that waiver is also accommodating that rear yard incentive. >> the setback? >> that's correct. >> that was really well put. thank you. >> no problem. apologies for not being more prepared. >> no, no, you did a great job. thank you. >> another question for staff. did they ever show a code-compliant project with no exceptions? >> yes. that is a requirement for any review of a state density bonus project. what we do is we evaluate the project as it -- without any types of exceptions. so it has to be completely code compliant, and then we grant the density bonus on top of that. in this district the code-compliant project could also incorporate office.
that was really something we had to evaluate which is what -- in many cases we tried to -- this hypothetical base project we really tried to just understand what the residential density would be allowed on this site, but it can be very challenging when the base project itself also incorporates a mix of uses. so we do have a base project that is very similar to the bonus project in this case. >> could you show us that? >> it's in the packet. >> or is it referenced in the packet? >> it's referenced in the packet. >> what page? >> we can give you the page number in just a second here. so it looks like it's the first several pages in the exhibit, in exhibit b. so it looks like it is --
>> i didn't see that when i ran through it. >> we'll provide the actual page numbers for you just so you're not flipping through. >> so, commissioners, just keep in mind that the project that they have to show isn't an actual design project. so they don't have to show unit layouts and corridors and other things. they basically show a volumetric diagram of what the project can accommodate in terms of calculating the base, and that was an update to our methodology. >> and it's a203. it should say "base theme." on the title. >> give that number again.
narrow street setback. >> so keep in mind for the narrow street setback, it only applies for the section that is 60 feet from the corners. so the two corners, you basically take 60 feet from that end -- >> i understand where it starts, but the reason they asked for a setback there was the height at that roof was going to be higher than 40 feet. >> right. >> so the setback does not occur at 40 feet. >> correct. it has to basically be from 40 feet and above in this case, which it should because it's only a 10-foot setback above the height of 40 feet. >> no, but this is based on what they wanted with the exceptions. in other words, the ground floor matches is lower than what is required. the setback occurs higher than -- those are the exceptions. this is not a code-compliant sche
scheme. >> can i answer that? >> yes. >> great. so this is a code-compliant scheme, but this is not where the floors align. it is one where we are taking the mechanicals on the existing roof and relocating them. so there is additional cost. it's not a cheaper project, for sure, but it is a code-compliant project. i mean, it's hard to see in this rendering, but the -- so the exception we're asking is we're starting that setback at 4110 as opposed to 40. so those two don't align. >> there is that description there. >> for the base scheme purposes, we are required to do that sort of a massing to make sure it does comply overall. >> i'm sorry, can i just ask you why do you need it to align? >> it makes better sense because we have the existing office component on the second and third floors on the existing building. so it's a way of connecting
that. structurally and otherwise -- and there are better people who can answer that from a structural perspective. >> so it's the same issue that was brought up at the last hearing, so the waiver is -- so that the floors will align because that makes more sense from the office space, not for the housing, but the waiver is allowed because of the housing? >> it makes better sense for the entire project to be built that way. so it really is -- depends a lot the entire project and to build the entire project. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> while you're still up there, please, so we keep hearing we have a housing crisis, a housing crisis and if i hear it one more time i'm going to throw up. why not just build all housing?
>> initially we have a surface parking lot that could be used for something else. we went into this thinking what could we do. we don't want to do housing on the ground floor. and i'm sure the architects could explain this better, but we did look at could we do it on second and third, but when we started putting it all together it was this configuration that made the most sense from construction and every perspective. >> i mean, i'm just looking at it going, you could build an independent building there if it's just all housing. you don't need to worry about aligning things and parking. i mean, how many units can you get in a massing like that cod - complying? >> so if you tried to put resident units on the second and third floor, you're going to be restricted on the yard. the depth of the surface parking
lot is only 56 feet. if you start adding -- >> right, but those could beson sessions and incentives and waivers for the houses. >> thank you. >> can i ask, were you leading the -- i just want to know where things ended up on the discussion, because there's options. like this one being discussed about only a housing project. >> oh, we'd love to see only a housing project. and i'd love to point out that we're now converting garages all over the city to a.d.u.s. it's happening all over the place. for the community, that is no argument whatsoever. housing is top priority ch ,
affordable housing is top priority. we are getting 50% am.i. they want to do 120%. every family counts and how many more units could we get if there is 100% housing? >> during your negotiations, was there -- was that your stance, like no -- only housing or was there a level of benefit that would be accessible to do an office -- have two floors of office on it? >> to us they were not at all willing to entertain from the get-go anything that did not include office. this office is their priority. >> no, i get that and i see that. but is there office -- is there something u.s.m. follows acceptable with office that would also have other compliance? >> just so you know, the existing building that they're
trying to line up with was a p.d.r. building converted in the '90s. they've been recouping this as an office space. we've asked that to come back as a p.d.r. all the tenants' leases are expiring in a year. we asked for that ground floor to come back at p.d.r. we asked for medical, dental, anything this community serving and they have shut it all down. >> okay. all right. thank you. i mean, that's one i would prefer a housing project here too. i know that's not necessarily what's before us. and there is an enormous amount of office space and i think aligning it with the building next door makes sense, given the framework of that building. but i think in granting an office allocation for this project, i mean, certainly it's of financial benefit to have an office allocation and being able to expand the office use that
exists there into the second and third-floor building is a benefit to the project of having office there. so it would to me -- and i know sometimes we all disagree or what the benefits to that would be. i'd like to see just a greater percentage of affordable housing in the units above. there definitely is some financial benefit to having office there, but i get there's other interests pushing for p.d.r. space or other things on the ground floor. so, i mean, i don't know, what's the current percentages -- they're doing the required percentage on the first two floors of residential; correct? >> yes. 16.4%. 16.6. >> on the 16 units that are on the third -- and the fourth and the fifth floor? >> we've changed our methodology
based on floor area, but essentially, yes, it's complicated. >> it's a fee non-inclusionary units on the top floor because of the density bonus? >> we would designate through all three floors. it's not necessarily a two and a one percentage, but, yea, you're correct. >> it's the required percentage on the 16 units and to see on the eight units? >> essentially, yes. >> but there's a fee? >> there's an affordable housing -- yes, the fee gets applied because of the state density bonus. that is through the amount of area that they obtain through the density bonus. >> through san francisco only. >> so that's my -- in their ask the minimum -- i mean, there is one additional unit that has now been proposed. so, i mean to me, i would like
to see some movement on that given the office allocation that we're doing if we're going to stick with office or bring back a state density housing project. >> an additional comment i would make following up on what was just said. out of the 24 units, we still have 25% of bedrooms which has always been a quality issue for us. that is six units. how is the 24 [ indiscernible ] -- in the best of all worlds are not units we want to award in a state density project. we want to be clear here and doing it for the purpose intended, and those are quality units. i would like to pile that up on top of what you are asking. >> commissioner richards. >> folks who spoke in favor of the project, mr. smith or mr. colan, how would you feel about 100% housing project here versus office/housing?
i think that's a valid question. can you come up and let us know. you seem to be very -- you have an opinion, and i would love to hear your point of view. >> at the end of the day, we need something that works and we know they're looking through all these alternatives. once the costs go higher and higher we hit a point and the site just sits there. we have explored what about doing this. >> i think in my opinion office rents are going up continually, but housing prices aren't. so actually, you get a bigger benefit putting an office space in with some housing on top. i mean, honestly, office space is $86/foot. mr. colan, any thoughts? >> i'm not going to start arguing against housing now, but
i would turn it around and ask you. is what you're proposing a feasible project? i mean, you're taking something that repurposes a surface parking lot that brings housing that isn't there now. >> no, i get it. >> construction costs are tough now, really difficult. and you -- i could say, yeah, housing is great and you would make a change. honestly, i don't and have never known the finances of the project. we don't ever get involved in that, but if you're making a proposal that makes a project impossible, who wins? this is something they're going forward with saying this is feasible and we can do it. >> okay. that's a great point of view. thank you. >> so i'll just -- before you. i am not ready to support this project today. so if we are going to vote, i will vote against it. i think it still needs some work. so -- and i had conveyed as such
to the project sponsor some of the issues that were raised. i think isn't this within the northeast industrial corridor this -- >> yes, it's within that area. >> so this particular building, right, was p.d.r. they were out of compliance when we did the rezoning, so they kind of got grandfathered in. now they're reaping that benefit by getting a concession to extend to even more the office space. so i'm just uncomfortable with what we're doing in the context of what's going in the neighborhood. i don't want to disadvantage the p.d.r. space on treat street that is barely hanging on for what used to be the northeast industrial corridor. because we're still there and people are still providing blue collar jobs and i