Able to get folks downtown quickly on the t, then the need for parking wouldnt be there. We understand that the lots there are full. Like many San Francisco neighborhoods to get a parking spot in this area you need to drive around. I have that situation. I had a car until three years ago when i said it is a pain in the butt. Finding parking is hard. I was fortunate to be in a situation to get rid of the car. A lot of folks dont have that. We are also looking at a situation that goes what do we want to prioritize . Parking spots are homes for people. At the end of the day it does frankly suck that is a tradeoff we have to figure out because parking does take up space. When trying to figure out these crazy priorities in the city, there is a lot of give and take. We absolutely understand that the desire for more parking at the site, but when looking at everything and looking at the big picture, we would argue building more homes should take priority over those requests. We ask that you do continue to move this forward with the parking proposed by the project that is being recommended by staff because at the end of the day people having a place to live is the number one policy priority for residents of the city, for the mayor of the city. We need to make sure we are moving all homes forward as quickly as we can. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. I am here to speak on behalf of the San Francisco umb. I am here to ask you to approve. This is an opportunity to put people into homes. There are People Living on the streets who need homes. People in shelters need homes. People lieu are one paycheck away from having to leave San Francisco. They need homes. People who want to start a family in San Francisco need homes. As the previous speaker said, yes, a tradeoff with parking. This area is not women served by not well served by transit. It is going to take time to get this built. We are planning for the future. We need transit and housing. You have the opportunity to plan for the housing piece of that. I am sure that with all of the attention that the supervisor of the district is paying to transit issues with the work going on at m. T. A. , the Transit System can be improved in time for this housing to come on line. It is a question of priority and getting it done. It takes political will to get the housing built and transit built. I ask you in your roles answer planners to have the political will to get the housing side of it built and will also take care of the transit as well. Please approve the project. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners, jack gardner. President of the jon stewart company. Coming up to let you know that i am here supporting the staff recommendation. I also want to as the one person who has been involved in this project since the inception which now spans four mayors, three supervisors, over the last 15 years we have had hundreds of community meetings, whether sponsored by us to work directly with the residents around planning, zoning, parking, everything relating to the projector numerous meetings with the old pac when the Development Association existed. Hundreds of very Robust Community process and we are committed to continuing that. The development of this challenging site which is mentioned with the complex topography and asbestos bedrock has required balancing and tradeoffs especially giving the goals of the hope sf program. Rebuilding this Affordable Community on site which we achieved with no involuntary relocation and displacement of residents. Generating Employment Opportunities for the residents which we are acceding our goals on. Creating a new mixed Income Neighborhood involving affordable rental and public rental units. Including serving as one of the first lead Neighborhood Development projects in the united states. We are really excited about having gotten this far. 286 units Affordable Housing we built. 118 units in blocks 14 and 17 before you today. First market rate component, which is key to the mixed income San Francisco neighborhood we are trying to engineer instead of the old Public Housing complex. The key piece that started this was 30 million grant from the state of california through the infrastructure grant program. We got that because the Planning Commission had the vision to approve our entitlement to go to the state and bring home 30 million to pay for the roads, curbses, underground utilities. Now we have an opportunity to go to the state next month for a 20 million loan through the states multifamily Housing Program to allow blocks 14 and 17 to go forward. 118 units. We ask for the same confidence from this Planning Commission that Planning Commission had. To finish, the Community Process doesnt end at this point. Point. We committed to the parking study. We will work with him and residents to make sure we get the best possible balance of parking, transit improvements, clipper cards, we are putting all things on the table. That is what hope sf is about. Thank you very much. Any other Public Comment . Public comment is closed. Before i go to commissioners i want to call up mr. Judson true to paint color on this situation for us. Thank you. Good afternoon. It is good to see you. With me before you is judson true, mayor breeds director of housing delivery. Of all of the projects i am working on none are more important than the three hope sf projects. Hunters view is the only one without a Development Agreement. It is first one with a market rate component moving forward soon. The real issue is the 118 units Affordable Housing that there is no could about it. It will be delayed by at least six months and potentially a year if the commission does not move forward today to allow the entitledments as part of the state level. That is the urgency. As you know and i am happy to talk to you. My job is to get Affordable Housing built faster to reduce delays. You have my personal commitment to work with the supervisor, hope sf and with the community. I spoke to ms. Davis who spoke earlier to deal with and address the parking and other transportation issues. I would be happy to answer any questions. I want to let you know how important it is to get the 118 affordable units moving. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner moore. A question. Mr. Snider. Could you please talk to us about sites 2 and 3 . Sure. It is basically not having heard the architect if she could explain the great difference against the care for blending of the site plan of which the affordable portion today was delivered. There is sites two and three which fall out a little bit. I may have not mentioned this. Part of what we want is to give you the informational forces on five blocks. You did get the informational on blocks 14 and 17. We ran out of time for nine, two and three. Blocks nine, two and three are market rate. They are doing a product to townhome product on both sites. We think it workings well on block nine. The design on blocks two and three also meet the letter of the d for d. We think there are challenges that we look forward to working with the developer on that project. Let me see if i can find the site plan for that. So sites two and three at the intersection on fairfax, this is the source of an awkwardly shaped lot for development. You are not able to see it through the plan. It is an extremely steeply sloping slot, steeping downwards on fairfax, and steeping down on aonacasia. It is serpentine rock which is difficult to grade. The solution that the city vision is proposing is working with the grade to configure the lots on the parking alleys and then the challenge is that you have these townhomes along the streets at perpendicular. We generally like to see consistent street wall so the challenge we would like to continue with the developer is how to make those site ends of the design work such they read more consistent street wall. Could i ask you a question. If i look at the d for d site plan. There is a certain kind of informality in the overall, which i think is consistently met by the buildings built and the portion we are looking for which is being built. I see in this market rate site more units than were originally shown in the d for d. That creates 34 units here. We go back to 30 in the d for d. Actually there was a design before you when we were here in 2008 for the site actually featured or corridor building to take advantage of the entire site. We heard back from the project sponsor it was because of the nature of the site it was infeasible to do market rate. I think they are trying to do the lighter approach to work with the sitar. Again there is urban design challenges. It meets the letter of the d for d. There are design tweaks we would like to work with. We are not approving that particular site as presented here . Today it is informational item. We feel that we can move forward on the affordable blocks in block nine. I think we can get this to something we feel comfortable to meet the spirits of d for d. Again, if you are insinuating you will continue to work with them to achieve the objectives that you are describing, i am fine. I am comfortable with the Affordable Housing portion. I think it is well designed and meets the d for d so strongly here as an idea. Thank you. Commissioner fung. Question for staff or developer. What kind of timeframes have we looked at from start to finish with phase one and two and projected for phase three . I can tell you from where we were in 2008. This is one of the first master approvals. I think we got a more accurate time how long this takes the way we structured the first phase to be approved within i think two and a half or three years from the original approvals. The rest within 10 years. They did meet the first requirement to have the first phase done within that timeframe. Again, the 10 years as its turns out was not long enough for a complex and long project. I should say all of the other Development Agreement projects have much longer performance periods. It is reasonable to extend for another 10 years. Commissioner diamond. I think it is great you are adding additional Affordable Housing, and very happy the park and Rec Commission found no significant impact. That is a vital piece of information for us. I want to talk about the parking. I have questions for the Mayors Office. I get that it is expensive to build structured parking with this kind of rock, but in light of the report that was referenced earlier today in conjunction with another item in the newspaper report over the weekend about the lack of transit to this area, i am concerned about what the commitments are to try to find alternatives to the parking. What is the timing in terms of the studies that you are doing . Who is paying for the studies. Beyond the commitment to do the studies who is funding the solutions and what is the timing for the solutions. Is that met up with when the new residents move in . That is a lot of questions. We have talked to the supervisor we have to come back to the full board to get a loan. If we stay with our construction schedule, definitely before we come back to the full board we have to at least have the study done. Also committed to meeting with johjon stewart to continue to lk at solutions. Those will be considered with the Overall Development that we have already going with the residents and looking at the way to sustain those initiatives. We dont have anything particularly right now because we are not sure if we offer clipper cards will they get used . If we do, if that is something residents want, who pays for it is the operating budget from the property or some other aspect within that. We have line item in the operating budget that could be used for that, however, that is also a conversation with hope sf. Because of the way the loans are structured we are the developers that have to pay us. There are permanent loans on both phase one and two. They have to pay that. It is a conversation about continue to pay your must pay debt as well as what do we have extra to provide to Something Else . I dont suspect, and in my working with john steward they wouldnt look for grants as well. We are looking at s. F. M. T. A. To see what we can do together. It is in process. We are not abandoning that process. What is the timing . Timing, i think we are looking at going to the board for the gap loan request probably in september, is that right . Around september. We have been working on that. That would be for the gap loan request. Weeps would have the study done. It will take about 18 to 2020 months to complete phase three. Phase one and two are complete. We will continually be in that discussion to come up with things for existing residents having difficulty. Do you anticipate when you go to the board in september for funding approval you will come to them with a plan for the particular actions you want for how they are funded . Yes, that is what we hear from supervisor walton that we have to have that or the approval of the loan could be i guess denied. I just want to make sure there are dates set . Yes there will be and there are. It will be more flushed out. For sure the deadline is when we come back to the board for the bigger gap loan. Thank you. Thank you very much. I was a little awkward after the supervisor chimed in. I am confident with the findings and information today everything will be addressed. I am in full support of the planned Unit Development and adoption of the findings. Commissioner johnson. I echo that. We have heard over and over that transportation is a serious equity issue, and making sure that either there is transportation or we are building the infrastructure around transit to make sure people can get to the places that they live, work and play. I know that is important to the city and the Mayors Office and everybody working on this project. I am glad to know there is eye timeline. I have confidence the supervisor and the project sponsor and city will Work Together so that when that deadline comes up there is a plan to address the needs of the residents. With that i would move to approve with conditions item 12a and adopt findings of 12b. One thing. Part of your packets we reworded some of the findings on the front page to match the addendum. To incorporate that rewording into your motion as well. Second. Nothing further. There is a motion seconded to adopt findings and approve planned unit be development with conditions as have been amended on that motion. roll call . So moved that passes. We will take a 10 i would like to remind members of the public to please sign lens mobile devices. Commissioners we left off under the regular calendar. As mentioned previously we will take items 14a through d out of order. 2012. 1384enx and the Zoning Administrator will consider the variance for a large project authorization Office Development authorization and conditional use authorization respectively. Good afternoon, commissioners. Zoning administrator. Planning Department Staff. The item before the Planning Commission is large project authorization to allow new construction of 27 story, 350foot Tall Office Building and 35 story 350foot tall residential building and allow a vertical addition 200foot tall Hotel Building and grant exceptions for building set backs and tower setting and transparency. Ground floor commercial on Second Street narrow and mid block alley, central soma controls. Horizontal mass reduction. Child care lot cover age and wind. Commission must also authorize an Office Development authorization of approximately 430,000 square feet of new office. In addition a hotel use at 645 harrison building two within the central soma mixed use Office Zoning district. The items are variance requests from the planning code requirements for street frontage including ground floor and floor to floor ceiling. Offstreet parking required enclosing of private driveway. The project sponsor must obtain administrative waiver and mod affection for the location of the required bicycle parking and off street loading and shower and lockers. Commonly referred to as one vassar in the central soma. It will create 1. 5 million square feet mixed use development located to the Fourth Street central corridor, transbay terminal and the center. The proposed project includes 42000 square feet of production distribution and repair 489 residential units, hotel with 468 guest rooms, approximately 493,000 square feet of office consisting of approximately 430,000 new square feet at 402nd. 63,000 square feet of existing legal office at 645 harrison street. The project will provide an approximately 14,000 square foot on site child care facility exclusive of 4200 square foot outdoor open participate. Indoor and outdoor public open spaces provided approximately 30,551 square feet of neighborhood serving retail spaces including Hotel Restaurants and bars. They propose a variety of improvements. Mid block pedestrian alley and the hawthorne street plaza and extension of perry to Second Street. Projecting art screen to screen pedestrian views of interstate 80 from the project site. Offstreet parking for the project located below grade in a shared garage at 400